Is Polygamy Eternal?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

Those situations were probably rare but I'm curious how rare.  What percentage of current wives had a say in the other marriages?

The first wife telling her husband it was time to take a second wife and them deciding on who together apparently happened in two cases in my family history.  I do not have the stories from the wives’ POV though.  Both are summaries from sources that are not included.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The first wife telling her husband it was time to take a second wife and them deciding on who together apparently happen in two cases in my family history.  I do not have the stories from the wives’ POV though.  Both are summaries from sources that are not included.

I have one except the leadership told him to take another wife and she chose the wife. It is her account I read. I have only read a bit of what the husband wrote but it was mostly about burning US Army supplies in the Utah War.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have one except the leadership told him to take another wife and she chose the wife. It is her account I read. I have only read a bit of what the husband wrote but it was mostly about burning US Army supplies in the Utah War.

I believe they are likely the actual case and not just wishful thinking on the part of whomever wrote the accounts.  At least in one case it was a pragmatic marriage in that both had fiancés that had changed their mind about moving to Utah.  It still was a loving relationship, if not terribly romantic.  One of his plural wives lost a child and was an invalid from then on and the first wife took her in and cared for her for decades.  Brigham Young allegedly visited their home and declared the family a wonderful example of celestial love.  My grandmother remembered the plural wife as Aunt Polly.  She was a bit condescending as unlike her grandmother, Grandma had not much empathy for those who were chronically ill.  She couldn’t understand them very well even though she had gone through great tragedy herself.  My mom’s life was at times stressful because of that as Grandma was full of advice and frequently would say “you know I’m right”.  She most often was, which likely made that even more annoying (we cousins laughed about fondly at her memorial though).

Edited October 22, 2023 by Calm

[theplains]

On 10/22/2023 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Since the D&C is quoting other scripture, our concern is about what is meant in the other scripture - not the various ways that we can read the English word in the Doctrine and Covenants.

I was looking at verse 38.

It seems you have a way at looking at many from a Hebrew perspective but then don't apply the
same to the English in the Doctrine and Covenants.  I even provided some examples of many in the
Book of Mormon, even though it is thought to have been translated from reformed Egyptian to English.
Do you apply the same principle to many in the original Greek?

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as  also
many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin
save in those things which they received not of me."

Has the definition of concubines changed from the beginning of creation until this time (the time of this
revelation - July 12, 1843)?  

Who are some of these many servants of God who had many wives and concubines after the resurrection
of Christ until this time (the time of said revelation as I mentioned above)?  

Would those 30+ women married/sealed to Joseph Smith's and the 10 virgins in the law of the priesthood
(Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63) constitute the criteria of "many wives and concubines" (in either
mortality or in the afterlife) for the LDS males in our day?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, theplains said:

It seems you have a way at looking at many from a Hebrew perspective but then don't apply the same to the English in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Why should I? I understood that you were referring to verse 38. The issue is that the reference in verse 38 isn't some sort of original text it is a direct quote from the Book of Mormon. It is addressing a concern raised by various parties about the context of polygamy in light of Jacob 2:24.

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

D&C 132:38 reads:

"David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me."

The D&C section 132 text is quoting from Jacob 2:24. It is responding to it. Jacob 2:24 is quoting Deuteronomy 17:17:

"He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."

In the long run, the term "many" and its definition in context isn't really a big issue.

So, we can quibble about what "many" means in this context, but the real issue is the difference in the ways in which the D&C and the Book of Mormon approach the Old Testament text and its implicating David's and Solomon's polygamy in light of the Law of Moses as provided in Deuteronomy 17. Some Jewish commentaries have attempted to eliminate the problem by defining "many" in a way that includes or excludes certain individuals (Jacob for example, with his four wives). Apologetic arguments about David's polygamy go back more than 2000 years in known texts. The Book of Mormon simply argues that it was all sinful (its authors had no desire to protect David's or Solomon's polygamy). The D&C argues that none of it was inherently sinful (the sin, where it existed, was caused by other conditions). Because of this, we don't really care what the definition of many is, in the D&C. More than one is perfectly fine - and we don't care in part because LDS polygamy practices never engaged the question of how many is too many (as defined in the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon).

