Is Polygamy Eternal?

[Teancum]

On 9/11/2023 at 1:15 PM, Pyreaux said:

There were Mosaic laws that forced men into polygamy, and no doctrines against polygamy. There are Western laws against polygamy due to Roman laws against it; it is why multiple mistresses are legal, while polygamy is not. As if the fornication is right but taking responsibility for them all is morally wrong.

Is it eternal? Depends. It is not, if there is an even number of exalted men and women, all entitled to a spouse. In that case the polygamists need to be broken up. If there are more exalted women than men, how else can they all be sealed?

Are you on some sort of deconstruction journey after reading some sort of CES Letter type thing? You just discovered seer stones and now polygamy?

It is an amazing thing the mind is and the mental gyrations we will go through to make nonsense somehow sensible.  Ocam's razor really does apply here.

[Pyreaux]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is an amazing thing the mind is and the mental gyrations we will go through to make nonsense somehow sensible.  Occam's razor really does apply here.

But my explanations were rather simple, so I'm still not sure what your malfunction is. L8r h8r.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

On 9/11/2023 at 12:15 PM, Pyreaux said:

There were Mosaic laws that forced men into polygamy, and no doctrines against polygamy. There are Western laws against polygamy due to Roman laws against it; it is why multiple mistresses are legal, while polygamy is not. As if the fornication is right but taking responsibility for them all is morally wrong.

The people saying this in the Journal of Discourses didn’t really get Roman history.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The people saying this in the Journal of Discourses didn’t really get Roman history.

People thinking I read it out of the Journal of Discourses don't get Roman history. I bet Romans get Roman history. Like Saint Augustine, a very orthodox Christian, who knew well that the prohibition of plural marriage in his day was only forbidden as a matter of 'Roman' laws and custom:

"Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it."

Our abhorrence of polygamy comes from Greece and Rome. Though the pagan culture in Rome could freely tolerate multiple sexual partners, its legal system could tolerate only one wife. In that respect Greco-Roman culture is still very similar to contemporary Western culture (Legally, multiple unmarried mistresses are legal while those who'd marry them first and make a life time commitment to them are arrested).

Edited September 15, 2023 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

People thinking I read it out of the Journal of Discourses don't get Roman history. I bet Romans gets Roman history. Like Saint Augustine, a very orthodox Christian, who knew well that the prohibition of plural marriage in his day was only forbidden as a matter of 'Roman' laws and custom:

"Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it."

Our abhorrence of polygamy comes from Greece and Rome. Though the pagan culture in Rome could freely tolerate multiple sexual partners, its legal system could tolerate only one wife. In that respect Greco-Roman culture is still very similar to contemporary Western culture (Legally, multiple unmarried mistresses are legal while those who'd marry them first and make a life time commitment to them are arrested).

The idea that Greece and Rome abhorred multiple relationships is silly. The others were just concubines and slaves and mistresses and pederast relationships or a future wife following you around on campaign and potentially having a family with you before you finish your military service and marry.

Augustus tried to increase the morals of Rome by making laws regarding adultery and divorce more strict. Everyone ignored him. Possibly because he had several affairs and his daughter was not exactly faithful either.

The Empire was also full of polygamist cultures.

Augustine was right that it wasn’t legal. It was still defacto practiced.

I think you will find that modern American’s dislike of polygamy comes from Islam or *coughs* Mormons. With the growing interest in polyamory and Christian religious polygyny (who generally dislike each other too) in American society this should be overturned. Somehow I doubt the early apostles of this dispensation would approve even if they did suggest Rome was degenerate for not allowing multiple marriages.

[The Nehor]

I was rereading Dracula today for the first time in a long time.

From Lucy who is courted by three of the heroes of the novel:

”Why can’t they let a woman marry three men, or as many as want her, and save all this trouble?”

No wonder she is punished by being turned by Dracula who has three wives. It seems almost karmic in a very Victorian sense that wanting the unnatural pulled her into the unnatural even though she did the “right thing” by choosing the suitor with the most money and the highest social status.

