Single adults and law of chastity

[Ezra]

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

I don't think this approach will work. Keep the sealing private and you will upset the temple worthy relatives who think they have a right to be present. And I totally understand that position. It is hurtful to parents who are not church members to be denied access to their child's marriage over something they don't understand, and it would be just as hurtful to the parents who do have temple recommends to be denied access to their child's sealing when they know that the sealing is the real marriage and a subsequent ceremony is just theater.

If I were getting married and I had the money, I would absolutely insist on being married in New Zealand. Take an overnight or weekend trip to Ottawa or Calgary (staying in separate hotel rooms, of course), go to the New Zealand embassy or consulate, acquire your marriage license, then fly with both families to Auckland and make everybody happy with a public marriage and a subsequent sealing. And, as an added bonus, if you charter say 20 or more seats between a US gateway and Auckland an airline would probably give you a pair of upgraded seats for the newlywed couple. Of course, buying a bunch of seats and hotel rooms, probably also having a few guests expect you to cover the cost of their rental car, passports, and food, is cost prohibitive to probably 90% of the population or more. And then, if you are from a big church family or marrying into one, then you'll have another 200 people who are upset you didn't also fly them out.

Under the current policy, no matter what you choose you just plain lose unless every invited guest has a temple recommend.

Or you could just not care about the world or worldly aspects of getting married. You know those vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

A marriage is between a man and woman not for the world and everyone in it.

People call it a shotgun wedding. And I could care less what they call it Or feel about it. A wedding Is not for them. Its to commit to someone's significant other.
If that couple decided to share that with others. Others should be glad about it. If they don't. Tuff. Waaaah. Want me to call you the wambulance. Or do you need some tryactin? Tryactin like a man?

It's ridiculous to live your life in fear of what others think.

[brianj]

Or you could just not care about the world or worldly aspects of getting married. You know those vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

A marriage is between a man and woman not for the world and everyone in it.

People call it a shotgun wedding. And I could care less what they call it Or feel about it. A wedding Is not for them. Its to commit to someone's significant other.
If that couple decided to share that with others. Others should be glad about it. If they don't. Tuff. Waaaah. Want me to call you the wambulance. Or do you need some tryactin? Tryactin like a man?

It's ridiculous to live your life in fear of what others think.

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

A marriage isn't just between the man and woman. It's between families, and families should be involved. Within the LDS church we have never been taught that husbands and wives exist independently. They are each sealed to their parents and their children are sealed to them. A sealing doesn't just join two people, it joins two families. Therefore the families should be able to attend, assuming they are worthy. The cold hearted attitude you express would be very divisive.

[Ezra]

Or you could just not care about the world or worldly aspects of getting married. You know those vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

A marriage is between a man and woman not for the world and everyone in it.

People call it a shotgun wedding. And I could care less what they call it Or feel about it. A wedding Is not for them. Its to commit to someone's significant other.
If that couple decided to share that with others. Others should be glad about it. If they don't. Tuff. Waaaah. Want me to call you the wambulance. Or do you need some tryactin? Tryactin like a man?

It's ridiculous to live your life in fear of what others think.

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

A marriage isn't just between the man and woman. It's between families, and families should be involved. Within the LDS church we have never been taught that husbands and wives exist independently. They are each sealed to their parents and their children are sealed to them. A sealing doesn't just join two people, it joins two families. Therefore the families should be able to attend, assuming they are worthy. The cold hearted attitude you express would be very divisive.

You didn't understand what I'm saying.

Modern marriages have become a monster. Spending $1000s of dollars on it. People go into debt to pay for a fancy wedding.
That's the vain and foolish tradition of our fathers. Not the marriage. And if 2 people being sealed in the temple upsets others. It's not their responsibility to make them happy.
No one no matter what they do can make someone eles happy unless that person chooses to be happy.
You can only beat your head on a wall for so long befor it starts to kill you. It's a futile effort to try to make other people happy. And if your looking outward to find happiness you will never find it.
That's the real problem. People don't know where to find happiness. They look to others, to wealth, to status, to belongings to the action of others. They look everywhere except the only place they can find it.

So it's not harsh to say if it upsets them they can get over it.

If you ever find yourself accusing others of being selfish. You are being selfish to make that accusation.

[shadow]

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

You should quote the rest so everyone knows he wasn't referring to an eternal marriage.

"According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.-We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

It's also important to note that there was no Temple at that point, it was being built. It was also a response to the secret wivery Bennet was teaching.

[Finrock]

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

The women were not property to be given to someone. That doesn't make sense to me, that they were given.

