Follow Up - Sealing Approaches and Polygamy

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It doesn't say much for Joseph and Brigham either if they got so much revelation incorrect that it's taken 190 years to figure out even basic truths.

Joseph received a mass of revelation to get things going, so I think if you compared the amount he was given to lay the foundation to the amount that has been changed or actually disavowed (vs added to or clarified), the percentage is likely quite low, imo.  But then that percentage probably depends on what is included as revelation and what is separated out as a revelation as multiple ideas given in one address could be treated as one revelation or multiple ones.

I would like to see Brigham’s revelations divided into written or dictated and then proofed by Brigham, spoken and transcribed and proofed by Brigham, and last, spoken and transcribed, but not proofed by Brigham and then compare which category has been altered or disavowed the most, what percentage, etc.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

when God sees that what he has revealed is understood I believe He is willing to reveal more.

And such new revelation may be delivered in my opinion by providing a new experience connected with a principle that will lead prophets to view the original revelation in a new way.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I find this both fascinating and accurate.  The emphasis on building family kingdoms began in Joseph's day and continued all the way up to the end of the Law of Adoption in the Church.
The emphasis after that was often on lineage and birthright blessings (including race, tribal assignments in patriarchal blessings, family history sealing etc).  Today the emphasis has moved entirely to forever families, particularly the nuclear family in eternity

Are they really that different or is it more just language and changing social context changing the connotations attached to them (which changes ideas about them… ideas surrounding the concept of royalty vs the concept of lineage vs the concept of family) so that once the connection to God is conveyed by one term, but is later better conveyed by a different term as society’s understanding of the first term changes (kings for example become viewed as more distant, more of a dictator…often oppressive, is more about political power and less connected to the land and the people in the social perspective)…..why can’t a kingdom be composed of those belonging to a particular bloodline, which is simply another way to define an extended family group of nuclear families.  Lineage is simply family through time, a kingdom can be composed of a very large extended family, a nuclear family exists within the bounds of a greater family/kingdom linked though lineage.  In the end it is all the same thing, just as the King is the same as the Patriarch, who is the same as the Father.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are they really that different or is it more language changing (which changes ideas about them), but why can’t a kingdom be composed of those belonging to a particular bloodline, which is simply another way to define an extended family group of nuclear families.

Well it can.  That's why doctrinally all three are correct.  The fascinating part is how the paradigm we approach from has changed over the decades.  To the point of the OP we simply can't understand anyone believing the blessings of being sealed into a family kingdom via polygamy would be desirable.  Because we picture eternal families and the goals of sealing completely differently than they did.

Our hopes, goals, and desires for eternal family sealing have changed perspective, even though the doctrine remains fairly constant.

[manol]

 

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am convinced they had more light in knowledge during the the mid 1800s than remains in the Church today.

I agree with this in some areas, but not in all areas.

At this time my opinion is that the teachings of Jesus Christ as preserved in the Gospels (and in a few other New Testament writings) contain more light than any religious teachings which have come along before or since.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It would solve any gender ratio disparities in the next life, solve the problem of who you end up with when you had two spouses in your life and love and want to be with both, and it welds more people together with the sealing power into kingdoms and lineages.

Not seeing the downside here.

I'm not seeing a downside either.

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." - Jesus Christ

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." - Jesus Christ

I'm well aware the LDS Church interprets that second teaching as being about people who have not been sealed in the temple, and who therefore will be ministering "angels" to those who have been sealed.   Given how many times Jesus taught something higher than anyone else has before or since, I'm no longer convinced by the argument that he was teaching something so watered-down as to come across as the exact opposite of what the truth actually is.  On the contrary, I think he was teaching that, at the highest level, relationships are not exclusive, but rather are inclusive, without going into the specifics.  (And personally I do not think that relationships at the highest level are about sex.)

Regarding baptism for the dead, Joseph Smith said, "For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect."   If this statement is true, and if baptism for the dead and other temple work is carried out to completion, well what we end up with is arguably very much inclusive rather than exclusive, especially if we all need one another in order for any of us to be made perfect. 