18 minutes ago, theplains said:

Has the definition of concubines changed from the beginning of creation until this time (the time of this revelation - July 12, 1843)?

No. However, it's meaning has changed substantially since the text that is translated with the word concubine was written into the Old Testament ... and this does have implications for our reading of the text. How do you define the term "concubine"?

19 minutes ago, theplains said:

Who are some of these many servants of God who had many wives and concubines after the resurrection of Christ until this time (the time of said revelation as I mentioned above)?  

I don't think it really matters. Are you trying to justify (as the Nephites were at the time of Jacob) the practice of polygamy on the basis that others have done it?

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

Would those 30+ women married/sealed to Joseph Smith's and the 10 virgins in the law of the priesthood (Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63) constitute the criteria of "many wives and concubines" (in either mortality or in the afterlife) for the LDS males in our day?

No, they wouldn't. Section 132 isn't applicable in the sense of allowing polygamy for LDS males today. If D&C 132 supersedes Jacob 2 and Deuteronomy 17, then revelation subsequent to D&C 132 supersedes that revelation as well. I take for this argument the same rationale that Lehi and Jacob used in the Book of Mormon. Even if we can point to passages in the Old Testament where polygamy might be required by the Law of Moses (for example, Deuteronomy 25:5-10 - a useful passage since it is also cited by Jacob), the revelation given to the current prophet is what we are required to accept. To the extent that we create an opportunity for men to be sealed to more than one woman today, the same sort of reason allows us to recognize that we seal more than one man to the same woman routinely today as well. Does this mean that we should accept eternal polyandry?

We have no need to justify polygamy as anything more than a temporary (and perhaps failed) experiment, started as part of the restoration of all things. Certainly we have completely dropped much of the theological ideas that early Mormonism drew from polygamy.

[SkyRock]

I have polygamist ancestors in both my mom's and dad's lineage.   There are stories of sadness and difficulty for both the men and women.   

I am very glad that this is not currently practiced in the church.  I also don't know how big an issue it will be among exalted beings in the Celestial Kingdom.

[theplains]

On 10/24/2023 at 10:39 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

How do you define the term "concubine"?

I would define it as "a woman who, in some societies, lives and has sex with a man she
is not married to, and has a lower social rank than his wife or wives."
 

On 10/24/2023 at 10:39 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think it really matters. Are you trying to justify (as the Nephites were at the time of Jacob) the practice of polygamy on the basis that others have done it?

No.  I was just trying to see if you could identify the many servants of God (excluding David
and Solomon) who you believe He justified having many wives and concubines after the
resurrection of Christ until this time (the time of D&C 132).

Do you believe verse 1, where the Lord justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses having
many wives and concubines?
 

On 10/24/2023 at 10:39 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

We have no need to justify polygamy as anything more than a temporary (and perhaps failed) experiment, started as part of the restoration of all things.

Some would argue that it should not be considered as either failed or an experiment but
rather a temporary covenant law instituted by God.  From what I know, the Saints were
forced to abandon it in order for Utah to join the United States. Then the Saints are said
to have received a revelation to change course.

Supposing God did institute polygamy and concubinage for many of his servants from the
beginning of creation (wikipedia has much discussion from an LDS historical point of view),
what do you believe was its primary and/or temporary purpose for Joseph Smith (had 30+),
Brigham Young (had 51), Heber C. Kimball (had 43), and the elders (who could have up to 10
virgins as wives)?

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

I would define it as "a woman who, in some societies, lives and has sex with a man she
is not married to, and has a lower social rank than his wife or wives."
 

No.  I was just trying to see if you could identify the many servants of God (excluding David
and Solomon) who you believe He justified having many wives and concubines after the
resurrection of Christ until this time (the time of D&C 132).

Do you believe verse 1, where the Lord justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses having
many wives and concubines?
 