-Finrock

I don't fully understand it myself, but anytime the Lord gives a man the opportunity of offering his gift - the marriage offer or ordinance, - the Lord in essence "gives" that woman to that man. I say this because in one of my Truman Madsen videos, he makes the point that in one of the revelations given to Joseph (and I'm not sure which one that is), Joseph is told by the Lord that He has "given" Emma to Joseph to be his wife. Truman Madsen then says that this shows how marriages are "made in heaven." But did the Lord just hand over Emma? No, she had her own freedom to choose to give herself to Joseph, so I look at it like this - If the Lord says you are free to marry a woman and give yourself to her, and then the woman also gives herself to you, the Lord has essentially given you your wife. So Joseph was given these women in the sense that he was given authorization to marry them. All the men in and out of the Church at that time who did not have permission by the Lord to take more wives were not given wives as gifts from the Lord, but took what they felt they deserved. So one is selfishly motivated, and one is motivated by love for the Lord.

I'm not sure I 100% agree, but I appreciate the response and what it is you are saying.

-Finrock

[Melissa]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

[Sarah]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

Yes, I totally agree. We are each equal in that we both give ourselves to each other, and are commanded to receive each other. But the man is the one who must first give himself to the woman, and he does this by taking her to the alter. The woman is then charged with giving herself to her husband, and this refers to giving herself as a wife, not charging her to give him sex. The promise or expectation with the marriage covenant is that you will not have any sexual relations with anyone outside of the marriage. That is really the only specific promise you make to God and your spouse, that you will obey the Law of Chastity. You are commanded to receive each other, and that means you appreciate and magnify the gift you have been given by reciprocating, or giving back more to your spouse.

[JohnnyL]

Or you could just not care about the world or worldly aspects of getting married. You know those vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

A marriage is between a man and woman not for the world and everyone in it.

People call it a shotgun wedding. And I could care less what they call it Or feel about it. A wedding Is not for them. Its to commit to someone's significant other.
If that couple decided to share that with others. Others should be glad about it. If they don't. Tuff. Waaaah. Want me to call you the wambulance. Or do you need some tryactin? Tryactin like a man?

It's ridiculous to live your life in fear of what others think.

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

A marriage isn't just between the man and woman. It's between families, and families should be involved. Within the LDS church we have never been taught that husbands and wives exist independently. They are each sealed to their parents and their children are sealed to them. A sealing doesn't just join two people, it joins two families. Therefore the families should be able to attend, assuming they are worthy. The cold hearted attitude you express would be very divisive.

That could be done with a feast, too.

[Sarah]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

Another thought just occurred to me. If we ask ourselves who we belong to, we all belong to God, do we not? Jesus has ransomed us all, so we are His and the Father's, and theirs to give. But our Father in Heaven values agency above anything else. Since we belong to God, he is free to give to us, and to give us to someone else, but he is not free to have what he wants from us, nor can he force us to give to him. That is the one thing he cannot do - force someone else to give him love.

We are in the same boat with our spouse. We each are given to each other by God, and we have agency in the matter. We are giving ourselves, and not forcing someone to give themselves to us. But since we now belong to each other, we too are free to give to each other, and to give our spouse to someone else. We are not free to have from our spouse what we want to have. We cannot force our spouse to give to us. And that is the principle behind plural marriage when authorized by God. From the beginning, the Lord said he had given Eve to Adam. and I think this is another way of saying, I'm giving you the opportunity to marry this woman. 1st God gives the opportunity and the wife to man, 2nd man gives himself, and then 3rd woman gives herself. Because the man is the first to offer himself to the woman, and offer this priesthood ordinance, the Lord is able to give multiple single women to one man. So for example in sec. 132, the man us justified in taking more wives if they are virgins, because at that moment they belong to God only, and not to another man. God has a right to give as many women to a man as he pleases. But He cannot give a woman as many husbands as He pleases, because the husband has the role and responsibility of giving himself and the ordinance to a woman. God cannot force a man to give himself nor can he force a man to give freely his wives to another.

So for example, during the time the Saints were practicing a plurality of wives, after two people belonged to each other, the wife was free to give her husband the gift of another wife, and to give him to another woman, but she was not able to force him to give her another husband or give another man the gift of her as wife. Some husbands. at least when J.S. was alive, were asked to give their wives to another man (J.S.), which request was basically a request from God to give your wife to the Lord. As it was, and how I expect it to be, the woman can only be given to another man by her husband after she belongs to him. She cannot give herself to another man first, but must be given by him. This, I believe, will be the principle behind plural marriage in the eternities. But the Lord is also free to take away to whom he gives, and we really are all on loan from the Lord. Our spouses and children are only ours to see how we will appreciate or receive this gift God has given us, and indeed how we use these talents we've been given.

[Melissa]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

Another thought just occurred to me. If we ask ourselves who we belong to, we all belong to God, do we not? Jesus has ransomed us all, so we are His and the Father's, and theirs to give. But our Father in Heaven values agency above anything else. Since we belong to God, he is free to give to us, and to give us to someone else, but he is not free to have what he wants from us, nor can he force us to give to him. That is the one thing he cannot do - force someone else to give him love.

