Polygamy makes me doubt God’s love

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

The impression I came away with, from things I read and from conversations with several modern-day polygamists, is that what you describe here is the most successful model for polygyny.

I don't think I've ever actually been to the "FAIR" website before.  That page on polygamy impressed me enormously.  I clicked on the "polyandry" link and it was thorough and educational and unflinching.  Stirring what I found there into the pot now.  Kudos to you and your group.

Thank you. We may not judge something the same way a nonbeliever does, but we don’t pretend it doesn’t exist. That was one of the things that hooked me originally. We discuss the warts as well as the wonders. 

There have been mistakes along the way including some bashing, but our overall record is pretty good Imo  

We also treat all those who write in as sincere questioners and respond in that way..except for a few who slam us with vulgarities, though there are a few members who have tried even with those. After the 20th post of harassment there have been a very few in the past 15+ years we have stopped responding to.  Many of our letters come from people who are struggle with family members who have become antagonist and I am very grateful our approach is not to tell them to get into a debate (I don’t think I would have stuck around if we promoted bashing generally), but to support the faith of the writer and help them maintain or develop a supportive relationship with their loved one. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Calm

[ProphetShiloh]

Celestial plural marriage cannot really be understood properly unless you understand how the celestial kingdom operates.

When you understand the Father's Kingdom as a society that totally minimizes the size and scope of the central government in order to maximize individual liberty, then it factors into things as not only important, but essential.  This is because the backbone of governance of this society is apportioned to patriarchs instead of to centralized state agencies.  Marriage in the Father's Kingdom has a considerable amount of governance woven into it.  If you think of marriage as purely based on love and romance as today seems to do, then plural marriage will seem very much out of place and out of vogue.

[Robert F. Smith]

“I don't know about this here eternal marriage business. But it seems to me that if you can't live with the XXXXXXXXXXXX on earth the Lord won't force you to remain with them in heaven.”  Elder J. Golden Kimball

[Stargazer]

On 11/11/2021 at 4:18 PM, ekilgroe said:

The ‘fact’(?) that there will be far more righteous women in Heaven than there will be men, and they all need to be sealed to be exalted and so we have no other options but to share husbands in the Celestial Kingdom doesn’t make me feel any better either, so please don’t tell me that.

But what if it IS a fact? 

We've actually had discussion around this particular item before, and some have asserted that God will somehow assure that the number of exaltable men will exactly equal the number of exaltable women, and in the end, it will all be monogamy city in the eternities. I suppose that's possible, though I don't know how this is to be accomplished. 

And then again, perhaps it will be the case that if there are more exaltable women than men, the excess women will just have to go into one of the two lower division subkingdoms of the Celestial Kingdom. Or, maybe it will be exactly the opposite, and more men than women will be exaltable, and the excess men will have to do it. Or, as some have suggested, there will be more men than women and the arrangement will be polyandry in the eternities. All I can say is whatever God wills is all right by me.

One poster coined the term "mortalism" as an equivalent to "presentism". That is a very useful term. Too many Christians seem to have the idea that Heaven will be just like mortality, except with better housing, food, and infinitely fast internet speeds. And that we are inexplicably going to have the same attitudes, prejudices, and jealousies that we have here in mortality.

If that were what is going to be, then count me the heck out. Let me die eternally, and go into nothingness. Because if it's going to just like here, but just without death, that's only a bit better, and so "No thanks!" Winston Churchill's favorite hobby was painting. He once said that he was going to spend his first million years in heaven getting his head fully wrapped around the topic. But I think by that time he will have become bored of it. 

Read DC 76. If we are worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, and worthy of exaltation, we will be like unto God. That is literally impossible to imagine, but give it a try anyway. 

God loves each and everyone one of his children infinitely, does He not? If He does, and if He has multiple eternal companions, what stops Him from loving every one of them infinitely, such that they cannot feel any lack of love from him? Would they ever feel left out? Would they ever be unable to be in His intimate presence? Absolutely not! We cannot imagine what God has in store for us, either male or female, and however it works out in the end, it will be glorious for all who are raised to that status.