Some would argue that it should not be considered as either failed or an experiment but
rather a temporary covenant law instituted by God.  From what I know, the Saints were
forced to abandon it in order for Utah to join the United States. Then the Saints are said
to have received a revelation to change course.

Supposing God did institute polygamy and concubinage for many of his servants from the
beginning of creation (wikipedia has much discussion from an LDS historical point of view),
what do you believe was its primary and/or temporary purpose for Joseph Smith (had 30+),
Brigham Young (had 51), Heber C. Kimball (had 43), and the elders (who could have up to 10
virgins as wives)?

My stalwart faithful LDS sister in law once said to me, after telling her I didn't want to attend the temple that day and told her I was struggling with Joseph Smith's polygamy, she told me that they were dirty old men back then. I was shocked that she said this,  she serves in the temple weekly, for years volunteered at the Timpanogus Temple weeding and taking care of the grounds. She never said it came from God, surprisingly.

[The Nehor]

On 10/24/2023 at 1:43 PM, SkyRock said:

I have polygamist ancestors in both my mom's and dad's lineage.   There are stories of sadness and difficulty for both the men and women.   

I am very glad that this is not currently practiced in the church.  I also don't know how big an issue it will be among exalted beings in the Celestial Kingdom.

I enjoyed having more than one romantic relationship at the same time. I am also very odd and wouldn’t recommend it to most people.

[Stargazer]

On 10/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, 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. 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.

And you continue to misstate what I have been saying. Almost as if you cannot understand the language I am writing in. But since I am pretty sure you understand English, it has to be the case that you are only skimming what I have written, and have not understood -- and are insisting upon your own false representation of what I have written, instead of what I have actually written.

• Here I'm editing this to add a link to the post where what I say over and over is not what you are insisting I am sayiing: To avoid cluttering this post, the link is HERE. Please read the whole thing. I admit that I write a lot of words, and there must be a strong temptation to just skim them, but please, read it for comprehension this time.

 

Quoting you above: "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."

This is what you keep saying I have said, and I have repeatedly told you that that is NOT what I have been saying. Yet, you continue to insist upon it. This is why I have said you are creating a straw man to knock over. Perhaps not deliberately.

I have said that there is no marriage in the resurrection. In the same precise language that Jesus is quoted in, in the two passages in the Gospels where it is reported. This means, and I have said this multiple times, that all questions of marriage must be answered before the time a person is resurrected, and not after. Which is what Jesus told the Sadducees. There is no marriage "in the resurrection." Matters of marriage must be decided before one is resurrected - but let me reemphasize it, that that matter can be decided at any time before then, including while one is still in the Spirit World. And then, in the Resurrection, one is resurrected into the kingdom of glory one has been judged to merit, and if into the Celestial Kingdom, one is resurrected with one's eternal spouse, if one has one.

Let me repeat, in case I am still not understood: I have never at any time said that only marriages contracted in mortality will be valid in the eternities. I myself know of two situations where an engaged couple did not marry because one of the couple died before it could be done. In one case, a woman of my acquaintance who had this happen before she joined the church, later upon joining the church, got permission from the First Presidency to be sealed to her dead fiancée. And she was so sealed. Another woman I met may have had that done for her, and if it was not done before she herself passed away (she never married after her fiancee was killed in WW1), and she joined the church very late in life. I expect that it will be done during the Millennium. Before they are resurrected.

On 10/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

And you immediately contradict yourself.

The only thing I may have contradicted, was your misunderstanding of what I wrote.

On 10/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

This is just a repetition of what I have already stated isn't what I am saying.

On 10/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I do not change what I believe because some more supposedly "enlightened" person insists that unless his "enlightened" understanding is slavishly followed that his interlocutor who disagrees must be the one who is wrong. Especially not because the supposedly "enlightened" person insists upon asserting that I have said something I have not said. And you are certainly allowed to call me a misogynist if you want (sticks and stones and all that), but the women in my life, including my wives, have always been treated with the utmost respect and love, as if I consider them to be angels in disguise, which, for the most part, they have been.