We are in the same boat with our spouse. We each are given to each other by God, and we have agency in the matter. We are giving ourselves, and not forcing someone to give themselves to us. But since we now belong to each other, we too are free to give to each other, and to give our spouse to someone else. We are not free to have from our spouse what we want to have. We cannot force our spouse to give to us. And that is the principle behind plural marriage when authorized by God. From the beginning, the Lord said he had given Eve to Adam. and I think this is another way of saying, I'm giving you the opportunity to marry this woman. 1st God gives the opportunity and the wife to man, 2nd man gives himself, and then 3rd woman gives herself. Because the man is the first to offer himself to the woman, and offer this priesthood ordinance, the Lord is able to give multiple single women to one man. So for example in sec. 132, the man us justified in taking more wives if they are virgins, because at that moment they belong to God only, and not to another man. God has a right to give as many women to a man as he pleases. But He cannot give a woman as many husbands as He pleases, because the husband has the role and responsibility of giving himself and the ordinance to a woman. God cannot force a man to give himself nor can he force a man to give freely his wives to another.

So for example, during the time the Saints were practicing a plurality of wives, after two people belonged to each other, the wife was free to give her husband the gift of another wife, and to give him to another woman, but she was not able to force him to give her another husband or give another man the gift of her as wife. Some husbands. at least when J.S. was alive, were asked to give their wives to another man (J.S.), which request was basically a request from God to give your wife to the Lord. As it was, and how I expect it to be, the woman can only be given to another man by her husband after she belongs to him. She cannot give herself to another man first, but must be given by him. This, I believe, will be the principle behind plural marriage in the eternities. But the Lord is also free to take away to whom he gives, and we really are all on loan from the Lord. Our spouses and children are only ours to see how we will appreciate or receive this gift God has given us, and indeed how we use these talents we've been given.

So God can give as many virgin women to a man as he pleases? Then you say a woman can give the gift to her husband of another wife? Which is it? God's giving or the wife giving? And why would a woman view giving her husband another wife a gift to him? I thought the mainstream thought with women for polygamy was to be charitable to the less fortunate woman?

The way you talk about women being given comes across as women are property to be traded and gifted and given. Doesn't sound very nice to me. If women are equal, then maybe we shouldn't speak of them as property anymore than we speak of men as property.

A married man asking to take another married man's wife is wrong. It's not like God asking for her back to then give her as a non-virgin gift to another man. If God truly wants a specific woman with a man she is not married to why doesn't he just cause the husband to perish so she can then be guided to the man she is supposed to be with?

If the bishop came up to my husband today and asked him for me, my husband wouldn't understand why that would ever be okay. We have already been sealed, makes zero sense. I already have the sealing ordinance required, don't need it from any other man. Priesthood is priesthood, once the ordinance is done, it's not needed anymore.

And way back with the early saints, why didn't he just seal the couple instead of taking her from him and being sealed to her himself? They already had a family I'm sure. What confusion!

A man and woman are one under God, Him being the head of their union.

[gkearney]

As many of you likely know I've become very frustrated with these kinds of conversations. I believe the problem we face here is that we are dealing with plural marriages carried out in this life. I think that these are inperfect model of what could be a very comforting idea when not applied to this mortal life.

The idea of us having these kinds of relationships with people whom we loved and cared for in this life as individuals into the next life such as a man who lost his first wife and who later remarried or woman in the same situation with her husbands or even those who were denied the happiness they were entitled to and might find it with close friends in the next life is I think one of the most comforting ideas.

However when we attempt to take this idea and apply it to our mortal life in the here now we are only lead to hurt feelings and injuring those we most profess to love. Thus turning a principle which might have provided comfort in times of grief and loss into a twisted form of sexual perversion unworthy of consideration.

It is this aspect of the question which I think leads me to the conclusion that the Saints failed in applying this principle. A principal designed for those in a position to see greater than we can in this life trying to be applied to mortality. Such simply can not, and never will work.

[Sarah]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

Another thought just occurred to me. If we ask ourselves who we belong to, we all belong to God, do we not? Jesus has ransomed us all, so we are His and the Father's, and theirs to give. But our Father in Heaven values agency above anything else. Since we belong to God, he is free to give to us, and to give us to someone else, but he is not free to have what he wants from us, nor can he force us to give to him. That is the one thing he cannot do - force someone else to give him love.

We are in the same boat with our spouse. We each are given to each other by God, and we have agency in the matter. We are giving ourselves, and not forcing someone to give themselves to us. But since we now belong to each other, we too are free to give to each other, and to give our spouse to someone else. We are not free to have from our spouse what we want to have. We cannot force our spouse to give to us. And that is the principle behind plural marriage when authorized by God. From the beginning, the Lord said he had given Eve to Adam. and I think this is another way of saying, I'm giving you the opportunity to marry this woman. 1st God gives the opportunity and the wife to man, 2nd man gives himself, and then 3rd woman gives herself. Because the man is the first to offer himself to the woman, and offer this priesthood ordinance, the Lord is able to give multiple single women to one man. So for example in sec. 132, the man us justified in taking more wives if they are virgins, because at that moment they belong to God only, and not to another man. God has a right to give as many women to a man as he pleases. But He cannot give a woman as many husbands as He pleases, because the husband has the role and responsibility of giving himself and the ordinance to a woman. God cannot force a man to give himself nor can he force a man to give freely his wives to another.

