Is Polygamy Eternal?

[Teancum]

On 9/22/2023 at 8:08 PM, mfbukowski said:

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

In your opinion.  I get that it is not always ideal.  But when applied to the labyrinth of difficult topics and issues one needs to juggle when it comes to Mormonism I think Occam's razor is a pretty good tool.

[Teancum]

On 9/23/2023 at 12:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

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

Based on what I understand from William James, as a noted, if it pragmatically works for you then it is true for you.  And if pragmatically what works for me, is also true, even if it differs from your truth dramatically.

However, the hang up I have with this is it is a pragmatic approach for here and now.  It does not seem to me that this approach means that there really is a heaven with three degrees of glory.  Make sense?  Thoughts?

On 9/23/2023 at 12:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

How many people have a "testimony?"

Do you mean a testimony of Mormonism?  Or a testimony/witness/spiritual experience/spiritual awakening of something that works for them?

On 9/23/2023 at 12:38 AM, mfbukowski said:

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?

Personally I think the little voice is simply our own self conscience that speaks to us.

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Personally I think the little voice is simply our own self conscience that speaks to us.

It is midi-chlorians.

[Teancum]

On 9/21/2023 at 10:17 PM, mfbukowski said:

Read "Varieties of Religious Experience".

Just downloaded the book.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Based on what I understand from William James, as a noted, if it pragmatically works for you then it is true for you.  And if pragmatically what works for me, is also true, even if it differs from your truth dramatically.

However, the hang up I have with this is it is a pragmatic approach for here and now.  It does not seem to me that this approach means that there really is a heaven with three degrees of glory.  Make sense?  Thoughts?

Do you mean a testimony of Mormonism?  Or a testimony/witness/spiritual experience/spiritual awakening of something that works for them?

Personally I think the little voice is simply our own self conscience that speaks to us.

I don’t think “self conscience” is a correct term. “Self-conscious[ness],” “conscience” and “consciousness” are.

What approach that does not involve your mental states would result in your perception of a heaven with three degrees of glory (i.e., absent your mind and the way you use it, what approach creates one -- either a mind or a heaven -- for you)? None.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

However, the hang up I have with this is it is a pragmatic approach for here and now.  It does not seem to me that this approach means that there really is a heaven with three degrees of glory.  Make sense?  Thoughts?

Error- should be addressed to @Teancum

Quick answer.

The "realities" of heaven are "unknowable".  Period. End of story.

Who cares about what is in principle unknowable?  How do you WANT it to be?  Alma 32: What is SWEET to you?

(We See now in a dark MIRROR reflecting our own self back at us but THEN, after death, we will see face to face ie: "accurately".) What then is the view of heaven that is PRAGMATICALLY best for mankind?

What's the best hypothesis that DOES WHAT WE NEED to reap the benefits of the belief??  Peace about death, a desire to become better, what "path of happiness" works for us?

Nobody can "know" scientifically, observibly, the answer  BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Alma tells us it is what BELIEF is the sweetest, the church says which path leads to happiness?

What subjectively gives YOU peace and happiness?

What EXPERIENCES  have you had?

What IS that conscience thing?

What "evidence" do we have?

What is our purpose in WANTING to know?  Peace about death? The best moral life or us now while alive?

The question becomes " what is the best paradigm " FOR ME based on every experience I have lived

Ultimately it becomes what is the best paradigm for all mankind that will prosper the human race?

Note that these are psychological interpretations of experience we have, and are as "real" as color is, knowing right from wrong, how NOT to end up dead on the street selling drugs etc.

I have had religious experiences that allow me to say I KNOW - FOR ME, that God is as real as you are, and what HE wants my life to be like.

This is not science but it IS empirical observation.

Look up James on " Radical Empiricism".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/

Biggie:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/#EssaRadiEmpi1912

https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/#:~:text=An empirical theologian interprets the,is made plausible or revised.

Edited September 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quick answer.

The "realities" of heaven are "unknowable".  Period. End of story.

Who cares about what is in principle unknowable?  How do you WANT it to be?  Alma 32: What is SWEET to you?

