Is there divorce in the celestial kingdom?

[manol]

Oops double post

Edited June 1, 2022 by manol

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I was referring to the things of an after life.

The word theory in science means something different than what most think when they use the word theory. For example, in science the htoery of evolution is not a simple theory that scientists sort of think is correct.  It is a theory with numerous hypothesis's that have been tested, evidence reviewed and so on to the point most scientiests would call the theory of evolution pretty much a fact with certainty. 

Ok.

I loved being psychoanalyzed on a message board. 😉  No it is not a coping mechanism.  It is a certainty if you will, that as far as what happens after death there is little certainty.  What God is, does God exist, what will we be doing, is there really marriage in a heaven, is the view or Mormonism right and so on is far from certainty.  Even though most here and on this thread talk as if they know for a certainty what happens.  The don't. They may have really strong faith and beliefs. They may have personal experiences that convince them that what they strongly believe is relatively certain. But it isn't certain. 

Changed my mind.

It wasn't my intention to psychoanalyze.  I apologize.

Edited June 1, 2022 by bluebell

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Changed my mind.

It wasn't my intention to psychoanalyze.  I apologize.

Thank you!  😁

[Jaydes]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you differentiating between polygamy and plural marriage or speaking of the past practice of the Church and the current sealing of multiple spouses if only one is living?  If the latter, please share your reasoning. 

I am not differentiating between polygamy and plural marriage, as practiced by mormon sects historically. as for the latter, I am not personally in favor of its validity, but i cannot speak so authoritatively on that one there is not much information on that and it is ultimately between them and God.

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Polygamy is not adultery, so that statement doesn't follow.

By definition, it is impossible to practice polygamy without committing adultery.  Especially under the Lord's much stricter regulations on marriage.

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Read the following verses from Doctrine and Covenants 132 and you’ll learn the Lord himself declares that polygamy, when entered into and practiced his way, is not adultery.

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

and… 

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

That is making the pre-assumption that Section 132 is a word of the Lord and not the word of Man. A particularly risky pre-assumption, too, in light of the sections manuscript history and blatant contradiction to prior accepted revelations and scripture.

14 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Greetings,  not trying to be difficult.  This is the first time I have come across this idea.

It is certainly uncommon in Mormonism, but it is the reasonable conclusion of the scriptures and earlier prophetic teachings.

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

By definition, it is impossible to practice polygamy without committing adultery.  Especially under the Lord's much stricter regulations on marriage.

Google disagrees.

a·dul·ter·y

/əˈdəlt(ə)rē/

noun

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

Polygamy doesn't fall under the meaning of the word adultery.  You know, by definition. 🤷

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Jaydes]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Google disagrees.

a·dul·ter·y

/əˈdəlt(ə)rē/

noun

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

Polygamy doesn't fall under the meaning of the word adultery.  You know, by definition. 🤷

 

Under Jesus's definition of adultery, even to lust after someone you are not married to is adultery, and it would be difficult to court additional spouses without doing this. And even after you get past that point, marriage as defined in the word of God is between one man and one woman. You could put on an additional ceremony and call other people married to you, but that does not make it so under God, and there is no valid reason to practice polygamy that does not boil down to an adulterous heart.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

Under Jesus's definition of adultery, even to lust after someone you are not married to is adultery, and it would be difficult to court additional spouses without doing this. And even after you get past that point, marriage as defined in the word of God is between one man and one woman. You could put on an additional ceremony and call other people married to you, but that does not make it so under God, and there is no valid reason to practice polygamy that does not boil down to an adulterous heart.

Well Jesus managed it.

Edited June 2, 2022 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

On 6/1/2022 at 9:52 PM, Jaydes said:

Under Jesus's definition of adultery, even to lust after someone you are not married to is adultery, and it would be difficult to court additional spouses without doing this. And even after you get past that point, marriage as defined in the word of God is between one man and one woman. You could put on an additional ceremony and call other people married to you, but that does not make it so under God, and there is no valid reason to practice polygamy that does not boil down to an adulterous heart.

It may be helpful to point out that the word used for lust in the Bible is the same one used for covet. It is not sexual desire alone. It is also not entirely negative. Paul uses the same word in Philippians to talk about ‘lusting’ to die and be with Christ.

[teddyaware]

On 6/1/2022 at 7:52 PM, Jaydes said:

Under Jesus's definition of adultery, even to lust after someone you are not married to is adultery, and it would be difficult to court additional spouses without doing this. And even after you get past that point, marriage as defined in the word of God is between one man and one woman. You could put on an additional ceremony and call other people married to you, but that does not make it so under God, and there is no valid reason to practice polygamy that does not boil down to an adulterous heart.

By this I presume you believe father Abraham, the “father of the faithful” and the great patriarch so often praised in the Bible for his tremendous faith and righteousness, had a lustful and adulterous heart?

Edited June 5, 2022 by teddyaware

[webbles]

On 6/1/2022 at 8:52 PM, Jaydes said:

Under Jesus's definition of adultery, even to lust after someone you are not married to is adultery, and it would be difficult to court additional spouses without doing this. And even after you get past that point, marriage as defined in the word of God is between one man and one woman. You could put on an additional ceremony and call other people married to you, but that does not make it so under God, and there is no valid reason to practice polygamy that does not boil down to an adulterous heart.