So for example, during the time the Saints were practicing a plurality of wives, after two people belonged to each other, the wife was free to give her husband the gift of another wife, and to give him to another woman, but she was not able to force him to give her another husband or give another man the gift of her as wife. Some husbands. at least when J.S. was alive, were asked to give their wives to another man (J.S.), which request was basically a request from God to give your wife to the Lord. As it was, and how I expect it to be, the woman can only be given to another man by her husband after she belongs to him. She cannot give herself to another man first, but must be given by him. This, I believe, will be the principle behind plural marriage in the eternities. But the Lord is also free to take away to whom he gives, and we really are all on loan from the Lord. Our spouses and children are only ours to see how we will appreciate or receive this gift God has given us, and indeed how we use these talents we've been given.

So God can give as many virgin women to a man as he pleases? Then you say a woman can give the gift to her husband of another wife? Which is it? God's giving or the wife giving? And why would a woman view giving her husband another wife a gift to him? I thought the mainstream thought with women for polygamy was to be charitable to the less fortunate woman?

The way you talk about women being given comes across as women are property to be traded and gifted and given. Doesn't sound very nice to me. If women are equal, then maybe we shouldn't speak of them as property anymore than we speak of men as property.

A married man asking to take another married man's wife is wrong. It's not like God asking for her back to then give her as a non-virgin gift to another man. If God truly wants a specific woman with a man she is not married to why doesn't he just cause the husband to perish so she can then be guided to the man she is supposed to be with?

If the bishop came up to my husband today and asked him for me, my husband wouldn't understand why that would ever be okay. We have already been sealed, makes zero sense. I already have the sealing ordinance required, don't need it from any other man. Priesthood is priesthood, once the ordinance is done, it's not needed anymore.

And way back with the early saints, why didn't he just seal the couple instead of taking her from him and being sealed to her himself? They already had a family I'm sure. What confusion!

A man and woman are one under God, Him being the head of their union.

It's okay, maybe I'm totally wrong. But this gymnastics in reasoning was my attempt to show how we are not property. With property, you can control it. You can do whatever you want with property because it does not have agency and must be acted upon. But with people, we don't own or control them in the sense of owning property. With people, all we can do is give, and receive when given to. We cannot take from, or control. And so, as long as relationships are in the realm of "giving" then it is is not treating someone like property. The Lord and his desires of us need to be thought of a little differently though. We have made a sacred covenant to sacrifice and consecrate everything we have to Him. This is an exceptable expectation. It is a promise. So if you are not keeping your promise to give him everything, you are trying to control what really isn't yours. You've already covenanted to give everything up.

[Melissa]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

Another thought just occurred to me. If we ask ourselves who we belong to, we all belong to God, do we not? Jesus has ransomed us all, so we are His and the Father's, and theirs to give. But our Father in Heaven values agency above anything else. Since we belong to God, he is free to give to us, and to give us to someone else, but he is not free to have what he wants from us, nor can he force us to give to him. That is the one thing he cannot do - force someone else to give him love.

We are in the same boat with our spouse. We each are given to each other by God, and we have agency in the matter. We are giving ourselves, and not forcing someone to give themselves to us. But since we now belong to each other, we too are free to give to each other, and to give our spouse to someone else. We are not free to have from our spouse what we want to have. We cannot force our spouse to give to us. And that is the principle behind plural marriage when authorized by God. From the beginning, the Lord said he had given Eve to Adam. and I think this is another way of saying, I'm giving you the opportunity to marry this woman. 1st God gives the opportunity and the wife to man, 2nd man gives himself, and then 3rd woman gives herself. Because the man is the first to offer himself to the woman, and offer this priesthood ordinance, the Lord is able to give multiple single women to one man. So for example in sec. 132, the man us justified in taking more wives if they are virgins, because at that moment they belong to God only, and not to another man. God has a right to give as many women to a man as he pleases. But He cannot give a woman as many husbands as He pleases, because the husband has the role and responsibility of giving himself and the ordinance to a woman. God cannot force a man to give himself nor can he force a man to give freely his wives to another.

So for example, during the time the Saints were practicing a plurality of wives, after two people belonged to each other, the wife was free to give her husband the gift of another wife, and to give him to another woman, but she was not able to force him to give her another husband or give another man the gift of her as wife. Some husbands. at least when J.S. was alive, were asked to give their wives to another man (J.S.), which request was basically a request from God to give your wife to the Lord. As it was, and how I expect it to be, the woman can only be given to another man by her husband after she belongs to him. She cannot give herself to another man first, but must be given by him. This, I believe, will be the principle behind plural marriage in the eternities. But the Lord is also free to take away to whom he gives, and we really are all on loan from the Lord. Our spouses and children are only ours to see how we will appreciate or receive this gift God has given us, and indeed how we use these talents we've been given.

