Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If it turns out there are more women worthy of the fulness celestial glory than men (something I consider to be likely), then the only way worthy unmarried women will be able to enjoy the fulness of the celestial glory they were promised is for some of the men in the celestial kingdom to be married to more than one wife.

In LDS theology, the essential prerequisite (aside from personal worthiness) needed in order to enjoy the fulness of celestial glory is to be married to a worthy member of the opposite sex ‘for time and all eternity.’ Under these conditions (more worthy women than worthy men), polygamous marriages will be the only way for God to be able to keep his immutable promises made to those unmarried women who are worthy of the fulness of celestial glory.

And it follows that if at any of the men in the celestial kingdom are unwilling to take on more than one wife, if called upon by God to do so, they will loose their exaltation because of their unwillingness to bless worthy unmarried women with the marital relationships they need in order to enjoy the fulness of celestial glory God promised them.

This would indicate that men who are worthy of the fulness of celestial glory must at least be willing to be married to more than one women if they are called upon by God to do so. This also indicates that any man who hopes to gain the fulness of celestial glory must at least be willing to be married to more than one woman or they will not be deemed worthy of the fulness of celestial glory. In other words, any man unwilling to enable God to keep his most sacred and sublime promises to his daughters is not worthy of the highest degree of celestial glory.

Bottom line? Ever man who inherits the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom must at least be a willing polygamist in spirit, having decided beforehand that he will be a polygamist if called upon God to marry more than one of his worthy daughters. But it also follows that, for whatever reason,  there may very well be some worthy men who will have but one wife in heaven. 
 

Well count me out.  Any God who requires such a silly thing is not a God I want to hang out with.

But your opening sentence, a common idea from LDS men,is a BIG IF.  And what if the women does not want to just be passed to someone?  What is she would prefer to remain single? 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As if I didn’t anticipate the above retort?  Procreation (a continuation of the seeds forever and ever) is the supreme object of eternal marriage. And since a woman can be made pregnant by only one man at a time, your scenario makes no logical sense. And beside, Doctrine and Covenants 132 (the only canonized revelation we have on the subject) speaks only of the plurality of wives. And further, there’s no example in the scriptures of any of the Lord’s people, at any time in sacred history, when polyandry was practiced, only polygyny.

Ummmm let me see.  Joseph Smith did the polyandry deed as did Brigham.

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The preponderance of the scriptural evidence is wholly on my side, with nary a scintilla of scriptural evidence to back your scenario. And remember, unless there are going to be exactly the same number of exalted men as exalted women in heaven, polygyny will be needed in order to fulfill the Lord’s promises of ‘’eternal increase’ to his faithful daughters. You can moan and groan about it all you want, but you have to know in your heart that the scriptures and reason are on my side.

What scriptures?  Other than D&C 132?

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

By the way, glorified celestial beings — who are endowed  to ultimate fulness with all the divine attributes of the Father and the Son — don’t think, feel or act like lascivious fallen mortal human beings. This is why plural marriage is successfully practiced in heaven, and why the God of perfect love, mercy and justice is able to command and endorse it.

Really?  Have you met any glorified celestial beings and discussed how they feel about sexual intimacy?  If not this is simply speculation.

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really?  Have you met any glorified celestial beings and discussed how they feel about sexual intimacy?  If not this is simply speculation.

Have you ever experienced celestial intimacy?

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Really?  Have you met any glorified celestial beings and discussed how they feel about sexual intimacy?  If not this is simply speculation.

Well, an angel came down and told me he had a message of vital importance. I asked him what the sex is like. He rolled his eyes and did the conduit thing and vanished. Wonder what the message was.

Haven’t had an angel visit since. Maybe I am on some kind of banned list now.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well count me out.  Any God who requires such a silly thing is not a God I want to hang out with.

Bit your opening sentence, a common idea from LDS men,is a BIG IF.  And what if the women does not want to just be passed off to some dude anxious to build his harem?

This is offensive and should be reported, but I have not done so.

I understand that you did not understand that it is offensive.

Now you do.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Have you ever experienced celestial intimacy?

That was the other angel that came down before. He was more fun.

[Olmec Donald]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I amend my remarks by saying that if there are more exalted men in heaven than exalted women, that polyandry might very well be permitted in order for God to keep his promises of eternal increase to his worthy sons.. Because celestial beings aren’t lascivious and afflicted by earthly jealousies, there should be no problem if polyandry is needed in order for God to keep his promise of the continuation of the seeds for all his exalted sons and daughters. 

