Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

Ye. If heterosexuality was considered the incorrect orientation it would be reassuring to me. However you present a highly unlikely situation.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

And here is a link

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2008/joseph-smith-dna-revealed-new-clues-from-the-prophets-genes

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

f God created more spirit children after this they would not have the opportunity to make that choice, unless another Satan was created.

Do you think it impossible that another of his children might choose to ‘self actualize’ in such a fashion?  But even if not, why would the choice only be limited to those who were present at the Council? 

And we don’t know how time actually exists for an eternal being.  Maybe it is possible that children of God created at any time in the universe’s existence can somehow be present in the moment of the Great Council.  Maybe the Great Council is symbolic for the choice every child is confronted with when they hit that point in their eternal development.

If Christ’s Atonement is truly infinite, maybe other aspects of the Plan of Salvation are as well.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Is_Jesus_Christ_the_savior_of_other_worlds%3F

Quote

Russell M. Nelson:

The mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him.[5]

 

He is not the only one to teach this.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you think it impossible that another of his children might choose to ‘self actualize’ in such a fashion?  But even if not, why would the choice only be limited to those who were present at the Council? 

And we don’t know how time actually exists for an eternal being.  Maybe it is possible that children of God created at any time in the universe’s existence can somehow be present in the moment of the Great Council.  Maybe the Great Council is symbolic for the choice every child is confronted with when they hit that point in their eternal development.

If Christ’s Atonement is truly infinite, maybe other aspects of the Plan of Salvation are as well.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Is_Jesus_Christ_the_savior_of_other_worlds%3F

He is not the only one to teach this.

That's some pretty far out speculation. But since we cannot not know for sure anything is possible.

His atonement is indeed for all those who exist in all the worlds he created. Even Joseph Smith said it:

"And I heard a great voice bearing record from heav'n,
He's the Saviour, and only begotten of God -
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad,
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav'd by the very same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God's daughters and sons,
By the very same truths, and the very same pow'rs."
(Times and Seasons, 1 Feb. 1843, 82-83)

But in my opinion they are people whose spirits were all there in the premortal life council before Satan was cast out. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

But in my opinion they are people whose spirits were all there in the premortal life council before Satan was cast out. 

When there are apostles and Prophets saying God’s children are infinite in number, it seems to me it is more speculative to claim they are finite.  

[why me]

There have been many debates about plural marriage on this board over the years. Years ago from the critics it was Joseph's hyper-sexuality that was the reason why he began polygamy. That reason seems to have disappeared. Other critics took the position of shocking members with polygamy itself, assuming that many church members did not know about their own church history even though it was in section 132. That had some success in getting members to question their faith.

Now the debate seems to have become more intellectual. However, I take a more simple explanation: either Joseph was a prophet and it needs to be seen in that context. If he wasn't a prophet, he gave a rather creative reading of the old testament and implemented it for some unknown reason, risking his cohort relationship with Emma in his conspiracy. That would have been a big risk with Emma. She could have just blown the whistle and Joseph's house of cards would have came tumbling down. My guess is: Just as the church claims or he claimed, he was reading the old testament, came across the polygamy section, took his question to heavenly father and received his answer. He then fumbled his way through it, knowing Emma would not be happy but after a stop in the practice, felt pressure in continuing the practice come what may. Eventually, it cost him his life.

What is required for exhaltation when it comes to polygamy now or in the afterlife is interesting. But...it is a circle debate where people go round and round.

[kimpearson]

27 minutes ago, why me said:

There have been many debates about plural marriage on this board over the years. Years ago from the critics it was Joseph's hyper-sexuality that was the reason why he began polygamy. That reason seems to have disappeared. Other critics took the position of shocking members with polygamy itself, assuming that many church members did not know about their own church history even though it was in section 132. That had some success in getting members to question their faith.

Now the debate seems to have become more intellectual. However, I take a more simple explanation: either Joseph was a prophet and it needs to be seen in that context. If he wasn't a prophet, he gave a rather creative reading of the old testament and implemented it for some unknown reason, risking his cohort relationship with Emma in his conspiracy. That would have been a big risk with Emma. She could have just blown the whistle and Joseph's house of cards would have came tumbling down. My guess is: Just as the church claims or he claimed, he was reading the old testament, came across the polygamy section, took his question to heavenly father and received his answer. He then fumbled his way through it, knowing Emma would not be happy but after a stop in the practice, felt pressure in continuing the practice come what may. Eventually, it cost him his life.

What is required for exhaltation when it comes to polygamy now or in the afterlife is interesting. But...it is a circle debate where people go round and round.

Typical male priesthood holding member avoid  the real issue.  Many, many women in the Church suffer real and honest pain over polygamy yet you brush it off.  Why?  By the way I am a male priesthood holder also.

Edited December 6, 2021 by kimpearson

[why me]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Typical male priesthood holding member avoid  the real issue.  Many, many women in the Church suffer real and honest pain over polygamy yet you brush it off.  Why?  By the way I am a male priesthood holder also.