One character (Van Helsing?) refers to Lucy as a “polyandrist” because she receives blood transfusions from all three of her suitors and from Van Helsing. Then the other donors are advised not to share that they gave blood to Lucy because otherwise Holmwood who she agreed to marry would be jealous of the other three.

So Lucy becomes a vampire and embraces feminine sexuality (wanton is how I remember her being described) and her desire for motherhood is replaced by viewing children as sweet sustenance. Of course she has the same problem as Lillith in the old Jewish legends. We can feel sympathy but did you really have to kill the children? Also Lucy is pretty much a mind slave of Dracula so the polyandrist freedom she sought was subverted as she was brought into Dracula’s harem.

Of course Holmwood then redeems/reclaims Lucy by penetrating her completely with a stake and takes her back from Dracula. Yeah. That happened.

In conclusion polygamy/polygyny/polyandry/polyamory/plural marriage has a lot of fun contrasts when shoved into a horror novel.

[Teancum]

On 9/14/2023 at 10:30 PM, Pyreaux said:

But my explanations were rather simple, so I'm still not sure what your malfunction is. L8r h8r.

Just that you and other true believing LDS here think there is some heaven that requires a certain type of marriage to get there and more women may qualify than men but alas, this God being you believe in won't let them unless they get this special type of marriage so you make ridiculous arguments to try to reconcile a nonsensical idea. But that is what religion does. And the LDS doctrine takes it to another level.

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Just that you and other true believing LDS here think there is some heaven that requires a certain type of marriage to get there and more women may qualify than men but alas, this God being you believe in won't let them unless they get this special type of marriage so you make ridiculous arguments to try to reconcile a nonsensical idea. But that is what religion does. And the LDS doctrine takes it to another level.

No, marriage makes compete sense if the afterlife cycle's endgame involves procreation and since all the singles in the Celestial Kingdom are entitled to a marriage if they were denied it in life, logically if they are to be accommodated, if the ratio of men and women is uneven, then by necessity there will be plural marriage, but if the ratio is even, the plural marriages will all end. It's that simple. You seem to know nothing of the ancient ways if you think LDS thought up eternal marriage first. Though you claim you don't believe in anything, your words drip with religious dogma of a religious zealot, who degrades all other religions, while personally offended or angered by all other religions, unable to empathize or understand the religious beliefs of others. Because your beliefs are so deeply ingrained that you struggle to contemplate that another set of beliefs might contain some truth. You reject all evidence beyond what your own belief system accepts is once again a sign of a zealous religious adherent that you yourself are.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

if the ratio of men and women is uneven, then by necessity there will be plural marriage

This isn't necessarily true. People here keep looking at these issues from the lens of a temporal existence, bounded by time. Here in our mortality, the practice of polygamy creates imbalance - which is resolved by mismatching cohorts. In the eternities, and potential existing imbalance can be handled in exactly the same way - by mismatching cohorts. The amount of time it takes is, in an eternity, completely irrelevant ...

On the other side of the coin, if we have a mismatch in terms of more men than women, do you believe that there will be celestial polyandry?

And then there is the entire question of the role of evolutionary biology with regard to this question ...

[Stargazer]

On 9/15/2023 at 7:00 AM, The Nehor said:

The idea that Greece and Rome abhorred multiple relationships is silly.

No, silly, he didn't write what you say he wrote. He wrote this:

On 9/15/2023 at 6:32 AM, Pyreaux said:

Though the pagan culture in Rome could freely tolerate multiple sexual partners, its legal system could tolerate only one wife.

Which is the opposite of what you say he wrote.

Maybe read what he wrote more closely next time?

[Stargazer]

53 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This isn't necessarily true. People here keep looking at these issues from the lens of a temporal existence, bounded by time. Here in our mortality, the practice of polygamy creates imbalance - which is resolved by mismatching cohorts. In the eternities, and potential existing imbalance can be handled in exactly the same way - by mismatching cohorts. The amount of time it takes is, in an eternity, completely irrelevant ...

Does marriage exist in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms? If so, why?

