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

[_Jason Bourne]

Again..because we go by the most recent revelation...as in the 9th Article of Faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God."

What if current contradicts directly the old? And really my question is did the 19th century saints understand celestial marriage to mean polygamy. It is clear they did. It is only later after the manifesto that comments like Pres Grant's come along.

Also....it has been said on numerous occasions that the JoD was written specifically for the Saints during that time frame, and there has always been a lot of controversy over how accurate the information in the JoD is. That's why it has not been canonized. It is not recognized as an official doctrinal reference.

The JoD give us insight into what 19th century leaders believed and emphasized and how they interpreted the canon.

More recent talks are.

More recent talks are what?

Brigham Young did a lot of pontificating regarding polygamy.

Not just Brigham. All the Utah LDS Church leaders.

In my opinion, most of it is hogwash.

Could be. But he did not think so.

[_Yoda]

Sorry...I didn't finish my thought properly. *Blush* It's that Matt Damon face that gets me weak in the knees...LOL

I meant that more recent talks from prophets are considered modern revelation for us, in our time.

What if current contradicts directly the old? And really my question is did the 19th century saints understand celestial marriage to mean polygamy. It is clear they did. It is only later after the manifesto that comments like Pres Grant's come along.

I agree. And I don't have an answer for the contradiction problem either. That's part of the reason I'm here! LOL

Frankly, I think that apologists have a problem with the whole contradiction thing too.

[_Seven]

I don't think the Modern day Prophets truly contradict the polygamist prophets teachings on eternal marriage. They are actually silent on whether plural marriage is required for exaltation. You can have a monogamous marriage defined as "Celestial" because every man must start with one wife before he can enter polygamy. I don't believe in section 132 myself but I have seen apologists that understand why we call temple marriages today "Celestial." Here is a quote explaining the reason:

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides theseThe marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--[/b] conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the [b]beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... [common background on Joseph Smith, skipped here] ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

Apologist Stn9 on MAD explains it well:

Polygamy required for godhood (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )

stn9
Posted on: Sep 7 2005, 03:20 PM


Replies: 81
Views: 908
QUOTE (SlackTime @ Sep 7 2005, 11:08 AM)

Gospel Principles Chapter 47 31110, Gospel Principles, Unit Ten: Life After Death, 47: Exaltation, 301

Requirements for Exaltation

To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in him must be such that we repent of our sins and obey his commandments.

He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

1. We must be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

2. We must receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3. We must receive the temple endowment.

4. We must be married for time and eternity.

In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord commands all of us to—

1. Love and worship God....



No where does it read that this is a complete and inclusive list; there are two items left off (intentionally) because of there sacred or contoversial nature. For those who are really interested, Ehat & Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, Note 8 for 13 August 1843, p.297 (or Millennial Star 9 [15 January 1847]: 23-24).


Forum: LDS Dialogue & Discussion · Post Preview: #268411

Polygamy required for godhood (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )

stn9
Posted on: Sep 6 2005, 11:30 AM


Replies: 81
Views: 908
Just_Me:
I disagree slightly with your last post: no half truth is being taught today in the Church. Instead, details beyond temple marriage (the monogamous kind we are familiar with today) are not discussed. The doctrine of exaltation has not changed; the Brethren just don't talk about plural marriage at all any more, at least not publicly. The gospel message to the world is intentionally beig kept basic, at a milk level, and I don't have a problem with that.

Forum: LDS Denver International Airport

Polygamy required for godhood (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )

stn9
Posted on: Sep 5 2005, 09:51 PM


Replies: 81
Views: 908
I suppose the level of ignorance on this topic shouldn't surprise me, and maybe it doesn't. You can say a discussion of changing or contradictory commandments is on point, but it really is not if you are asking about marriage in the celestial kingdom. TBMs clearly understand that PM is not currently practiced and most do not have a problem with this. The original question is whether it is still a requirement for exaltation. If you knew what exaltation entailed, you would know the answer.

logue & Discussion · Post Preview: #267579


Forum: LDS Dialogue & Discussion · Post Preview: #267277

Polygamy required for godhood (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )

stn9
Posted on: Sep 5 2005, 10:34 AM


Replies: 81
Views: 908
I think we are off point. The question is not whether one should obey whatever the Lord commands even if it opposes or contradicts what the Lord has commanded earlier or under different circumstances.