I am not brushing it off at all. I just don't think that people need to worry about it. If polygamy was ordained by god and if Joseph was a prophet, I am sure that it will all work itself out when one dies. And if he wasn't, why worry about it. Looking at section 138 which gives some hint about it all, it seems that the heavens are a busy and happy place. And a wonderful place especially for the faithful. If the heavens are a place of contention regardless of the reason, I would much rather be put with Henry David Thoreau on an eternal Walden Pond.

Edited December 6, 2021 by why me

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, why me said:

I am not brushing it off at all. I just don't think that people need to worry about it. I

When people are worrying about it, answers like “it will all work out” or “don’t worry about it” is brushing it off imo. How would brushing off look like to you?

[why me]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

When people are worrying about it, answers like “it will all work out” or “don’t worry about it” is brushing it off imo. How would brushing off look like to you?

My point is simple: if it is ordained from God, it will work itself out in the eternities. I cannot put myself in the shoes of Heavenly Father or Heavenly Mother. I can only hope that they thought through the process and all will be understood in the eternities. Now if I don't believe that the church is true, then I would see it as an attempt of patriarchy dominating women for their own ends with false promises.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, why me said:

My point is simple: if it is ordained from God, it will work itself out in the eternities. I cannot put myself in the shoes of Heavenly Father or Heavenly Mother. I can only hope that they thought through the process and all will be understood in the eternities. Now if I don't believe that the church is true, then I would see it as an attempt of patriarchy dominating women for their own ends with false promises.

And if that works for you great. But if you expect it to work for all others you are being dismissive. 
 

You did not explain how brushing off something looks like to you, is there a reason why not?

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

You did not explain how brushing off something looks like to you, is there a reason why not?

Let me mansplain that to you. 🤪

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, why me said:

There have been many debates about plural marriage on this board over the years. Years ago from the critics it was Joseph's hyper-sexuality that was the reason why he began polygamy. That reason seems to have disappeared. Other critics took the position of shocking members with polygamy itself, assuming that many church members did not know about their own church history even though it was in section 132. That had some success in getting members to question their faith.

Now the debate seems to have become more intellectual. However, I take a more simple explanation: either Joseph was a prophet and it needs to be seen in that context. If he wasn't a prophet, he gave a rather creative reading of the old testament and implemented it for some unknown reason, risking his cohort relationship with Emma in his conspiracy. That would have been a big risk with Emma. She could have just blown the whistle and Joseph's house of cards would have came tumbling down. My guess is: Just as the church claims or he claimed, he was reading the old testament, came across the polygamy section, took his question to heavenly father and received his answer. He then fumbled his way through it, knowing Emma would not be happy but after a stop in the practice, felt pressure in continuing the practice come what may. Eventually, it cost him his life.

What is required for exhaltation when it comes to polygamy now or in the afterlife is interesting. But...it is a circle debate where people go round and round.

This doesn't sit well at all, Joseph thought he was to restore what Jesus put away? Why is Joseph and our church not abiding to what Jesus says? Below are some c/p from different articles:

What did Jesus say about the old law?

 

Jesus does not say no part of the law will ever pass away; he says no part of it shall pass away until it is fulfilled. He says he came to do this very thing, to fulfill it. So, with his coming, the law has been fulfilled and has passed away. We now live under the law of Christ, not beneath the law of Moses.

 

Jesus showed a world that had distorted the meaning of marriage back to the beauty of “the man being joined to his wife, and two will become one flesh.”  The nouns Jesus used are singular here, folks.  He showed that there is a way to go back to our “origin story” in the Garden – where one husband is join to one wife – a relationship Saint Augustine once called, “the basic bond of society.”

Edited December 6, 2021 by Tacenda

[CA Steve]

Sort of a side note.

 

I grew up in a wonderful large family, and I raised 5 kids. I am currently enjoying my relationships with both my kids and their kids. It's wonderful, but the thought of eternally raising offspring seems like it would get tiresome real fast. I mean what could possibly be new and/or challenging several trillion years or more into that kind of life? Frankly I do not want to raise anymore children in this life let alone the eternities. Of course, like all this sort of rampant speculation, that observation is based on my short life span here and without any familiarity or even the ability to understand what an eternal being actually is, wants and does, but then that could be said of any expected eternal rewards we value so much. We make these sweeping predictions about what rewards we will be getting in the next life as if we know now what we will actually value then. Honestly, we are like toddlers arguing in a sandbox about whether we will enjoy Barbie dolls or Tonka trucks better when we are adults.

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

7 hours ago, why me said:

I am not brushing it off at all. I just don't think that people need to worry about it. I

When people are worrying about it, answers like “it will all work out” or “don’t worry about it” is brushing it off imo. How would brushing off look like to you?

If there is no clear answer and no revelation about it, but only speculation and opinion, what else can be done?