God loves you, and the only thing preventing you from feeling that love is your lack of trust in that love. Open your spiritual and eternal eyes. Stop letting mortal life prevail over you. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

We've actually had discussion around this particular item before, and some have asserted that God will somehow assure that the number of exaltable men will exactly equal the number of exaltable women, and in the end, it will all be monogamy city in the eternities. I suppose that's possible, though I don't know how this is to be accomplished. 

I don’t think of the CK as fixed number of people, doors closed after so many through.  I see it as an eternally growing society.  Infinite in number.  Members of one sex might have to wait a bit assuming time functions the way it does here….which I don’t, but eventually if desired, a partner will be found.

Or there is the option that both men and women have multiple partners.  No need for exact numbers there either.

[Stargazer]

On 11/14/2021 at 5:29 AM, Calm said:

I don’t think of the CK as fixed number of people, doors closed after so many through.  I see it as an eternally growing society.  Infinite in number.  Members of one sex might have to wait a bit assuming time functions the way it does here….which I don’t, but eventually if desired, a partner will be found.

You seem to be proposing the idea that all of God's children, regardless of the kingdom to which they are resurrected into will eventually progress to exaltation over time (or whatever it is that functions as time in eternity). Well, you're in good company, because it has been said that some members of the Twelve thought that one could progress from kingdom to kingdom (No Dead End - NDE), while others thought that one could only progress within one's assigned kingdom (Eventual Dead End - EDE). It was mentioned on this board once by someone, I don't remember who came up with it.

But what about marriage in the eternity?

Scripturally, it appears that all question of marriage must be settled before the resurrection, and not afterwards. In the NT we read that the Sadducees questioned the Savior about a woman who was married to each of seven brothers (levirate marriages except for the first one), but she outlived them all. Their question was: "Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife." (Luke 20:33)

Jesus: "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:" (Luke 20:34-35)

Also Jesus: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30)

Now, to start with, the Sadducees were asking in bad faith, because they didn't believe in resurrection. As to the question itself, Jesus told them they didn't understand the scriptures anyway, so their question was not only disingenuous, it was also bogus. The many marriages were entered into in order to raise seed unto the first husband, not to equip her with a choice of husbands. Their question was like the age-old question: "An airliner crashes on the US-Canada border. Where do they bury the survivors?" A total non-sequitur. Because you don't bury survivors.

There is an interesting discussion of this Sadducee-Savior debate here: Inasmuch as Latter-day Saints believe in marriage for eternity, how do we explain Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 22:29–30?

In the answer that is presented, the writer says: "[T]he Lord did not say there would be no people in the married state in the resurrection, but that there would be no marriages made in the resurrection." [emphasis in the original]

I suppose that, in your NDE scenario, all of those who have not yet been exalted and also not yet married will also have to delay resurrection as well, in conformance with the above scriptures. Whereas those in the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdoms under the EDE scenario needn't worry about it, since they're never getting to the Celestial Kingdom anyway. 

As for me, I'm in the EDE camp. I'm also in the camp of all marriage questions must be resolved before the resurrection, and are thereafter fully immutable after the resurrection. 

Another relevant scripture is DC 131:1-4

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."

If the Savior's answer to the Sadducees is to be understood as I've presented it, in light of DC 131:1-4 those who are not celestially married prior to the resurrection can only reach the two lower orders of the Celestial Kingdom.

But perhaps we understand only in part, and the Lord may yet bring us to a different understanding.

 

 

 

[Stargazer]

On 11/14/2021 at 5:29 AM, Calm said:

Or there is the option that both men and women have multiple partners.  No need for exact numbers there either.

Yes, no need for exact numbers. But I have to say that there is no scriptural warrant for this at all.

I mean, I could just as well suggest we all get a solid-gold DeLorean to drive around in Heaven, and who could gainsay it?

[Olmec Donald]

Calm wrote:

On 11/13/2021 at 11:29 PM, Calm said:

Or there is the option that both men and women have multiple partners.  No need for exact numbers there either.