Perfect response! 

I hope you don't mind if I reply to some of the other points you raised, but I GENUINELY appreciate your willingness to put yourself in your wife's shoes.  THAT is the main thing I wanted to focus on, and imo your answer is perfect.

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The preponderance of the scriptural evidence is wholly on my side, with nary a scintilla of scriptural evidence to back your scenario. 

I concede that the preponderance of the scriptural evidence is on your side.  Here are a couple of background concepts before I present the scintilla of scriptural evidence for my side:  All are like unto God, both male and female; and, God is no respecter of persons.  These basic concepts imply that God would not do something that is unfair (and it may be argued that polyandry would also be unfair!).  And this one is just my opinion:  Heaven isn't heaven if anyone there (or anywhere else for that matter) is getting cheated in any way.

Now for my "scintilla of evidence".  From verse 41 of D&C 132:  "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 and shall be destroyed."  The clear implication is that IF this second (presumably marriage) relationship HAS "been appointed unto her by the holy anointing" (presumably the same thing that validates the first marriage as being within the new and everlasting covenent), THEN it would NOT be adultery. 

Note also that the last verse of Section 132 indicates there is more information yet to be revealed on the subject ("as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter"), so we cannot reasonably assume that Section 132 paints the complete picture.

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

...there’s no example in the scriptures of any of the Lord’s people, at any time in sacred history, when polyandry was practiced, only polygyny.

True, BUT several of Joseph Smith's marriages were polyandrous, AND even today a deceased woman is sealed to all of the men with whom she lived as husband and wife during her lifetime.  So the stage is already set for the possibility of polyandry in the next life.  And depending on what really matters most up there (it may not be maximizing production of spirits, which in turn may not involve physical sex), there may even be some of both. 

4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I think he is just inverting the scenario to show the absurdity of the claim.

Yes.   I included the part in parentheses primarily to mirror Teddyaware's wording. 

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Can you elaborate on this and why you feel it is likely?

Well I'm not sure the one is necessarily more likely than the other. But here is a line of thinking which implies a male majority (see Calm's post earlier in this thread for a more clear wording):

- All children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God.

- Male births outnumber female births by a small percentage, and infant mortality rates are also higher for males than for females.

- A vastly greater number of souls will make it into the Celestial Kingdom by dying before the age of accountability than will make it there by virtue of having faithfully followed the covenant path all their lives, and most of those who get there because they died before the age of accountability will be males. And the harder it is to get into the Celestial Kingdom by virtue of our choices in mortality, the more dominant that higher male infant mortality rate becomes. So in this scenario, more males than females enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

- Assuming souls that enter into the Celestial Kingdom tend to progress to the highest degree therein, we would end up with more men than women in the highest degree.

- ON THE OTHER HAND, the above does not take into account the even larger number of souls who neither died before the age of accountability nor were worthy members of the LDS church (or its equivalent in other times), and temple work combined with their choices in the spirit world could tip the numbers back towards a female majority.

(My personal belief system might be described as “long-path universalism”, which implies that the long-term numerical trend is towards whatever the original gender creation ratios were. As for our associations in the Celestial Kingdom, I expect them to be completely free of jealousy and other negatives and to follow the Law of Affinity, with any residual technicalities being subordinate to and brought into alignment with the Law of Affinity. The "Law of Affinity" may be an unfamiliar term but it pretty much defines itself.  It is not really known as such in this Telestial world we now inhabit which is dominated by the letter of the law, but I bet the idea makes intuitive sense to many. In this way the Lord's house is a house of natural order, rather than a house of imposed order.)

6 hours ago, Fether said:

I would propose the third scenario:

We won’t be bound by our round of creation to find an eternal companion. God has made infinite worlds and we can choose between any celestial kingdom worthy partner. And should there be more of one gender than another, we can wait for another round of creation to finish up.

I would also add, on earth today there is more of one gender than the other… but we aren’t contemplating plural marriage or any sort. Why? Because it takes a long time to find someone you love.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it were the same  in The celestial kingdom

That all sounds reasonable to me. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

No.  I think you know what my point was.  The early LDS leaders taught polygamy was required for exaltation.

I was responding about specifically the question about vs 63.  So not sure why you responded if it wasn't about vs 63.