So while we can arrive at the same end-point either way, Jesus' teachings go right straight to inclusiveness, rather than going through a collection of religious teachings and ceremonies which emphasize exclusivity before eventually arriving back at inclusivity.  But we can get there either way, so one path is not "better" than the other, especially since all things will give us experience and work together for our good.  So there may well be many, many more possible paths than just these two.

In my opinion. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by manol

[CV75]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well it can.  That's why doctrinally all three are correct.  The fascinating part is how the paradigm we approach from has changed over the decades.  To the point of the OP we simply can't understand anyone believing the blessings of being sealed into a family kingdom via polygamy would be desirable.  Because we picture eternal families and the goals of sealing completely differently than they did.

Our hopes, goals, and desires for eternal family sealing have changed perspective, even though the doctrine remains fairly constant.

And there is nothing wrong with that: the fathers and the children ultimately share their perspectives gained in mortality and mutually realize them in the Church of the Firstborn. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Remember we aren't just talking of our views of family or marriage (save that for the other thread 😉).

We're focusing on how we view the purpose and goal of sealing and how that specifically changed over time.

How would these alternative families fit into a kingdom view?  A lineage view?  Etc.  Do they fulfill the doctrinal purposes connected with sealing doctrines?

Of course they can fit. The idea that they can't is the problem.

For example- lets say a single woman adopts children, is it unfathomable to think that she could be sealed to those children without a spouse? It hasn't happened, so it would be new, but why not allow this woman and her children to be a part of God's eternal kingdom? Lineage of adoption is already a thing. Keep in mind that the concept of "doctrine" is, and always has been fluid.

Another example- lets say a couple is sealed and then divorces and then each is sealed to new people and then divorce and then are resealed etc. Does requiring sealing cancellations broaden or lessen the kingdom? I don't know but it seems that every day examples can be found in which individuals and couples and their children are not permitted to be sealed, which in essence rejects their ability to have the blessings of nuclear family sealing, reduces the number included in the Kingdom etc.

We know the church's ideal. We know the church has experimented with relationships outside of the ideal (polygamy and polyandry) to make the blessings more widely available to people. It's not unfathomable to see them take that same approach but with different groups of currently unwelcome people.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Why?  Even those families sealed in this life are frequently not with questions of how it will work out.  Adopted children, for example….if their biological parents become exalted along with their adoptive sealed parents, why couldn’t the children be sealed to their bio parents as well, especially if the bio parents had not given up their bio children for selfish reasons or were abusive parents, but had died or were not able to care for them for some reason, but still dearly loved their children and saw them as part of them as other parents who raised their children did.  Or if the sealed husband dies and the wife remarries and reproduces and raises children with her second husband who she is not sealed to while living…yet is sealed to after death.

IMO, “things will be worked out in eternity” applies to every last family and individual that has existed.

IMO the "things will work out" is a cop out. While it is humble enough to recognize that we don't have all of the answers, the church and leaders then go on to exclude lots of people and families as if they did and then discount them as if because God can fix it, their actions of rejection and lack of inclusion is insignificant. it's almost as if it's a blanket absolution from teaching doctrines and creating policies that hurt people because God will fix it later. Instead of being exclusionary and claiming things will work out in eternity, the church could be inclusive and then claim things will work out in eternity.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Nonsense. I'm a single male who's never married. No real prospects. I have complete faith that things will be worked out in eternity.

In the meantime, the blessings of the Restored Gospel are so reliably, consistently, and predictably wonderful and abundant in the here and now that I seldom even think about the future.

Its great that it works for you. 

It would also be great if you were able to recognize that it doesn't work for many people. It's not hard to empathize with people who find pain and anxiety in the vast uncertainty of "the next life will fix it". Great for the next life...maybe. Doesn't do much for this one though.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course they can fit. The idea that they can't is the problem.

