Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Why?

I think I've exhausted myself explaining my reasoning on this in many other threads. But here we go, one more time...

Because I believe that more women than men will be exalted, and rather than leaving the worthy excess women to go it alone, there will be plural marriage in Eternity.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

When we are perfected, at one, resurrected and ready to create worlds, will God still be testing us, requiring sacrifice for eternity?

No.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Thanks for playing;

I respect your thoughts on this. I am not convinced that it will be required in the next life and I don’t know what purpose it would serve, but I don’t spend time thinking about it. I trust Heavenly Father. 

You're welcome!  

Neither do I know what purpose it would serve, other than preventing exalted women from being required to be alone for eternity. Because it is my belief that more men than women will be worthy of exaltation. My reasons for believing so have been expressed in other threads. Do you want me to repeat those reasons here?

I, too, trust Heavenly Father.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think I've exhausted myself explaining my reasoning on this in many other threads. But here we go, one more time...

Because I believe that more women than men will be exalted, and rather than leaving the worthy excess women to go it alone, there will be plural marriage in Eternity.

No.

Thanks. In the future, as far as I am concerned, you can just say “my usual explanation that women will exceed men” as that will cue me into what you are talking about and remind me we have had this discussion before while the brevity will tell me you aren’t interested in going into detail yet again…or you can do like Smac and save up a response that particularly satisfied you and just copy/paste it in again . I remember the arguments, don’t always attach them to the right people though. 
 

I figure I don’t need to repeat myself either as you no doubt remember my response if not that it was me, at least the content well enough…which for others reading is me pointing out it is unreasonable to me simply based on numbers plus knowing women as I do and a few men, I don’t buy the women are inherently more spiritual than men are claim. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Calm

[Peacefully]

37 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're welcome!  

Neither do I know what purpose it would serve, other than preventing exalted women from being required to be alone for eternity. Because it is my belief that more men than women will be worthy of exaltation. My reasons for believing so have been expressed in other threads. Do you want me to repeat those reasons here?

I, too, trust Heavenly Father.

No, I think reasonable minds can disagree:)

[pogi]

On 12/5/2021 at 6:30 AM, 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.

Joseph was sealed to around 11 women who were already married to other living men, many of which were active Latter-day Saints.  I wonder how many of these were already sealed to their husbands, or were sealed thereafter.  Would that not be polyandry?  

One sure case of polyandry was with Zina Huntington Young who was actually pregnant with her husband's (Henry Jacob's) child when she was sealed to Joseph Smith.  Later, after Joseph's death, she was also sealed to Brigham Young for time and had a child with him.  She was still married to her first husband Henry, and was never divorced.  

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by pogi

[Chum]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't mean setting aside the question permanently (never considering or dealing with it), just that the generational success of polygamy many generations hence is something that should be considered, too. It's not like the alleged universal misery of the participants is the only factor that can ever be considered --- especially in light of the Book of Mormon's stated purpose for polygamy (to raise up seed). 

Okay. I'm going to unset it aside though.

If we can see where a meaningful number of sisters / kids have expressed persistent hardship from polygamy, does the greater wisdom indicate that polygamy should be lauded or shunned?

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

One sure case of polyandry was with Zina Huntington Young who was actually pregnant with her husband's (Henry Jacob's) child when she was sealed to Joseph Smith.  Later, after Joseph's death, she was also sealed to Brigham Young for time and had a child with him.  She was still married to her first husband Henry, and was never divorced.  

A very sad tale....

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, Chum said:

Okay. I'm going to unset it aside though.

If we can see where a meaningful number of sisters / kids have expressed persistent hardship from polygamy, does the greater wisdom indicate that polygamy should be lauded or shunned?

Both. It's complicated. It should be both lauded and the problems with it should be frankly discussed and addressed. I won't pretend that it was easy or that it wasn't bad for many, but I think trying to nullify all the good solely because of the bad is a mistake. Especially since our sacred history is so tied to it. 

If the "apologize, disavow, and spit on it at every turn to demonstrate allegiance and obeisance" faction in the Church gets its way on polygamy, the priesthood ban, women ordination, and the family, then there won't be much remaining credibility left in the Church. Why would we assume that current prophets are reliable, when past ones have been so disavowed and memory-holed? Why would current prophets be any less prone to that? 