My belief continues to be that plural marriage will be necessary in the eternities for the simple reason that fewer men will be exalted than women. You don't like that. I sympathize, because I don't like it, either. I want for all of Father's children to be exalted. But I am quite certain that will not be the case.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Stargazer
Add a link to demonstrate what I actually wrote

[Stargazer]

For @Benjamin McGuire ...

On the topic of progression between Kingdoms, since you didn't adequately address what I wrote a few weeks ago (i.e. your response failed to answer what I wrote), I shall bring it back. Please do not skim, but read it all. If you don't mind.

You quoted J. Reuben Clark and James Talmage as follows:

J. Reuben Clark: "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)

James E. Talmage: "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)

I indicated that I felt that both these statements were non-binding doctrinal opinions, as follows:

"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."

Whereupon you said this:

"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."

I wasn't ignoring your quotes to favor my own. I was demonstrating your quotes' lack of certainty, or in other words, their degree of opinionality. Which was strongly opinionational and not at all proclamations of doctrine. They were hopeful expressions of opinions, and I will admit that I wish things were that way.

Shall we duel with quotes at 50 feet then? President Oaks said the following in the October 2023 General Conference, and he himself was quoting President Nelson:

"Speaking of the three kingdoms of glory with his prophetic vision, President Russell M. Nelson recently wrote: 'Mortal lifetime is barely a nanosecond compared with eternity. But what a crucial nanosecond it is! Consider carefully how it works: During this mortal life you get to choose which laws you are willing to obey—those of the celestial kingdom, or the terrestrial, or the telestial—and, therefore, in which kingdom of glory you will live forever. What a plan! It is a plan that completely honors your agency.'"

Whose quote trumps whose?

This is what I get from all this: in the opinion of J. Reuben Clark and James E. Talmage, there may be progression between kingdoms. In the opinion of Benjamin McGuire, the Telestial and the Terrestrial Kingdoms will eventually empty out as their denizens get promoted higher and higher, and both kingdoms will become nice places but empty of inhabitants.

Now, in light of what President Nelson said, as to forever, and President Oaks' agreement, where do the opinions of Elders Clark and Talmage, and Brother McGuire land?

I repeat myself:

"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.'"

Are you with Nehor? That eventually everyone will be saved at the last day, and all men should have eternal life? It's what you're saying.

And is that the best company to be in?

[Tacenda]

On 10/22/2023 at 11:53 AM, Calm said:

The first wife telling her husband it was time to take a second wife and them deciding on who together apparently happened in two cases in my family history.  I do not have the stories from the wives’ POV though.  Both are summaries from sources that are not included.

Meri Brown, on Sister Wives did that with Kody Brown with the 4th wife, ended up ruining the whole family. Hopefully they're able to repair the damage with the children and Kody & Robyn.

[Stargazer]

And again, @Benjamin McGuire, the doctrine emptying out of the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms as everyone gets exalted after working really hard runs squarely afoul of Nephi's teaching, wherein he wrote:

"7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. 9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark." -- 2 Nephi 28

There is no scriptural warrant for believing that no matter what we do in mortality and the Spirit World we will eventually be able to jump ship from the Telestial to the Celestial Kingdom. If Nehor is correct, then yes, but he was condemned for teaching that false doctrine. And Nephi, Oaks, and Nelson all concur that Nehor was wrong.

You can still believe if you want. It's your right.

You can believe any comfortable doctrine you choose to, but teaching others that they can advance outside of their adjudged kingdom, post resurrection, would encourage them to believe that they can just "Eat, drink, and be merry," and all would be well in Zion after all is said in done. It doesn't work like that. It cannot work like that.

 

[Stargazer]

For @Benjamin McGuire...

In support of what I have been saying about questions of marriage needing to have been settled before one is resurrected, may I offer Elder James E. Talmage's understanding of the matter?

"In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity." -- Jesus the Christ, chapter 31

You're entitled to disagree with Elder Talmage, of course.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

On 10/27/2023 at 4:53 PM, The Nehor said:

I enjoyed having more than one romantic relationship at the same time. I am also very odd and wouldn’t recommend it to most people.

