Dr Peterson-Question Regarding D&C 132, Celestial Marria

[_Jason Bourne]

Dr Peterson

I am interested in knowing your view about D&C 132 and celestial marriage. Does the term celestial marriage=polygamy for eternity? 19th century leaders said to be exalted one must take plural wive's. Critics say that celestial marriage=plural marriage. Many apoligists say that no, it means eternal marriage to at lesast one wife and may be more then one when God commands but does not have to be more then one.

In another thread you said that removing D&C 132 would do away with temple/eternal marriage. Since 132 is all about plural marriage it seems that the critrcs may be correct as well and 19th century LDS leaders were right as well and not expressing opinion.

What do you think?

Thanks

[_Daniel Peterson]

Section 132 isn't only about plural marriage. It's also the principal scriptural text in this dispensation on eternal marriage.

That's why I don't think the two can be neatly separated.

As to whether plural marriage is really required for exaltation or whether that was a bit of nineteenth-century theological boosterism, I can't say.

I will say, though, that I've read about certain cases of plural marriage -- I have in mind, particularly, the case of Heber J. Grant and his three wives -- where I would regard it as a tragedy for both the men and the women involved if all but one of the relationships were destined to be broken up in the life to come.

This subject doesn't occupy my mind much. I'm prepared to be surprised on a lot of counts, including this one, and, in fact, would be surprised if I weren't surprised.

I simply have faith that it's all going to be better -- for both men and women -- than eye has seen, ears have heard, or ever has entered into the human heart. Nobody will be wronged. All will get more than they actually deserve.

[_beastie]

I will say, though, that I've read about certain cases of plural marriage -- I have in mind, particularly, the case of Heber J. Grant and his three wives -- where I would regard it as a tragedy for both the men and the women involved if all but one of the relationships were destined to be broken up in the life to come.

Of course the same can be said for women who have had more than one husband.

[_truth dancer]

Of course the same can be said for women who have had more than one husband.

EXACTLY!

It is a tragedy if a man can't have all his wives, but no one seems to give a hoot if the woman has been married to more than one man due to death, and has to pick only one of her husbands.

Isn't it equally tragic? Why doesn't anyone in the LDS church care about women?

I suppose as history shows... the women are supposed to just go along with the ^%$#!

:-(

~dancer~

[_harmony]

I suppose as history shows... the women are supposed to just go along with the ^%$#!

That's because women are things to be passed along between men.

We have learned nothing in 6000 years.

[_Mephitus]

I found a ton of citations someone compiled related to plural marraige. here ya go http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/required.htm

(PL Porter on that page isnt PP from here)

[_Jason Bourne]

Section 132 isn't only about plural marriage. It's also the principal scriptural text in this dispensation on eternal marriage.

That's why I don't think the two can be neatly separated.

As to whether plural marriage is really required for exaltation or whether that was a bit of nineteenth-century theological boosterism, I can't say.

I will say, though, that I've read about certain cases of plural marriage -- I have in mind, particularly, the case of Heber J. Grant and his three wives -- where I would regard it as a tragedy for both the men and the women involved if all but one of the relationships were destined to be broken up in the life to come.

This subject doesn't occupy my mind much. I'm prepared to be surprised on a lot of counts, including this one, and, in fact, would be surprised if I weren't surprised.

I simply have faith that it's all going to be better -- for both men and women -- than eye has seen, ears have heard, or ever has entered into the human heart. Nobody will be wronged. All will get more than they actually deserve.

Thank you. I appreciate your views though it seems a lot like what many may think. Like my wife. She dislikes the idea of plural marriage very much and rightfully so. So much of it seems incongruent with a loving God. Especially for women. Yet she will say that if it is part of heaven then she thinks she will be made to understand it and will be made to be able to be ok with it. Well, maybe I just lack faith but pardon me it I say this seems to dodge the question and be a rather simplistic approach.

As for it being 19th century theological boosterism would you agree that the LDS leaders who said these things did not view it as such?

[_ajax18]

I simply have faith that it's all going to be better -- for both men and women -- than eye has seen, ears have heard, or ever has entered into the human heart. Nobody will be wronged. All will get more than they actually deserve

That's probably one of the finest statements I've ever read. If you ever end up speaking in conference I hope you could work that in. I wish we could preach ideas like that more often, and focus on that very statement much more.

[_ajax18]

Isn't it equally tragic? Why doesn't anyone in the LDS church care about women?

Yes it's equally tragic, but do we really have equality in all things in marriage? Is my wife responsible for taking care of me financially or emotionally as I am her? How many people think that I should have just as much choice as her to go to work or not? Contemporary America seems to offer the woman the choice while the man has to go come hell or high water. How many young women feel that they have just as much right to education as a man, but when it comes to going to work to pay for that education or pay for anything, they say, "That's the man's job." Where's the fairness in that? I know TD that you may have a personal system of fairness because we've talked about this before, but in my experience I've seen a lot of women who pick and choose parts of the old culture and parts of the new and the formula they come up with more often than not isn't very fair to the man. Yet nobody is looking to fix this problem with our culture, and that's why I say...

Truth is that most people don't care about each other period, men or women. I think that many men and women hold unfair ideas and expectations about marriage and what is expected of their partners. Whether anyone in the LDS church cares about women or not it shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter to me that I feel like women are often (almost systematically) unfair to men in terms of the marriage contract and the divorce. Nobody concerns themselves with that either! All we can control is ourselves and only our own actions really have any meaning. It's my belief that through God's grace ultimately fairness will be reached, and as Dr. Peterson said, maybe even better.

[_Yoda]

As for it being 19th century theological boosterism would you agree that the LDS leaders who said these things did not view it as such?

I think that they were honestly trying to make sense out of a system that they didn't understand themselves. When they said that plural marriage was required for exaltation, I think they came to the conclusion that it must be, because why else would they be forced to practice it?

I don't think that they received any type of "revelation" stating that plural marriage was required for exaltation, though. Also, there is a statement by J. Reuben Clark regarding marriage between one man and one woman being regarded as celestial marriage, and that being the requirement for exaltation. I can't find the quote at the moment. Ironically, Juliann gave it to me when we were still friends. If anyone here is friendly with her, she would probably give it to you. ;)