Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Exaltation for single women


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

No one is arguing that people not worthy of being sealed will stayed sealed eternally to anyone.

Yep!

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Calm said:

No argument here. My guess is it hasn’t changed to keep up with technology simply because of tradition (even though widowhood might make it clear who the father is given a big enough gap, that would be the exception; there is for also some reason a greater eewww factor for a woman having multiple husbands than the reverse on my experience, it is more often phrases in the past as from the man’s experience/POV as in men sharing a woman vs a man having a different experience with different women).  Some people have such a hard time getting their head around a woman sealed/married to multiple men while it is SOP for a man to be sealed/married to multiple women. What is the difference in need?

Does a man need more wives while a woman can’t handle more than one husband (even if sharing the husband with other women).

It made sense when women and children were little more than property and men wanted ‘clear title’ to their wives and inheritance followed bloodlines more than personal preference or equal division among children, etc. Now when even in mortality, we can track biological parenthood as well as legal parenthood and men can no longer essentially own their wives, it becomes a matter of faith, imo, in tradition. It’s done that way because it has always been done that way. 

Anecdotally women tend to hand polyamory better than men do. Better is very relative here though. Men tend to love it until they realize it usually goes both ways and then they fall to pieces.

In the past polygamy was often a method of ensuring children in case a spouse was unable to bear children. It was generally restricted to the wealthy to make sure they had sons to inherit. In Macedon under Philip and Alexander the Great only the king could practice polygamy.

Multiple men per woman makes more sense from an economic standpoint now where lots of children would be more of a burden. The introduction of birth control further muddies it up.

Modern polyamory is usually people having individual relationships. The triads and quads that some people envision where everyone is in a relationship with everyone else and that many try to create are VERY HARD to build and maintain. When newbies want to experiment they often try a triad and it almost never goes well. Monogamy is the norm for a reason.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

No one is arguing that people not worthy of being sealed will stayed sealed eternally to anyone.

That's what it sounds like people are arguing. Surprisingly by @mfbukowski: "The whole point of "SEALING" is that it is forever.  We don't say " til Xyz do we part" -- sounds like once and done, no backsies. Eternal superglue, despite everything and anything. If we ignore scripture, anyway.

 

Link to comment
Just now, Stargazer said:

That's what it sounds like people are arguing. Surprisingly by @mfbukowski: "The whole point of "SEALING" is that it is forever.  We don't say " til Xyz do we part" -- sounds like once and done, no backsies. Eternal superglue, despite everything and anything. If we ignore scripture, anyway.

 

It is a given in discussions on exaltation among members the only ones getting it deserve it surely?  We all clearly understand that God does not reward unrepentant monsters with eternal life.

Me in the first post I address this topic:

Quote

Excommunication can be removed and all blessings restored in this life, so why not the next?

When are blessings restored in this life?  When someone repents, asks for them to be restored, and their leaders see fruits of repentance from them.  Same process I am guessing in the next one.  At least full out repentance will be needed.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So prophets are puppets?

Yes, when God dictates the words. You think otherwise? That God gave him some thoughts that he struggled to put into words, and really hosed it up?

I'm puzzled at your question, actually. The Book of Mormon was dictated pretty much word for word, according to all accounts. That makes Joseph a puppet in the sense that he was acting as a dictaphone for the Lord. Much of the Doctrine and Covenants was given along that line, too. Not all of it, clearly. But much of it, and DC 132 fell into that category.

I realize that some think DC 132 demonstrated that Joseph was a fallen prophet, and that revelation was intended to let him off the hook when it came to his insatiable lusts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. But not their own facts.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That God gave him some thoughts that he struggled to put into words, and really hosed it up?

Given our teachings on agency being paramount, yeah, I think it possible.

I believe all scripture is at most in the ballpark of what God would say.  In the moment of pure enlightenment the prophets may comprehend God’s thought, but the memory of that moment when they are no longer quickened or in the vision, face to face with God, later in the effort of writing it down…recall is unlikely to be total imo.