I am currently watching the Golden Bachelor, the one with older people and he (bachelor) is torn about sending those he's fallen in love with home. So I can see how some people can fall in love with many people and not just one at the same time.

[theplains]

On 10/27/2023 at 3:30 PM, Tacenda said:

My stalwart faithful LDS sister in law once said to me, after telling her I didn't want to attend the temple that day and told her I was struggling with Joseph Smith's polygamy, she told me that they were dirty old men back then. I was shocked that she said this,  she serves in the temple weekly, for years volunteered at the Timpanogus Temple weeding and taking care of the grounds. She never said it came from God, surprisingly.

I guess question #4 of the temple recommend interview doesn't extend all the way back to 
when Joseph Smith was the President.  If it did, your sister might have to say "no" and fail
getting it.

Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the 
prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise 
all priesthood keys?

As for the dirty old men, #5 creates an obstacle.

#5 The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine 
and Covenants 42:41).

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:03 AM, theplains said:

I would define it as "a woman who, in some societies, lives and has sex with a man she is not married to, and has a lower social rank than his wife or wives."

First, I apologize for the delay in responding - I had a somewhat unexpected major surgery last Wednesday (10/25) and am only now getting back into the swing of things (it went well, but full recovery will take another 3-4 weeks).

While this definition occurs in English, the definition comes out of the practice of having concubines within the Ottoman Empire (1517-1924). This context is quite important for understanding the idea when defined in this way because most of the concubines in the Ottoman Empire were slaves.

In Old Testament contexts, concubines were all legally married wives, although as a secondary wife that had somewhat different rights and duties than more traditional wives did. So any time we discuss the concept of concubines as the term is used in scripture, it is always in reference to a woman who has a legal marriage, even if she has a lower social rank than other wives. So

On 10/27/2023 at 10:03 AM, theplains said:

No.  I was just trying to see if you could identify the many servants of God (excluding David and Solomon) who you believe He justified having many wives and concubines after the resurrection of Christ until this time (the time of D&C 132).

I have no interest in speculating about it. It is completely irrelevant to the gospel today, which, like the Book of Mormon peoples, rejects plural marriage.

On 10/27/2023 at 10:03 AM, theplains said:

Do you believe verse 1, where the Lord justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses having many wives and concubines?

And do you believe Jacob 2:24 where we are told that:

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

So which is it? Justified? Or abomination? We can't really eliminate the charge merely by suggesting that the Bathsheba event itself is the only thing that David did that wasn't justified - because she represents a single wife/concubine and this doesn't alleviate the problems associated with having many of them.

On 10/27/2023 at 10:03 AM, theplains said:

Some would argue that it should not be considered as either failed or an experiment but rather a temporary covenant law instituted by God.  From what I know, the Saints were forced to abandon it in order for Utah to join the United States. Then the Saints are said to have received a revelation to change course.

But again, you are ignoring the entire context of the Book of Mormon peoples for whom polygamy was never an option (by revelation). And we could argue that polygamy was never (until its institution within LDS theology) introduced as a principle to be practiced by many if not most men. This is what makes it seem temporary within the context of modern LDS practice.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/28/2023 at 2:13 PM, Stargazer said:

And you continue to misstate what I have been saying. Almost as if you cannot understand the language I am writing in. But since I am pretty sure you understand English, it has to be the case that you are only skimming what I have written, and have not understood -- and are insisting upon your own false representation of what I have written, instead of what I have actually written.

Let me suggest that it isn't my comprehension that's the problem. There may well be a miscommunication - and you are welcome to try and clarify it for us.

I am going to continue to insist though, that the Matthew passage does not preclude people who were never married during mortality (either while alive or by proxy) from being sealed together as eternal partners. Your invocation of the Matthew passage does not refute my point of view - so in the long run, this is a sidetrack that isn't going anywhere.

