| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 72.1 | | FAST::LEIGH | | Thu Feb 25 1988 08:33 | 197 |
| Re .0
> A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if
> her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom
> she wishes, only (he must be) in the Lord.
>
> [1 Cor 7:39]
>
> For the married woman is bound by law to her husband
> while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is
> released from the law concerning the husband.
>
> [Rom 7:2]
The King James Version of 1 Corinthians 7:39 is slightly different than
the version you quoted; it includes the phrase "by the law", indicating
Paul is (in both scriptures) talking about the civil law of marriage not
the Eternal law. There are two kinds of marriages: civil marriage by
civil law and Eternal marriage by God's Priesthood. If a couple is married
in a LDS Temple for eternity and the husband dies, the wife is free, as Paul
indicated, to remarry under civil law for time-only. My mother did that after
my dad died. The phrase "in the Lord" indicates as you noted that the second
husband should be a believer in Christ.
> In support of the "Eternal Marriage", the Mormons quote from Matthew
> were Jesus gives Peter the power to "bind" things on earth.
>
> And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
> and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
> heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
> loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
>
>
> If we look at this Scripture in context, we see that Jesus is talking
> about the "Keys of the kingdom of heaven". He tells Peter that he has the
> keys to the door into the kingdom of heaven and that he will also have the
> power to "permit" or "forbid" people from entering it. In other words,
> Peter is the one who will say how people can come into the kingdom. This
> is in reference to Acts 2, where Peter is the one who stands up and opens
> the kingdom to the Jews and in Acts 10, where Peter is he one who opens the
> kingdom to the Gentiles. Jesus is bestowing the responsibility on him to
> introduce (open the door of) the kingdom to the people. That is what the
> "bounding" is referring to; it has nothing to do with marriage.
I agree that Matthew 16:19 has nothing directly to do with marriage. It also
has nothing directly to do with the "door" into the kingdom; that is just
your interpretation. That scripture has to do with "whatsoever" the Apostles
did, whether it be baptism as the "door", or marriage, or what ever. You
interpret the scripture in a narrow sense of a "door" into heaven. We interpret
it in a broad sense to refer to all things the Apostles did.
> Another Scripture that they point to is the following:
>
> Truly I say to you, whatever you shall (*)bind on
> earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you
> (**)loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (***)
> Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth
> about anything that they may ask, it shall be done
> for them by My Father who is in heaven.
>
> [Matt 18:18-19 (*) the word "Bind" means to "forbid"
> not "to join together". (**) the word "Loose" means
> to "permit" not "to separate". (***) the word "Again"
> emphasizes a reiteration of the previous sentence.]
According to Strong's Concordance, the word "bind" in both Matthew 16
and Matthew 18 means to bind, tie, wind, be in bonds and may be
used either literally or figuratively. That is, whatsoever the Apostles
would tie together in the spiritual sense on earth would be tied together
in Heaven, hence our belief that marriages tied together on earth would
be tied together in heaven.
Likewise, according to the Concordance, the word "loose" means to loosen,
breakup, destroy, dissolve and may be used either literally or figuratively.
That is, whatsoever the apostles dissolved on earth would be dissolved in
Heaven.
> In context here, Jesus is talking to all the disciples (18:1). This is
> important to keep in mind; he is not just talking to Peter, or to the 12
> apostles but to all the disciples (ie..all the followers of Christ).
Verse 1 speaks of "disciples", and I feel the context refers to the 12 not
to all believers. It is common in the Gospels for the word "disciple" to
be used in reference to the Apostles. Again, Tony, we have a difference of
opinion about interpretation.
> Secondly, as demonstrated in verse 19, Jesus is talking about prayer and
> the Fathers response to their prayer....that what they pray for, they will
> receive for the Father.
Actually, Tony, verse 19 isn't talking about prayer itself. It is talking
about the authority given the Apostles to "bind" on earth and in heaven. Jesus
said in that verse that if any two of the Apostles agreed on how prayers of
the faithful should be answered, the Lord would accept that agreement and
answer the prayers in that manner! This verse illustrates that the "binding"
on earth was not just for a "door" into heaven or for marriage but pertained
in general to the work of the Apostles.
> The Jews wrestled with similar questions. They knew the teachings of
> the Law which stated that a woman should re-marry after the death
> of her husband, in fact that she should marry her late husbands brother
> and this marriage was legal and valid. And realizing this, they asked
> Jesus who's wife would she be in the resurrection, for she had legitimately
> been married to 7 men:
It is important to recognize that the Jews asking that question were the
Sadducees who were asking a question about the resurrection but did not
believe in the resurrection. They were not sincerely trying to understand
the resurrection because they already and firmly disbelieved in it; they
were trying to trick Jesus.