We don’t know the process of how Joseph saw the words.  No one else saw them, just the results.  Maybe the words actually appeared on the stone, maybe his mind projected the word.

If scripture was what God said, we wouldn’t need to pray about it, to go to the source.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

When are blessings restored in this life?  When someone repents, asks for them to be restored, and their leaders see fruits of repentance from them.  Same process I am guessing in the next one.  At least full out repentance will be needed.  

I'm unsure about the process in the next one, assuming there is a process. But you and I may be talking past each other on this.

Consider Alma 34:32,33 - 32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

There is a big difference between salvation and exaltation. And this is why I think we're talking past each other. Because you can repent of your sins in the Spirit World, and receive salvation, which is forgiveness of sins. But exaltation is a higher matter. King David had faith that he would eventually be forgiven, that he would be saved. But DC 132 makes clear that he had lost his exaltation, which is to be raised to the highest stage of the Celestial Kingdom. Hence, he can inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom, or possibly one of the two lower stages of the CK, since he has forfeited his exaltation along with his wives and concubines, and the highest degree will be denied of him.

DC 131:1-4 - 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.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

These temple sealings, as you will remember from the wording of the ordinances, are conditioned upon the keeping of the covenants which we make in the temple. As the Lord says, he is bound when we do what he says, but if we don't, we have no promise. 

As I understand it, if in the Spirit World, after death, you repent of the sin which caused your temple covenants to be terminated, you may recover your salvation and inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom (or at best, one of the two lower degrees of the Celestial), but exaltation is no longer possible for you. HOWEVER, upon reflection I cannot entirely rule exaltation out in every case -- David's case was rather more extreme than others' would be. Will my wife's ex-husband recover his exaltation by repentance in the Spirit World? He did get remarried after his excommunication, and though to a non-member, how could I say that she wouldn't eventually accept the gospel and become worthy of exaltation herself, and thus they be sealed by proxy in the temple, and so on?

Calm, I am pretty darned sure that people can lose their right to a particular sealing by reason of breaking their covenants, but can I be sure that they couldn't regain some sealing by repairing their error later in the Spirit World?  No, I cannot. But here is what I believe: He ain't getting my wife back. She's mine (and I'm hers). As to my stepchildren who were either sealed to him or were born in the covenant by virtue of his sealing to his then-wife (who became my wife), they have the right to eternal parentage conditioned upon their faithfulness. Precisely whom they will finally be sealed to if the Holy Spirit of Promise ratifies their sealing is neither here nor there. The point is, they don't lose their rights because of his failings. And that's sufficient for me, though I do believe he lost them through his breaking of his covenant.

Link to comment

Skipped all replies.

I think there are other possibilities than eternal polygamy.   There are lots of men over the centuries that never had access to gospel teachings, who may accept it when taught it during the millenium.

And we know that the celestial kingdom includes a group who aren't married but who otherwise qualify too.  (Too tired to find the cite.)

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh. You spilled the beans.

Not for women. I have been avoiding that for years. "Whit" is an interesting word.

Do you think this is enforced by some huge AI machine robot that is prohibited from changing the algorithms in special cases, if needed?

I don't.

Even stupid humans have supreme courts to handle that stuff.  God doesn't care about what some guy wrote in a book trying his best to cover every POSSIBLE circumstance- at least MY God doesn't.

I'm pretty sure God's algorithm is well-thought-out and covers all possible bases very efficiently, with infinite justice and mercy. I'd like to see the flow-chart, though. Ought to be very eye-opening.

Is YOUR God any different from MY God? Perish the thought.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rpn said:

Skipped all replies.

It's just as well.

4 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think there are other possibilities than eternal polygamy.   There are lots of men over the centuries that never had access to gospel teachings, who may accept it when taught it during the millenium.

Some think that eternal polygamy is the only alternative to eternal singleness. We will see.

As to those who never had access to the gospel in life, we understand that they will be taught it in the Spirit World, and it is during the Millennium that most of them will receive baptism etc by proxy in the temples that will be built for that purpose during that time.