(We See now in a dark MIRROR reflecting our own self back at us but THEN, after death, we will see face to face ie: "accurately".) What then is the view of heaven that is PRAGMATICALLY best for mankind?

What's the best hypothesis that DOES WHAT WE NEED to reap the benefits of the belief??  Peace about death, a desire to become better, what "path of happiness" works for us?

Nobody can "know" scientifically, observibly, the answer  BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Alma tells us it is what BELIEF is the sweetest, the church says which path leads to happiness?

What subjectively gives YOU peace and happiness?

What EXPERIENCES  have you had?

What IS that conscience thing?

What "evidence" do we have?

What is our purpose in WANTING to know?  Peace about death? The best moral life or us now while alive?

The question becomes " what is the best paradigm " FOR ME based on every experience I have lived

Ultimately it becomes what is the best paradigm for all mankind that will prosper the human race?

Note that these are psychological interpretations of experience we have, and are as "real" as color is, knowing right from wrong, how NOT to end up dead on the street selling drugs etc.

I have had religious experiences that allow me to say I KNOW - FOR ME, that God is as real as you are, and what HE wants my life to be like.

This is not science but it IS empirical observation.

Look up James on " Radical Empiricism".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/

Hi @mfbukowski, please direct your reply to @Teancum -- this makes it looks like I said what he said, which I did not say, and excludes what I did say.

What does Rorty say about descriptions of the world that are accidental creations?  

This is what he said, and then what I said: Posted 1 hour ago

Edited September 24, 2023 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Just downloaded the book.

This is kind of radically simplistic, but I think it will help you visualize how "reality" is more about how the human mind sees things than it is about what is "really out there".

Truth becomes a best guess our minds paste together 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Hi @mfbukowski, please direct your reply to @Teancum -- this makes it looks like I said what he said, which I did not say, and excludes what I did say.

What does Rorty say about descriptions of the world that are accidental creations?  

This is what he said, and then what I said: Posted 1 hour ago

Danggit !

I did it again, sorry !! Gotta run now will fix later 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you mean a testimony of Mormonism?  Or a testimony/witness/spiritual experience/spiritual awakening of something that works for them?

The Latter, yes.

There cam be differences of opinion on what is unknowable and taken on faith 😏

[Teancum]

On 9/24/2023 at 6:04 PM, CV75 said:

I don’t think “self conscience” is a correct term. “Self-conscious[ness],” “conscience” and “consciousness” are.

Correct. Thanks.

On 9/24/2023 at 6:04 PM, CV75 said:

What approach that does not involve your mental states would result in your perception of a heaven with three degrees of glory (i.e., absent your mind and the way you use it, what approach creates one -- either a mind or a heaven -- for you)? None.

I am sorry but I am not sure I am clear as to your point here.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Correct. Thanks.

I am sorry but I am not sure I am clear as to your point here.

I should have let you answer the question. Had I not written "None," which is my answer, what would have been your reply? Then I might be able to validate your answer instead of trying to be clearer.

[Stargazer]

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

No, it's not too narrow. It's precisely narrow enough.

In your post responding to me you repeat it over and over again that I said "...marriage can only occur in mortality and not afterwards." I did not say that. I am perfectly aware that there will be new marriages after this mortal life. I re-read what I wrote to be sure, so I can tell you that I wrote nothing that contemplates the opposite. 

But what I did write was that there will be no marriages/weddings in the resurrection. Christ is quoted in the New Testament twice to that effect. In Matthew it reads:

Matthew 22:30 -> "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

To the extent that those two statements can be trusted to be accurate (both as to transmission and translation), there appears to be a point after which marrying and giving in marriage is at an end and can no longer occur. Elder James Talmage stated that this meant that all marriages had to be contracted before the resurrection occurred for the participants. In other words, one is resurrected as a married being, not resurrected and then afterwards a new marriage partner or partners are added at some later time or times. 

Talmage writes: “In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time” (Jesus the Christ, 548).

Hence I am on solid scriptural and doctrinal ground that there will be no marriages during or after the resurrection. 