Yes, the wife had legitimately under the Law of Moses (i.e. under civil law)
been married to seven men, but Jesus told them that there should be no question
about whose wife she would be in the resurrection since marriages are not
*performed* in the resurrection. That is, if one of the marriages were by God's
Priesthood, she would be the wife of that man; if not, she would be the wife
of no man.
> >Notice that Jesus did *not* say that marriages would not exist in the
> >resurrection. What he *did* say was that marriage ceremonies are not
> >performed:...... [with reference to Matthew 22:29-30]
>
> Neither did He say that marriages *would* exist in Heaven.
Agreed. "What he *did* say was that marriage ceremonies are not performed"
in Heaven. I used that scripture not to teach eternal marriage, but to
rebut the common argument that Jesus supposedly said marriages would not
exist in Heaven. The scripture only says that marriages will not be performed
in the resurrection.
> >Jesus was telling them that the wife would belong to the first brother
> >because their marriage was eternal. She could not be the wife of the
> >other brothers because marriages are not performed in the life to come;
> >they must be performed here.
>
> How do you get that from the above Scripture?
When you read that scripture, you interpret it from your viewpoint that
marriages do not exist in the life to come. When I read the verses, I
interpret them from my viewpoint that marriages can exist in Heaven. In
both cases, Tony, our viewpoint, which we already had before reading those
verses, determines how we interpret the verses.
> >The Lord revealed that marriages for eternity are to be performed in LDS
> >Temples, both for living couples and by proxy for those who died without
> >this opportunity.
>
> 1) He never taught that in the Bible. Were all marriages performed
> prior to LDS Temple marriages of the non-eternal type and therefore
> void in Heaven?
I did not say that the Bible taught eternal marriage itself. I titled my
reply to note 4 "Latter-day Revelation: Eternal Marriage" to indicate that
the teaching of eternal marriage came through revelation. My reason in
using Biblical scriptures in that reply was to show that the principle of
eternal marriage is consistent with the Bible, not that it came from the Bible.
Yes, all marriages performed outside of LDS Temples are of the non-eternal
type and therefore void in Heaven, regardless of whether the persons are LDS
or not.
> 2) Why is it necessary to be married for eternity? Why would anyone
> be interested in being married for eternity ie...what is the
> benefit?
I guess the answer to those questions depends on one's relationship with his
or her spouse.
> 3) Are you saying that marriages can be performed for dead people?
> Again, what is the benefit of being married in/for eternity?
As I explained in several replies to note 4, marriages as well as baptisms
can be performed vicariously or by proxy for persons who died without the
opportunity to have them during their mortal life.
> 4) Are you saying that marriages not performed in LDS Temples are not
> valid?
God recognizes the jurisdiction of civil authority in this mortal life and
recognizes all legal marriages as being valid during mortality. I am not
saying that all persons not married in a LDS Temple are living in adultery.
God also recognizes that civil authority has no status in Heaven and that
marriages not performed by his Priesthood authority in LDS Temples are not
valid in the life to come.
Allen
|
| 72.2 | POLIGAMY IN HEAVEN? | MTBLUE::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Thu Feb 25 1988 11:59 | 19 |
|
ALLAN,
This is an area i have had difficulty with ever since i joined the
church.The requirements you need to meet in order to go to the Temple
is one area.The other is one that i have not been able to get a
strait answer on yet.Perhaps you can give me an answer to this
question:
WHY CAN A MAN BE SEALED TO AS MANY WOMEN AS HE WANTS IN THE TEMPLE,
AND THE WOMAN HAS TO GET A TEMPLE ANNULMENT BEFORE SHE CAN BE SEALED
TO ANYONE ELSE?
This only seems like an extension of the poligamy issue,since the
man would have many wives in heaven,yet the woman only one!
Peace
Michael
|
| 72.3 | | TOPCAT::ALLEN | | Thu Feb 25 1988 13:50 | 8 |
| Mike, there are different scenarios with different outcomes, the
best thing to do is to ask your bishop, as it is explained in his
handbook. It may even be in the GENERAL HANDBOOK which the
meetinghouse library would have and you can either check out of
look at there. There was a recent Church Bulletin which covered
your question, I think. I don't keep mine very organized so I wouldn't
be able to find it. If I have a question I ask my bishop, that
is one area he is organized in.
|
| 72.4 | Lets discuss it | RANGLY::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Thu Feb 25 1988 15:32 | 13 |
| AH,but i have asked the bishop,stake president,and others this
same question,and have not had any direct answer from any of them.