4 minutes ago, rpn said:

And we know that the celestial kingdom includes a group who aren't married but who otherwise qualify too.  (Too tired to find the cite.)

So am I, but I was already there once tonight, so: DC 131:1-4

Link to comment

It's 2:15 am here. And I'm still up. >Yawn<

Nuts. I'm going to bed. Sorry for all the words that came spilling out of my keyboard.

Link to comment

In a reply to Calm, Stargazer wrote: 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You're entitled to an opinion that polyandry will exist in the eternities, but there doesn't seem to be any scriptural support for it.

The following is not "proof" but is arguably worth being aware of.  Section 132 verse 41:

"And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, 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 bolded section implies a condition under which a woman can "be with another man" without it being adultery, namely, if it has been appointed unto her by the holy anointing. 

I don't know exactly what that phrase means, and the verse does not explicitly say this principle is in play "in the eternities", but the context is the section on Eternal Marriage. 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There wasn’t scriptural support for everyone engaging in temple marriage until there was. 

Well said.

Link to comment

I don't think we've even scratched the surface of how families will be constituted in the next life nor of what Joseph's full vision of "welding" families together looks like (D&C 128:18). Will my 43-year-old son who now has children of his own somehow revert to being my 5-year-old dependent child? I doubt it. Will my 45-year-old, never-married daughter, who wanted more than anything in this world to be a mom but appears to have been denied that blessing in mortality, never have the opportunity in eternity? I doubt that, too.

Church policy currently is that in mortality, a woman can be sealed to only one man. But if the wife has married multiple times in mortality, current policy also allows that same wife to be sealed to all the men to whom she was married in this life once they are all deceased. So how are we going to be put together in the next life? Who knows. According to the doctrine that we are all children of God, I suppose there is some sense in which it might be considered that I am married to my sister. I get sick of culturally-based speculations like "when our family is seated in the hereafter, I don't want there to be an empty chair for Uncle Bob, so we gotta get his work done." What drivel. Same thing goes for how, with the incredibly limited understanding we have of eternal things, we can casually assign single women to their eternal state, whether they like it or not. 

I'm more than happy to have confidence in God's power to make things right relative to our families, and to singleness v. being married. I much appreciate President Oaks' take on all this.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

your wife chooses another after you die, well, there's nothing to worry about if you were faithful to your covenants

Meaning you will receive exaltation with another woman or your wife’s choice will be reversed somehow?  BY seemed to be pretty certain it was the latter case, iirc.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

The teaching still is women and men have to enter into celestial marriage to be exalted, either when living or dead.  How the dead sealings will come to be is unknown, but it makes sense to me pretty much the same way as now, only much more effective dating with the better communication techniques and less masking that will be going on in the afterlife.

 

Nope, pretty easy actually:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

I agree. However, my intent was to describe how in years past there was no teaching (like currently) that such was possible across the veil for those that were at the time alive. We have always known that the ordinances can be performed vicariously for the dead. But the idea that if you are alive today and will not marry in this life, but you can be married and sealed across the veil is a modern concept. There was no such teaching early in the church.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Depends if there is an even number of exalted men and women, all entitled to a spouse. In that case the polygamist men need to hand some over. All willingly hopefully. Or would we think perfected single men will have a hard time trying to tear a plural spouse away?

The men need to hand some over?  Ugh.  Are the some the men's property?  And some wonder why patriarchy coupled with polygamy is a stinky proposition. Patriarchy is bad enough on its own.  And polygamy and it is downright rotten.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The men need to hand some over?  Ugh.  Are the some the men's property?  And some wonder why patriarchy coupled with polygamy is a stinky proposition. Patriarchy is bad enough on its own.  And polygamy and it is downright rotten.

I knew someone would try a cheap low blow about my word choices. I'm certain it would be a fair and mutual agreement any which way. We are all merely speculating, even you are. Those of us who know God is good and heaven will be heavenly, will likely hold little regard for your negative concerns. If it's irredeemably bad, then it probably won't be there. No worries, bra. You can just tell us I told you so when I see you up there, because despite your follies, you may have always stuck to truth as you understood it. If that happens, perhaps, depending on demographics, you'll have a plural wife.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I knew someone would try a cheap low blow about my word choices.

