Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[Peacefully]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well I didn't say anything about gay marriage.  I said it is nice to be straight and church leaders have  figured  out a work around that seems to go against scripture.

There was no working around that scripture in the church I grew up in. You could remarry if a spouse died, but if you divorced, other than for adultery, you were going to hell. And you better have the adultery verified and in writing. So when I found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I was happy we seemed to have a kinder, gentler stance on the issue. All I’m asking is that kinder, gentler stance be taken towards same-sex marriage. Everyone keeps saying God will make it ok in the end so why make people miserable now? 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Peacefully

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

There was no working around that scripture in the church I grew up in. You could remarry if a spouse died, but if you divorced, other than for adultery, you were going to hell. And you better have the adultery verified and in writing.

Ha. A few years ago, my wife was talking over some challenges with the Bishop. I guess she really opened up because afterward, he came out to see me and counseled that I file for divorce.

I'd never heard of a bishop recommending divorce.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well I didn't say anything about gay marriage.  I said it is nice to be straight and church leaders have  figured  out a work around that seems to go against scripture.

But it follows scripture, wherein under certain circumstances those with the keys permit divorce without the stain of immorality. This as old at least as Moses, and is not the Church's invention. Since you incorrectly pointed this out as an advantage for straight people, I pointed out that the policy is for all people since marriage for the Church is God's covenant binding a man and a woman, irrespective of their sexuality. Since the Church does not practice same-sex marriage, and a same-sex marriage can similarly bind people of the same sex irrespective of their sexuality, your concern must be over the Church's version of marriage not allowing same-sex partners.

[rchorse]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

Ha. A few years ago, my wife was talking over some challenges with the Bishop. I guess she really opened up because afterward, he came out to see me and counseled that I file for divorce.

I'd never heard of a bishop recommending divorce.

Probably because the handbook explicitly forbids it.

Quote

31.3.5

Meeting with Members about Marriage and Divorce

Church leaders should not counsel a person whom to marry. Nor should they counsel a person whether or not to divorce his or her spouse. While divorce is an appropriate option in some situations, such decisions must remain with the individual.

 

[Chum]

37 minutes ago, rchorse said:

Probably because the handbook explicitly forbids it.

Counsel may have been too strong a word.  He unambiguously suggested I consider it.

He was clinical therapist. A few minutes with her may have raised every red flag he had. She really is a tough case.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Chum said:

Ha. A few years ago, my wife was talking over some challenges with the Bishop. I guess she really opened up because afterward, he came out to see me and counseled that I file for divorce.

I'd never heard of a bishop recommending divorce.

My bishop told me I needed to get off of the fence with my first marriage - either stay or go. I chose to go. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Counsel may have been too strong a word.  He unambiguously suggested I consider it.

He was clinical therapist. A few minutes with her may have raised every red flag he had. She really is a tough case.

Even as a therapist I have extremely rarely ever nudged anyone toward divorce.  Sounds like a tough situation. 

[Chum]

10 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Even as a therapist I have extremely rarely ever nudged anyone toward divorce.  Sounds like a tough situation. 

It was. She's kind of an extreme case and trends toward increasingly ruinous behavior. Infidelity was the mild end of the harm. Her superpower is overcoming others' self-protection.

It is likely why I got exceptional guidance.

[juliann]

21 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Let's proceed with your line of reasoning. What many wives and slaves then did Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and Moses have?

Ask Hagar. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

It was. She's kind of an extreme case and trends toward increasingly ruinous behavior. Infidelity was the mild end of the harm. Her superpower is overcoming others' self-protection.

It is likely why I got exceptional guidance.

He was willing to break the rules, or rule in favor of the spirit of the law. God bless you Chum!

[california boy]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

But it follows scripture, wherein under certain circumstances those with the keys permit divorce without the stain of immorality. This as old at least as Moses, and is not the Church's invention. Since you incorrectly pointed this out as an advantage for straight people, I pointed out that the policy is for all people since marriage for the Church is God's covenant binding a man and a woman, irrespective of their sexuality. Since the Church does not practice same-sex marriage, and a same-sex marriage can similarly bind people of the same sex irrespective of their sexuality, your concern must be over the Church's version of marriage not allowing same-sex partners.