For example- lets say a single woman adopts children, is it unfathomable to think that she could be sealed to those children without a spouse? It hasn't happened, so it would be new, but why not allow this woman and her children to be a part of God's eternal kingdom?

Because it creates the idea that blessings can be received without obedience to the requisite laws.  Scripture is clear that blessings are only received if the attached laws are obeyed.

D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

What is the law concerning eternal families?

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

No exaltation without eternal marriage.

D&C 132:17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

The idea that the laws don't apply or that there are a second set of previously unknown laws to address all the possible exceptions we can create is simply wishful thinking.
There is no exaltation or eternal family outside of the male/female eternal unit.  Period.  Yes, it is unfathomable that she could be sealed to those children without a spouse.  A mother and a father is the eternal requirement.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO the "things will work out" is a cop out. While it is humble enough to recognize that we don't have all of the answers, the church and leaders then go on to exclude lots of people and families as if they did and then discount them as if because God can fix it, their actions of rejection and lack of inclusion is insignificant. it's almost as if it's a blanket absolution from teaching doctrines and creating policies that hurt people because God will fix it later. Instead of being exclusionary and claiming things will work out in eternity, the church could be inclusive and then claim things will work out in eternity.

Not really, since faithful obedience is preferred over faithful sacrifice, and we are each called upon to sacrifice all things. Obedience is preferred over sacrifice because that is how we get the Spirit and the Lord’s grace to attend our sacrifice and any difficult thing we face or engage in. We are invited to recognize the sealing power in deciding what to obey, and the Lord will honor our obedience and sacrifice made at whatever level of perfection we enjoy, from the least ot the greatest.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Because it creates the idea that blessings can be received without obedience to the requisite laws.  Scripture is clear that blessings are only received if the attached laws are obeyed.

D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

What is the law concerning eternal families?

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

No exaltation without eternal marriage.

D&C 132:17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

The idea that the laws don't apply or that there are a second set of previously unknown laws to address all the possible exceptions we can create is simply wishful thinking.
There is no exaltation or eternal family outside of the male/female eternal unit.  Period.  Yes, it is unfathomable that she could be sealed to those children without a spouse.  A mother and a father is the eternal requirement.

I never said laws don't apply. I question the accuracy of the declared laws.

I'm pretty sure this "everlasting Covenant of Marriage" was referring to polygamy at the time. MANY people will argue that to receive exaltation one must be entered into polygamous marriage. I'm sure you're aware of this.

And lest we forget, polygamy at the time was a societal taboo. It was one of the twin barbarisms (along with slavery) in the US. So if a man can pronounce God's law in favor of one of the twin barbarisms and seal it in a temple despite societal disapproval, then I would imagine God would be able to broaden the definition (or at least our understanding of it) of who is and is not capable of being a part of God's kingdom via sealing.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I never said laws don't apply. I question the accuracy of the declared laws.

I'm pretty sure this "everlasting Covenant of Marriage" was referring to polygamy at the time. MANY people will argue that to receive exaltation one must be entered into polygamous marriage. I'm sure you're aware of this.

And lest we forget, polygamy at the time was a societal taboo. It was one of the twin barbarisms (along with slavery) in the US. So if a man can pronounce God's law in favor of one of the twin barbarisms and seal it in a temple despite societal disapproval, then I would imagine God would be able to broaden the definition (or at least our understanding of it) of who is and is not capable of being a part of God's kingdom via sealing.

Polygamy is not outside the sealing as revealed.
There is no sealing ordinance available outside of the husband/wife or father/mother/child version.

It simply doesn't exist.  There has only been 1 authorized exception to this rule in the entire history of the restoration and it's considered extremely offensive to just about everyone now.
I'm not in the habit of questioning the accuracy of scripture.

The issue with SS sealings has nothing to do with societal taboo.  Polygamy was a societal taboo, but it still fit within scriptural guidelines of sealing relationships.
SS marriage never can.  Single parenthood never can.  Mother/Father/Child is the ONLY family format in eternity - even if there are multiple Mother/Father pairings.   Of that I'm absolutely certain.