Basically they pass the buck.I dont think i'm going to get to see
the prophet.I was hoping you would not do the same thing.Is this
too hot an issue for you to handle in this conference,or anyone
for that matter?I like things right out on the table.This is part
of Mormonism,so how about laying it out here?If you dont have an
answer,say so.
Peace
Michael
|
| 72.5 | | TOPCAT::ALLEN | | Thu Feb 25 1988 15:41 | 4 |
| I think I know the answer, but not having a good memory I'll have
to look it up. I'll get back to you on it.
What answers did you get when you asked in the past?
|
| 72.6 | Why are we HERE, Where do we go, and What do we do? | TOPCAT::ALLEN | | Thu Feb 25 1988 16:27 | 70 |
| Hi Tony,
First let me say I have always liked your notes. I have respect for you
through the way you have noted in other files and your style continues the
same here. You always get me thinking and you have done it once again. I
may be going off the subject and we may have to move to another note, but
since it has to do with your response, I'm going to start here. In your
note you ask;
2) Why is it necessary to be married for eternity? Why would anyone
be interested in being married for eternity ie...what is the
benefit?
Now it's the second half of your statement that got me thinking again and
that is, in my own words now - what is the benefit of all this? Some
history is in order to put my question in perspective and to tie it into
yours.
I like doing things for a reason. And the harder something is the more
reason I need. When I was young the Catholic nuns taught us that if we
were perfect we could go to Heaven, so far so good. But what they taught
us that Heaven had to offer didn't justify the effort that had to go into
getting there. I mean sitting around with angels isn't my idea of a good
eternity. Now I'll grant that the alternatives might motivate me to work
towards the goal, but the goal itself didn't. And I don't like negative
motivation.
Now here I am married and with a few kids. One is a teen. Others are
coming of age. Now I think I remember from some of your previous notes
that you work with teens in your church. So you would understand when I
say that it is not something someone would do for nothing. There is not a
lot of reward in smashing your head against the wall either. Anyone who
has had teens is glad it's over and those with teens wonder if it ever will
be over.
Now on to being married. I have been married now for a lot longer than I
thought I would be. It has not been easy, and I would have rather
continued racing and other rewarding activities. I think that I have
started to become one with my wife as the Scriptures tell us we should
and I can honestly see some happy years ahead after the kids are gone.
So now what, when I die I just say bye and it's all over with my wife.
She goes her way and I go mine? And the same with the kids. All that
effort and we cease to exist with each other? For What? What reward
will be worth that? It would be like building a house and not living
in it. Where is the hope in that?
I would think that after awhile people would get wise and stop getting
married, or having kids. There is some historical precedence in that.
Some of the Sects around before Christ and after did that. They died of
after awhile, just like the Quakers.
If you tell me there is no continuation of the family then I would have to
ask you why have it here and now. Is the Lord going to say " No pain no
gain, sorry you had to go through it but it really didn't mean anything.
The ends justify the means."
I mean we have examples of asexual reproduction in the world so it wasn't
necessary to have two sexes just to have kids. And we can find examples
where offspring take care of themselves so parents aren't necessary. So
why is it necessary for us? What possible good does it do us if we won't
need that knowledge after this life?
I know I've asked a lot. Like I said you got me thinking. It's not easy
being a husband and father and if you could convince me that what I am doing
is wasting my time I'll be grateful to you. But you also have to tell
me what I will be doing in heaven if I won't have a family. And it
has to worth the effort and not just to get away from hell.
richard
|
| 72.7 | Latter-day revelation excludes men of old | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Save the Wails | Thu Feb 25 1988 18:04 | 99 |
|
re: 72.1 <FAST::LEIGH>
>I did not say that the Bible taught eternal marriage itself. I titled my
>reply to note 4 "Latter-day Revelation: Eternal Marriage" to indicate that
>the teaching of eternal marriage came through revelation. My reason in
>using Biblical Scriptures in that reply was to show that the principle of
>eternal marriage is consistent with the Bible, not that it came from the
>Bible.
The point about this and other "Latter-day Revelation" is that it
excludes from possible obedience those who were before the revelation. In
this example, those living before the revelation of Eternal Marriage are
not entitled to eternal marriages. If God wanted eternal marriages, why
did He wait until these latter days to reveal this teaching? Why did not
Jesus teach this? You are right, the Bible does not teach eternal
marriages, so form the time of creation until these latter day, all peoples
married will not experience the eternal marriage which the Mormons in this
time are now able to experience.