53 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

On the other side of the coin, if we have a mismatch in terms of more men than women, do you believe that there will be celestial polyandry?

Nope. But your proposed premise is faulty. There will be no mismatch. And if there were, then some men would just have to do without a partner.

I've been criticized on this board for claiming that more women will be exalted than men. And thus plural marriage will be not only permitted, but necessary in the eternities. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my opinion. 

53 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And then there is the entire question of the role of evolutionary biology with regard to this question ...

I don't think that evolutionary biology is as much support to your position as you might think it is.
 

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Does marriage exist in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms? If so, why?

Why is this relevant? I would say that 1) we don't know, and 2) I side with those who believe that eternal progression includes the capacity to move from one kingdom to another - so that eventually, both the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms will likely be empty.

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Nope. But your proposed premise is faulty. There will be no mismatch. And if there were, then some men would just have to do without a partner.

My premise isn't faulty. There will be no mismatch - but only because God's creation is infinite and not finite. Has God stopped creating? Will there be at some point no more spirit children? That idea goes against LDS doctrine - and we have no need to suppose that the relationships that are formed in eternity are limited only to the spirits born on this piece of God's creation.

But in the context of the limitations you seem to be pushing onto creation and the eternities, why would we ever have to have some men who would just have to do without? That makes no sense either. If a marriage is a requirement for exaltation, and God promises us all that we can obtain that exaltation, then this idea that some would have to do without is more than just a little bit of a problem theologically speaking.

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I've been criticized on this board for claiming that more women will be exalted than men. And thus plural marriage will be not only permitted, but necessary in the eternities. 

It is something to be criticized for in my opinion - it is a belief based entirely on personal preference or an attempt to justify something that needs no justification. There is no rational reason to accept it.

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think that evolutionary biology is as much support to your position as you might think it is.

I don't think that evolutionary biology has anything to do with my position. That's part of my point. Polygamy (at least historically) is in part a function of biology in human beings. The things that lead to polygamy are quite likely linked to our evolutionary biology, and, that biology is going to be completely irrelevant to our eternal existence.

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, silly, he didn't write what you say he wrote. He wrote this:

Which is the opposite of what you say he wrote.

Maybe read what he wrote more closely next time?

I did say Western abhorrence derived from Roman Laws that forbid it, from that its simple to assume I was saying if the abhorrence came from Rome, then it was abhorrent to Rome. That wasn't what I was saying, though I didn't object to his other points, so I just let it go.

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This isn't necessarily true. People here keep looking at these issues from the lens of a temporal existence, bounded by time. Here in our mortality, the practice of polygamy creates imbalance - which is resolved by mismatching cohorts. In the eternities, and potential existing imbalance can be handled in exactly the same way - by mismatching cohorts. The amount of time it takes is, in an eternity, completely irrelevant ...

On the other side of the coin, if we have a mismatch in terms of more men than women, do you believe that there will be celestial polyandry?

And then there is the entire question of the role of evolutionary biology with regard to this question ...

Yes, an imbalance could be resolved if I didn't assume the gender pools were finite, if its indeed an Eternal Increase, just wait for the next batch to be. With enough time, we could settle into the most ideal couplings, whatever that may be.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Why is this relevant? I would say that 1) we don't know,

I beg to differ. The only version of marriage that survives mortal death, is that offered in the Temple. I don't say this as a possibility, but as a certainty. All other marriages terminate at the death of either spouse. It's in the wording of every single non-Temple marriage vow. "For the period of your mortal lives" and "Until death do you part" are the standard terms.

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and 2) I side with those who believe that eternal progression includes the capacity to move from one kingdom to another - so that eventually, both the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms will likely be empty.

In my heart I would love to believe that that one may be promoted from the Telestial to the Celestial Kingdom. It would seem to be kind and merciful, wouldn't it?

But unless you can pull a supporting scripture out from somewhere, there is no doctrinal support for the idea. I ask you, can mercy rob justice?