To which Stargazer replied:

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, no need for exact numbers. But I have to say that there is no scriptural warrant for this at all.

Well, I think there is.  Quoting from D&C Section 132, verse 41:

"... if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery... "

Imo this clearly implies that IF it had been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing", THEN that second marriage would not have been adultery. (We may safely assume that an intimate relationship which is not adultery is indeed a marriage, because what else could it be?) 

So BOTH marriages, "a man receiveth a wife" and "she be with another man", fall within the "new and everlasting covenant" of marriage. 

Thus we see that both polyandry (multiple husbands) and polygyny (multiple wives) are apparently allowed under the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" when the criteria are met.   Of course if polyandry is NOT allowed, then the Church would not allow a woman to be sealed to more than one man, would it?

My understanding is that the LDS Church can allow a living woman to be sealed to her deceased husband(s) in addition to her living husband.  And normally a deceased woman is sealed to all of the men with whom she lived as husband and wife during their lifetimes.   Would the Church be doing this if there was no scriptural support for the possibility of multiple husbands in the next life?  They can back up most major-implications things they do with scripture, so probably so.

And regarding the demographics of the Celestial Kingdom, consider the implications of this:  All children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom; birth rates slightly favor males over females; and infant mortality rates for boys are higher than infant mortality rates for girls.  So there may actually be a slight surplus of males in the Celestial Kingdom. 

And finally, if "all are alike unto God", including "black and white, bond and free, male and female", and the Lord saying "I am no respecter of persons" (Section 38) are demonstrating a correct and eternal principle, then why would that principle not apply to marriage? 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You seem to be proposing the idea that all of God's children, regardless of the kingdom to which they are resurrected into will eventually progress to exaltation over time

Not necessarily, though it would be nice.

I believe God will have infinite children creating world after world as homes for them.  Of which some at least will be exalted.

Quote

I'm also in the camp of all marriage questions must be resolved before the resurrection, and are thereafter fully immutable after the resurrection.

I think there is a some time before the resurrection after death plus all that eternity prior to mortality that we had a chance to get to know each other, so likely we already know who we want to bond with, if any. Proxy work in the millennium could get a lot of sealings processed.  They don’t take that long.  Didn’t take that long for Wilford Woodruff to be sealed to 267 women.  Some interpret that as he saw himself as a placeholder for someone else.  Would the sealing have to be redone or would it be the same as other proxy work…especially given it is likely God anticipated its occurrence.  Could resurrected beings assume the role of the anticipated husband of such a sealed woman?

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Not necessarily, though it would be nice.

I agree. He's put a lot of effort and love into us. But we were put into this proving ground of mortality because He knew that there had to be a sifting. And a sifting implies the possibility of failure. If that were not so, then there would be no point in testing us. This practically guarantees that there will be failures.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe God will have infinite children creating world after world as homes for them.  Of which some at least will be exalted.

Oh, yes, clearly.

Some people of a scientific bent leave their religious lives behind the more they learn of science, but for me the reverse has occurred. I've lost the childhood idea of biblical literality in the idea of a six-day creation, and six thousand years of human history, and so on. I realize that these things are in the Bible because there was no way that God could have conveyed the pure facts of the extent of the universe and its history to our ancestors. The creation story in Genesis is nothing more than a bare bones outline, and cannot be taken literally at all. Except that the sequence of events described in chapter one could have been taken from a child's introduction of the creation of the solar system. As a descendant of American Indians (I'm 1/16th Maidu Konkow), I am familiar with our creation myth; let me tell you that our myth is interesting, but it bears no relationship whatsoever to scientific creation. We got ours from imagination, but Moses got his from the Creator Himself, which is clear from its agreement with the science.  