It is from this fulcrum [that Mormons have teachings not found in the
Bible] that I base my refusal of your stance on the Mormon Scriptures.
Mormons DO hold their Scriptures as a higher source of truth that the
Bible; this is demonstrated by this example. Mormons interpret the Holy
Bible in light of their Scriptures. The Bible and the Scriptures therein
came before the Book of Mormon and D & C, and it is these books which
should be interpreted in light of the Bible to see if they contain true
prophecies from God and not the other way around.
>The King James Version of 1 Corinthians 7:39 is slightly different than
>the version you quoted; it includes the phrase "by the law", indicating
>Paul is (in both Scriptures) talking about the civil law of marriage not
>the Eternal law. There are two kinds of marriages: civil marriage by
>civil law and Eternal marriage by God's Priesthood. If a couple is
>married in a LDS Temple for eternity and the husband dies, the wife is
>free, as Paul indicated, to remarry under civil law for time-only.
1) The Mosaic Law IS God's law and therefore "by the law" refers to
Godly marriages (ie.. the kind of marriages which have taken place
since the time of Moses)
2) Eternal law? Biblical reference of Eternal Law pertaining to
marriage, please? I don't believe one exist. This is a case in
point that I mentioned about....the addition of extra biblical
commands which men of old were not in access to, and thus able to be
obedient to, and thus reap the blessing of.
>I agree that Matthew 16:19 has nothing directly to do with marriage. It
>also has nothing directly to do with the "door" into the kingdom; that is
>just your interpretation. That Scripture has to do with "whatsoever" the
>Apostles did, whether it be baptism as the "door", or marriage, or what
>ever. You interpret the Scripture in a narrow sense of a "door" into
>heaven. We interpret it in a broad sense to refer to all things the
>Apostles did.
1) Allen, go back and read vs. 19, the context is in giving Peter the
keys to the kingdom.
2) Interpreting "whatsoever" in the broader sense only comes into play
when this verse is interpreted in light of "Latter-day Revelation".
>According to Strong's Concordance, the word "bind" in both Matthew 16 and
>Matthew 18 means to bind, tie, wind, be in bonds and may be used either
>literally or figuratively.
You are right. I had not looked up these words in a Concordance, I
merely looked at the foot notes at the bottom of my Bible. My apologies.
>Verse 1 (Matt 18:1) speaks of "disciples", and I feel the context refers
>to the 12 not to all believers. It is common in the Gospels for the word
>"disciple" to be used in reference to the Apostles. Again, Tony, we have
>a difference of opinion about interpretation.
The reason that I do not think that this is true is because the rest of
the teachings of Chapter 18 would then also only be directed to the
Apostles. Teachings such as found in vs. 15-17 on approaching a brother in
sin; and the amount of times that one should forgive his brother in vs.
21-22, etc... Do you see my point? I think that vs 1 is referring to all
believers.
In referring to what Jesus meant in Matt 22, you said:
>That is, if one of the marriages were by God's Priesthood, she would be
>the wife of that man; if not, she would be the wife of no man.
How could Jesus be referring to eternal marriages if the doctrine of
eternal marriages had not yet been revealed yet? For in your own words,
you said:
>Yes, all marriages performed outside of LDS Temples are of the non-eternal
>type and therefore void in Heaven, regardless of whether the persons are
>LDS or not.
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 72.8 | | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Save the Wails | Thu Feb 25 1988 18:06 | 11 |
|
re: 72.6 <TOPCAT::ALLEN>
Richard,
I like your thinking also. Perhaps tomorrow I can share some
thoughts on that with you.
'till then,
Tony
|
| 72.9 | | ECADSR::SHERMAN | time for this one to come home ... | Thu Feb 25 1988 22:09 | 29 |
|
> In
> this example, those living before the revelation of Eternal Marriage are
> not entitled to eternal marriages.
That's why we have temples. Your argument is very good and I'm happy
you brought it up! The Lord has provided a way that all can have the blessings
of baptism and other ordinances including eternal marriage. That's why the
Mormons are so into building temples and doing geneaology work. It's so that
people who weren't given a chance to get these ordinances and blessings done
while in life can have them done by proxy. Actually, since it would be
inappropriate to pass judgment on these people the practice is to do the
ordinances on their behalf if they have not yet been done so that they have
benefit of the doubt. As to the delay, my guess is that eternal marriage is
one of those teachings that was reserved for when the Lord's people and the
society they lived in were ready for it. It was restored along with other
teachings that were lost over time. As it is of very sacred nature, the
details of it were protected in old days as they are now. There are other
ancient writings (such as the Dead Sea scrolls and the Apocrypha) which may
include some of these teachings. I'm not quoting from these, just mentioning
that the possibility exists that some of this type of thing may have been
documented in ancient writings (or Scriptures, if you will). To limit to the
scriptures in the Bible only is in violation of the Lord's commandment to not
add to or take from the things He reveals if there are other scriptures.