The question is whether plural marriage is required for exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. There are nuances to this question that I have not seen expressed.

Is plural marriage required while in mortality in order to obtain the highest degree of exaltation? The obvious answer is no. This is all that has been shown by the discussion of seemingly contradictory commandments. I don't dispute this. Of course the answer is no.

Now ask: Is plural marriage required in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom? Must this law be lived while there? Again, read D&C 132:1-6. [b]If you honestly can't understand that language, then perhaps you can't accept anything I would post, and there is a whole lot more on this subject than one quote from Brigham Young in the John Dehlin![/b]

Perhaps one should carefully read OD-1 again and see if anything there says that plural marriage is not required for exaltation, or whether it says that because of our enemies we are excused (in this life, where enemies have power over us) from fulfilling that law.


Forum: LDS Dialogue & Discussion · Post Preview: #266899

Polygamy required for godhood (Pages 1 2 3 ...6 )

stn9
Posted on: Sep 5 2005, 09:20 AM


Replies: 81
Views: 909
Following programmer's logic one does not need to live the law of consecrationin order to inherit the celestial kingdom but needs only to pay tithing. Again, using the same logic, one could argue that it is possible for the Lord to revoke the law of chastity (or some provision or degree of it) or any other law and thus allow some people into the celestial kingdom on different grounds than others.

I realize that programmer and most TBMs can't fathom that plural marriage could be required for exaltation. They don't see how that can be. It doesn't, however, make their "defenses" of the doctrine true. Programmer is simply wrong. ANyone who takes his angle is wrong. If one understood D&C 132:1-6 one would respond differently; if one were sealed in the temple to a spouse or had participated in proxy sealings and paid attention to and asked about certain words in the ordinance one would certainly respond differently or remain silent while waiting for further instruction.


Forum: LDS Dialogue & Discussion · Post Preview: #266861

stn9
Posted on: Jun 10 2004, 09:39 AM


Replies: 41
Views: 708
QUOTE (Freedom @ Jun 9 2004, 12:58 PM)

The new and everlasting covenant of Marriage is the sealing power, it has nothing to do with polygamy.



Forgive me a chuckle...

I don't mean that in disrespect; my guess is that his is the most dominant view in the Church today. I wonder if you have an authoritative source for this idea, however. I do understand the practice of our temple sealings today very well; I further understand (and believe and preach) that we are not currently commanded or permitted to enter into polygynous marriages, and that it would take a revelation to the living President of the Church—the man properly holding the keys of this priesthood—to renew the practice of such sealings.

Having said that, I still have not found any quote which definitely states that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage can be eternally satisfied and a man inherit the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom by being sealed to only one woman for the rest of eternity.

I would hasten to add the caveat that a single sealing can be said in a sense to be the fulfillment of the requirements of this covenant (so far as mortality is concerned) if one lives at a time when the fulness is prohibited, such as is the case today. But again, I am looking for quotes from authorities (not anyone's reasoned guess) on this topic.


Forum: Doctrine & Covenants (Archives) · Post Preview: #90931

There really isn't a contradiction of teachings if you view temple marriage today as fulfilling the law in part......the statement by Heber J. Grant is correct (that Monogamous marriage is Celestial) but notice that he said nothing about it fulfilling the law of exaltation. I have read the sealing ordinance online and noticed the wording is very different from the woman to man.

[_Seven]

Can anybody tell me who goes to the second level of the Celestial Kingdom?

We know from countless teachings of LDS Prophets that to enter the highest level one must enter plural marriage, and those in the lower level are people who didn't enter the new and everlasting covenant/Celestial marriage.

I believe that will answer the question of why we call modern day temple monogamous marriage "Celestial." It is not the same thing as exaltation.

[_Yoda]

Can anybody tell me who goes to the second level of the Celestial Kingdom?

We know from countless teachings of LDS Prophets that to enter the highest level one must enter plural marriage, and those in the lower level are people who didn't enter the new and everlasting covenant/Celestial marriage.

