Polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom?

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Where I have settled on this matter is that I don’t hear any leader telling me that I must believe it was of God. So I will leave the door open that when God himself tells me it must be, then so be it. I do think there is a point where I am not supposed to be telling God what to do.

But for now I feel it is OK for me to feel disgusted at the practice and I want no part of it in this life nor in the next. I defies morality that I have been taught in church in so many ways. To me it also deprives men of growth and having to work through the challenges of a marriage – and I can tell you I have had some. But those are some of the challenges have been the most growth creating challenges I have had.

There are SO many things that do sing to my heart that I know I should be doing (loving my fellow man) that once I am perfect in those, then I can be asking God to help me see how this is important. Until then I see it as a huge boulder of mistake by some men put in my path to make me want to leave the church. I am deciding to walk around that boulder and call it like I see it.

This is probably what my husband would write if he were here. I wish I felt this way. I think it’s an equilibrium much easier for men to reach than women. I see polygamy as a huge boulder of mistake that we are supposed to clear away. I really think that God is waiting for us to do it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I really think that God is waiting for us to do it.

That’s the way I feel about most things – especially when “the kingdom of God is within / among you” and “ye are gods and children of the most high God” are considered.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

There are SO many things that do sing to my heart that I know I should be doing (loving my fellow man) that once I am perfect in those, then I can be asking God to help me see how this is important. Until then I see it as a huge boulder of mistake by some men put in my path to make me want to leave the church. I am deciding to walk around that boulder and call it like I see it.

Loved what you said here, LH- I was just freaking out because I’d never heard it before, and my roommate sounded so sure about it.

When she told me, the first thought that came to my head was that I’d rather live in the Terrestrial Kingdom, single, than live in the Celestial Kingdom with a bunch of sister wives :sick: 😆 How can I be happy if I had to live like that for eternity? I mean, really.

But let’s not jump to conclusions yet, yeah? This was definitely one of the boulders blocking my path, but there’s still a lot that we don’t know in the church, and just assuming that such things are true can be dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Just A Girl wrote:

the first thought that came to my head was that I’d rather live in the Terrestrial Kingdom, single, than live in the Celestial Kingdom with a bunch of sister wives :sick: 😆 How can I be happy if I had to live like that for eternity? I mean, really.

…sometimes those first thoughts are the true ones. I don’t think you ignore that or try to talk yourself away from those thoughts.

I’ve often thought if the kingdoms we were taught are actually very different from how they were described to us. Is it possible the CK isn’t for everyone? And that maybe it isn’t the closest to God? Or maybe if you are comparing the glory of the Sun to a Star, it just depends on where you are viewing that from…because from a different point of view…stars are suns just in a different location. Could I go away from a polygamy sun, and find a star that becomes my CK and my sun, even if it is someone else’s TK? Then I think of all the other stars that exist and start to really wonder of the possibilities for us all to be happy in eternity.

IDK…but all I know is…polygamy as a requirement to be exalted??? I can’t wrap my head around it and really don’t want to. We just know very little about the next life, so we should not allow some small obscure teaching that the church is obviously distancing itself more and more from, to cloud our hope of what feels right to us.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I’ve often thought if the kingdoms we were taught are actually very different from how they were described to us. Is it possible the CK isn’t for everyone? And that maybe it isn’t the closest to God? Or maybe if you are comparing the glory of the Sun to a Star, it just depends on where you are viewing that from…because from a different point of view…stars are suns just in a different location. Could I go away from a polygamy sun, and find a star that becomes my CK and my sun, even if it is someone else’s TK? Then I think of all the other stars that exist and start to really wonder of the possibilities for us all to be happy in eternity.

Great thought Heber! You are welcome to visit my giant gas ball of inextinguishable fire anytime. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

IDK…but all I know is…polygamy as a requirement to be exalted??? I can’t wrap my head around it and really don’t want to.

Every time I try to honestly try to wrap my head around it, I end up at a place where I see a HUGE injustice to women. Then if I try and open it up to say that a woman could have many husbands I can slightly handle that (my marriage isn’t a fairy tale), but then I fall into, “what the hell does it mean to be married then?” Then the whole anti-gay marriage issue comes front and center. Grrrr. 😡

[Anonymous]

Exactly…you pull that thread…things seem to unravel pretty easily.