Well if this isn't a work around to justify allowing straight people to ignore the words of Christ, I don't know what is.  This is exactly what Christ said about divorce

 

 

Quote

Matthew 19:9

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” 

I don't know how Christ could be more clear.  Yet your post "justifies" current policy by going back to the Old Testament.  When every other time, the mantra we hear is that Christ fulfilled the law of Moses.  I guess straight people are not quite willing to let the law of Moses go when it suits their needs.  Like I said.  It is nice to be straight when it comes to doctrinal issues. I think your post just reinforced that statement rather than disproved it.

[MustardSeed]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well if this isn't a work around to justify allowing straight people to ignore the words of Christ, I don't know what is.  This is exactly what Christ said about divorce

I agree.  And I’m so glad for that.  And I also believe it points to a very convenient truth about how we operate. 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well if this isn't a work around to justify allowing straight people to ignore the words of Christ, I don't know what is.  This is exactly what Christ said about divorce

 

 

I don't know how Christ could be more clear.  Yet your post "justifies" current policy by going back to the Old Testament.  When every other time, the mantra we hear is that Christ fulfilled the law of Moses.  I guess straight people are not quite willing to let the law of Moses go when it suits their needs.  Like I said.  It is nice to be straight when it comes to doctrinal issues. I think your post just reinforced that statement rather than disproved it.

What you apparently fail to realize is that the patriarchs, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, didn’t live under the law of Moses but under dispensations of the higher law of the Gospel of Christ that were administered by the Melchizedek Priesthood. So when the law of Moses was repealed at the death of Christ that did not abolish those higher elements of the gospel law that were adhered to prior to the introduction of the law of Moses. In fact, Doctrine and Covenants 132 hearkens back to the patriarchate gospel dispensations for the justification of plural marriage, not to the period of the administration of the “lesser law” known as the law of Moses.

Edited December 21, 2021 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

What you apparently fail to realize is that the patriarchs, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, didn’t live under the law of Moses but under dispensations of the higher law of the Gospel of Christ that were administered by the Melchizedek Priesthood. So when the law of Moses was repealed at the death of Christ that did not abolish those higher elements of the gospel law that were adhered to prior to the introduction of the law of Moses. In fact, Doctrine and Covenants 132 hearkens back to the patriarchate gospel dispensations for the justification of plural marriage, not to the period of the administration of the “lesser law” known as the law of Moses.

The comment you are talking about is in regards to divorce and not plural marriage. The higher law is the “no divorce except for fornication” law so we aren’t living the higher law.

[teddyaware]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The comment you are talking about is in regards to divorce and not plural marriage. The higher law is the “no divorce except for fornication” law so we aren’t living the higher law.

Because of the title of the thread, I presumed plural marriage was at least being indirectly addressed by California Boy’s comment. But now you’ve got me wondering if under the higher law a spouse is required to remain married to an abusive spouse as long as the abusive spouse doesn’t commit fornication? 

Edited December 21, 2021 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Because of the title of the thread, I presumed plural marriage was at least being indirectly addressed by California Boy’s comment. But now you’ve got me wondering if under the higher law a spouse is required to remain married to an abusive spouse as long as the abusive spouse doesn’t commit fornication? 

I don’t know. If you want to point out the flaws in the law you should probably chat with the person who said that this is the law: Jesus.

It is interesting that women seeking a divorce is not prohibited. Hmmmm…….

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well if this isn't a work around to justify allowing straight people to ignore the words of Christ, I don't know what is.  This is exactly what Christ said about divorce

 

 

I don't know how Christ could be more clear.  Yet your post "justifies" current policy by going back to the Old Testament.  When every other time, the mantra we hear is that Christ fulfilled the law of Moses.  I guess straight people are not quite willing to let the law of Moses go when it suits their needs.  Like I said.  It is nice to be straight when it comes to doctrinal issues. I think your post just reinforced that statement rather than disproved it.