I believe that will answer the question of why we call modern day temple monogamous marriage "Celestial." It is not the same thing as exaltation.

But my understanding..and it could be wrong, who knows...is that the only level of the Celestial Kingdom where any type of marriage at all exists is in the highest degree.

Therefore, if President Grant is saying that a monogamous temple marriage is regarded as Celestial, it would apply to this top kingdom, would it not?

[_Seven]

Can anybody tell me who goes to the second level of the Celestial Kingdom?

We know from countless teachings of LDS Prophets that to enter the highest level one must enter plural marriage, and those in the lower level are people who didn't enter the new and everlasting covenant/Celestial marriage.

I believe that will answer the question of why we call modern day temple monogamous marriage "Celestial." It is not the same thing as exaltation.

But my understanding..and it could be wrong, who knows...is that the only level of the Celestial Kingdom where any type of marriage at all exists is in the highest degree.

Therefore, if President Grant is saying that a monogamous temple marriage is regarded as Celestial, it would apply to this top kingdom, would it not?

Hi Liz,
I have seen a statement by Brigham Young that stated the only form of marriage in the Celestial Kingdom will be plural marriage. There were also many monogamists in the church during that time period and the men were told if they had the abliity and were worthy to marry more than one wife, that they were required to do so. I will find the quotes when I get a chance. So it would seem that you could be correct that the only marriage in the Celestial Kingdom will be in the highest kingdom.

But....we do not know who is in the second level. It hasn't been revealed or taught. (that I am aware) I have searched for a while to find any teaching on it.

This is just speculation, but it's possible that the second level is where monogamist couples are placed until they progress on to exaltation. This would still be called "Celestial Marriage" because it was done in the New and Everlasting covenant, they are in the Celestial Kingdom, and every man must start with one wife. They will not progress to Gods/exaltation/eternal increase until they enter plural marriage. That is why I believe temple marriage today is called "Celestial." Like Joseph F. Smith stated, they have only fulfilled the covenant in part. It won't be complete until the next

It has also been taught that the only progession between kingdoms will be in the Celestial Kingdom.

I have only seen two statements by Prophets (post polygamy) that stated a monogamous marriage is Celestial Marriage but they did not say plural marriage is no longer required for exaltation in those two statements.
I have never seen (as Stn9 also stated) any statement by a Prophet to suggest that you can be exalted with a monogamous marriage.

When I was trying to hold on to belief in section 131 and 132, this was the only way I could reconcile all the teachings (which are too numerous to mention) of plural marriage with modern day temple marriage. Otherwise you have to throw out every teaching ever given by a Prophet on polygamy as "opinion." Those are the kind of "mental gymnastics" that don't work for me. I couldn't believe these men were true Prophets if I threw out all of their revelations and teachings on what was considered the highest principle of Mormonism and foundational to becoming Gods.

I have a family member who claims to have visions and we discussed this topic. She claims to know from her visions that plural marriage is required for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom but I could still have eternal marriage with my husband in the second level until I chose to progress on. (she was trying to comfort me since I abhor polygamy and will never support it) I was surprised that she had seen this vision when I had come to that conclusion myself if was going to retain any kind of belief in the doctrine. She told me to remain faithful and that when I get to the Celestial Kingdom, I can progress as I learn more and not to worry about what I don't understand yet. I wanted to puke but at the same time I was relieved that a TBM understood Mormon doctrine. Everybody else I tried to discuss this with don't take the old teachings of polygamy seriously.

I have since come to my own belief that plural marriage was a huge error, driven by power hungry men, and nothing to do with a loving Heavenly Father. If it is a true principle of God, I want nothing to do with Him. According to the Prophets, I won't be in this Kindgom if I reject polygamy (in belief) so wherever I end up is where I would fit in best.

[_Yoda]

It has also been taught that the only progession between kingdoms will be in the Celestial Kingdom.

Where has this been taught? I've never heard this before. What I have heard is that the Celestial Kingdom is the only kingdom of the three where you can "visit" other kingdoms.