The more I read about the intricacies of physics, the more breathtaking the Universe is, and the more I appreciate God's work in bringing it to fruition. What did the scientists contemporary to Joseph Smith understand about the Universe when he was under instruction through the Spirit? The first chapter of PofGP Moses leapfrogs over everything that our astronomers at the time understood:

"And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth." Moses 1:3-5

God proceeds to show Moses the earth and all its peoples, and finally, then, at least a representation of a part of the Universe:

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.  And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.  And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.  And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1:33-39

Before the first science fiction author wrote words speculating about other planets and extraterrestrial beings, and before earthly astronomers understood that those fuzzy patches in the sky represented entire island universes on a par with our own Galaxy, and well before those astronomers realized that the number of galaxies in the universe exceeds by orders of magnitude the number of stars in our little galaxy, God was revealing to Joseph Smith that the number of habitable and inhabited planets in His creation exceeded the ability of humans to count. And He revealed that others of His children were now everywhere in the visible and invisible universe, many had existed but had moved on, and many more would come to exist in the future.

l find this revealed knowledge and wisdom to be entirely breathtaking! And what is God's profession? To create ever more of us, and to raise as many as possible of us to His level. 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there is a some time before the resurrection after death plus all that eternity prior to mortality that we had a chance to get to know each other, so likely we already know who we want to bond with, if any. Proxy work in the millennium could get a lot of sealings processed.  They don’t take that long.  Didn’t take that long for Wilford Woodruff to be sealed to 267 women.  Some interpret that as he saw himself as a placeholder for someone else.  Would the sealing have to be redone or would it be the same as other proxy work…especially given it is likely God anticipated its occurrence.  Could resurrected beings assume the role of the anticipated husband of such a sealed woman?

I think pretty much all of the sealings which are performed here on earth are placeholders for what will eventually be sealed finally by the Holy Spirit of Promise. When my late wife received the letter notifying her that her sealing with her former husband had been cancelled (signed by President Kimball), the letter made clear that the cancellation did not affect the parent-child sealings of their children, because despite the cancellation, the children would retain the right to eternal parentage, whatever eventually happened with the parents. Placeholders indeed! 

It's our job to make that placeholding eternal.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If that were not so, then there would be no point in testing us. This practically guarantees that there will be failures.

But a failure at one time doesn’t mean a failure at all times. Why draw a line of ‘this is one failure too many’?

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

We got ours from imagination, but Moses got his from the Creator Himself, which is clear from its agreement with the science.  

I believe Genesis is a temple text and therefore more about the creation about God’s covenant with man. It may have nothing to do with physical creation or it may.  One could look at baptism and see it as a covenant with God, a symbol of new birth by replaying our original  birth coming out of the waters surrounding us in our mother’s belly or symbolic of part of our evolutional creation coming up out of the waters or shallow seas to dry land. Or all of the above. The only necessity is that we understand it as God preparing both man and a way for man to come to God. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

But a failure at one time doesn’t mean a failure at all times. Why draw a line of ‘this is one failure too many’?

I don't know, truly. There's no doctrine that says once a failure, a failure for all time. Repentance exists. Consider too that salvation and exaltation are two related but different things.

The language of the scriptures does seem to say that you have this one chance, and if you blow it there's no do-over. One has one's life, and then the life after this one. If you've procrastinated your repentance, there comes a point when you're done.

We have this:

Alma 34:33 - "And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed."

Helaman 13:38 - "But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head."

Can we repent in the spirit world? Of course we can. But does this repentance pertains to salvation from sin only (for those who had knowledge in life), but not exaltation? I suspect that God is not likely to exalt someone who has procrastinated their repentance as late as they could, so that they could get in one last sin.

 

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The language of the scriptures does seem to say that you have this one chance, and if you blow it there's no do-over. One has one's life, and then the life after this one. If you've procrastinated your repentance, there comes a point when you're done.

 

But we also have D&C 19 where the Lord says in essence he didn’t correct the misunderstanding of eternal damnation and endless torment meaning God’s punishment as opposed to burning in hell forever and it is written that way to work on the hearts of children of men for his name’s glory…that glory being the immortality and eternal life of man.
 

