For Gaz..Struggling Believers' Polygamy Discussion cont.

[_Yoda]

Gaz...First of all, I appreciate you engaging me in this conversation. I understand that we are on opposite ends of this issue, and it is great that we can conduct a civil conversation regarding such a hot button topic. ;)

Marriage Covenant with Christ: Matthew 25: 1-13. You tak eupon his name in Baptism, just as a bride takes on the name of her husband in marriage. Christ is exalted when we find salvation in his name, and we receive the family blessings if we live up to the family name. It is very much like a marriage and rich in symbolism.

First of all, Christ has already received his exaltation, so your statement here does not make sense. Did you mean that Christ will continue to receive blessings as more of his followers take upon his name? That concept I agree with. But Christ has already received the fullness of His glory.

Also, symbolism is utilized to illustrate a concept or point. Symbolism does not necessarily mean that the comparison is identical. There are many ways to interpret the symbolism you refer to. From all of the scriptures the LDS Church supports and incorporates regarding family, marriage is the most important and intimate relationship on the earth today. My interpretation of taking on Christ's name is that we are taking upon ourselves a deep commitment. The deepest commitment which exists, according to the scriptures, is the commitment between a man and woman in marriage. But that's where the comparison stops. We are not MARRIED to Christ. We are COMMITTED to Christ.

A similar comparison is used in the scriptures when talking about how a husband should be committed to his wife the way the Lord is committed to his Church. It is NOT an exacting comparison.

"...Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summerized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D&C 132-1-28)

Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages woudl be valid only if authorized by the President of the church. (D&C 132:7, 29-66.)

"All who pretend or assume to engare in plural marriages in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they were performed, are guilty of gross wickedness." Mormon Doctrine pg. 578-579)

Again, then why the need for plural marriage to be an eternal law? It simply doesn't fit with the modern gospel "as it is now revealed".

As far as a man and a woman beign equal, notice the language of both D&C 132 and the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Moses"

Quote:
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

I agree with you here. This is basically what I was referring to regarding the temple ceremony as well.

I'm with Abman on this... :-)

Without going into detail, do you remember the covenants? They most definitely are not about equality, quite the opposite.

If anything they clearly define the inequality and subservient role of women.

What about at the veil? No equality there, again a clear demonstration of where women stand.

The covenant you are referring to in the endowment ceremony has changed in wording after 1990. ;)

As far as the veil goes, yes, the husband does bring the wife through, but they stand together side-by-side on the other side. (Shades, if this is too much information, let me know. I would prefer a chance to edit before the thread is moved. I know we're walking a fine line here, but I think the point I make is valid without going into too much detail.)

[_Yoda]

You know this might be random and a bit off topic but I wonder if it's seen as alright in polygamy for a husband to take on a number of wives would they see it as alright for a wife to take on a number of husbands?

I don't expect many serious responses, but I've just always wondered ;)

Welcome to the board! :)

Yes, your point is very valid. I have asked his question on several occasions. The usual response from men, even faithful LDS men, is similar to abman's response. ;)

[_truth dancer]

The covenant you are referring to in the endowment ceremony has changed in wording after 1990. ;)

Women no longer have to obey their husbands, but there is still a VERY distinct difference between the two sexes and their covenants. A little clue: Who do men follow? Who do women follow?

There is NO equality here whatsoever. Women CLEARLY are subservient.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Gazelam]

Liz,

First of all, Christ has already received his exaltation, so your statement here does not make sense. Did you mean that Christ will continue to receive blessings as more of his followers take upon his name? That concept I agree with. But Christ has already received the fullness of His glory.

Also, symbolism is utilized to illustrate a concept or point. Symbolism does not necessarily mean that the comparison is identical. There are many ways to interpret the symbolism you refer to. From all of the scriptures the LDS Church supports and incorporates regarding family, marriage is the most important and intimate relationship on the earth today. My interpretation of taking on Christ's name is that we are taking upon ourselves a deep commitment. The deepest commitment which exists, according to the scriptures, is the commitment between a man and woman in marriage. But that's where the comparison stops. We are not MARRIED to Christ. We are COMMITTED to Christ.

A similar comparison is used in the scriptures when talking about how a husband should be committed to his wife the way the Lord is committed to his Church. It is NOT an exacting comparison.

Both the Father and the Son are further exalted eash time one of their children receive their exaltation. They receive it by following the commandments and living up to the Family Name they take upon themselves in the waters of baptism.

Call it marriage, call it commitment, it involves bringing honor to a family name by living after a manner that it orderly and creative and life giving.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply. This only occurs by our taking upon ourselves his name and exalting it through our actions. When we are sealed in the Temple to one another the Husband places upon his family his name, and inasmuch as we brign honor to our own family name by living the principles of the gospel, our own personal family name is exalted. We as parents are exalted in a similar way as the Father and Son are exalted.