[Anonymous]

So true, LH! I don’t like the thought that a gay couple who are genuinely in love can’t be together for eternity. Everyone is always saying to live a just life in this world, because we’ll be exactly the same in heaven as we are now. If this is indeed true, this means that a gay person would stay gay. And just because of who they are and how they feel, according to the church standards, they couldn’t go to the CK with their spouse. Just… ahofewrh. Whatever that even means. But, I loved what Heber said here…

Quote:

I’ve often thought if the kingdoms we were taught are actually very different from how they were described to us. Is it possible the CK isn’t for everyone? And that maybe it isn’t the closest to God? Or maybe if you are comparing the glory of the Sun to a Star, it just depends on where you are viewing that from…because from a different point of view…stars are suns just in a different location. Could I go away from a polygamy sun, and find a star that becomes my CK and my sun, even if it is someone else’s TK? Then I think of all the other stars that exist and start to really wonder of the possibilities for us all to be happy in eternity

Well said, Heber. Gives me a lot to ponder.

[Anonymous]

Just A Girl wrote:

So true, LH! I don’t like the thought that a gay couple who are genuinely in love can’t be together for eternity. Everyone is always saying to live a just life in this world, because we’ll be exactly the same in heaven as we are now. If this is indeed true, this means that a gay person would stay gay. And just because of who they are and how they feel, according to the church standards, they couldn’t go to the CK with their spouse.

The most recent stuff I have read on this subject indicates that Gay people can have their gayness removed by the power of Christ…it may not happen in this life, but Christ can heal them in the eternities if that is what they earnestly seek.

This is not from an official LDS spokesman. I read it in the book “What happened to the Cross?” that is sold in Deseret Book. I am only putting it forward as evidence in absence of a more official statement. The good news was that the quote acknowledged that homosexuality is not a choice (at least for many) and that one gay person might dedicate their entire life to the gospel and do everything they can to be more christ-like and still not be successful in changing their sexual orientation in this life.

The concept allows for more sympathy to the plight of Gay LDS members without challenging our theology…step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

As I was listening to http://athoughtfulfaith.org/curtis-henderson-errant-nature-of-polygamy-fallible-prophets-seeking-for-truth/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://athoughtfulfaith.org/curtis-henderson-errant-nature-of-polygamy-fallible-prophets-seeking-for-truth/ and one explanation of why God allowed (not commanded) polygamy was because the greater good of learning from the mistake (at least that is what I got out of it). For a moment my mind thought about that trying to get comfortable, then I came back to the thought, “but at the expense of the women involved!! How can God allow that??”

Then the thought came to me, “what about slavery?” It took me back quite a bit to realize a few decades of polygamy vs. who knows how long slavery was common (just like polygamy – it certainly still exists today) – the comparison wasn’t even in the same category. Now we don’t have prophets commanding slavery in the LDS church, but it made me think, “why did God allow slavery to be as prevalent as it once was?”

One way I have calmed down from my FC was to postulate that God does not interfere with free agency of men very often. I assume it must be critical to God.

My musings for the day. Got to get back to work.

[Anonymous]

Agency and accountability apply to everyone, including religious leaders.

I don’t want a micro-managing God who doesn’t allow mistakes – even great, big, stinking, damaging, terrible ones. Lucifer’s plan just doesn’t do it for me, and this one, to me, has to be pretty much an all or nothing approach – which is why I believe it is framed that way in our War in Heaven narrative.

Think about that for a minute:

In that narrative, there were only two choices: total agency or no agency. I’ll take total agency, even with its unavoidable messiness.

Also, just to say it, while changing sexuality in the next life really is a tiny step in the right direction, it still is taught from an obvious place of privilege – since “WE” won’t have to change like “THEY” will have to change. This is a great case of “I don’t know” being enough for me and focusing instead on loving everyone in the here and now for who they are in the here and now.

[Anonymous]

Growing up I was taught-

~Gender would only apply to those in the CK, so no need for marriage if you didn’t make it there

~To be in the CK you must be married

~Women who were unmarried, or married to someone who couldn’t take them to the CK would married a worthy man. (Probably polygamous)

~We would welcome the new wife(wives) with open arms because it is part of the plan, and will be part of our plan when we create worlds.

I find it humorous that I’m having a hard time finding lds materials to back these teachings up, because I was raised in a less active home so everything I was taught was at church or seminary. So materials have been either altered or removed, or some Sunday School teachers were taking some teaching liberties.

[Anonymous]

Charity wrote:

Growing up I was taught-

~Gender would only apply to those in the CK, so no need for marriage if you didn’t make it there

~To be in the CK you must be married

~Women who were unmarried, or married to someone who couldn’t take them to the CK would married a worthy man. (Probably polygamous)

~We would welcome the new wife(wives) with open arms because it is part of the plan, and will be part of our plan when we create worlds.

I find it humorous that I’m having a hard time finding lds materials to back these teachings up, because I was raised in a less active home so everything I was taught was at church or seminary. So materials have been either altered or removed, or some Sunday School teachers were taking some teaching liberties.