  That verse gives me pause whenever I read about deadlines in the scriptures. Not using it to put off repentance because why not get the blessings now and avoid the heartache and burden sin brings, just thinking maybe the salvation process is more open ended than we think.   But how much of scripture is written not so much to be clear, but to work on our hearts and minds?

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

But we also have D&C 19 where the Lord says in essence he didn’t correct the misunderstanding of eternal damnation and endless torment meaning God’s punishment as opposed to burning in hell forever and it is written that way to work on the hearts of children of men for his name’s glory…that glory being the immortality and eternal life of man.

 

I suppose if God told us we could have infinite do-overs we might put off repenting forever, knowing we could ultimately get away with it.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

  That verse gives me pause whenever I read about deadlines in the scriptures. Not using it to put off repentance because why not get the blessings now and avoid the heartache and burden sin brings, just thinking maybe the salvation process is more open ended than we think.   But how much of scripture is written not so much to be clear, but to work on our hearts and minds?

I think it would be unwise for me to think I could procrastinate it. 

Because I am a world-class procrastinator.

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I suppose if God told us we could have infinite do-overs we might put off repenting forever, knowing we could ultimately get away with it.

I think it would be unwise for me to think I could procrastinate it. 

Because I am a world-class procrastinator.

 

For me I do procrastinate, but I also freeze up and give up out of fear of failure.  I think I am more likely to keep trying rather than sink in despair focusing on the belief the Lord will give me all the time I need and that includes the me that exists right after I wasted a week hanging out on the board instead of reading my homework as much as the me that existed the week before I made that mistake. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[mrmarklin]

I really don't get the angst.  You all realize that polygamy is optional, right?  It was a calling that could be turned down.  

Maybe not for JS, but for the rest of us, yes.

The sealing ordinance was understood much differently then than it is today.  IMHO, a lot of the marriages back then should be looked at as sealings, not marriage as we commonly interpret it.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

You all realize that polygamy is optional, right?  It was a calling that could be turned down.  

The angst I have seen are women who fear their husbands will want multiple women while the women want a man who gives himself to them as much as they intend to give themselves to  him and they don’t see how that can be possible if he has two or more women occupying the “here I am with my spouse” part of his brain/heart.  
 

If he chooses another spouse or more to join their mortal or eternal household, it is not like they can clone him so they get their mutually exclusive relationship while he gets his multiple wives. A woman who wants a husband of their own, but doesn’t get one must then choose to live without him for eternity or to have less than what she truly desires with him.  Thinking of that ambiguity, the inability to predict what they are really working towards for their forever family can be a burden for some.

You can love someone very much, but also desire other important things in this life and the next.  Would anyone think a woman self centered or inappropriately angsty if she decided that a man not wanting kids was a dealbreaker, that she wanted a certain family experience that including children and a man who did not as well, no matter how wonderful he was and how connected she felt with him, that relationship would not be enough to fill the hole in her life if there were no children?

If two entered a relationship on the basis that not only were they going to be commuted to each other, but were also going to be committed to their children, but one of them decided 5 years into the marriage just as the other was thinking it’s time that they weren’t going to have children…would anyone think the spouse who wanted children was being immature or self centered?  Would not their disappointment be completely understandable and even considering that maybe they weren’t meant to be married to the other, that too was a reasonable response?

You may want both a certain kind of individual and a  certain kind of relationship in your life.  It can be angsty thinking you may have the first, but no guarantee you will get the second.

It can be bearable to know life is unpredictable and stuff will happen including a lot of disappointments, but feel it will still be endurable and you will be able to accept and adjust.  It is a different situation when you think someone who is meant to be your partner and to consider your feelings might end up making a decision about what your life is meant to be and then you are going to be stuck living with the consequences of something you never chose.  And if you walk away, you will be giving up something irreplaceable. 

The Church and even God may be in that role, with them wondering if either will command them to live as a polygamist when they feel that doesn’t match up with promised blessing for obedience and sacrifices. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I really don't get the angst.  You all realize that polygamy is optional, right?  It was a calling that could be turned down.  