And I am fully aware that children who die in infancy still have a shot at exaltation (which necessarily includes the new and everlasting covenant of marriage). I am fully onboard as to the idea that a  never-married-in-mortality person can be sealed for eternity while in the spirit world. But not after the resurrection.

I am acquainted with a woman who was engaged to be married, but whose fiancée died in a car accident before they could be married. She applied for permission to be sealed to him and was granted it by the First Presidency. A woman whom I met on my mission was engaged to a man who was killed in battle in WW1, and I have no doubt that they will be able to be sealed for eternity, probably during the Millennium, even though they were not married to each other in mortality.

One of my granddaughters died aged 3 months. No blessing will be withheld from her due to what occurred outside of her control. 

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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).

Calling and election made sure aside -- and that's definitely a separate case -- I address below the general authorities you cite.

Christ's Atonement is the infinite Atonement because He paid for sins while being sinless. There is no credible doctrine that allows for the unrepentant person who rejected Him and consequently paid for his own sins to later say "Just kidding" and get exalted anyway. Rejecting Christ is rather final, in my humble opinion.

There are opinions that differ on the idea of kingdom-to-kingdom progression, as you indicated, but that's all they are: opinions. The most thorough scripture we have regarding the three degrees of glory is DC 76. And there is not one word on kingdom-to-kingdom progression to be found there. Perhaps at a later date the Lord will add more detail that includes such progression, but until He does so, it's not doctrinal. Your Talmage quote you give on the subject agrees with this, by the way. Talmage says he thinks it's reasonable to believe in kingdom-to-kingdom progression. But that is not a doctrinal assertion backed by scripture. It's a belief backed by hope. 

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Brigham Young taught:

President J. Reuben Clark taught:

And Elder James Talmage taught:

While I respect these great men, none of what you quote is stated as doctrine, but as opinion. 

Brigham Young is remembered by Wilford Woodruff as having indicated "they would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy and advancing to a celestial kingdom but it would be a slow process." 

• To which I say, OK, but this is a second-hand report of dubious authenticity. Just because Elder Woodruff remembered it that way does not mean he heard it or remembered it correctly. Brother Brigham has been quoted as having said a lot of things that we don't necessarily hew to these days, including for example the Adam-God doctrine. 

J. Reuben Clark says "It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can...". 

• To which I say, OK, but as a member of the First Presidency he was also a signatory to a letter responding to a question asking about the revocability of the church position on blacks and priesthood, in which it was written:
  • "From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people..." <- Note that I found this quote attributed to a book by Mary Lou McNamara, Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives (Reprint ed.). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. p. 318. ISBN 0252069595. Retrieved June 8, 2017. So I'm assuming it's an accurate quote, but perhaps it isn't.

Now, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on President Clark, but it appears that he was wrong in that belief about blacks and the priesthood. And what he believed about kingdom-to-kingdom advancement is of like validity, in my mind, because there is no scriptural confirmation for that belief. 

As I alluded to earlier, Elder Talmage's expression of kingdom-to-kingdom advancement is his opinion. He wrote as follows: "It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired..."

• From his wording, he clearly understands that he doesn't know, only that it is reasonable. And he freely admits that there is an absence of revelation to back up his reasonable belief.

I will go so far as to say that, yes, I feel it is reasonable to believe this. But I've been studying the scriptures for a long time, and I don't see any scriptural warrant to believe that kingdom-to-kingdom progression is possible. My kind heart would like it to be the case that even the cruelest and most prolific mass murderers can eventually be exalted. 

But if this were the case in actuality, then I don't think there would be any reason for three different kingdoms to exist at all. If their boundaries were as fluid and as permeable as you seem to believe, then those boundaries are essentially meaningless.

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And this puts me in reasonably good company, doesn't it.

Being in reasonably good company is nice, isn't it? It still doesn't prevent one from being wrong. The bit about being in good company is most commonly stated as "Erring in good company."

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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:

The punishment whose duration is limited, written of in DC 19:6, "...it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment...", is the punishment Christ spoke of, which He described as follows: "Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink." And that is the punishment one must suffer if one rejects Christ and does not repent.