In the world to come our posterity will be part of our judgement. They will stretch out before us in a great audience and wil state what contribution we made in their lives, for good or for evil. That is why we read this:

Gen. 27: 46
46 And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the adaughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?

If they were to marry into a family where the priesthood was not honored, and evil and false trditions were taught to their children, then their root would be cut off and the blessing of the priesthood withdrawn. the family name would lose its value.

In polygamy the famly name is further extended, and the gospel of Jesus Christ is made available to more souls than it would be in a smaller family group.

[_TygerFang]

Liz,

First of all, Christ has already received his exaltation, so your statement here does not make sense. Did you mean that Christ will continue to receive blessings as more of his followers take upon his name? That concept I agree with. But Christ has already received the fullness of His glory.

Also, symbolism is utilized to illustrate a concept or point. Symbolism does not necessarily mean that the comparison is identical. There are many ways to interpret the symbolism you refer to. From all of the scriptures the LDS Church supports and incorporates regarding family, marriage is the most important and intimate relationship on the earth today. My interpretation of taking on Christ's name is that we are taking upon ourselves a deep commitment. The deepest commitment which exists, according to the scriptures, is the commitment between a man and woman in marriage. But that's where the comparison stops. We are not MARRIED to Christ. We are COMMITTED to Christ.

A similar comparison is used in the scriptures when talking about how a husband should be committed to his wife the way the Lord is committed to his Church. It is NOT an exacting comparison.

Both the Father and the Son are further exalted eash time one of their children receive their exaltation. They receive it by following the commandments and living up to the Family Name they take upon themselves in the waters of baptism.

Call it marriage, call it commitment, it involves bringing honor to a family name by living after a manner that it orderly and creative and life giving.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply. This only occurs by our taking upon ourselves his name and exalting it through our actions. When we are sealed in the Temple to one another the Husband places upon his family his name, and inasmuch as we brign honor to our own family name by living the principles of the gospel, our own personal family name is exalted. We as parents are exalted in a similar way as the Father and Son are exalted.

In the world to come our posterity will be part of our judgement. They will stretch out before us in a great audience and wil state what contribution we made in their lives, for good or for evil. That is why we read this:

Gen. 27: 46
46 And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the adaughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?

If they were to marry into a family where the priesthood was not honored, and evil and false trditions were taught to their children, then their root would be cut off and the blessing of the priesthood withdrawn. the family name would lose its value.

In polygamy the famly name is further extended, and the gospel of Jesus Christ is made available to more souls than it would be in a smaller family group.

Alright I'm just going to jump right in.

First off, commitment and marriage is similar but not the same. Commitment (to commit to something) is where you agree with something, promise to stay with it, and take action in favor of what you commit to.

Marriage involves comitment, but is also the act of union between two people. To become a family, to love each other, to become equal and decide on things and life together (but as we know that doesn't always happen), and is also the only way you can morally have sex with said person you're in love with.

You commit yourself to Christ, you love Christ, and you honor Christ, you take on the name of Christ, but you really don't marry Christ.

Second off parents of people getting married should be happy and honored, but there isn't a set list of blessings that they get if their children marry and a list of blessing they can't get if they don't marry. It's similar with God, I'm sure he's very happy whenever two of his children find someone to love and care for but he doesn't get extra brownie points every time it happens. It's just a very happy, blessed, and joyful time. Can God even progress? I've always thought of him as already perfect and something to strive towards.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm mocking your post, but I'm just trying to raise a few valid points.

Also, with your second quote. I'm not sure, are you saying that if a person gets married into a family who isn't Mormon, and doesn't teach their children Mormon traditions that they should be completely cut off and forgotten from your family? That's kind of how I'm reading it but I'm not sure if that's how you ment it.

[_Yoda]

In polygamy the famly name is further extended, and the gospel of Jesus Christ is made available to more souls than it would be in a smaller family group.

How is this relevant in an eternal setting? If we live forever as Gods and Goddesses, can we not have "children that number as sands of the sea" in monogamous family units?

I still don't see polygamy as being a necessity.

Also...I don't think that polygamous families who were sealed together and choose to remain together in the hereafter should be torn apart. I think that if EVERYONE in that family situation wants to remain there, they should be allowed to.

My problem with plural marriage as an eternal law is the implication that in order to receive the highest level of blessings from God, a man must enter into a plural marriage situation. I'm sorry, but I think that Brigham Young was dead wrong on this one.

An eternal marriage where one man is sealed to one woman should be the ultimate goal. Plural marriage should be the exception rather than the sought after rule.

[_Yoda]

Alright I'm just going to jump right in.

First off, commitment and marriage is similar but not the same. Commitment (to commit to something) is where you agree with something, promise to stay with it, and take action in favor of what you commit to.