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thanks. In the future, as far as I am concerned, you can just say “my usual explanation that women will exceed men” as that will cue me into what you are talking about and remind me we have had this discussion before while the brevity will tell me you aren’t interested in going into detail yet again…or you can do like Smac and save up a response that particularly satisfied you and just copy/paste it in again . I remember the arguments, don’t always attach them to the right people though. 

Yep, sometimes I don't attach arguments to particular people, either. 

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I figure I don’t need to repeat myself either as you no doubt remember my response if not that it was me, at least the content well enough…which for others reading is me pointing out it is unreasonable to me simply based on numbers plus knowing women as I do and a few men, I don’t buy the women are inherently more spiritual than men are claim. 

Yes, I remember your responses to this, and both enjoy and appreciate your viewpoint.

And upon due consideration I think I have to run through this one more time with a different slant to it.

I actually don't know if the "women are inherently more spiritual than men" argument is valid, either. Have I used that as an argument, in those words before? I might have expressed it in that way at times in the past, but even so, it's not truly how I think of it. One way I have expressed it in the past, and comes closest to what I mean, is that simply put, more women than men will be judged worthy of exaltation. Why? I don't know, but I think the most likely reason that comes to me is that it is not a matter of inherent spirituality, but a matter of failure in the realm of DC 121:34-40. I believe I've expressed this before. And to pick just one verse out of the passage to represent the whole, it says "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." The use of the word "men" in this context is not the universal, meaning mankind, i.e. humankind, but males, since the passage explicitly refers to priesthood holders. And unrighteous dominion in the case of priesthood holders is a disqualifier, presumably for exaltation ("Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man"). This would be because Heavenly Father requires obedience to his Prime Directive, which is Free Agency. And those who cannot abide free agency, cannot do His job, which is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39) And His job is what exaltation entails.

I freely admit that I don't know if fewer women than men have a nature and disposition to exercise unrighteous dominion, but I think it's possible. 

It is certain that there are plenty of very spiritual people, both male and female, who are also control freaks and cannot be trusted with anyone's free agency. The past teaches us that that is certainly the case, and I've seen both males and females in this category. Do men predominate in this? I think so, at least grossly. It's hard to tell for sure, though, because in history, it is almost always men who are the despotic dictators. But that may be because of patriarchy, and women just haven't been given sufficient opportunities to be despots. A case in point might be Elena Ceaușescu, the wife of the communist dictator of Romania. She sought and obtained great authority in Romania, and was reputedly even more of a despot than her husband was.

But all along the way the view from my mind's eye sees this: the great number of faithful mothers who at great sacrifice to themselves, have selflessly raised and nurtured their children, sometimes alone due to the fecklessness and unfaithfulness of their husbands, and who go largely uncelebrated as history passes us by. If exalted, will their number exceed the number of men worthy to be elevated? I believe so, though of course I could be wrong.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to re-reflect on all this. 

 

 

 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And upon due consideration I think I have to run through this one more time with a different slant to it.

It is always the nuances that draw you back in, lol. 

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

If the "apologize, disavow, and spit on it at every turn to demonstrate allegiance and obeisance" faction in the Church gets its way on polygamy, the priesthood ban, women ordination, and the family, then there won't be much remaining credibility left in the Church. Why would we assume that current prophets are reliable, when past ones have been so disavowed and memory-holed? Why would current prophets be any less prone to that? 

At least for me, you just succinctly summarized exactly why I find the LDS Church's truth claims untenable.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

freely admit that I don't know if fewer women than men have a nature and disposition to exercise unrighteous dominion, but I think it's possible

I do think it highly, highly, highly unlikely. Hopefully that conveys my disbelief appropriately.  
 