Read what He said just before that. The bill of divorcement is allows mercy toward those who are unable to bear His higher law. He was reminding the elders that He was merciful (as Jehovah dealing with Moses and Israel) and could impose the higher law, and when His kingdom comes, He will. This allows His people opportunity to prepare, just like tithing prepares us for fuller consecration. The Church's stance today on divorce is not about keeping elements of the law of Moses which was done away, it is how those with the keys are handling marriage by policy. This needn't be viewed through the lens of sexuality, in Jesus' time or ours.

[kimpearson]

Since so many of you are sure polygamy will be part of the Celestial kingdom, I would like to hear your thoughts on how that might work.  Would a man with numerous wives have a separate world or worlds for each wife?  When he was off with one wife, would the other wives rule in his place?  Would the man rule all the worlds he creates along with all of his wives?  Would each wive have separate but equal time with the man or would they just be a happy group altogether at the same time?  Please explain how the women in a polygamous celestial marriage would feel equal to the man?

I would also like to hear you explain the blessings and joy that would come from practicing polygamy  today if the Church were to reinstate it?  If it is something that will exist in the Celestial kingdom, then it's practice should bring about happiness and joy for all parties whenever it is practiced.  Something can't be part of the eternities in the Celestial kingdom that doesn't bring blessing of joy and happiness if practiced in this life.

 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Because of the title of the thread, I presumed plural marriage was at least being indirectly addressed by California Boy’s comment. But now you’ve got me wondering if under the higher law a spouse is required to remain married to an abusive spouse as long as the abusive spouse doesn’t commit fornication? 

Sure hope not!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Since so many of you are sure polygamy will be part of the Celestial kingdom, I would like to hear your thoughts on how that might work.  Would a man with numerous wives have a separate world or worlds for each wife?  When he was off with one wife, would the other wives rule in his place?  Would the man rule all the worlds he creates along with all of his wives?  Would each wive have separate but equal time with the man or would they just be a happy group altogether at the same time?  Please explain how the women in a polygamous celestial marriage would feel equal to the man?

I am not sure it will be practiced. That being said your entire premise is based on the idea that divine beings can only do one thing at a time which seems unlikely.

It won’t be a matter of feeling. Feelings are chemical responses to situations. They can be right or wrong. These beings either have or soon will have omniscience. In practice it means that you won’t need to “feel” equal. You will know you are equal (or not I suppose if you believe the worst). You won’t have to worry about whether your spouse loves you. You will know it. You will experience the devotion they have for you as much as they will. No guesswork or faking.

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I would also like to hear you explain the blessings and joy that would come from practicing polygamy  today if the Church were to reinstate it?  If it is something that will exist in the Celestial kingdom, then it's practice should bring about happiness and joy for all parties whenever it is practiced.  Something can't be part of the eternities in the Celestial kingdom that doesn't bring blessing of joy and happiness if practiced in this life.

I am not convinced that last sentence is true. There are probably all kinds of things divine beings do that we cannot or should not practice in this life and there are probably things we do here that increase our happiness that won’t have the same effect in the next.

This argument seems incredibly specific. Lots of people in the church have miserable marriages. That would suggest marriage is fundamentally flawed as it is not giving happiness and joy to all people whenever it is practiced. You can say the same about things like raising a child or whatever. Do those who do not experience bliss from these experiences prove that they are inherently flawed and cannot exist in some form in an exalted life? I don’t buy it.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Because of the title of the thread, I presumed plural marriage was at least being indirectly addressed by California Boy’s comment. But now you’ve got me wondering if under the higher law a spouse is required to remain married to an abusive spouse as long as the abusive spouse doesn’t commit fornication? 

Your assumption was incorrect. 

[Gillebre]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Since so many of you are sure polygamy will be part of the Celestial kingdom, I would like to hear your thoughts on how that might work.  Would a man with numerous wives have a separate world or worlds for each wife?  When he was off with one wife, would the other wives rule in his place?  Would the man rule all the worlds he creates along with all of his wives?  Would each wive have separate but equal time with the man or would they just be a happy group altogether at the same time?  Please explain how the women in a polygamous celestial marriage would feel equal to the man?