So God can give as many virgin women to a man as he pleases? Then you say a woman can give the gift to her husband of another wife? Which is it? God's giving or the wife giving? And why would a woman view giving her husband another wife a gift to him? I thought the mainstream thought with women for polygamy was to be charitable to the less fortunate woman?

The way you talk about women being given comes across as women are property to be traded and gifted and given. Doesn't sound very nice to me. If women are equal, then maybe we shouldn't speak of them as property anymore than we speak of men as property.

A married man asking to take another married man's wife is wrong. It's not like God asking for her back to then give her as a non-virgin gift to another man. If God truly wants a specific woman with a man she is not married to why doesn't he just cause the husband to perish so she can then be guided to the man she is supposed to be with?

If the bishop came up to my husband today and asked him for me, my husband wouldn't understand why that would ever be okay. We have already been sealed, makes zero sense. I already have the sealing ordinance required, don't need it from any other man. Priesthood is priesthood, once the ordinance is done, it's not needed anymore.

And way back with the early saints, why didn't he just seal the couple instead of taking her from him and being sealed to her himself? They already had a family I'm sure. What confusion!

A man and woman are one under God, Him being the head of their union.

It's okay, maybe I'm totally wrong. But this gymnastics in reasoning was my attempt to show how we are not property. With property, you can control it. You can do whatever you want with property because it does not have agency and must be acted upon. But with people, we don't own or control them in the sense of owning property. With people, all we can do is give, and receive when given to. We cannot take from, or control. And so, as long as relationships are in the realm of "giving" then it is is not treating someone like property. The Lord and his desires of us need to be thought of a little differently though. We have made a sacred covenant to sacrifice and consecrate everything we have to Him. This is an exceptable expectation. It is a promise. So if you are not keeping your promise to give him everything, you are trying to control what really isn't yours. You've already covenanted to give everything up.

Covenanted to give what up exactly? As far as I know, it doesn't list everything out. Is isn't this body mine? Or is it not mine? I have wording given to me to control my body...doesn't that mean I own it and I should control it?

I have promised to give what I have to the church...my money, my home, my time, my resources, my talents, my abilities, my expertise and my service. Right?

[brianj]

A married man asking to take another married man's wife is wrong. It's not like God asking for her back to then give her as a non-virgin gift to another man. If God truly wants a specific woman with a man she is not married to why doesn't he just cause the husband to perish so she can then be guided to the man she is supposed to be with?

If the bishop came up to my husband today and asked him for me, my husband wouldn't understand why that would ever be okay. We have already been sealed, makes zero sense. I already have the sealing ordinance required, don't need it from any other man. Priesthood is priesthood, once the ordinance is done, it's not needed anymore.

I understand that in those cases where a married woman was married to someone else, it wasn't really a marriage but a sealing in the temple. When the husband or wife died that marriage would end, and when the wife and church leader to whom she was sealed died they would become married. So if your bishop asked your husband to give you up, you're already sealed for eternity.

[brianj]

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

You should quote the rest so everyone knows he wasn't referring to an eternal marriage.

"According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.-We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

It's also important to note that there was no Temple at that point, it was being built. It was also a response to the secret wivery Bennet was teaching.

Good catch. The above statement was made at a church conference in 1835, but the Kirtland temple wasn't dedicated until the following year. But when this was published in 1842 I don't know the status of sealings. Other ordinances were being performed outside temples prior to the dedication of the Nauvoo temple so I wonder if sealings were also happening.

Nevertheless, people don't realize just how hurtful this policy is. For those of you who were raised in the church, it's easy: if a family member knowingly becomes unworthy of the temple, it's their fault. But for those of us raised outside the church who convert, this policy causes a lot of pain and seriously damages family relationships.

[shadow]

Nevertheless, people don't realize just how hurtful this policy is. For those of you who were raised in the church, it's easy: if a family member knowingly becomes unworthy of the temple, it's their fault. But for those of us raised outside the church who convert, this policy causes a lot of pain and seriously damages family relationships.

They'll need to get used to it since there are 3 degrees of glory in Heaven and those of lesser glories CANNOT witness events happening in glories higher than their own. True story- life sucks. Not everyone can get their own way. There is only one way. Those who cannot gain entrance to the Temple are NOT in the right way.

As for me and Mark, we'll be down at the Oasis if you want to come visit us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_der_5hRM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sarah]

Another thought just occurred to me. If we ask ourselves who we belong to, we all belong to God, do we not? Jesus has ransomed us all, so we are His and the Father's, and theirs to give. But our Father in Heaven values agency above anything else. Since we belong to God, he is free to give to us, and to give us to someone else, but he is not free to have what he wants from us, nor can he force us to give to him. That is the one thing he cannot do - force someone else to give him love.