It also seems to me that God would be a respecter of persons if he were to give a limited number of men an opportunity (the Priesthood) that created many more opportunities to damn themselves (meaning at least partial separation from God, not forever burnings in hell) while the rest of humanity didn’t even get a chance to take the risk (all women and all the men not born in times or locations where they could have a chance to accept the priesthood). It feels like loading the dice by giving a dangerous gift, like handing a teenager a Mercedes and then telling them they will lose all driving privileges if they go over a little over the speed limit more than 7 times or if they really blow past it once.  And many the kids were straight A students first or had already shown ability to be responsible, but it still feels like playing with loaded dice unless there is another equally dangerous opportunity presented to the rest of humanity when they also reach the same level of moral responsibility that the men gifted with the Priesthood had (in the Preexistence, assuming that is how they were measured as ready for the harder test the Priesthood is in this theory)…which would then give them plenty of chance to damn themselves, thus leading to equalization of numbers in the CK (unless there is an inherent attribute in women that makes them more prone to worthiness).
 

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/fast-and-fancy-13-of-the-worlds-fastest-luxury-cars/

Using “moral” and “morality” below for the attributes that lead us to use our agency choose worthiness over selfishness.

Bottomline (I hate that word, can anyone suggest a good alternative word or very short phrase), if women are similar morally (in a global sense, averaging out) as men in their personal attributes if presented with equal opportunities they should roughly fall into the same percentages of exaltation.

If women are similar in morality, but given tasks that are less likely to tempt them into damning themselves…God is loading dice. 
 

If women are not similar in their morality, but it is not opportunities that make them more moral, but personal attributes, how did they arrive at such morality if not an inherent quality?  Assuming here that we had female or male attributes even as intelligence, though I suppose God could have chosen the half of the intelligences that had somehow made better moral choices prior to becoming spirits and given them the sex of female, thus it wasn’t an inherent attribute of femaleness that led them to being more moral, but being more moral that led them to being female. 
 

But that seems to go against the Family Proclamation.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Calm

[Olmec Donald]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

One sure case of polyandry was with Zina Huntington Young who was actually pregnant with her husband's (Henry Jacob's) child when she was sealed to Joseph Smith.  Later, after Joseph's death, she was also sealed to Brigham Young for time and had a child with him.  She was still married to her first husband Henry, and was never divorced. 

Many years ago when I was doing an amateur inquiry into early Church history, I bought as many books as I could find which contained journal entries from the Nauvoo and early Utah Valley eras.  Among the journal entries were many descriptions of miraculous healings.  And one name kept coming up over and over as the person who administered the blessing which resulted in the miraculous healing, someone I had never even heard of before:

Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young.

I came away from my books with the (unanticipated) opinion that she was probably the greatest healer in the history of the LDS Church. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

 If the "apologize, disavow, and spit on it at every turn to demonstrate allegiance and obeisance" faction in the Church gets its way on polygamy, the priesthood ban, women ordination, and the family, then there won't be much remaining credibility left in the Church. Why would we assume that current prophets are reliable, when past ones have been so disavowed and memory-holed? Why would current prophets be any less prone to that? 

That's because they're determined to make God in their own image.  They don't want God, they want their idea of God.  And the prophets have always known that.

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds." Elder Holland

“There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger [a piece of corn bread] for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle [a wooden mallet]. Even the Saints are slow to understand. I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen." Joseph Smith

Nothing has changed.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because they're determined to make God in their own image.  They don't want God, they want their idea of God.  And the prophets have always known that.

"Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds." Elder Holland

“There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger [a piece of corn bread] for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle [a wooden mallet]. Even the Saints are slow to understand. I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen." Joseph Smith

Nothing has changed.

I find it helpful to periodically remind myself that if God always agrees with me, something has gone off the rails and I need to reconsider some things.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I find it helpful to periodically remind myself that if God always agrees with me, something has gone off the rails and I need to reconsider some things.

If following God doesn't try our faith to its upmost something has gone off the rails.

It's really not supposed to be easy to live in a Celestial manner while in this Telestial environment.  It's supposed to have many trials to increase faith and determination to follow.

That's why the early Brethren feared for the day persecution for following the gospel would cease.

[Olmec Donald]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If following God doesn't try our faith to its upmost something has gone off the rails.

It's really not supposed to be easy to live in a Celestial manner while in this Telestial environment.