On 10/28/2023 at 2:13 PM, Stargazer said:

I have said that there is no marriage in the resurrection. In the same precise language that Jesus is quoted in, in the two passages in the Gospels where it is reported. This means, and I have said this multiple times, that all questions of marriage must be answered before the time a person is resurrected, and not after. Which is what Jesus told the Sadducees. There is no marriage "in the resurrection." Matters of marriage must be decided before one is resurrected - but let me reemphasize it, that that matter can be decided at any time before then, including while one is still in the Spirit World. And then, in the Resurrection, one is resurrected into the kingdom of glory one has been judged to merit, and if into the Celestial Kingdom, one is resurrected with one's eternal spouse, if one has one.

Okay. Then we will simply agree to disagree on your interpretation of the text. I don't really have the inclination right now to explain why your interpretation is wrong. But I will continue to insist that regardless of how you interpret it, LDS doctrine is that people will be married (since you want to keep the term broad) after they are resurrected - and this won't be something that is determined only in the time period in which they sit in Spirit Prison (or Paradise) before the resurrection. We can simply agree to disagree if you want.

But, there is another problem that you should deal with in this context. Women are sealed to more than one man before the resurrection. This is done routinely today within the Church. So this suggests, by your reasoning that if eternal polygamy exists, so does eternal polyandry.

On 10/28/2023 at 2:13 PM, Stargazer said:

The only thing I may have contradicted, was your misunderstanding of what I wrote.

I think that you don't really read what you write ...

On 10/28/2023 at 2:13 PM, Stargazer said:

My belief continues to be that plural marriage will be necessary in the eternities for the simple reason that fewer men will be exalted than women. You don't like that. I sympathize, because I don't like it, either. I want for all of Father's children to be exalted. But I am quite certain that will not be the case.

And this is a nonsensical argument that cannot be supported through revelation or doctrine. Not only is there no revealed basis for the idea that fewer men will be exalted, there is every reason to believe that there will be very little difference between the genders - and, the only way that you can support this idea is by moving to the most restrictive models of exaltation as opposed to the most expansive ones. We have a broad history among the leaders of the Church suggesting that it is appropriate to believe that God will in fact be able to exalt most (if not almost all) of His children who experience mortality. And it's clear that you don't like this idea either. The difference, perhaps, is that I don't really have a lot of sympathy for a view that I don't believe is justified or even justifiable.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/28/2023 at 3:07 PM, Stargazer said:

I indicated that I felt that both these statements were non-binding doctrinal opinions, as follows:

So what? The challenge you have is that what you provide is all a series of non-binding doctrinal opinions. That is the whole point.

The challenge you face is that you don't simply get to privilege some statements and not others - you also have to recognize that we have a long history of leadership in the LDS Church who disagree with you - and that they were themselves called as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church. If they can believe the sorts of things that I believe within their calling and role in the Church, there is not only nothing wrong with my doing so, it also argues very strongly against an orthodox position that runs counter to what you are suggesting.

I find myself in good company.

[InCognitus]

On 11/2/2023 at 9:00 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

First, I apologize for the delay in responding - I had a somewhat unexpected major surgery last Wednesday (10/25) and am only now getting back into the swing of things (it went well, but full recovery will take another 3-4 weeks).

I hope you have a speedy recovery.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I hope you have a speedy recovery.  

Thank you - it is going much better than expected. I will probably be back to my old self by Thanksgiving.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/28/2023 at 2:13 PM, Stargazer said:

I have said that there is no marriage in the resurrection.

On second thought, perhaps we should discuss the interpretation of the passage ...

It isn't just you that is saying this here. It is also Jesus that is saying this. But Jesus means this literally - that is, there is no marriage after death. All marriages end at death, and since no one gets married in the resurrection, there is no marriage in the resurrection. This is what we get in Matthew 22:30 - "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Jesus is saying here that the angels of God in heaven aren't married. And because people in the resurrection are like the angels in heaven, they too aren't married - they do not eat, or drink, or have families, or procreate, and so on.