The topic of other scriptures is already being discussed in another note and
has Biblical basis. Geneaology is also being discussed elsewhere.
Steve
|
| 72.10 | Not a New Principle | CICERO::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter 406-248-1863 | Fri Feb 26 1988 01:01 | 62 |
| Re: Note 72.7 by NRPUR::BALSAMO
Hi Tony,
> -< Latter-day revelation excludes men of old >-
>
> The point about this and other "Latter-day Revelation" is that it
> excludes from possible obedience those who were before the revelation. In
> this example, those living before the revelation of Eternal Marriage are
> not entitled to eternal marriages. If God wanted eternal marriages, why
> did He wait until these latter days to reveal this teaching?
Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants clearly teaches that the law
of eternal marriage was revealed to the ancient patriarchs, including
Abraham. Thus, it was not a "new" revelation, but a "restoration" of
something which had been lost.
As has been pointed out already, eternal marriage is provided by proxy
to those who did not have such an opportunity in this life, just as
baptism for the dead provides that essential ordinance for those who
were not baptized in the flesh. Thus, no one is "excluded" from the
benefits of this principle.
> Why did not Jesus teach this?
Jesus did not teach all things in the few short years of his ministry.
For example, Peter received the revelation that the gospel should also
go to the Gentiles after Jesus had departed. On the other hand, Jesus
could have taught this to his apostles, for we do not have a record of
all he did:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which,
if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the
world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
John 21:25
> It is from this fulcrum [that Mormons have teachings not found in the
> Bible] that I base my refusal of your stance on the Mormon Scriptures.
> Mormons DO hold their Scriptures as a higher source of truth that the
> Bible; this is demonstrated by this example. Mormons interpret the Holy
> Bible in light of their Scriptures. The Bible and the Scriptures therein
> came before the Book of Mormon and D & C, and it is these books which
> should be interpreted in light of the Bible to see if they contain true
> prophecies from God and not the other way around.
From our view, *all* of the scriptures (including the Bible) shed light
on one another. We do not regard God's word, in the form of the Book of
Mormon, D & C, and Pearl of Great Price, as being a "higher source of
truth" than God's Word, in the form of the Bible. We treasure any
word that God may choose to give us.
On this we may disagree, but we believe God is willing to give
additional light and knowledge to men, if they are willing to receive
it. Your statement implies that anything contained in so-called "Mormon
Scriptures" must necessarily be suspect if it is not found in the
Bible. We agree that principles from various parts of the Word of God
must be consistent with each other, but we don't agree that they must
have been previously taught in the Bible to be true.
In Christ,
Rich
|
| 72.11 | LETS CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION | RANGLY::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Fri Feb 26 1988 06:41 | 20 |
|
Richard,
I appreciate your willingness to address this issue.I hope you can
get an answer.The most common response to me was that some things
we dont have a reason,only that the lord wants it that way,and if
the lord says it,then it is so.They also suggested(past the buck),
that i talk with so and so,stake president,high priest leader,etc.
For me,it was not satisfactory.I just felt it was a cop-out to avoid
the issue.The reason i know of this is that my 2nd wife was married
in the temple and we wanted to go to the temple to be sealed,however,
she had to get a temple annulment first,yet,here exhusband remarried
and he didnt have to do a thing to get sealed to his new wife.So
it seemed to me to be poligamy in heaven,since he would be sealed
to more than one woman.
Peace
Michael
|
| 72.12 | Which commandment ? | IOSG::VICKERS | Hebrew?No,'tis I that maketh the tea | Fri Feb 26 1988 08:32 | 11 |
|
re .9
>To limit to the
>scriptures in the Bible only is in violation of the Lord's commandment to not
>add to or take from the things He reveals if there are other scriptures.
Which commandment is that Steve ?
Paul V
|
| 72.13 | now that you asked ... | ECADSR::SHERMAN | time for this one to come home ... | Fri Feb 26 1988 14:40 | 33 |
|
>>To limit to the
>>scriptures in the Bible only is in violation of the Lord's commandment to not
>>add to or take from the things He reveals if there are other scriptures.