We are in the same boat with our spouse. We each are given to each other by God, and we have agency in the matter. We are giving ourselves, and not forcing someone to give themselves to us. But since we now belong to each other, we too are free to give to each other, and to give our spouse to someone else. We are not free to have from our spouse what we want to have. We cannot force our spouse to give to us. And that is the principle behind plural marriage when authorized by God. From the beginning, the Lord said he had given Eve to Adam. and I think this is another way of saying, I'm giving you the opportunity to marry this woman. 1st God gives the opportunity and the wife to man, 2nd man gives himself, and then 3rd woman gives herself. Because the man is the first to offer himself to the woman, and offer this priesthood ordinance, the Lord is able to give multiple single women to one man. So for example in sec. 132, the man us justified in taking more wives if they are virgins, because at that moment they belong to God only, and not to another man. God has a right to give as many women to a man as he pleases. But He cannot give a woman as many husbands as He pleases, because the husband has the role and responsibility of giving himself and the ordinance to a woman. God cannot force a man to give himself nor can he force a man to give freely his wives to another.

So for example, during the time the Saints were practicing a plurality of wives, after two people belonged to each other, the wife was free to give her husband the gift of another wife, and to give him to another woman, but she was not able to force him to give her another husband or give another man the gift of her as wife. Some husbands. at least when J.S. was alive, were asked to give their wives to another man (J.S.), which request was basically a request from God to give your wife to the Lord. As it was, and how I expect it to be, the woman can only be given to another man by her husband after she belongs to him. She cannot give herself to another man first, but must be given by him. This, I believe, will be the principle behind plural marriage in the eternities. But the Lord is also free to take away to whom he gives, and we really are all on loan from the Lord. Our spouses and children are only ours to see how we will appreciate or receive this gift God has given us, and indeed how we use these talents we've been given.

So God can give as many virgin women to a man as he pleases? Then you say a woman can give the gift to her husband of another wife? Which is it? God's giving or the wife giving? And why would a woman view giving her husband another wife a gift to him? I thought the mainstream thought with women for polygamy was to be charitable to the less fortunate woman?

The way you talk about women being given comes across as women are property to be traded and gifted and given. Doesn't sound very nice to me. If women are equal, then maybe we shouldn't speak of them as property anymore than we speak of men as property.

A married man asking to take another married man's wife is wrong. It's not like God asking for her back to then give her as a non-virgin gift to another man. If God truly wants a specific woman with a man she is not married to why doesn't he just cause the husband to perish so she can then be guided to the man she is supposed to be with?

If the bishop came up to my husband today and asked him for me, my husband wouldn't understand why that would ever be okay. We have already been sealed, makes zero sense. I already have the sealing ordinance required, don't need it from any other man. Priesthood is priesthood, once the ordinance is done, it's not needed anymore.

And way back with the early saints, why didn't he just seal the couple instead of taking her from him and being sealed to her himself? They already had a family I'm sure. What confusion!

A man and woman are one under God, Him being the head of their union.

It's okay, maybe I'm totally wrong. But this gymnastics in reasoning was my attempt to show how we are not property. With property, you can control it. You can do whatever you want with property because it does not have agency and must be acted upon. But with people, we don't own or control them in the sense of owning property. With people, all we can do is give, and receive when given to. We cannot take from, or control. And so, as long as relationships are in the realm of "giving" then it is is not treating someone like property. The Lord and his desires of us need to be thought of a little differently though. We have made a sacred covenant to sacrifice and consecrate everything we have to Him. This is an exceptable expectation. It is a promise. So if you are not keeping your promise to give him everything, you are trying to control what really isn't yours. You've already covenanted to give everything up.

Covenanted to give what up exactly? As far as I know, it doesn't list everything out. Is isn't this body mine? Or is it not mine? I have wording given to me to control my body...doesn't that mean I own it and I should control it?

I have promised to give what I have to the church...my money, my home, my time, my resources, my talents, my abilities, my expertise and my service. Right?

Yes, control your body. But we have to be willing to let go of family members, like in the case of Abraham offering up Issac. That's why the Lord compared his command to take on multiple wives (and his command to offer Emma up) to an Abrahamic test. But let's say that Joseph accepted Heber's offer of Vilate, and took her as his wife. Was Vilate obligated to marry Joseph? I believe if she wanted to keep her covenants and truly love the Lord more than herself, she would have become Joseph's wife even if she preferred Heber. She is willing to sacrifice that way. But sacrifice for the Lord always brings forth blessings. Their offer was accepted, and she was allowed to remain with Heber. Would she have been obligated to give her body to Joseph? No, but only if she desired to honor the Lord in bringing forth seed, and if she found love enough for Joseph to give him seed. But a woman is never asked to lay down her body for the sake of pleasing a man's sexual desire.

This is kind of diverging from the topic, but sexual intimacy is a special gift where the giver must receive the same gift and the receiver must give the same gift, all at the same time. So if you want your spouse to give to you, what that means is that your spouse is also required to receive from you. But what if you spouse does not want or cannot appreciate your gift? What is it called when you want to give a gift to someone for your own benefit and not theirs? Well, it's not really a gift is it. If you are thinking about what you are going to get out of the exchange and placing that want above your desire to give a good gift, then you are being selfish. So, if one spouse wants to give and receive, and the other does not, the one that does not is pressured to give and receive for the wrong reason. It is not going to be an exchange out of love. It could be out of love, if that spouse was willing to sacrifice, but when one spouse begins to feel entitled to the sacrifice of another, that is where you see the giver pulling back because there is an imbalance in the exchange.