You said it dude. Own it. If you were kidding there are emojis to assist communicating that.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

I'm certain it would be a fair and mutual agreement any which way. We are all merely speculating, even you are.

I am not speculating at all about what eternal Mormon marriage will be like and how it will be solved.  I think it is a made up system anyway and this thread shows that well IMO.

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

Those of us who know God is good and heaven will be heavenly, will likely hold little regard for your negative concerns.

Those of you who think they know really don't.  You just have a strong belief and faith and emotional mystical experiences that are generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry.  Strong faith is quite fine if it works for you but to say "those of us who know..." is arrogant and the ultimate hubris.

 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

 

If it's irredeemably bad, then it probably won't be there. No worries, bra. You can just tell us I told you so when I see you up there, because despite your follies, you may have always stuck to truth as you understood it. If that happens, perhaps, depending on demographics, you'll have a plural wife.

If you really are right I will end up in the terrestrial kingdom if I am lucky,

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Those of you who think they know really don't.  You just have a strong belief and faith and emotional mystical experiences that are generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry. 

That's what you can't see. We have been over it a hundred times.

You just also describe ANYTHING that ANYONE KNOWS.

Someone pulls a gun on you.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

You fall in love.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

You look into a microscope, or see colors.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

The question is what CAUSES that experience.

What causes the idea that it is wrong to kill people for fun?

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

Should you shell out a couple of kilobucks to go to the superbowl?

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

You decide to get a PhD in some field.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

DO YOU GET IT YET THAT THAT REPLY IS A NON-STARTER?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

You said it dude. Own it. If you were kidding there are emojis to assist communicating that

I buffered it with words like "willingly", you are the only one saying I must mean women are "property" with no say in the matter. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not speculating at all about what eternal Mormon marriage will be like and how it will be solved.  I think it is a made up system anyway and this thread shows that well IMO.

And that plural marriage and by extension heavenly plural marriage "stinks", right?

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Those of you who think they know really don't.  You just have a strong belief and faith and emotional mystical experiences that are generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry.  Strong faith is quite fine if it works for you but to say "those of us who know..." is arrogant and the ultimate hubris.

We know the same way everyone else claims to knows anything, by our experience. Faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you really are right I will end up in the terrestrial kingdom if I am lucky,

Humble too. You'll face a perfect Judge who knows you better than you know yourself, He may have foreordained you on this path, to be an agent of opposition, like Pharaoh. You might have flaws but if you can acknowledge them, if you always stand for the truth (as you know it), having the integrity to go wherever truth leads you, there is a good chance you'll probably go far.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

We know the same way everyone else claims to knows anything, by our experience. Faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). 

👍👍👍👍

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

THAT is the way we say it today.

😉

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Strong faith is quite fine if it works for you but to say "those of us who know..." is arrogant and the ultimate hubris.

"Knowledge" is simply a feeling of certainty. It's belief fossilized by habit.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That's what you can't see. We have been over it a hundred times.

You just also describe ANYTHING that ANYONE KNOWS.

Someone pulls a gun on you.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

You fall in love.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

You look into a microscope, or see colors.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

The question is what CAUSES that experience.

What causes the idea that it is wrong to kill people for fun?

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

Should you shell out a couple of kilobucks to go to the superbowl?

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

You decide to get a PhD in some field.

You have an "experience that is generated by electrical impulses in your brain and your brain chemistry".

DO YOU GET IT YET THAT THAT REPLY IS A NON-STARTER?

You need to read some Sam Harris.  He was a student of Rorty and challenged a lot of Rorty's views. heci out the Moral Landscape. Harris argues morals can be based on science.  I am not convinced your paradigm is correct. In fact I think it is quite flawed.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Knowledge" is simply a feeling of certainty. It's belief fossilized by habit.

 

But here is the difference.  I do not claim to be one of "those who knows..." you and many true believer here do. In spite of all your mystical philosophy.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...