>
> Which commandment is that Steve ?
To start:
Deuteronomy 4:2
Proverbs 30:5-6
Matthew 5:19
Revelations 22:18-19
Also, for comparison (talking about new scriptures):
Deuteronomy 12:32
Numbers 12:6
Jeremiah 36:27-32
Ezekial 37:15-20
Amos 3:7
Isaiah 42:9
2 Timothy 3:16
Matthew 24:34
Ephesians 3:3-5
2 Peter 1:20-21
Joel 1:28-32
I've limited to the Bible. There's more if you have interest. And, there's
more in the modern-day scriptures that is along these lines.
Steve
|
| 72.14 | correction | TOPCAT::ALLEN | | Fri Feb 26 1988 16:19 | 8 |
| ops. I made a statement in .6 that the Quakers have died off and
that is wrong. I was thinking of the group in NH I believe are the
Shakers. There are a few left but they are old and have not had
new members for awhile. They, like the sects in Christ's time,
do not marry and do not have children. Quakers on the other hand do marry
and do have kids, and beautiful farms. Sorry.
richard
|
| 72.15 | An opinion as an answer... | USADEC::HANSEN | Line upon line.... | Fri Feb 26 1988 23:26 | 43 |
| RE: 72.2, others.
Mike,
>WHY CAN A MAN BE SEALED TO AS MANY WOMEN AS HE WANTS IN THE TEMPLE,
>AND THE WOMAN HAS TO GET A TEMPLE ANNULMENT BEFORE SHE CAN BE SEALED
>TO ANYONE ELSE?
>This only seems like an extension of the poligamy issue,since the
>man would have many wives in heaven,yet the woman only one!
I've thought about this question a bit, and thought I'd share my *opinion*
on it with you.
I think your assertion that this seems like an extension of the polygamy
issue may not be that far from the answer. So what of polygamy--why was it
always men with multiple wives as opposed to women with multiple husbands?
Obviously, one answer lies in physiology and in the roles that God has
established for the sexes. The woman is the limiting factor in the process
of procreation; i.e., a woman could have 1000 husbands, and still only have
babies at no less than 9-month intervals. Now, a man with 1000 wives is a
different matter. And what of determining exactly who the father of a given
child was? Could be very confusing. The other way, both parents are always
known. Imagine if polygamy worked both ways simultaneously--every member of
one sex could conceivably (no pun intended) be married to virtually
every member of the opposite sex. That kinda sounds like The Bagwahn
Shri Rajneesh's philosophy. That would be utter chaos.
As for why women may not be sealed for time and eternity to more than one
man--being sealed is just that--sealed, married forever, with potential for
eternal increase. But for a woman with multiple husbands, that increase
can be no greater than for a woman with only one husband, while with the
roles switched, the opposite is true.
Also, God has ordained that the man is the patriarch of the home (marriage).
With more than one husband, who is the leader? This would tend to confusion.
So, there's one man's opinion. Tell me what you think. I hope I'm at least
addressing the question you're asking, whether I'm being clear or not.
Take care,
David H.
|
| 72.16 | interesting | MTBLUE::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Mon Feb 29 1988 07:02 | 17 |
|
HI DAVID,
You have a logical approach on the issue.Some of what you say makes
sense.If we were to follow just the creation idea,certainly we could
make a lot more children in a shorter time,having multible wives,and
at the same time satisfy mans nature,that is,not being satisfied
with the one you have.Of course,we could forget about being loyal
to any one woman,which,to me is a virtue that God wants us to develop.
I really dont believe in having spirit children,that is,like we
know it.If it was possible for any of us,i dont believe it would
be the same,that is,9months,etc.I think it left to God to create
spirit.I think you can make an eternal committment to your wife
and if it is mutual you can be together because you want to be.
MIKE
|
| 72.17 | Simple question-simple thoughts | FXADM::SELIMA | | Tue Mar 01 1988 04:46 | 17 |
|
Re: Mat.22:29-30
Do the angels marry one another in Heaven? If not, since we're
going to be like them, would it be safe to assume we won't be
married in Heaven?
Re: .6
Rich, when I look at Eph.5:22-33 It seems to me that what's
being said is that our marriages on earth are to be a preparation
for what we'll expeirience when we (the church) are married to
Christ in Heaven. A good marriage reflects our submission to
the Lord's commandments on how we should conduct ourselves; our
dedication to the marriage expresses our love and relationship
with Him.