[brianj]

Nevertheless, people don't realize just how hurtful this policy is. For those of you who were raised in the church, it's easy: if a family member knowingly becomes unworthy of the temple, it's their fault. But for those of us raised outside the church who convert, this policy causes a lot of pain and seriously damages family relationships.

They'll need to get used to it since there are 3 degrees of glory in Heaven and those of lesser glories CANNOT witness events happening in glories higher than their own. True story- life sucks. Not everyone can get their own way. There is only one way. Those who cannot gain entrance to the Temple are NOT in the right way.

As for me and Mark, we'll be down at the Oasis if you want to come visit us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_der_5hRM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So... Saints in the UK and New Zealand aren't worthy of the Celestial Kingdom? Those saints can't get married in the temples in their countries; they would either have to travel somewhere else to be married inside a temple or they would have to be married outside the temple before going inside to be sealed.

If you are a convert to the church and you take a good look at your life, you will recognize that there may have been other introductions to the gospel that you missed because you weren't prepared at the time. If you were raised in the church the odds are roughly 75% that you will go inactive for a period of time. That's your time when you aren't ready for the gospel, and when you are ready you will return. And I'll bet that if you are inactive then someone tells you that you aren't good enough to attend the wedding of a close family member, that hurtful comment will prolong your inactivity.

If I am married again, and I hope to be, I will most likely be married in a temple because I can't envision having enough money available to fly the wedding party to Auckland. But beforehand I will have long talks with my fiancee, and probably also with my bishop, about having an unofficial and authoritative exchange of vows outside the temple before going inside. If they kill that idea it will happen after the sealing, but I will again feel bad about my family not being able to attend. I'm not cold hearted enough to brush off the absence of family members at my marriage, and that will have a negative impact on my experience in the sealing room.

I probably won't come down to the Oasis; Margaritaville is more my style. But if you run into Chris Gaines, please slap him until he remembers his real name.

[JohnnyL]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

Another thought just occurred to me. If we ask ourselves who we belong to, we all belong to God, do we not? Jesus has ransomed us all, so we are His and the Father's, and theirs to give. But our Father in Heaven values agency above anything else. Since we belong to God, he is free to give to us, and to give us to someone else, but he is not free to have what he wants from us, nor can he force us to give to him. That is the one thing he cannot do - force someone else to give him love.

We are in the same boat with our spouse. We each are given to each other by God, and we have agency in the matter. We are giving ourselves, and not forcing someone to give themselves to us. But since we now belong to each other, we too are free to give to each other, and to give our spouse to someone else. We are not free to have from our spouse what we want to have. We cannot force our spouse to give to us. And that is the principle behind plural marriage when authorized by God. From the beginning, the Lord said he had given Eve to Adam. and I think this is another way of saying, I'm giving you the opportunity to marry this woman. 1st God gives the opportunity and the wife to man, 2nd man gives himself, and then 3rd woman gives herself. Because the man is the first to offer himself to the woman, and offer this priesthood ordinance, the Lord is able to give multiple single women to one man. So for example in sec. 132, the man us justified in taking more wives if they are virgins, because at that moment they belong to God only, and not to another man. God has a right to give as many women to a man as he pleases. But He cannot give a woman as many husbands as He pleases, because the husband has the role and responsibility of giving himself and the ordinance to a woman. God cannot force a man to give himself nor can he force a man to give freely his wives to another.

So for example, during the time the Saints were practicing a plurality of wives, after two people belonged to each other, the wife was free to give her husband the gift of another wife, and to give him to another woman, but she was not able to force him to give her another husband or give another man the gift of her as wife. Some husbands. at least when J.S. was alive, were asked to give their wives to another man (J.S.), which request was basically a request from God to give your wife to the Lord. As it was, and how I expect it to be, the woman can only be given to another man by her husband after she belongs to him. She cannot give herself to another man first, but must be given by him. This, I believe, will be the principle behind plural marriage in the eternities. But the Lord is also free to take away to whom he gives, and we really are all on loan from the Lord. Our spouses and children are only ours to see how we will appreciate or receive this gift God has given us, and indeed how we use these talents we've been given.

So God can give as many virgin women to a man as he pleases? Then you say a woman can give the gift to her husband of another wife? Which is it? God's giving or the wife giving? And why would a woman view giving her husband another wife a gift to him? I thought the mainstream thought with women for polygamy was to be charitable to the less fortunate woman?

The way you talk about women being given comes across as women are property to be traded and gifted and given. Doesn't sound very nice to me. If women are equal, then maybe we shouldn't speak of them as property anymore than we speak of men as property.

A married man asking to take another married man's wife is wrong. It's not like God asking for her back to then give her as a non-virgin gift to another man. If God truly wants a specific woman with a man she is not married to why doesn't he just cause the husband to perish so she can then be guided to the man she is supposed to be with?