I understand that statement, and don't disagree with you.  But perhaps there is a valid perspective from which things look different?

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I understand that statement, and don't disagree with you.  But perhaps there is a valid perspective from which things look different?

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Sure, it's remarkable how much lighter things feel when you stop fighting against what God wants.

The stories of the Saints rejoicing during the worst trials are innumerable.  Nowadays the stories of members complaining about the most minor inconveniences are on par to the rejoicing.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I understand that statement, and don't disagree with you.  But perhaps there is a valid perspective from which things look different?

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

 

Still waiting for that one to kick in.

[teddyaware]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Joseph was sealed to around 11 women who were already married to other living men, many of which were active Latter-day Saints.  I wonder how many of these were already sealed to their husbands, or were sealed thereafter.  Would that not be polyandry?  

One sure case of polyandry was with Zina Huntington Young who was actually pregnant with her husband's (Henry Jacob's) child when she was sealed to Joseph Smith.  Later, after Joseph's death, she was also sealed to Brigham Young for time and had a child with him.  She was still married to her first husband Henry, and was never divorced.  

 

I guess you missed my followup post.

[Olmec Donald]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Still waiting for that one to kick in.

I think I have some idea of how ludicrous "my yoke is easy, my burden is light" can sound.  It's like, Yeah, Jesus, good one!  Tell me another!

[dodges lightning bolt]

The Nehor, how about this:

IF you would like, I will take a shot at describing a perspective from which "my yoke is easy, my burden is light" is hopefully plausible, but it might take me time to compose, and many more words than JLHPROF's succinct response.  And I'd probably want to start a new thread to avoid hijacking/derailing. 

It would be an interesting challenge, so just say the word and I'll begin the process of word processing.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Joseph was sealed to around 11 women who were already married to other living men, many of which were active Latter-day Saints.  I wonder how many of these were already sealed to their husbands, or were sealed thereafter.  Would that not be polyandry?  

One sure case of polyandry was with Zina Huntington Young who was actually pregnant with her husband's (Henry Jacob's) child when she was sealed to Joseph Smith.  Later, after Joseph's death, she was also sealed to Brigham Young for time and had a child with him.  She was still married to her first husband Henry, and was never divorced.  

We will never understand these things until we can view marriage as they began to at that time.

To us in the Church today all heterosexual marriage is seen as ok with God, just differing degrees.

At that time a sharp distinction was made between civil marriage, priesthood marriage for time only, and eternal marriage.

To us we see "ahhh three marriages, polyandry.".  They came to see only one as valid at a given time depending the configuration.  But that doesn't fit the narrative people like to push with this "polyandry".

We either learn to see marriage through their eyes or we continue to shake our heads in a futile attempt to understand them. 🤷

[Calm]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

To us we see "ahhh three marriages, polyandry.".  They came to see only one as valid at a given time depending the configuration.  But that doesn't fit the narrative people like to push with this "polyandry".

Why should we assume a later interpretation of polyandry was correct?  And I am not criticizing you, but you are right Imo that we need to understand marriage as they did. How do I know you “only one as valid” is how they saw it and not your own misinterpretation.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why should we assume a later interpretation of polyandry was correct?  And I am not criticizing you, but you are right Imo that we need to understand marriage as they did. How do I know you “only one as valid” is how they saw it and not your own misinterpretation.

Because there is some historical evidence of this viewpoint in the record.  After sealing was introduced some Saints viewed their civil marriages as non-binding.  And the Levirate covenant Hyrum made concerning Mercy and Robert Thompson is well documented.

I am unaware of a single record from that time period that shows an understanding of eternal polyandry.

But I'm open to correction from the record.

[kimpearson]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think I've exhausted myself explaining my reasoning on this in many other threads. But here we go, one more time...

Because I believe that more women than men will be exalted, and rather than leaving the worthy excess women to go it alone, there will be plural marriage in Eternity.

 

I will ask once again.  How does your belief work with the doctrinal belief that all children who die before the age of eight go to the celestial kingdom?  Many billions have died before the age of 8.  5 to 7 million children under 5 die currently each year.   Are you saying those children aren't available for marriage in the celestial kingdom?