Chuck
|
| 72.18 | Perfection comes from perfect practice | TOPCAT::ALLEN | | Tue Mar 01 1988 06:32 | 25 |
| Well Chuck,
That sounds like a worthy thing when I first think about it, but
upon reflection I think about the kind of relation I have with my
wife. She is my companion, and my counselor. I provide for her
and she provides for me. We work together on most things and share
all our emotions. We have become bonded in our emotions and desires.
We learn and progress together. And then there are more personal
relationships we have.
Now my relationship with Christ is different. Yes I want to become
one with Him as He is with the Father. One in purpose. I do not
provide for Him nor share the same relationship as I do with my
wife.
If what you said was true, again I would say, why bother. Just
skip over this marriage thing and having kids and go out into the
deserts and set up shop and do nothing but become one with the Lord.
Many have done this and have found great tribulation in being celibate.
It just doesn't work for us.
BTW, angels do not come to earth to have bodies and have not the
resurrection, so we do not become like them in all ways, just some.
richard
|
| 72.19 | | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Mar 01 1988 07:51 | 5 |
| Re .17
See note 4.66 for my thoughts on Matthew 22:29-30.
Allen
|
| 72.20 | Head of the home | FAST::LEIGH | | Tue Mar 01 1988 13:42 | 16 |
| Hi Mike,
One of the principles involved in your question is explained in Genesis.
After Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit, God explained the
events that would happen.
He explained to Eve that Adam was to be the head of their home.
Unto the Woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall
be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16)
The statement that Adam "shall rule over thee" did not give Adam the right
to abuse Eve or to take advantage of her in any way.
Allen
|
| 72.22 | Polygamy in Heaven? | RANGLY::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Thu Mar 10 1988 11:58 | 14 |
|
I had started an inquiry concerning the Temple in the note
on Eternal Marriage,and at this point i have not had an answer as
far as what the churchs explanation is for the practice of allowing
men to be sealed to as many women as they want and yet a woman has
to get a temple annulment before she can be sealed to someone else.
I have had some suggestions as to the reason,but,what is the
official explanation of this practice?Does anyone know?
Peace
Michael
|
| 72.23 | | RANGLY::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Wed Mar 16 1988 12:18 | 14 |
|
Well,i was really hoping to get an "official" answer on this question.
I am surprised that someone wouldnt have an article or something
that would address this.
For those of you who have wives or plan to,I wonder how they might
feel about it.Hasnt this ever come up in conversation?This seems
to me to be a real emotional issue,one that would be even more
contaversial in todays society.So why has everyone been so quiet
on it?Do you just accept it,or is there concerns?
Peace
Michael
|
| 72.24 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | put down the ducky! | Wed Mar 16 1988 14:09 | 19 |
| I don't have an 'official' answer handy. My wife, however, is a
descendant from a Mormon polygamist marriage. She doesn't like,
but accepts, the concept of polygamy. My own feeling is that I'd
rather not see poligamy come back in my lifetime. But, I can see
where doing things another way could cause problems. For example,
if a woman has two husbands at the same time while in this life
and gives birth it may be impossible to tell which of them is the
father of the child. Genealogy is important. I don't know all the
reasons, but I suppose some of it has to do with experiences had and
covenents made before coming to this world. I suppose also that
the life in heaven has parallel with the life in this world. We
are the spirit-children of our Father in Heaven in a literal sense.
As we can become like Him, it follows that we may become
spirit-parents. Perhaps there is a parallel in heaven to the kind of
confusion that can happen here if a woman has more than one husband.
Again, some of this is my own speculation, which is probably not what
you are looking for.
Steve
|
| 72.25 | What happens to the relationship? | MTBLUE::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Wed Mar 16 1988 14:44 | 10 |
|
Actually,there are some ways today to determine who would be the
father.So,how would you feel if your wife was sleeping with 10
different husbands,or in Brigham Youngs case as a reversal,27 different
husbands?Do you think that would change your relationship with your
part-time wife?How could it possibly be the same?
Peace
Michael
|
| 72.26 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | put down the ducky! | Wed Mar 16 1988 15:47 | 8 |
|
The example given is still useful in illustrating the assertion that
confusion could result in heaven not unlike confusion that can result
here.
Steve
|
| 72.21 | Father's Love is the answer | SANCHO::LARSEN | | Fri Mar 25 1988 04:23 | 66 |
| HI Mike,
I have a little different perspective on your situation. I am in the
position of your wife's X. I have remarried and am still "sealed" to
my first wife. I was advised not to seek a temple annulment for her
sake. She needs to be sealed to someone to be in compliance with what
we believe is God's law for being able to receive the maximum possible
blessings from Him. I was told that after she remarries she may be
able to seek an annulment or Temple divorce.