The punishment you seem to be trying to shoe-horn into this is the punishment of being stopped in one's progression between kingdoms. The punishment of being stopped in one's progression is not the punishment referred to in DC 19. It isn't suffering for sin. It isn't even suffering, when we are given to understand that even the lowest kingdom is of unimaginable glory.

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

As stated already, and just to remind you, Talmage, as quoted in Jesus the Christ above, is quite emphatic about marriage being NOT available after the resurrection.

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And, as I keep pointing out, everyone (at least in theory) can arrive at the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

And I've agreed with you, that everyone (at least in theory) can arrive at the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. The key word here is can. It is not will. Some will not arrive there. And as indicated, some will end up in the two lower degrees of the CK specifically because they did not enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage -- and they will be stuck there, as indicated:

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 border 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. [emphasis added]

If it were possible to be married after the resurrection, then verses 3 and 4 would be equivocated. But there is no escape clause, as it were. Matthew 22:30 (see the Talmage quote above) shuts this out.

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

From the scriptural evidence, progression from bottom to middle tier of the CK seems to be allowable. But not without limit, due to the lack of marriage post-resurrection.

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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. 

Doesn't matter if that interpretation of the CK having 3 tiers existed in print prior to 1920 or not. DC 131 was there long before 1920. Just because the Church didn't take particular notice of it until later doesn't mean a thing. We're still in the Restoration, as President Nelson says, and we're still learning. But if it's irrelevant, why do you make a point of bringing this up?

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I already addressed your misstatement of my position respecting "mortal marriage" above, and the only reason I return to it here is because of your snide remark about me feeling special. No, I don't feel special. 

Do you normally make a habit of misunderstanding or misstating other people's positions and then persist in hammering at them over and over with that misunderstanding? As if the only tool you had was a hammer and so had to treat everything you disagree with as a nail?

Ultimately, neither your nor my salvation nor our exaltation depends upon which one of us is correct at this time whether a person can progress from the Telestial Kingdom to the uppermost tier of the Celestial Kingdom and hence be exalted, or not. What the Father proposes to do regarding this is His business. Our primary task is to see to our own salvation and exaltation ("...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Phillipians 2:12).

 

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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

As indicated earlier, being not alone in a view has little value if one is wrong.

On 9/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

The notion that everyone will be exalted after many eons violates both the principle of agency and the atonement of Christ.

If the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms will ultimately be made empty by eternal progression, as you have suggested, then Lucifer's plan in which he would ensure that all Father's children would be saved would turn out to be the one Father should have chosen in the first place! But Father chose His plan, the one which placed every single one of His children at risk of not making it back. The war in heaven occurred because one-third of Father's children refused to take that risk, and preferred the certainty provided in Lucifer's plan.

But if Lucifer's plan of everyone making it back was ultimately what would result anyway, then why did they rebel? 

Universal exaltation for all violates agency because it operates regardless of agency. If no matter what you do as an agent matters, because ultimately you're exalted anyway, then agency is meaningless. And so is the Atonement. This is the doctrine of Nehor. You'll find his doctrine coincides rather nicely with kingdom-to-kingdom progression. Except Nehor was a false teacher.

Alma 1:4 -> "And [Nehor] also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life."

I hope I have made my points clear this time, and that you will not respond with straw men.

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Hence I am on solid scriptural and doctrinal ground that there will be no marriages during or after the resurrection. 

The challenge you face is where modern scripture differentiates between marriage (especially marriage as understood in Matthew 22) and the "New and Everlasting Covenant." Marriage is a ordinance or performance or covenant of mortality. And if it isn't supplanted by the New and Everlasting Covenant, it has no validity in a post-mortal state. On the other hand, there is nothing in scripture which says that New and Everlasting Covenants cannot be entered into in the resurrection (without the need for a mortal marriage).

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

While I respect these great men, none of what you quote is stated as doctrine, but as opinion. 

Let's agree to disagree. What you provided earlier fits this same description. And you can't undermine my argument without undermining your own argument. You don't get to ignore my quotes but then favor your own - based merely on whether you think that they support your position and not mine.

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

DC 131 was there long before 1920.