Maybe not for JS, but for the rest of us, yes.

The sealing ordinance was understood much differently then than it is today.  IMHO, a lot of the marriages back then should be looked at as sealings, not marriage as we commonly interpret it.

A lot of women fear that they can't turn it down without losing their husbands, who they love very much.  Like if they die first and their husband gets remarried and sealed to his next wife, turning down polygamy in a situation like that becomes pretty messy.  

[Kenngo1969]

ekilgroe,

I cannot, of course, speak to your particular issue, and I won't try.  Even if, hypothetically, two people have exactly the same traumatic experience (such as doubting God's love) or exactly the same issue (how could God command polygyny?), each is likely to respond differently to it because they bring different attitudes, perspectives, life experiences, and so on, to it.  In my case, since the Female of the Species has, in its entirety, determined to ignore me, all I can say (as I've said so many times here before when the issue has come up) is, "Welp, ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg!"    It's easy to say, "Well, polygyny is a damnable abomination," but here's the thing: Some of us resulted from polygyny.  I haven't read Elder Gerald N. Lund's The Work and the Glory series yet, but others whom I trust say that he elucidates the idea that, collectively, the Saints endured not just one but two trials with respect to polygyny: Acclimating themselves to the idea and accepting it when it was instituted, and adjusting to its discontinuance after it was ended. 

Again, I'm not comparing notes (impossible for me to do, since I don't know you) but for me, the question, "If God really loves me, why doesn't He ... ?" could be completed a couple of different ways: (1) "... help me find a comfortable, stable, long-term occupational niche?"  (2) "... remove a certain 'thorn in the flesh'?"

As regards my personal circumstances, it is beyond perverse to me that it seems that the world can find no particular use for me, occupationally speaking, except for answering phones (something that, although, depending on the circumstances, I could be quite good at, frankly, I've had my absolute fill of, and no longer wish to do [no matter how much I'm paid to do it]), and, instead, the response is, "Nope!  Sorry!  There's no way you ever could be useful in your 'would-be-chosen-profession,' so we're not going to help you find a job in it: But, good news!  The Government, now, has deemed you totally and permanently disabled, so, since we can't be bothered to help you bridge whatever gaps remain between your current state and your desired employment, now, we're going to forgive the remainder of the tens of thousands of dollars of student loans you incurred in an attempt to qualify yourself for that profession!  Congratulations!"

Is this a blessing?  Yes.  Undoubtedly, not having tens of thousands of dollars in outstanding student loan debt hanging over my head in perpetuity with severely limited ability to repay it is a blessing.  Is it the sort of blessing that I would have preferred?  Frankly, no.  Is it a perverse "blessing"?  I'm tempted to say that it is.  But I suppose I'll take what I can get.  As Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin's wise mother told him once, "Joseph, come what may, and love it."

As to my particular "thorn in the flesh," one of the complications to my ability to carve out a niche for myself in my "would-be chosen profession" has been a complicated behavioral health history.  Pasts are like rear-ends: Everybody has one, and some of them are better than others.    And everybody has one, and it's behind you ... at least when you're standing up.  It seems that the powers-that-be in my would-be chosen profession, however, hew to the old line from William Faulkner: "The past isn't dead.  The past isn't even past."  There's no such thing as "the past": It seems that everything horrible I have ever done is a current controversy.    It seems as though the Heavens have been utter, absolute, pure brass with respect to any definitive answers relating to any occupational niche I might fill.  Like Nephi, I can only shrug and say, "I know not the meaning of all things.  Nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children" (1 Nephi 11:17).

On the other hand, there have been times when I have been absolutely certain of God's love for me, most notably during three separate occasions while waiting to be anesthetized for relatively major surgery on an operating table.  While the continuing quantity of my life wasn't in doubt, each one of them had huge implications for the quality of my life, and each time, the Lord gave me an absolute, clear, unmistakable witness (after two previous, complete, abject failures, for which, in some ways, still, I am paying to this very day) that things would turn out as I had hoped and prayed fervently that they would.