Starting with the Telestial Kingdom, entrance into that kingdom requires that you've rejected Christ, been resurrected, and have paid for your own sins. Is it final? Of course it is. Jesus said to Nicodemus:

John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

There's no exception mentioned. No escape clause enumerated. If you think there might be one that is being kept from us, fine. But I don't believe in things that have no support. They are fairy tales, until valid evidence for them is provided.

You get one or two chances to comply with the eternal edict Jesus gave Nicodemus. One chance is in mortality, having heard the good news of the gospel and received baptism of water and fire. Most people born into the earth don't get this one, just by virtue of the timing of their birth. The other is in the Spirit World, post mortality, in which case a proxy baptism will be provided. If this baptism is accepted and repentance given, then at a minimum you enter into the Terrestrial Kingdom. If you reject it, then you pay for your own sins by means of your own suffering and enter into the Telestial Kingdom.

If you doubt that you pay for your own sins if you reject Christ, then I suggest a re-reading of DC 19:13-18. And if you reject Christ, can you get a do-over and get a pass into the Terrestrial Kingdom, where, according to DC 76:77, they receive of the presence of the Son? I don't see how. Again, promotion between kingdoms is not scriptural. As for the nice idea of "eternal progression," that's non-scriptural, too. Or, at least in those terms it is.

And then we come to marriage. 

Unless you've discovered a rescindment of a relevant part of DC 132, there is no eternal marriage outside the Celestial Kingdom, and Jesus clearly stated in Matthew 22:30, "...in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage...", or in other words, at the resurrection all questions of marriage are already decided. So if you're unmarried in the Telestial Kingdom, you can't get married on the way up to the Terrestrial. And marriage is forever out of your wheelhouse.

DC 132:16,17 states clearly that a non-temple marriage is terminated at death, and "they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity..." As angels, of course, so it's not all bad.

DC 132:18 states that even if a temple sealing has been performed, but "...is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise... then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world..." 

Why would a temple sealing not be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise? Because either partner was not faithful enough; or, as DC 76:79 puts it in describing qualifications for the Terrestrial Kingdom, "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."

Let's say a man and a woman are sealed in the temple. Then afterwards they stop coming to church, fail to raise their children in the gospel, and totally ignore the gospel. Is such a marriage going to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise? It would be quite a stretch, wouldn't it? 

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My premise isn't faulty. There will be no mismatch - but only because God's creation is infinite and not finite. Has God stopped creating? Will there be at some point no more spirit children? That idea goes against LDS doctrine - and we have no need to suppose that the relationships that are formed in eternity are limited only to the spirits born on this piece of God's creation.

Of course God hasn't stopped creating, and there will be plenty more spirit children. 

You seem to be suggesting that life goes on after the resurrection, much as it does here, and that if Father has children on a planet of Alpha Centauri A, that a child of that planet may get married to a child of this planet at some point? Sorry, that doesn't work. It's been set forth by Brigham Young (if I recall correctly) that our Spirit World is here on our planet. We don't leave our Spirit World until we are judged and resurrected, and then whatever eternal marriage has been contracted has already been contracted and it's over.

It's not against any principle to develop friendships across the eternities. Heck, if you've been married for time only to a woman, and both of you end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom, what stops you from being friends and associating with each other? Nothing at all! But is it a marital relationship? No, it isn't. 

And eternal marriage has a purpose. That purpose is the engendering of spirit children. It is done only by exalted beings. Thus there is no purpose in marriage outside the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. 

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But in the context of the limitations you seem to be pushing onto creation and the eternities, why would we ever have to have some men who would just have to do without? That makes no sense either. If a marriage is a requirement for exaltation, and God promises us all that we can obtain that exaltation, then this idea that some would have to do without is more than just a little bit of a problem theologically speaking.

Yes, "God promises us all that we can obtain that exaltation" but the key word there is can. Not will.

As for the limitations I'm "pushing on creation and the eternities..." I'm pushing nothing onto them. The limitations I mention are expressed in the scriptures, quite clearly. Here's one (DC 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.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

This is as "pushy on eternity" as you can get. If a man has not entered into eternal marriage, he CANNOT obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and he CANNOT have an increase. There is no equivocation here. No "maybe," and no "promotion." Stuck, and stuck forever.