Not really. It was assembled in 1878, and added to the canon in 1880. There is no recognition of it in doctrinal statements about the celestial kingdom prior to its canonization. Contemporary documents published in the 1840s present something completely foreign to the view first introduced in 1920.

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Just because the Church didn't take particular notice of it until later doesn't mean a thing. We're still in the Restoration, as President Nelson says, and we're still learning. But if it's irrelevant, why do you make a point of bringing this up?

Why bring it up? Because it provides a context. In Section 131, in it's original context, we aren't discussing three tiers in the Celestial Kingdom, we are discussing the three degrees of glory. And the point is that the sealing is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom (not the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom). And Section 131 asserts that this isn't through marriage (as we traditionally understood it) but through the New and Everlasting Covenant. And it is this New and Everlasting Covenant that isn't bound by mortality. Prior to the end of the 19th century, when proxy work was performed, people were sealed to someone - but the rules of those sealings weren't much like our rules today. Deceases women weren't sealed to their deceased husbands - they couldn't be. They could only be sealed to someone who held the Melchizedek priesthood - and that meant someone who was alive. Most women were sealed to leaders of the Church or to one of the ordinance workers. The expectation wasn't that this would all be sorted out in the Spriti World (that's a much later way of getting around the issue) - it was going to be sorted out in the resurrection. What was important wasn't who you were sealed to, but that you were sealed at all. Deceased men were sealed to other men (sealings of adoption) - just as most male members at the time were sealed to other men (they couldn't be sealed to their own parents unless their parents had been members of the Church - a policy that persisted until 1894). When that shift occurred, in 1894, thousands of members of the Church had their sealings cancelled, and new ones created to reflect this policy change. At any rate, this is all widely recognized history. There is a certain oddity here in your assertion that things can change - except for your sacred cows ...

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Do you normally make a habit of misunderstanding or misstating other people's positions and then persist in hammering at them over and over with that misunderstanding? As if the only tool you had was a hammer and so had to treat everything you disagree with as a nail?

No. I make a habit of pointing out the logical conclusions of people's positions. And then hammering at them. Perhaps I have had too much exposure to Socrates ...

But, this isn't a harmless idea either. When you start teaching misogynistic principles as official doctrine of the LDS Church, it isn't harmless.

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ultimately, neither your nor my salvation nor our exaltation depends upon which one of us is correct at this time whether a person can progress from the Telestial Kingdom to the uppermost tier of the Celestial Kingdom and hence be exalted, or not. What the Father proposes to do regarding this is His business. Our primary task is to see to our own salvation and exaltation ("...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Phillipians 2:12).

Perhaps, then, you should take your own advice and simply stop commenting on issues that have no relevancy to your salvation. I engage these topics because they are impactful and it seems that my sort of engagement is important. While policy can and should be tailored to what is normal (and allows for exceptions), doctrine isn't able to be treated this way. It needs to be applicable to everyone.

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The notion that everyone will be exalted after many eons violates both the principle of agency and the atonement of Christ.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't violate either principle. In fact, both principles support this idea - and Book of Mormon (in particular 2 Nephi 2) explains this in some detail. Absolute agency is what we get only in the resurrection - and absolute agency would include the principle of entering into new covenants with that agency. The atonement of Christ is infinite and eternal. You seem to be trying to limit both agency and the atonement. You are welcome to explain why this isn't the case but ...

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms will ultimately be made empty by eternal progression, as you have suggested, then Lucifer's plan in which he would ensure that all Father's children would be saved would turn out to be the one Father should have chosen in the first place! But Father chose His plan, the one which placed every single one of His children at risk of not making it back. The war in heaven occurred because one-third of Father's children refused to take that risk, and preferred the certainty provided in Lucifer's plan.

This is nonsense. When you simplify any two things enough, you can make the similar - so I suppose this is there. How many of God's children did God want to become like Him? And is God (or isn't He) capable of achieving his goals?

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Universal exaltation for all violates agency because it operates regardless of agency. If no matter what you do as an agent matters, because ultimately you're exalted anyway, then agency is meaningless. And so is the Atonement. This is the doctrine of Nehor. You'll find his doctrine coincides rather nicely with kingdom-to-kingdom progression. Except Nehor was a false teacher.