What if she doesn't remarry?
What does my present wife think?
Im not interested in polygamy. Do I have to keep my X?
What if she marries someone who can not be sealed to her?
I couldn't get along with her in this life, is it reasonable to
expect us to suddenly start to love each other in the next?
What about those who have a louse for a spouse? We believe in
a hell that is better than most people's heaven but even then,
do I have to go there with her if she murders someone?
And what about all those who try but are unable to marry? I am
recently remarried and I still have a lot of single friends. What
about them? Are they just written off?
What about all our brothers and sisters who are not physically perfect
as the world demands? Do we write those off too?
We believe that only those who are sealed for eternity will be allowed
to live together as husband and wife.
I was counseled, and it makes sense, that Father is a God of love.
The answer to all these questions is God's love. I do not pretend
to know the mind of Father but I have seen evidences of His love
for me, for all of us. I can not believe that all will not be made
right as far as the who and when. It is essential, I believe, that
we do all that has been revealed to us for our salvation and exaltation,
that we worry more about what God wants of us than what we want
from God.
Some believe that this is what the millennium will be for. Many
will be resurrected at the beginning and many during, there will
be opportunity to raise children we have lost and an opportunity
to find our Eternal Companion. ( Sounds like another Topic )
A deep abiding faith in the Love of God and his ultimate fairness,
goodness and mercy will bring the peace that will let us focus on
doing His will, which is keeping his commandments.
I am so glad that Father has revealed so many beautiful truths
in my life time. What an exciting time to be alive. I am proud
to be a Mormon as it is the only church I know of that allows for
and provides for the salvation of all my brothers and sisters. It
is not exclusive of any but those who follow satan and is inclusive
of all who have lived since Adam and truly seek God.
You may clasify this as another "runaround" but it could be that
you are trying to get a two syllable response to a two volume
answer. I wish you well in finding the truth you seek.
In Christ's Love,
-gary
|
| 72.27 | polygamy is ALWAYS SIN! | DENVER::TAYLORL | | Tue May 14 1991 17:39 | 1 |
|
|
| 72.28 | Always is a long time. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue May 14 1991 18:19 | 17 |
|
RE:<<< Note 91.5 by DENVER::TAYLORL >>>
"Polygamy" is the practice of having more than one spouse at a time.
The woman can have more than one husband, and the husband can have
more than one wife. The LDS church uses it in the latter context,
but should, more appropriately, use the term "polygyny" as it refers
to the practice of having more than one wife.
In either case, the practice of having more than one wife is NOT
"always sin." If it were, then Abraham, Jacob (Israel), David,
and Solomon would not receive their exaltation because of that sin.
(David lost his, but not because of polygyny.) This practice would,
as far as I am concerned, be practiced in heaven because I do not
believe God would give us any commandments or laws that were not
practiced where he is.
|
| 72.29 | Sister Bensen | EARRTH::PIMENTEL | The Resident Visitor | Mon Aug 17 1992 16:34 | 5 |
| Allen: if this belongs elsewhere please feel free to move it.
Now that Sister Bensen has "passed away" does the prophet need to marry
another or can he stayed widowed?
|
| 72.30 | Sister Benson | KOLFAX::ASHFORD | | Mon Aug 24 1992 11:06 | 7 |
|
Has Sister Benson "Passed away"??
I haven't heard anthing about it! When did she die?
Carter Ashford, Pittsburg 1st Ward, Pittsburg, California.
Elders Quorum President.
|
| 72.31 | | BIGSOW::WILLIAMS | Bryan Williams | Thu Sep 10 1992 15:38 | 8 |
| Sister Benson passed away August 14. Church News w/e 8/22/92 has the story.
The chances are quite good that Pres Benson will pass away any time now. Rumor
has it that he has stopped praying for the Lord to stay his hand from the
Church (i.e. the Church needs a cleansing). In any event, times are going to
get worse before they get better...
Bryan
|
| 72.32 | Can you explain your comments. | CSC32::S_JOHNSON | Scott Johnson CX03-2/J4 592-4251 | Fri Sep 11 1992 09:44 | 9 |
| <The chances are quite good that Pres Benson will pass away any time now. Rumor
<has it that he has stopped praying for the Lord to stay his hand from the
<Church (i.e. the Church needs a cleansing). In any event, times are going to
<get worse before they get better...
How so? Does the church really need a cleansing? How do you mean
things will get worse before they get better?
scott
|