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is something to be criticized for in my opinion - it is a belief based entirely on personal preference or an attempt to justify something that needs no justification. There is no rational reason to accept it.

LOL! Beliefs based on personal preferences abound abundantly on this board. I'm pretty sure you have beliefs based on your own personal preferences, since you've expressed some of them in this very thread. As for me, I don't mind the criticism that I've experienced, except when it's devolved into personal attack. It's to be expected.

But I base my personal opinions on objective reasoning from what I perceive as valid gospel doctrine as expressed in the scriptures and validated by divine revelation. For example, though I believe strongly in plural marriage in eternity, I don't like polygamy. If the Lord were to reveal to President Nelson or whoever was the Prophet at the time, that plural marriage was to be reinstituted, I would be personally horrified. I would figuratively run screaming away from the "opportunity". But I would obey, if required to participate, because I have a firm testimony in the divine imprimatur of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have one eternal wife (who waits for me on the other side). I would be perfectly happy if she were the only one I'd end up with in the eternities. But even she told me that she expected to share me with others. If it goes that way, then that's the way it goes. If not, then that's fine, too. 

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think that evolutionary biology has anything to do with my position. That's part of my point. Polygamy (at least historically) is in part a function of biology in human beings. The things that lead to polygamy are quite likely linked to our evolutionary biology, and, that biology is going to be completely irrelevant to our eternal existence.

Ah, I misunderstood you! Mea culpa, and my apologies.

You may be right, but I think that our evolutionary biology has more to do with our eternal existence than we give it credit for. I do see that the practicalities involved in this mortal coil may not follow on with the immortal. But perhaps they are previews, in some way.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/14/2023 at 6:49 PM, Teancum said:

It is an amazing thing the mind is and the mental gyrations we will go through to make nonsense somehow sensible.  Ocam's razor really does apply here.

 

... which is itself taken on faith.

Where is the proof?

It ignores all the wide choices found in a complex relational field of possibilities, and picks the one which appeals most to simple minds.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 9/14/2023 at 11:00 PM, The Nehor said:

The idea that Greece and Rome abhorred multiple relationships is silly.

Plato believed that love between men was the most superior. After all, women, in his time, were automatically classified as radically inferior to men.

And the best relationship possible was between an older, wise man, and and another much younger man or boy, so the more "mature" and wiser man could train the younger in the TRUTHS of the world.

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I beg to differ. The only version of marriage that survives mortal death, is that offered in the Temple.

The challenge with this is that we know with absolute certainty in LDS doctrine that there will be new marriages created in that post-mortal state. I don't mean by this that we will see sealings being performed for those married in mortality that were not made in the temple. I mean brand new marriages. So, your way of thinking about this is simply too narrow.

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But unless you can pull a supporting scripture out from somewhere, there is no doctrinal support for the idea. I ask you, can mercy rob justice?

I have the statements from many past general authorities. Mercy doesn't rob justice - but the atonement is also infinite and eternal. Further, we have all of the material that gets applied to those who have their calling and election made sure. Can they still sin? Yes. Do they pay for those sins? Yes - since the atonement no longer covers them. Does this deny them entrance into the Celestial Kingdom? Not generally speaking (they can still become sons of perdition).

Brigham Young taught:

Quote

None would inherit this earth when it became celestial and translated into the presence of God but those who would be crowned as Gods — all others would have to inherit another kingdom — they would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy and advancing to a celestial kingdom but it would be a slow process. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 5 Aug 1855)

President J. Reuben Clark taught:

Quote

I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can: and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come. (J. Reuben Clark, Church News, 23 April 1960, p. 3)

And Elder James Talmage taught:

Quote

It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase. (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith)

And this puts me in reasonably good company, doesn't it. None of these ideas are inconsistent with the idea that mercy will rob justice. Justice's role is limited - the duration of that punishment that is suffered is limited:

Quote

in the scriptures, the terms endless punishment and eternal punishment do not refer to the length of time people will suffer for their sins.