That is what I was taught in a very active home.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Agency and accountability apply to everyone, including religious leaders.

I don’t want a micro-managing God who doesn’t allow mistakes – even great, big, stinking, damaging, terrible ones. Lucifer’s plan just doesn’t do it for me, and this one, to me, has to be pretty much an all or nothing approach – which is why I believe it is framed that way in our War in Heaven narrative.

Think about that for a minute:

In that narrative, there were only two choices: total agency or no agency. I’ll take total agency, even with its unavoidable messiness.

The only way I am able to stay in the church comes down to this very belief. I expected God to remove some people’s free agency – as in a leader (prophet?) when they were about to impose an error on the church. As I learn more the only way I can explain the ever deepening mess of church history is that God doesn’t intervene as much as I was led to believe. I often wondered if Harold B. Lee was about to make a mistake and that is why he died abruptly. Even elder Ballard just said in conference, “we will not, we cannot lead you astray.” I shook my head when I heard this.

Just last night I read the following http://rationalfaiths.com/last-temptation-satan/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/last-temptation-satan/ (I like the stuff that the author, Corbin Volluz, writes)

The one part that really hit home for me was

Quote:

Of Questions and Avenues

The Church recently released a statement saying members are “always free” to ask “questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice.” Church spokesperson Ally Isom followed suit: “There are many avenues to express that and discuss (our doubts and opinions).”

But isn’t this a little like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy one more time to hold that football so he can kick it? Charlie Brown and Football 2Of what use is the freedom to ask questions when Church leaders have told us in advance the answers will not be given? What good are “avenues to express” doubts and opinions when we know beforehand that all such avenues lead to a dead end? And why should we expect any other result than that Lucy will once more yank away the football at the last moment, leaving us yet again flat on our backs?

Pre-mortal Musings

The recent discipline of Church members for voicing variant views has prompted me to reflect on the Grand Council in Heaven. We all know the story. I won’t repeat it here. What has been brought into sharp relief for me, however, is that the crux of the story is how Lucifer wanted to do the best thing imaginable by doing the worst thing imaginable. He wanted to save all of God’s children. What could be better than that?

But in order to accomplish this laudable goal, he would have to “destroy the agency of man.” (Moses 4:3) Nothing could apparently be worse.

What does this teach me? It teaches me that trampling on the agency of human beings is something God cannot tolerate; even if the reason for doing so is the best reason that could possibly be imagined—Jesus v Satan 1the eternal salvation of the person whose agency is being destroyed.

And God appears to have practiced what he preached. God could have simply struck Satan dumb so he could not spread his poisonous opinions, like Alma did with Korihor. Or God could have told Lucifer it was all right for him to have his own opinions, so long as he didn’t express them in public. Or God could have told Lucifer that he could ask questions, but only to his bishop and stake president.

God appears to have done none of these things.

God realized that allowing free agency necessarily involved letting his children have their own opinions together with the freedom to voice those opinions publicly.

God realized that allowing free agency is a messy business. But if God were going to allow his children free agency on earth, he was going to have to allow it to them in the pre-mortal existence.

[Anonymous]

I’m agnostic about this one. Nobody really knows for sure. The prophets will dodge the question, or quote partial insights from the scriptures, and will not give solid answers. They don’t know either.

Based on my recent reading of Rough Stone Rolling, I’m not convinced plural marriage is an eternal principle — it might have been an extension of JS’ damage control for an indiscretion with Fanny Alger. Will there be sex in the celestial kingdom? I hope not. For men, it can be a source of torment their whole lives in some cases. I remember as a teenager and young adult wishing I didn’t have any sex drive — it was such a nuisance to live with it while being “chaste” as a probably requirement for retaining my church membership. Back then, I was thinking of writing a book called “Guilt without Sex” as a tongue in cheek spin off of “Sex without Guilt” — a book that was popular at the time.

But I think it’s possible that there will be physical, intimate relationships in the Celestial Kingdom. Why? Because everyone is so used to it in this life. Imagine getting a perfect body, and then finding it’s missing its ability to to do something that has been very important to people on this earth over and over again. It would be lunchbag letdown for so many people. “THIS is a perfect body???” some would say. And what about the people, who due to disabilities or early death never were able to experience that form of union? Is it fair to give them a “perfect” body and make them wonder for eternity what sex experience is like?

Plus, if there is procreation in the eternities, it makes sense that people would still be able to mate that way.

When Christ was resurrected, he ate something to show everyone he still had his physical body; it wouldn’t surprise me if that ability extends to other functions of the body, such as sex functions. The D&C says that same sociality that exists here, exists there, so I wonder if that extends to physical relationships with others. All pure speculation.

[Author]

Posts