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, why me said:

There have been many debates about plural marriage on this board over the years. Years ago from the critics it was Joseph's hyper-sexuality that was the reason why he began polygamy. That reason seems to have disappeared. Other critics took the position of shocking members with polygamy itself, assuming that many church members did not know about their own church history even though it was in section 132. That had some success in getting members to question their faith.

Now the debate seems to have become more intellectual. However, I take a more simple explanation: either Joseph was a prophet and it needs to be seen in that context. If he wasn't a prophet, he gave a rather creative reading of the old testament and implemented it for some unknown reason, risking his cohort relationship with Emma in his conspiracy. That would have been a big risk with Emma. She could have just blown the whistle and Joseph's house of cards would have came tumbling down. My guess is: Just as the church claims or he claimed, he was reading the old testament, came across the polygamy section, took his question to heavenly father and received his answer. He then fumbled his way through it, knowing Emma would not be happy but after a stop in the practice, felt pressure in continuing the practice come what may. Eventually, it cost him his life.

What is required for exhaltation when it comes to polygamy now or in the afterlife is interesting. But...it is a circle debate where people go round and round.

Is it possible Joseph truly believed he received revelation but got it wrong, and God magnified his efforts anyway? Maybe our Heavenly Father makes good out of man’s mistakes when done in good faith. I think it hurts the hearts of many women and men to consider sharing their beloved spouse for eternity. We should not brush off that concern. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

If there is no clear answer and no revelation about it, but only speculation and opinion, what else can be done?

Brushing off relates to how one discusses what we know as opposed to the actual knowledge content we could discuss. I would suggest simply appealing to what we believe are the facts or giving how we think about something ourselves as if it is the only reasonable response and all should be satisfied is being dismissive. If a parent comes to you and shares the grief they are feeling because of the death of their child, responding with a “they are in a better place” or some such “it is all good in the long run” attempt at comfort that is true (assuming a shared belief in a glorious afterlife), yet ignores the pain and emptiness they are experiencing now…to me that is brushing off or being dismissive (I don’t believe this means people are uncaring as much as it means they don’t know how to comfort someone else in pain.). Fundamental to taking someone’s concerns seriously is understanding the quality of their suffering if any and responding to that in an appropriate way as well as sharing what one believes are related truths at an appropriate time.

God commands us to mourn with those who mourn. He does not tell us to tell them they don’t need to mourn.  I don’t believe that only applies to those who mourn death.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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. 

Some of the true LDS Believers here are pretty insistent that plural marriage will be required at least for some or many in order to be exalted. So your argument is with them not me.  It would be nice if you could all get on the same page.

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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.  

The never changing God seems to sure change a lot when it comes to what he/it wants to get to the highest heaven.

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

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.  

I find that a rather convenient cop out. Brigham and others taught you had to enter polygamy to be a god, or at least be willing in your heart to do so. When did that change?  Can a man or women be exalted without being married?  If not then for many women the answer is polygamy is required even if they would prefer not.

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, why me said:

I take a more simple explanation:

I’m not sure I understand why someone who is a prophet can’t be flawed.  
 

This is my theory. I think he had righteous desires but he was also human.  Power (from God!  So heady) can make people do some pretty odd things.  
 

I personally am positive God knows me and that I won’t be going that direction, and that my eternity will reflect my level of devotion and I’ll be at peace. The rest of you can do whatever you want.  

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, longview said:

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

So God will punish the woman?

[Peacefully]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not sure I understand why someone who is a prophet can’t be flawed.  
 

This is my theory. I think he had righteous desires but he was also human.  Power (from God!  So heady) can make people do some pretty odd things.  
 

I personally am positive God knows me and that I won’t be going that direction, and that my eternity will reflect my level of devotion and I’ll be at peace. The rest of you can do whatever you want.  

It is interesting to hear other opinions, and really they are only opinions. Until we get there, I don’t think any of us knows all the specifics, imho. 

[Teancum]

15 hours 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. 

And what of the women who married two men and loves them both?

[MustardSeed]

27 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

It is interesting to hear other opinions, and really they are only opinions. Until we get there, I don’t think any of us knows all the specifics, imho. 

Of course, and I also believe often people fight each other when really they are fighting God, or their version of God.  I just challenged my version of God, and now I’m good.    

Edited December 6, 2021 by MustardSeed

[Bob Crockett]

8 hours ago, why me said:

My point is simple: if it is ordained from God, it will work itself out in the eternities. I cannot put myself in the shoes of Heavenly Father or Heavenly Mother. I can only hope that they thought through the process and all will be understood in the eternities. Now if I don't believe that the church is true, then I would see it as an attempt of patriarchy dominating women for their own ends with false promises.

my great grandmother was a faithful saint.  She suffered immensely from polygamy and her husband's approach to it.

[why me]

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

my great grandmother was a faithful saint.  She suffered immensely from polygamy and her husband's approach to it.

I understand this. But she was faithful. I am sure that now that she is in the celestial kingdom, it is all clear to her. And she is fine. But how her husband approached it must have been answered for. This is my point. Everything becomes clear when one dies and enters into the kingdom.