Then this -

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Unless you've discovered a rescindment of a relevant part of DC 132, there is no eternal marriage outside the Celestial Kingdom, and Jesus clearly stated in Matthew 22:30, "...in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage...", or in other words, at the resurrection all questions of marriage are already decided. So if you're unmarried in the Telestial Kingdom, you can't get married on the way up to the Terrestrial. And marriage is forever out of your wheelhouse.

The problem here is that it misses the completely obvious - what do we do for those that are denied marriage in mortality? Well we do have teachings that discuss this -

Quote

To obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, those who are accountable must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–3). Little children who die will have this opportunity in the future. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) explained: "The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to exaltation. … When they grow, after the resurrection, to the full maturity of the spirit, they will be entitled to all the blessings which they would have been entitled to had they been privileged to tarry here and receive them."

So there we have it - after the resurrection - and after they have grown to a full maturity of the spirit. But this can describe everyone who falls short of celestial glory - at least according to the LDS leaders I quoted earlier. Some of them will simply take longer than others to achieve that growth of the spirit (but in an eternity, who is counting time ...)

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Let's say a man and a woman are sealed in the temple. Then afterwards they stop coming to church, fail to raise their children in the gospel, and totally ignore the gospel. Is such a marriage going to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise? It would be quite a stretch, wouldn't it? 

And at the same time, if that same couple has received their calling and election (had their place in the Celestial Kingdom made certain), this wouldn't matter - so at least in principle, this isn't the barrier that you make it out to be.

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You seem to be suggesting that life goes on after the resurrection, much as it does here, and that if Father has children on a planet of Alpha Centauri A, that a child of that planet may get married to a child of this planet at some point? Sorry, that doesn't work. It's been set forth by Brigham Young (if I recall correctly) that our Spirit World is here on our planet. We don't leave our Spirit World until we are judged and resurrected, and then whatever eternal marriage has been contracted has already been contracted and it's over.

I am not discussing the spirit world at all. I am discussing that time period after the resurrection (as we can see from the Joseph Fielding Smith quote earlier). This teaching clearly suggests that marriage will become available after the resurrection, after the judgment, and after any time spent in the Spirit World.

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And eternal marriage has a purpose. That purpose is the engendering of spirit children. It is done only by exalted beings. Thus there is no purpose in marriage outside the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. 

And, as I keep pointing out, everyone (at least in theory) can arrive at the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. But even for those past leaders who have rejected progression between kingdoms - they have allowed for upward progression within the Celestial Kingdom (from the bottom tier to the top). Such a thing would require (as you suggest) that marriage is something that can be obtained after the resurrection.

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This is as "pushy on eternity" as you can get. If a man has not entered into eternal marriage, he CANNOT obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and he CANNOT have an increase. There is no equivocation here. No "maybe," and no "promotion." Stuck, and stuck forever.

Well, I will only add that this interpretation of the Celestial Kingdom (as having three tiers) does not exist in print prior to around 1920. The Celestial Kingdom at the time of Joseph Smith was modeled quite differently - but that is irrelevant. I am not contesting the requirement of marriage. I am contesting your position that marriage can only occur in mortality and not afterwards for those who have been resurrected. And I think that I am on pretty solid ground there.

Clearly, there is a problem with a God who demands that a mortal marriage is a necessity and then prevents many (if not most) of his children from getting there ... makes you feel special, doesn't it.

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

LOL! Beliefs based on personal preferences abound abundantly on this board. I'm pretty sure you have beliefs based on your own personal preferences, since you've expressed some of them in this very thread. As for me, I don't mind the criticism that I've experienced, except when it's devolved into personal attack. It's to be expected.

The nice thing here, though, is that I am not alone in this view.

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You may be right, but I think that our evolutionary biology has more to do with our eternal existence than we give it credit for. I do see that the practicalities involved in this mortal coil may not follow on with the immortal. But perhaps they are previews, in some way.