[_Yoda]

When I was trying to hold on to belief in section 131 and 132, this was the only way I could reconcile all the teachings (which are too numerous to mention) of plural marriage with modern day temple marriage. Otherwise you have to throw out every teaching ever given by a Prophet on polygamy as "opinion." Those are the kind of "mental gymnastics" that don't work for me. I couldn't believe these men were true Prophets if I threw out all of their revelations and teachings on what was considered the highest principle of Mormonism and foundational to becoming Gods.

I have a family member who claims to have visions and we discussed this topic. She claims to know from her visions that plural marriage is required for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom but I could still have eternal marriage with my husband in the second level until I chose to progress on. (she was trying to comfort me since I abhor polygamy and will never support it) I was surprised that she had seen this vision when I had come to that conclusion myself if was going to retain any kind of belief in the doctrine. She told me to remain faithful and that when I get to the Celestial Kingdom, I can progress as I learn more and not to worry about what I don't understand yet. I wanted to puke but at the same time I was relieved that a TBM understood Mormon doctrine. Everybody else I tried to discuss this with don't take the old teachings of polygamy seriously.

What you say here makes sense. I've just never heard it explained this way.

And, yes, the "mental gymnastics" still exist for me.

I abhor the practice of polygamy as well, and don't understand how a benevolent God who supposedly loves his daughters could initiate such a practice.

DCP has stated that "he doesn't think about it much" and that he's sure it will all work out in the end. Easy for him to say. He's a man!

;)

[_Seven]

When I was trying to hold on to belief in section 131 and 132, this was the only way I could reconcile all the teachings (which are too numerous to mention) of plural marriage with modern day temple marriage. Otherwise you have to throw out every teaching ever given by a Prophet on polygamy as "opinion." Those are the kind of "mental gymnastics" that don't work for me. I couldn't believe these men were true Prophets if I threw out all of their revelations and teachings on what was considered the highest principle of Mormonism and foundational to becoming Gods.

I have a family member who claims to have visions and we discussed this topic. She claims to know from her visions that plural marriage is required for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom but I could still have eternal marriage with my husband in the second level until I chose to progress on. (she was trying to comfort me since I abhor polygamy and will never support it) I was surprised that she had seen this vision when I had come to that conclusion myself if was going to retain any kind of belief in the doctrine. She told me to remain faithful and that when I get to the Celestial Kingdom, I can progress as I learn more and not to worry about what I don't understand yet. I wanted to puke but at the same time I was relieved that a TBM understood Mormon doctrine. Everybody else I tried to discuss this with don't take the old teachings of polygamy seriously.

What you say here makes sense. I've just never heard it explained this way.

And, yes, the "mental gymnastics" still exist for me.

I abhor the practice of polygamy as well, and don't understand how a benevolent God who supposedly loves his daughters could initiate such a practice.

DCP has stated that "he doesn't think about it much" and that he's sure it will all work out in the end. Easy for him to say. He's a man!

;)

Talking about these 3 levels of the Celestial Kingdom and progression sounds like a good board game.

Yeah, most TBM men don't seem to have any emotion about this doctrine until they read about polyandry. That was the first time my DH became sickened by polygamy. Otherwise, his indifference to the practice has frustrated me.

I would like to see Daniel Petersen's thoughts on what we have discussed. A response to Stn9's quotes I posted in particular. He was one of the only apologists I saw on MAD that put 131 and 132 in context, and the only one who didn't throw out every polygamist teaching as "opinion."

[_The Nehor]

Talking about these 3 levels of the Celestial Kingdom and progression sounds like a good board game.

Yeah, most TBM men don't seem to have any emotion about this doctrine until they read about polyandry. That was the first time my DH became sickened by polygamy. Otherwise, his indifference to the practice has frustrated me.

I would like to see Daniel Petersen's thoughts on what we have discussed. A response to Stn9's quotes I posted in particular. He was one of the only apologists I saw on MAD that put 131 and 132 in context, and the only one who didn't throw out every polygamist teaching as "opinion."

Maybe I'm rare but polyandry doesn't scare me that much either. I accept it would be probably be more difficult than a normal marriage but I'm not sickened by it. It helps that I know people who've made it work.