There is a historical contextual layer to this. This entire discussion occurs within the context of Levirate marriage - but it isn't just about Levirate marriage (because we have to consider the first husband). To clarify Jewish belief about this issue - and the backdrop for the statement by Jesus, let me quote from Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1 -

Quote

A woman is acquired in three ways; she acquires herself in two ways: She is acquired with money, with a document, or with cohabitation. With money —- Beis Shammai say: With a dinar or with something worth a dinar. Beis Hillel, however, say: With a perutah or with something worth a perutah. How much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. She acquires herself with a get or with the death of the husband. A yevamah is acquired with cohabitation, and acquires herself with chalitzah or with the death of the yavam.

To provide some chronological context, Beis Hillel died in 10 CE. Beis Shammai died in 30 CE. So these are near contemporaries with Jesus.

To be acquired means to get betrothed (the contractual aspect of marriage). For a woman to acquire herself means to end the contract of marriage or effectively to get a divorce. Yevamah refers to the practice of Levirate marriage that Jesus is dealing with in this question - but, in any case, as you can see here, the death of a husband is considered a divorce for the woman. The distinction is made because the woman is not free to marry anyone she wants when the issue of Levirate marriage applies (without those conditions, she is free to marry anyone she wants). The questioners used Levirate marriage because they want to point out what they believed was an absurdity in Pharisaic theology - and Jesus points out how this theology deals with the question quite well - none of them could be married to her in the resurrection because A) they had all died - and so were no longer married to her because of death, and B) marriages can not be made in the resurrection.

So we have this problem here. In this passage, Jesus is asserting that in the resurrection, none of the brothers could be married to the woman because they all had to die first - and in dying, they are divorced from her - and that there couldn't be a further marriage because no one gets married in the resurrection - it isn't simply that you have to get married before the resurrection - that notion doesn't work here in this text because Jesus is affirming that every marriage ends in the death of a spouse. And this, Jesus notes, is further applicable to every person who lives - because even if they were married in their mortality, they still die, and then become like the angels in the resurrection.

So what you are doing is trying to to cut out the bits of the verse that you like, and are ignoring the context - and this doesn't work. Jesus is not teaching the principle of eternal marriage here in any form. He isn't teaching anything that supports the idea of eternal marriage.

Now, I suppose that you could argue that Jesus is merely adopting Pharisaic theology as a way of responding to the Sadducees, not because it was something that he believed and taught. And then we can see that this means that the statement that you are trying top draw from this isn't meaningful either as a teaching of true doctrine - it is merely an expression of Pharisaic belief. Either way, we have this problem that this text isn't a proof text in the way that you are claiming that it is.

Finally, the one way to perhaps make a distinction is to separate the idea of marriage from the idea of the new and everlasting covenant. Marriage ends in death, but the new and everlasting covenant does not. But, the moment that we separate the two in this way is the moment that we are forced to recognize that Jesus's teachings in Matthew 22 don't apply then to the new and everlasting covenant. Which means that what Jesus is teaching doesn't prevent us from making new and everlasting covenants in the resurrection (and beyond) rather than limiting the new and everlasting covenant only to a mortal condition.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[theplains]

On 11/2/2023 at 11:00 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

First, I apologize for the delay in responding - I had a somewhat unexpected major surgery last Wednesday (10/25) and am only now getting back into the swing of things (it went well, but full recovery will take another 3-4 weeks).

No need to apologize.  Things happen in life.  Hope you are feeling better and have a
speedy recovery.

 

On 11/2/2023 at 11:00 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And do you believe Jacob 2:24 where we are told that:

"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

So which is it? Justified? Or abomination? We can't really eliminate the charge merely by suggesting that the Bathsheba event itself is the only thing that David did that wasn't justified - because she represents a single wife/concubine and this doesn't alleviate the problems associated with having many of them.

I don't believe they were justified as Doctrine and Covenants 132:1 says. 

Marriage instituted by God is one man and one woman.  The "two shall become one flesh"
expresses God's concept of marriage. By entering into marriage, a husband and wife take
solemn vows to become permanently one flesh—to love, honor, and cherish one another. 
A husband + wives + concubines does not equal "one flesh".

Even in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 lists “the husband of one wife”
as a qualification for spiritual leadership in the church.