As tempted as I am to say, "Well, gee, thanks, Heavenly Father, for taking the incalculable burden (given my perpetual under- and unemployment) of tens of thousands of dollars of student loans off of my shoulders, but ... wouldn't it have just been easier for You to help me find a job?"  , truly, the Lord's thoughts re not my thoughts, nor are His ways my ways.  See Isaiah 55:8-9.  Truly, the Lord does move in Mysterious Ways: "God moves in a Mysterious Way, His Wonders to perform.  He plants His footsteps in the sea and rides upon the storm.  Ye fearful Saints, fresh courage take.  The clouds ye so much dread are big with mercy and shall break in blessings on your head.  His purposes will ripen fast, unfolding ev'ry hour.  The bud may have a bitter taste, but sweet will be the flow'r.  Blind unbelief is sure to err and scan His works in vain.   God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain."*

So where does that leave me?  It's as though the Lord has said, in essence, "Yes, sure, Ken.  If you wish, you can doubt or discount the 'Did I not speak peace to your mind?' moments we've had together (see Doctrine and Covenants 6:22).  If you wish, you can privilege your 'brass heavens' experiences over our 'Did I not speak peace to your mind?' moments.  But that is your choice."

Do I have questions?  Yeah, I have tons of questions (even though they are different from yours).  But even though questions are inevitable, doubt and faith are choices.  I choose, bewildering "brass heavens" and "can't help you find a job so we'll simply forgive your loans" moments notwithstanding, to believe.

I wish you well.

___________________

*William Cowper (1731-1800) "God Moves in a Mysterious Way," included in Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985), No. 285, available on line here and last accessed November 20, 2021.

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/17/2021 at 3:34 PM, Stargazer said:

I suppose if God told us we could have infinite do-overs we might put off repenting forever, knowing we could ultimately get away with it.

I think it would be unwise for me to think I could procrastinate it. 

Because I am a world-class procrastinator.

 

Hey, I am not just your every-day, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety amateur-crastinator: I am a pro-crastinator!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hey, I am not just your every-day, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety amateur-crastinator: I am a pro-crastinator!

Perfect word play, imo. 👍

[Olmec Donald]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Welp, ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg!"

Aye, laddie.  But polyg canna possibly work.  No weh.  As Jesus said:

"A man canna serve two masters."

Okay, my Scottish accent sucks.  But I tip my virtual hat to you for trying to help elkigroe. 

And I have no idea why you signed up for virtually all of the hardest classes at Earth School.  Dude, WHAT were you thinking??  I mean one or two MAYBE, but... yeesh!

I'm actually kinda serious.  I don't want to become the missionary for near death experiences, especially since I'm just an occasional reader and youtube-video-watcher, but it seems that the view through their end of the telescope is very different from ours.   

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It's as though the Lord has said, in essence, "Yes, sure, Ken.  If you wish, you can doubt or discount the 'Did I not speak peace to your mind?' moments we've had together (see Doctrine and Covenants 6:22).  If you wish, you can privilege your 'brass heavens' experiences over our 'Did I not speak peace to your mind?' moments.  But that is your choice."

I THANK YOU for the choices you have made.   All of them.  ALL of them.  I don't expect that to make any sense to you or anyone else in their right mind, but it does to me.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Kenngo1969]

I'll throw this into the mix, for whatever it may be worth.  While I don't want to downplay or minimize the sincere concern that anyone who wishes to remain faithful to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ may feel in her heart regarding polygyny, I know at least three gentlemen who are sealed to more than one woman, and I don't, for a nanosecond, think that the women in those relationships have, would, or will ever, settle for any sort of a second-class status.  I don't know exactly how the Lord is going to sort out what we, with our limited perspective (but not illegitimately), view as complicated, messy human relationships* (and polygyny only scratches the very surface of that particular issue); I simply have faith that He will.

_____________

*Including my own perpetual (eternal? ) bachelorhood.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Aye, laddie.  But polyg canna possibly work.  No weh.  As Jesus said:

"A man canna serve two masters." ...