Marriage involves comitment, but is also the act of union between two people. To become a family, to love each other, to become equal and decide on things and life together (but as we know that doesn't always happen), and is also the only way you can morally have sex with said person you're in love with.

You commit yourself to Christ, you love Christ, and you honor Christ, you take on the name of Christ, but you really don't marry Christ.

Second off parents of people getting married should be happy and honored, but there isn't a set list of blessings that they get if their children marry and a list of blessing they can't get if they don't marry. It's similar with God, I'm sure he's very happy whenever two of his children find someone to love and care for but he doesn't get extra brownie points every time it happens. It's just a very happy, blessed, and joyful time. Can God even progress? I've always thought of him as already perfect and something to strive towards.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm mocking your post, but I'm just trying to raise a few valid points.

Also, with your second quote. I'm not sure, are you saying that if a person gets married into a family who isn't Mormon, and doesn't teach their children Mormon traditions that they should be completely cut off and forgotten from your family? That's kind of how I'm reading it but I'm not sure if that's how you ment it.

Excellent points! :)

I don't think you came across as mocking at all, and I doubt Gaz will think so, either.

I'll let Gaz answer more fully, but in regards to your last question, I think that Gaz was referring more to the Hebrew/Jewish traditions of the Old Testament, which we, as Latter-Day Saints believe, our Church sprang from.

[_skippy the dead]

The covenant you are referring to in the endowment ceremony has changed in wording after 1990. ;)

Women no longer have to obey their husbands, but there is still a VERY distinct difference between the two sexes and their covenants. A little clue: Who do men follow? Who do women follow?

There is NO equality here whatsoever. Women CLEARLY are subservient.

:-)

~dancer~

Agreed. While the exercise of priesthood by women in the temple was actually something that kept me in the church longer than I may have stayed otherwise, after repeated attendance it became obvious (1) that this was simply a minor concession to facilitate a particular ceremony, and (2) that the hierarchy of the church was clearly enforced by many aspects of the ceremonies, leaving women in the same diminished position.

[_Gazelam]

Tyger,

You commit yourself to Christ, you love Christ, and you honor Christ, you take on the name of Christ, but you really don't marry Christ.

Perhaps marriage is to strong a word. Either way, your taking upon yourself his name, and the same occurs in a marriage between a Husband and wife, and the name is placed upon their children. Just as we exalt Christ when we live up to the family name, so is an earthly family exalted when their children bring honor to that family name.

Can God even progress?

God progresses through his children. He himself knows all things and is perfected, but his dominion and kingdoms increase as his children follow after him.

Also, with your second quote. I'm not sure, are you saying that if a person gets married into a family who isn't Mormon, and doesn't teach their children Mormon traditions that they should be completely cut off and forgotten from your family? That's kind of how I'm reading it but I'm not sure if that's how you ment it.

I am in no way saying that those who marry outside the church should be cut off and forgotten. I am saying that it is a sad and terrible thing for someone to marry into a situation where the gospel will not be taught. In the story of the Abrahamic covenant, it was Abrahams greatest concern that his children woudl always have the priesthood among them that the blessongs of the gospel would always be among them. (Abr. 2:8-12) To have the priesthood in your family is to ensure that an authorized servany of God is in your household and can make the covenants with God available to all who dwell in that home. He is expected to live worthy of that office and to carry the spirit with him to bless and bring peace and joy to all in that household.

Consider the famous scripture from the time of Noah which stated that the Sons of God married the daughters of men and the union brought calamity. The correct interpretation teaches that the authorized priesthood holders maried outside the church and reared their children in homes that did not teach the doctrines of Christ. This is what brought about the flood.

[_Gazelam]

Also...I don't think that polygamous families who were sealed together and choose to remain together in the hereafter should be torn apart. I think that if EVERYONE in that family situation wants to remain there, they should be allowed to.

I think that neign in the Celestial Kingdom is going to require a certain mindset or internal culture. I don't think its possible for someone who does not share the Fathers perspective or viewpoint Old Testament be involved or engaged in the creative activities that will go on there. that's why there are many mansions in the Fathers house. Theres room for everyone to be comfortable, but your not neccesarily going to be a part of the creative section.

I still don't see polygamy as being a necessity.

Perhaps your attitude will change when you see how many more women there are than men in the celestial kingdom.

My problem with plural marriage as an eternal law is the implication that in order to receive the highest level of blessings from God, a man must enter into a plural marriage situation. I'm sorry, but I think that Brigham Young was dead wrong on this one.

An eternal marriage where one man is sealed to one woman should be the ultimate goal. Plural marriage should be the exception rather than the sought after rule.

I think that when all is said and done it will be a necessary situation. I also think all of the sexual hangups we have are derived more from the Catholic misconceptions than the reality of Gods viewpoint.