That's why some of the fundamentalist Mormons say that the woman has to initiate the courtship.

I also have a relative (long dead) where the first wife did all of the courtship.  The husband and wife decided they needed to enter into polygamy and she picked the second wife and began the courtship.  I also have another relative where the woman told her bishop that she had a vision that she needed to marry an already married man (this is pre-1890).  When the married man learned of it, he told his wife that he didn't want to be polygamist and would say no to the woman.  His wife reprimanded him and he did marry her.

In both of those cases, you can't call the man adulterous since he didn't initiate it.  It was all done by the women.  Are they adulterous?

[Jaydes]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

That's why some of the fundamentalist Mormons say that the woman has to initiate the courtship.

I also have a relative (long dead) where the first wife did all of the courtship.  The husband and wife decided they needed to enter into polygamy and she picked the second wife and began the courtship.  I also have another relative where the woman told her bishop that she had a vision that she needed to marry an already married man (this is pre-1890).  When the married man learned of it, he told his wife that he didn't want to be polygamist and would say no to the woman.  His wife reprimanded him and he did marry her.

In both of those cases, you can't call the man adulterous since he didn't initiate it.  It was all done by the women.  Are they adulterous?

He may not have initiated it, but he married (and was presumably sexually intimate with) another woman while already married, and thus it is still adultery. His initiation or lack thereof is irrelevant, any participation in polygamy is adultery, and his wife at the least was an accessory to it.

[Meadowchik]

According to the covenant there is only marriage in the celestial kingdom. And there's going to be individuals there who, at some point between life and the celestial kingdom, will have their temple marriage severed and then replaced with a spouse who kept their covenants.

So, in atleast some cases, very possibly yes.

[Jaydes]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

By this I presume you believe father Abraham, the “father of the faithful” and the great patriarch so often praised in the Bible for his tremendous faith and righteousness, had a lustful and adulterous heart?

In his polygamy yes. As well as a regrettable lack of faith, in that particular instance as was part of the moral there.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

also have a relative (long dead) where the first wife did all of the courtship.  The husband and wife decided they needed to enter into polygamy and she picked the second wife and began the courtship. 

Slightly different, my great…gran brought up the topic and told her husband to go get permission to enter into a plural marriage and told him he should court a particular woman for this purpose if she was interested, but I believe he was the one who approached his soon to be second wife.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

In his polygamy yes. As well as a regrettable lack of faith, in that particular instance as was part of the moral there.

And those who marry again after a spouse is dead, are they committing adultery in your view and if not, why not?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jaydes said:

He may not have initiated it, but he married (and was presumably sexually intimate with) another woman while already married, and thus it is still adultery. His initiation or lack thereof is irrelevant, any participation in polygamy is adultery, and his wife at the least was an accessory to it.

He was intimate with his wife, therefore NOT adultery.  You cannot commit adultery with your spouse.

Edited June 5, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Chum]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You cannot commit adultery with your spouse.

Challenge accepted.

First thing that occurs is sex with the ex, where the couple is fully apart and is committed to dissolution. The divorce is in process but not finalized.

[Chum]

So based on Church teaching, in which post-death periods can marriage occur? In reading the thread, I'm not seeing a consensus about it.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

That's why some of the fundamentalist Mormons say that the woman has to initiate the courtship.

I also have a relative (long dead) where the first wife did all of the courtship.  The husband and wife decided they needed to enter into polygamy and she picked the second wife and began the courtship.  I also have another relative where the woman told her bishop that she had a vision that she needed to marry an already married man (this is pre-1890).  When the married man learned of it, he told his wife that he didn't want to be polygamist and would say no to the woman.  His wife reprimanded him and he did marry her.

In both of those cases, you can't call the man adulterous since he didn't initiate it.  It was all done by the women.  Are they adulterous?

Hi possible second or third cousin.

[Chum]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hi possible second or third cousin.

My family work is largely 15+ gen removed but most of the interesting marriages (cousins, friends swapping wives) are much closer to me.

[Jaydes]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And those who marry again after a spouse is dead, are they committing adultery in your view and if not, why not?

I personally lean towards that idea. Especially in a Mormon framework.  Which is why I personally fully intend to not be remarried, were I ever put in that situation. However when it comes to other people, I have resolved that to be a matter entirely between them and God. Because it is a more complicated and vague situation, that may even be arguably permitted by God as opposed to the wholesale condemnation of polygamy. Were it to be a valid form of marriage however, I would lean towards it being a for time only sort of deal. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Jaydes

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Jaydes said:

He may not have initiated it, but he married (and was presumably sexually intimate with) another woman while already married, and thus it is still adultery. His initiation or lack thereof is irrelevant, any participation in polygamy is adultery, and his wife at the least was an accessory to it.

That's an interesting definition of adultery, because adultery normally means that it is between a married person and someone they aren't married to.  So, if I happen to marry two people, I am not adulterous, I'm bigamous or polygamous.  Where do you get this new definition?  I'm pretty sure it isn't biblical.

[The Nehor]

So what if I have a primary partner and two secondary partners and two friends with benefits and a few casual sex play partners?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

So what if I have a primary partner and two secondary partners and two friends with benefits and a few casual sex play partners?

Then you're looking at a very lonely eternity.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Then you're looking at a very lonely eternity.

Hmmmm…..well, at least mortality is doing its work to prepare me for eternity.