[Teancum]

It is interesting to me that the LDS Church claims in an official position that God's standard is monogamy but at times in some cases he commands polygamy.  If monogamy is the standard then one would think it would be in heaven and forced polygamy for exaltation would not be needed.  If anything like the LDS view of heaven (likely not) is true then how do we know that to make spirit babies it even requires physical procreation? I imagine there is plenty from Brigham Young and his group actually.

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Have you ever experienced celestial intimacy?

 

Define your term.

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is interesting to me that the LDS Church claims in an official position that God's standard is monogamy but at times in some cases he commands polygamy.  If monogamy is the standard then one would think it would be in heaven and forced polygamy for exaltation would not be needed.  If anything like the LDS view of heaven (likely not) is true then how do we know that to make spirit babies it even requires physical procreation? I imagine there is plenty from Brigham Young and his group actually.

Who says polygamy will be forced in exaltation?  Or am I misreading you somehow?

Edited December 5, 2021 by webbles

[Teancum]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is offensive and should be reported, but I have not done so.

I understand that you did not understand that it is offensive.

Now you do.

I don't think it offensive. I have heard men talk about celestial polygamy in such ways.  But if you want to report me you can. I will get kicked out of this thread like I did the other recent plural marriage thread.

Why is it offensive?  How do you think most women feel about this?  Hey, you will have to be married to someone and you may not even get to choose and you have to do it to be at the highest level in heaven.  Is that offensive?  Some things deserve to be called out for what they are.  This is a bad doctrine and a lot of harm has and  does come of it.  Teddyware's posts here illustrate that quite well.

 

So know I did not mean it as offensive but I did mean it to illustrate the hurt and bad things that come from it. 

I will modify my post.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Double post

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

Who says polygamy will be forced in exaltation?  Or am I misreading you somehow?

Did you read Teddyware's post?

[webbles]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Did you read Teddyware's post?

I had read it but didn't understand it to mean "forced polygamy".  But now re-reading it and looking for that, I can kind of see how someone could read it that way.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

No.  I think you know what my point was.  The early LDS leaders taught polygamy was required for exaltation.

Striving to keep the commandments is required for exaltation.  One of those commandments is to be married in the new and everlasting covenant.  That could be with one wife, or more than one wife if it is during a period of time when the Lord permits plural marriages. 

But what might be commanded in one period of time may not apply to another period of time.  For example, consider the commandment that was given to Abraham and all of his descendants, that all male children should be circumcised.  That commandment was valid from the time of Abraham until the beginning of the Christian era.  I'm pretty sure, back in that day, that male circumcision would be considered a requirement for exaltation.  And it isn't a requirement now.  

So pointing out where people in the past used to teach that X or Y was required for exaltation doesn't serve any valid purpose when we know that the commandment for X or Y was changed since that time.  

[longview]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

And what if the women does not want to just be passed to someone?  What is she would prefer to remain single? 

That may be what the 2nd and 3rd degrees are for within the Celestial Realm.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Perfect response! 

I hope you don't mind if I reply to some of the other points you raised, but I GENUINELY appreciate your willingness to put yourself in your wife's shoes.  THAT is the main thing I wanted to focus on, and imo your answer is perfect.

I concede that the preponderance of the scriptural evidence is on your side.  Here are a couple of background concepts before I present the scintilla of scriptural evidence for my side:  All are like unto God, both male and female; and, God is no respecter of persons.  These basic concepts imply that God would not do something that is unfair (and it may be argued that polyandry would also be unfair!).  And this one is just my opinion:  Heaven isn't heaven if anyone there (or anywhere else for that matter) is getting cheated in any way.

Now for my "scintilla of evidence".  From verse 41 of D&C 132:  "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 and shall be destroyed."  The clear implication is that IF this second (presumably marriage) relationship HAS "been appointed unto her by the holy anointing" (presumably the same thing that validates the first marriage as being within the new and everlasting covenent), THEN it would NOT be adultery. 

Note also that the last verse of Section 132 indicates there is more information yet to be revealed on the subject ("as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter"), so we cannot reasonably assume that Section 132 paints the complete picture.

True, BUT several of Joseph Smith's marriages were polyandrous, AND even today a deceased woman is sealed to all of the men with whom she lived as husband and wife during her lifetime.  So the stage is already set for the possibility of polyandry in the next life.  And depending on what really matters most up there (it may not be maximizing production of spirits, which in turn may not involve physical sex), there may even be some of both. 