It doesn't violate agency. The idea that we have so many of God's children who are never tested (those who die before the age of 8), now that would seem to violate your notion of agency.

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I hope I have made my points clear this time, and that you will not respond with straw men.

You made your points clear the first time. It's only your opinion, I think that I am responding with straw men.

But, as you point out, it shouldn't matter if I am right and you are wrong, right? It shouldn't have any impact on your eternal condition. There isn't anything in the exaltation of God's children that has to be fair by our standards. That you worked all day in the vineyard, and another came right at the end of the day doesn't change the wages. It isn't about earning our reward. It is about receiving what God wants for us. And we should rejoice (along with God) that there is a chance for everyone to become as He is - even if it takes an eternity to get there.

[Calm]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

f the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms will ultimately be made empty by eternal progression, as you have suggested, then Lucifer's plan in which he would ensure that all Father's children would be saved would turn out to be the one Father should have chosen in the first place! But Father chose His plan, the one which placed every single one of His children at risk of not making it back. The war in heaven occurred because one-third of Father's children refused to take that risk, and preferred the certainty provided in Lucifer's plan.

But if Lucifer's plan of everyone making it back was ultimately what would result anyway, then why did they rebel?

It seems to me this is saying something similar to if everyone eventually works hard and gets through elementary, high school, and college to graduate even if some goof off for awhile, that is the same as giving everyone a bachelor’s degree even though no one went to school.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

For those true believing LDS members who don't believe Joseph Smith lived polygamy, I wonder if this evidence is enough to prove it. 

https://imgur.com/CGPtHwn

[Calm]

Can’t see it, Tacenda.  And I highly doubt anything but a handwritten statement from Joseph he was practicing would suffice and some would still be convinced it was a forgery just as some have convinced themselves that Brigham Young has Joseph and Hyrum assassinated so he and others could practice it, among other things.

added:  huh, now I can see it.

Btw, there are numerous affidavits that haven’t convinced those who do not believe.  Why do you think this one is significant? (It is new to me)

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/915fc5f1-4f65-4131-800a-4eaee3604f3c/b1472c45-e611-41f4-8aed-b0226b4ae24d?view=browse

Edited October 7, 2023 by Calm

[2BizE]

We have never been told that polygamy is not eternal.  We are not currently practicing polygamy on earth at the moment, but think celestial, think polygamy. Button your bonnets ladies for sister wives in the hereafter:) 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Can’t see it, Tacenda.  And I highly doubt anything but a handwritten statement from Joseph he was practicing would suffice and some would still be convinced it was a forgery just as some have convinced themselves that Brigham Young has Joseph and Hyrum assassinated so he and others could practice it, among other things.

added:  huh, now I can see it.

Btw, there are numerous affidavits that haven’t convinced those who do not believe.  Why do you think this one is significant? (It is new to me)

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/915fc5f1-4f65-4131-800a-4eaee3604f3c/b1472c45-e611-41f4-8aed-b0226b4ae24d?view=browse

I don't know why I thought it was enough to convince, lol.

[Stargazer]

On 9/30/2023 at 2:16 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

On the other hand, there is nothing in scripture which says that New and Everlasting Covenants cannot be entered into in the resurrection (without the need for a mortal marriage).

This is why I felt you were trying to beat me senseless with straw men. I did not at any time say that a mortal marriage was required before there could be a post-mortal marriage in the New and Everlasting Covenant. Yet this is the second time that you've insisted that I had.

If we can rely upon Jesus telling the Sadducees that there is no marriage "in the resurrection," then that is a "scripture which says that New and Everlasting Covenants cannot be entered into in the resurrection". 

What this means is that all questions of marriage must have been decided before one is resurrected. Because afterwards the marriage would be "in the resurrection." 

I cannot take the time to respond to the rest of your response to me because I am on holiday and I am getting increasingly annoyed glares from my wife. She was not happy about me taking the laptop with us, and I am proving to her that she should have been more insistent about it.