I would also like to hear you explain the blessings and joy that would come from practicing polygamy  today if the Church were to reinstate it?  If it is something that will exist in the Celestial kingdom, then it's practice should bring about happiness and joy for all parties whenever it is practiced.  Something can't be part of the eternities in the Celestial kingdom that doesn't bring blessing of joy and happiness if practiced in this life.

 

When I was studying Come Follow Me a few weeks ago when section 132 was the topic the Spirit impressed heavily upon me the extremely damaging impact that popular media and culture, including Hollywood, are having upon the expectations and willingness of the Saints to accept the Lord's commandments, and specifically the practice of plural marriage. The point, I feel, is to get to a place where we don't rebel against God should He decide to ask us to do something that runs contrary to our assumptions and expectations. We can debate all day and night but that is the only question we need to answer right now: will we trust Him and give heed to His wisdom more than our own fears and lack of perception.

What if there was a way that plural marriage could be lived in a celestial way that solved every single problem people have with it? Would we be willing to trust Him enough not to draw a line in the sand that says "nothing anyone could say, even the Lord, could ever convince me this practice was anything but wrong." Don't use that absolute because none of us have a perfect knowledge of the Lord's mind and will. He can't give us peace concerning plural marriage while our faith and thinking are both tainted by worldly philosophies and assumptions.

If plural marriage were practiced in the Celestial Kingdom then all the mortal drawbacks to relationships that we know of will not exist there: abuse, jealousy, manipulation, fear, envy, lust, pride, selfishness, greed, and so forth. If those things aren't tolerated in the presence of the Father and the Son then those who are in a position and state to have a plural marriage relationship won't be burdened by our telestial concerns. Eternal life and heavenly sociality will be so very different from the poor reflections that exist here as to leave us little to no room to truly conceive of how wonderful life with Him will be.

Am I comfortable with the idea of having multiple wives? Not really, except that I trust Jesus Christ more than anything, and if He sees fit to ask me to act then I can trust Him both now and then. I don't have to be afraid of plural marriage because in that day He will be able to help me understand why He's asking it, and if I don't let that trust be enough for me now then I'll be in perpetual frustration as I continue viewing the Celestial through Telestial perspectives, fears, and assumptions.

[teddyaware]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your assumption was incorrect. 

So do I then take it that you don’t believe the divinely sanctioned practice of polygamy came to end with the end of the law of Moses?

[juliann]

37 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

 

If plural marriage were practiced in the Celestial Kingdom then all the mortal drawbacks to relationships that we know of will not exist there: abuse, jealousy, manipulation, fear, envy, lust, pride, selfishness, greed, and so forth. If those things aren't tolerated in the presence of the Father and the Son then those who are in a position and state to have a plural marriage relationship won't be burdened by our telestial concerns. Eternal life and heavenly sociality will be so very different from the poor reflections that exist here as to leave us little to no room to truly conceive of how wonderful life with Him will be.

 

More likely, the biological need to collect women to produce offspring and glory are what doesn't exist in the CK. Again, what is the point of plural marriage in heaven? What purpose does it serve when all of the earthly excuses for it no longer exist? 

[juliann]

11 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Since so many of you are sure polygamy will be part of the Celestial kingdom, I would like to hear your thoughts on how that might work.  Would a man with numerous wives have a separate world or worlds for each wife?  When he was off with one wife, would the other wives rule in his place?  Would the man rule all the worlds he creates along with all of his wives?  Would each wive have separate but equal time with the man or would they just be a happy group altogether at the same time?  Please explain how the women in a polygamous celestial marriage would feel equal to the man?

 

One has to create the 19th c and the state of knowledge at that time to even contemplate polygamy. Women won't need to feel equal...let alone be equal in their heaven.  Stepford Wives never had more meaning than in their small heaven.