If the bishop came up to my husband today and asked him for me, my husband wouldn't understand why that would ever be okay. We have already been sealed, makes zero sense. I already have the sealing ordinance required, don't need it from any other man. Priesthood is priesthood, once the ordinance is done, it's not needed anymore.

And way back with the early saints, why didn't he just seal the couple instead of taking her from him and being sealed to her himself? They already had a family I'm sure. What confusion!

A man and woman are one under God, Him being the head of their union.

"Spiritual sealings", done before more principles about sealing were revealed. And it wasn't just the women sealed to JS, it was the men, too. In a sense, he was their "father". Etc. (If I could remember the source, I'd put it up here.)

[Melissa]

Since men are nothing without women and women are nothing without men (it takes two to become one) then I view my husband as given to me the same as he views me as given to him. We are equal in importance and value.

We are joined together with God at the head of our union. We are given to each other! He has a "gift" to give? Don't I have the same "gift"? He won't have a marriage or exaltation without a woman and I wouldn't have it without a man. So we're equal here.

We need to be careful in our wording to not place man in a superior stance over women.

A woman's gift is not sex for the man but it is marriage, the key to be eligible for exaltation. A man's gift is marriage as well. Everything else comes secondary to this such as a woman's blessing of having a priesthood holder and provider and the man's blessing of having the ability to father children to increase his joy and to have a companion to uplift and support him.

Another thought just occurred to me. If we ask ourselves who we belong to, we all belong to God, do we not? Jesus has ransomed us all, so we are His and the Father's, and theirs to give. But our Father in Heaven values agency above anything else. Since we belong to God, he is free to give to us, and to give us to someone else, but he is not free to have what he wants from us, nor can he force us to give to him. That is the one thing he cannot do - force someone else to give him love.

We are in the same boat with our spouse. We each are given to each other by God, and we have agency in the matter. We are giving ourselves, and not forcing someone to give themselves to us. But since we now belong to each other, we too are free to give to each other, and to give our spouse to someone else. We are not free to have from our spouse what we want to have. We cannot force our spouse to give to us. And that is the principle behind plural marriage when authorized by God. From the beginning, the Lord said he had given Eve to Adam. and I think this is another way of saying, I'm giving you the opportunity to marry this woman. 1st God gives the opportunity and the wife to man, 2nd man gives himself, and then 3rd woman gives herself. Because the man is the first to offer himself to the woman, and offer this priesthood ordinance, the Lord is able to give multiple single women to one man. So for example in sec. 132, the man us justified in taking more wives if they are virgins, because at that moment they belong to God only, and not to another man. God has a right to give as many women to a man as he pleases. But He cannot give a woman as many husbands as He pleases, because the husband has the role and responsibility of giving himself and the ordinance to a woman. God cannot force a man to give himself nor can he force a man to give freely his wives to another.

So for example, during the time the Saints were practicing a plurality of wives, after two people belonged to each other, the wife was free to give her husband the gift of another wife, and to give him to another woman, but she was not able to force him to give her another husband or give another man the gift of her as wife. Some husbands. at least when J.S. was alive, were asked to give their wives to another man (J.S.), which request was basically a request from God to give your wife to the Lord. As it was, and how I expect it to be, the woman can only be given to another man by her husband after she belongs to him. She cannot give herself to another man first, but must be given by him. This, I believe, will be the principle behind plural marriage in the eternities. But the Lord is also free to take away to whom he gives, and we really are all on loan from the Lord. Our spouses and children are only ours to see how we will appreciate or receive this gift God has given us, and indeed how we use these talents we've been given.

So God can give as many virgin women to a man as he pleases? Then you say a woman can give the gift to her husband of another wife? Which is it? God's giving or the wife giving? And why would a woman view giving her husband another wife a gift to him? I thought the mainstream thought with women for polygamy was to be charitable to the less fortunate woman?

The way you talk about women being given comes across as women are property to be traded and gifted and given. Doesn't sound very nice to me. If women are equal, then maybe we shouldn't speak of them as property anymore than we speak of men as property.

A married man asking to take another married man's wife is wrong. It's not like God asking for her back to then give her as a non-virgin gift to another man. If God truly wants a specific woman with a man she is not married to why doesn't he just cause the husband to perish so she can then be guided to the man she is supposed to be with?

If the bishop came up to my husband today and asked him for me, my husband wouldn't understand why that would ever be okay. We have already been sealed, makes zero sense. I already have the sealing ordinance required, don't need it from any other man. Priesthood is priesthood, once the ordinance is done, it's not needed anymore.

And way back with the early saints, why didn't he just seal the couple instead of taking her from him and being sealed to her himself? They already had a family I'm sure. What confusion!

A man and woman are one under God, Him being the head of their union.

"Spiritual sealings", done before more principles about sealing were revealed. And it wasn't just the women sealed to JS, it was the men, too. In a sense, he was their "father". Etc. (If I could remember the source, I'd put it up here.)

Would love the source
Please post or send when you can