I will say, however, that I do not care for your accusation of misogyny. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This is why I felt you were trying to beat me senseless with straw men. I did not at any time say that a mortal marriage was required before there could be a post-mortal marriage in the New and Everlasting Covenant. Yet this is the second time that you've insisted that I had.

The challenge is that once we reduce this discussion to this level of semantic argument, it has already lost all functional meaning. This is what I mean by this - if you want to say that Jesus is saying that there is no marriage after mortality - because marriage is only limited to mortality, and it is replaced by the New and Everlasting Covenant - then the distinction between the two is largely irrelevant. Your citation of the New Testament passage is nothing more than a semantic argument. To put it into more current LDS terms, if we believe that there is marriage in mortality and that there is an eternal marriage - and that these ideas represent very different things, that's fine - we can make that distinction. But from the current LDS doctrinal position, eternal marriages will be made in the post-mortal state that are not dependent on marriage in mortality. And your quoting the New Testament passage does not refute this idea. It is you who are bringing the New Testament passage into this.

The second thing about this is that if the mortal marriage isn't necessary for post-mortal eternal marriage, it isn't useful in dealing with the question of eternal polygamy.

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If we can rely upon Jesus telling the Sadducees that there is no marriage "in the resurrection," then that is a "scripture which says that New and Everlasting Covenants cannot be entered into in the resurrection". 

And you immediately contradict yourself.

This is an irrelevancy in the face of current LDS doctrinal statements which state that people will be able to get married (to enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant) without having been married in mortality - that is, that the New and Everlasting Covenant can be entered into in the resurrection. This is current LDS doctrine. Effectively, you are trying to argue that the New and Evelasting Covenant must be entered into in mortality - and you are arguing that what Jesus is referring to as marriage includes the New and Everlasting Covenant.

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What this means is that all questions of marriage must have been decided before one is resurrected. Because afterwards the marriage would be "in the resurrection." 

And I will continue to argue that regardless of what this means, it is not current LDS doctrine with regard to the New and Everlasting Covenant.

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I will say, however, that I do not care for your accusation of misogyny. 

Then you should work at changing the way you think and discuss certain subjects - like this one - or you should get used to it. Whether you want to recognize it or not, most LDS discussions about polygamy contain a high level of sexist discourse. This is, at least in part, because of its roots in a sexist society. But more than that, a lot of the excuses and reasons given for the practice of polygamy are incredibly sexist. The problems that come with these attitudes toward polygamy have very real consequences for women in the Church today - even if we no longer actively practice polygamy. And it is the defense of these attitudes which leads to the issue of misogyny.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge is that once we reduce this discussion to this level of semantic argument, it has already lost all functional meaning. This is what I mean by this - if you want to say that Jesus is saying that there is no marriage after mortality - because marriage is only limited to mortality, and it is replaced by the New and Everlasting Covenant - then the distinction between the two is largely irrelevant. Your citation of the New Testament passage is nothing more than a semantic argument

Yes, technically a clash between Wittgensteinian language games,  not unlike my favorite analogy, arguing about whether lions or Rugby is the "most dangerous game"

Edited October 13, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

I haven't read all the posts in this forum, so apologies if this has been covered already.

 

If people have a sealed marriage in a temple and one of them dies, can the surviving person have a second marriage sealed in a temple?

 

If so, does it hold true regardless of whether the husband or wife is the survivor?

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

I haven't read all the posts in this forum, so apologies if this has been covered already.

 

If people have a sealed marriage in a temple and one of them dies, can the surviving person have a second marriage sealed in a temple?

 

If so, does it hold true regardless of whether the husband or wife is the survivor?

A surviving husband can without any issues.  A surviving wife can with special permission (I understand this is quite rare).  After all participants are dead, they can all get sealed to each other in the temple (through proxy).

[Ragerunner]

On 10/7/2023 at 10:49 AM, Tacenda said:

For those true believing LDS members who don't believe Joseph Smith lived polygamy, I wonder if this evidence is enough to prove it. 

https://imgur.com/CGPtHwn

I am surprised any member would think this would even be up for debate. It very clear at this point he live polygamy.