[The Nehor]

The bigger problem with the “God will work it all out” idea is that it diminishes the ordinances themselves. If (as we are taught) they are tied to potential blessings then those who do not receive them do not get those blessings in the here and now. If “God will work it all out” and “don’t worry because you will get the ordinances and blessings eventually” is true then why do the ordinances at all in mortality? Just wait for the Millenium and take care of it all then. If there are actual spiritual advantages now then being denied them is weakening people.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The bigger problem with the “God will work it all out” idea is that it diminishes the ordinances themselves. If (as we are taught) they are tied to potential blessings then those who do not receive them do not get those blessings in the here and now. If “God will work it all out” and “don’t worry because you will get the ordinances and blessings eventually” is true then why do the ordinances at all in mortality? Just wait for the Millenium and take care of it all then. If there are actual spiritual advantages now then being denied them is weakening people.

Agency is the answer to the question.
God works out what we are unable to work out.  God doesn't work out what we have the opportunity to accept and then reject.

[manol]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO the "things will work out" is a cop out. While it is humble enough to recognize that we don't have all of the answers, the church and leaders then go on to exclude lots of people and families as if they did...

 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The bigger problem with the “God will work it all out” idea is that it diminishes the ordinances themselves. If (as we are taught) they are tied to potential blessings then those who do not receive them do not get those blessings in the here and now...

 

If we believe in God (and specifically in a God who is good and fair and who loves us) more than we believe in each of the doctrines and policies of the LDS Church, then "God will work it all out" makes sense and speaks peace to our souls.

If we believe in each of the doctrines and policies of the LDS Church more than we believe in a God who is good and fair and who loves us, then "God will work it all out" may not make sense and may seem like deception.   

Which are we first and foremost - followers of Christ, or followers of a Church?  Well, whose name do we take upon ourselves?  Who do we covenant to "always remember" every time we take the sacrament?  Who are we supposed to become like?  Whose name do we pray in?  Whose name do we act in?  Who is among us wherever two or more are gathered in his name?  Who is the Vine that we are the Branches of?  Anybody see a pattern here?

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by manol

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, manol said:

Which are we first and foremost - followers of Christ, or followers of a Church?  

Is this a valid distinction or a false dichotomy?

Quote

Well, whose name do we take upon ourselves?  Who do we covenant to "always remember" every time we take the sacrament? 

How is this accomplished?  Only through the ordinances of the Church, one of which includes confirming membership in that Church.  The second restricted in scripture only to members of the Church.

Quote

 Who is the Vine that we are the Branches of? 

This is a reference to priesthood authority originating in Christ - again only obtainable through his Church.

It's not an either/or.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Agency is the answer to the question.
God works out what we are unable to work out.  God doesn't work out what we have the opportunity to accept and then reject.

That doesn’t address the dilemma I presented at all.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, manol said:

 

 

If we believe in God (and specifically in a God who is good and fair and who loves us) more than we believe in each of the doctrines and policies of the LDS Church, then "God will work it all out" makes sense and speaks peace to our souls.

If we believe in each of the doctrines and policies of the LDS Church more than we believe in a God who is good and fair and who loves us, then "God will work it all out" may not make sense and may seem like deception.   

Which are we first and foremost - followers of Christ, or followers of a Church?  Well, whose name do we take upon ourselves?  Who do we covenant to "always remember" every time we take the sacrament?  Who are we supposed to become like?  Whose name do we pray in?  Whose name do we act in?  Who is among us wherever two or more are gathered in his name?  Who is the Vine that we are the Branches of?  Anybody see a pattern here?

 

 

That doesn’t really deal with it either. It just suggests that a different mindset will make the situation meaningless.

[manol]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is this a valid distinction or a false dichotomy?

Unless the doctrines and policies of the Church are now and always have been infallible, being first and foremost a follower of Christ, and being first and foremost a follower of the Church, are not necessarily the exact same thing. 