And I would suggest that what we find in the evolutionary biology is more closed linked to the concept of the "natural man" - and is part of our experience that is trivialized by the atonement when it compromises agency.

[Teancum]

On 9/20/2023 at 3:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

... which is itself taken on faith.

To an extent.  It is a logical proposition that chooses the simplest answer.

 

On 9/20/2023 at 3:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

Where is the proof?

With Ocams razor they may or may not be proof.  Part if it is you cannot prove a negative.

On 9/20/2023 at 3:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

It ignores all the wide choices found in a complex relational field of possibilities, and picks the one which appeals most to simple minds.

 

Hardly. The most simple and logical conclusion.  For the LDS Church there are so many issue to defend that the just pile upon pile upon pile on each of them.  Then to make things like requirement for eternal marriage by the Mormon Priesthood to get to the highest heaven and  you have to do more mental gyrations.  The logical conclusion is the LDS claims of truth are likely false.

On another note have you read William James on religion and pragmatism?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

On another note have you read William James on religion and pragmatism?

Of course. Have you?  He was anti-clergy, and his "radical empiricism" relying on actual experience, including religious experience, presents believers with a wonderful apologist argument for religion.

Read "Varieties of Religious Experience".

The whole book. It shows how religious experience is valid and rational.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience#:~:text=The Varieties of Religious Experience%3A A Study in Human Nature,Scotland between 1901 and 1902.

Edited September 22, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

To an extent.  It is a logical proposition that chooses the simplest answer.

 

With Ocams razor they may or may not be proof.  Part if it is you cannot prove a negative.

Hardly. The most simple and logical conclusion.  For the LDS Church there are so many issue to defend that the just pile upon pile upon pile on each of them.  Then to make things like requirement for eternal marriage by the Mormon Priesthood to get to the highest heaven and  you have to do more mental gyrations.  The logical conclusion is the LDS claims of truth are likely false.

On another note have you read William James on religion and pragmatism?

https://nesslabs.com/occams-razor#:~:text=The Occam's razor fallacy%3A the,not always the correct one&text=When faced with two equally,they're easier to execute.

"We are having trouble losing our cattle to wolves"

Example:

Solution per Occam:  Kill off the wolves.

Result: Ecological Chaos. Rats and small animals eat up the wheat crop.

Edited September 22, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course. Have you?  He was anti-clergy, and his "radical empiricism" relying on actual experience, including religious experience, presents believers with a wonderful apologist argument for religion.

Read "Varieties of Religious Experience".

The whole book. It shows how religious experience is valid and rational.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience#:~:text=The Varieties of Religious Experience%3A A Study in Human Nature,Scotland between 1901 and 1902.

I have been reading some things that reference the book you mention above.  And one thing that is standing out, that reminds me of much of what you write about it pragmatism.  Essentially if the spiritual experience works for you or me it is true for you or  me.  I am working to wrap my head around it.  It seems to make sense.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It seems to make sense.

Pragmatism should by its very nature, imo.   

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://nesslabs.com/occams-razor#:~:text=The Occam's razor fallacy%3A the,not always the correct one&text=When faced with two equally,they're easier to execute.

"We are having trouble losing our cattle to wolves"

Example:

Solution per Occam:  Kill off the wolves.

Result: Ecological Chaos. Rats and small animals eat up the wheat crop.

Not all solutions are perfect.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Not all solutions are perfect.

Which is why thinking that all questions can be solved by what you think is the simplest path, is dangerous.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have been reading some things that reference the book you mention above.  And one thing that is standing out, that reminds me of much of what you write about it pragmatism.  Essentially if the spiritual experience works for you or me it is true for you or  me.  I am working to wrap my head around it.  It seems to make sense.

AND what if millions have the "same experience" while others may not?  ( Perhaps because it is described differently? )

How many people have a "testimony?"

How many know it is wrong to cheat people or kill them for fun?

What IS that "little voice" that even "atheists" have, and agree exists?

Edited September 23, 2023 by mfbukowski