Yes.   I included the part in parentheses primarily to mirror Teddyaware's wording. 

Well I'm not sure the one is necessarily more likely than the other. But here is a line of thinking which implies a male majority (see Calm's post earlier in this thread for a more clear wording):

- All children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God.

- Male births outnumber female births by a small percentage, and infant mortality rates are also higher for males than for females.

- A vastly greater number of souls will make it into the Celestial Kingdom by dying before the age of accountability than will make it there by virtue of having faithfully followed the covenant path all their lives, and most of those who get there because they died before the age of accountability will be males. And the harder it is to get into the Celestial Kingdom by virtue of our choices in mortality, the more dominant that higher male infant mortality rate becomes. So in this scenario, more males than females enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

- Assuming souls that enter into the Celestial Kingdom tend to progress to the highest degree therein, we would end up with more men than women in the highest degree.

- ON THE OTHER HAND, the above does not take into account the even larger number of souls who neither died before the age of accountability nor were worthy members of the LDS church (or its equivalent in other times), and temple work combined with their choices in the spirit world could tip the numbers back towards a female majority.

(My personal belief system might be described as “long-path universalism”, which implies that the long-term numerical trend is towards whatever the original gender creation ratios were. As for our associations in the Celestial Kingdom, I expect them to be completely free of jealousy and other negatives and to follow the Law of Affinity, with any residual technicalities being subordinate to and brought into alignment with the Law of Affinity. The "Law of Affinity" may be an unfamiliar term but it pretty much defines itself.  It is not really known as such in this Telestial world we now inhabit which is dominated by the letter of the law, but I bet the idea makes intuitive sense to many. In this way the Lord's house is a house of natural order, rather than a house of imposed order.)

That all sounds reasonable to me. 

It is my understanding that there are no descendants carrying Joseph's DNA except those born of Emma.

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Considering that Heavenly Father will never be done having children (at least, that is what is implied in our doctrine), there won't ever be a time when we have a final number of exalted beings to pair up, will there be? 

I don't know . I don't think that is implied. Once all His spirit children were created they had the "war" in heaven and all spirits made the choice to follow God's or Satan's plan. Satan and his angels were cast out.
If God created more spirit children after this they would not have the opportunity to make that choice, unless another Satan was created. God's continued eternal increase happens when his children create more spirit children and populate more worlds. 

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Likely true, but if someone said to you that you will be homosexual in the Celestial kingdom but that spending eternity being romantically linked to a man shouldn't bother you because everyone will be following God's commands and love all beings that are there, that probably doesn't really make the idea of it any better.

Some church leaders have hinted at the possibility that homosexual attractions will be corrected at the resurrection. 

[kimpearson]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Those are big numbers. There is still the issue of having exactly the same number of males and females that are exalted.  In a 2011 study the total Church membership consisted of 90 males for every 100 females.
Of course this says nothing about the billions that died as children and we would have to know the numbers of male and female that number represents. 

Everyone seems also to forget that in Moses we are told Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ of created worlds without ends.  I just don't think there will be any problem finding a suitable spouse in the Celestial kingdom.  I am pretty sure polygamy is the creation of a terrestrial world.  Why would any man or woman want more than one spouse in the eternities and I am honestly asking that?  What would be the point?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Some church leaders have hinted at the possibility that homosexual attractions will be corrected at the resurrection. 

Yes.  Even if it's true, I'm sure it's as reassuring as it would be to you to be told that your heterosexuality would be corrected at the resurrection.

[rodheadlee]

30 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Everyone seems also to forget that in Moses we are told Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ of created worlds without ends.  I just don't think there will be any problem finding a suitable spouse in the Celestial kingdom.  I am pretty sure polygamy is the creation of a terrestrial world.  Why would any man or woman want more than one spouse in the eternities and I am honestly asking that?  What would be the point?

Think of a man married to a woman for 20 years. She dies, he then marries another woman for 20 years. He loves them both. 

[Peacefully]

23 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Think of a man married to a woman for 20 years. She dies, he then marries another woman for 20 years. He loves them both. 

Same could be said for a woman married to two men. 

[rodheadlee]

2 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Same could be said for a woman married to two men. 

Yes, of course. I didn't think it needed to be said.