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

How is this accomplished?  Only through the ordinances of the Church, one of which includes confirming membership in that Church.  The second restricted in scripture only to members of the Church.

And I agree with the message of putting Christ first that the Church is teaching to its members via the wording used in these ordinances.

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This is a reference to priesthood authority originating in Christ - again only obtainable through his Church.

I agree that those words (spoken at the Last Supper) are about something which originates in Christ. I believe they are descriptive of our relationship with Christ on a fundamental level, and are not about something which is only accessible to Church members who are priesthood holders, and would exclude not only most of God's children but also most Church members.

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not an either/or.

Quoting your words:  "I am convinced they had more light [and] knowledge during the mid 1800s than remains in the Church today."

Do you follow the "higher light and knowledge" of the mid-1800's, or do you follow what "remains in the Church today"?   Or do you somehow do both? 

I'm not really trying to back you into a corner - I'm just pointing out that the doctrines and policies of the Church are not infallible, which implies that a reasonable person may choose to follow higher light and knowledge than what the Church teaches. 

If you believe Christ wants you to follow the Church first and foremost, such that doing the one implies doing the other, then I respect your belief. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by manol

[manol]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That doesn’t really deal with it either. It just suggests that a different mindset will make the situation meaningless.

A different mindset is exactly what will make the difference. 

"You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.” - Albert Einstein

"No man putteth new wine into old bottles... new wine must be put into new bottles" - Jesus Christ

"Behold I make all things new." - Jesus Christ

"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."  - Jesus Christ

Imo this last quote suggests that the paradigm shift implied by the preceding quotes is well worthwhile. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by manol

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO the "things will work out" is a cop out. While it is humble enough to recognize that we don't have all of the answers, the church and leaders then go on to exclude lots of people and families as if they did and then discount them as if because God can fix it, their actions of rejection and lack of inclusion is insignificant. it's almost as if it's a blanket absolution from teaching doctrines and creating policies that hurt people because God will fix it later. Instead of being exclusionary and claiming things will work out in eternity, the church could be inclusive and then claim things will work out in eternity.

That is the problem with saying the prophets are speaking directly with God and we are to believe what the prophets say because of it. No religion seems better IMO and having your own faith and relationship seems the safer bet. If this church is the only church that is the truest one or the one, then why would God fail so many times with saying one thing and it being wrong or doctrine changes or doctrine harms as in the problem with whom will we be with in the eternities. How about we'll be with our families period.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, manol said:

A different mindset is exactly what will make the difference. 

"You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.” - Albert Einstein

"No man putteth new wine into old bottles... new wine must be put into new bottles" - Jesus Christ

"Behold I make all things new." - Jesus Christ

"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."  - Jesus Christ

Imo this last quote suggests that the paradigm shift implied by the preceding quotes is well worthwhile. 

Then perhaps when God eventually destroys the old bottle of my mind and body I will see it.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is the problem with saying the prophets are speaking directly with God and we are to believe what the prophets say because of it. No religion seems better IMO and having your own faith and relationship seems the safer bet. If this church is the only church that is the truest one or the one, then why would God fail so many times with saying one thing and it being wrong or doctrine changes or doctrine harms as in the problem with whom will we be with in the eternities. How about we'll be with our families period.

Scripture disagrees.  Unless you reject the scriptures AND the prophets.

But the issue with that is you would have no knowledge of God remaining.  You can't reject the New Testament and claim a belief in Christ.  99% of what we know about Christ is in the New Testament.

Similarly you can't claim a belief in eternal families and reject D&C 130-132.  99% of knowledge about eternal family comes from those sections.

If you reject the source of the belief all that's left is imagination.

[manol]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then perhaps when God eventually destroys the old bottle of my mind and body I will see it.

For all I know Earth is a gymnasium for spirits, and you signed up for the hardest stations and the heaviest weights.  Who am I to question how many reps you can do.