Deleted

[Mark]

Obviously, too many here have their own opinion, which leads to a stupor of thought

AND

You're really criticizing 12 of our 17 prophets?

Yes he is and it’s quite sad.

I don't think there's an issue on these boards that mystify me more about how effective satan is at screwing up LDS people that this ridiculous lunacy over polygamy.

IT - DOES - NOT - MATTER.

The only possible way that sealings of spouses for ETERNITY could be a problem is if you believe God is a cruel heartless, and mean being. If that is the case, I propose you have much bigger issues to deal with.

Not only is God just, He's also merciful and loving. Oh, and He's also OMNISCIENT and OMNIPOTENT. He knows and can help us when these things are actually relevant rather than just potentially at some future point about which we know almost nothing at present.

God will not force anyone to be sealed to someone to whom they do not wish to be sealed. What the bloody frick does it matter what the rules are about Celestial Sealing in Eternity is to us in this life? There are so many things we know - KNOW - we need to do and worry about in this life, it is senseless to worry about things we don't. If we live righteously and follow our covenants in this life, we have already been promised we'll have exaltation. Do any of us know what that looks like? No.

I'm relatively certain there are many things about relationships and a great number of other aspects of eternal progress in the next life that we don't know about now, but if it were necessary for us to know now, we would. For someone to get upset now about an aspect of eternity we don't know everything about here and now is like a 5 year old getting upset that he or she can't wear just their superhero underwear to church.

AMEN BROTHER! ONe of my favorite scriptures in the bible applies here: “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

A covenant people do not get bogged down with distractions. They are part of the adversaries most effective weapons.

[skmo]

Yeah, I'm able to appreciate the sense of humor about this. I chuckled, too.
>
>
>

Okay, probably need to repent now, but I have to admit - I actually laughed out loud.

[MMbelieve]

I have witnessed "self-less" love many times. It happened on my father's death bed when he informed me that it would be quite o.k. if his eternal companion wished to remarry after his death. It is at that point when the happiness of another supersedes that of oneself. It is the type of LOVE that self-sacrifice is made of and which prompted the Savior to descend below all things. The heart strings between soul mates cannot be drawn any tighter than when each desires the utmost happiness, well being and fulfillment of the other - no matter what the sacrifice.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is nice and all but of course he would want his wife to remarry, he loves her and wants her to be provided for. He also knows that she will not keep this second husband and it's a temporary situation.

In reverse, many husbands that remarry is a permanent situation, not temporary. Quite a bit different in the eternal perspective.

I don't like it when women are deemed unloving or jealous or not giving when the cards are stacked against their own happiness but are expected to give give give to others.

[MMbelieve]

Polygamy needs to be a man's only chat room because it's not very nice to have debates on what to do with "women" in front of women. It often is spoken of in too light of wording and intention. The arguing of polygamy and 1 wife, 2 wives, or more...old or young, widow or childless, being fair in treatment of old wives, supplying sperm for young spinsters, etc etc

Do we speak of our children in this manner? Without maturity and sensitivity or consideration? No, why? Because its not nice and not done in respect of those you are speaking about.

Men way to often exercise stewardship over over all women and it's demeaning. A man has stewardship over his wife not women. And his wife has stewardship with him and claim on him. When a couple marries, his body and heart belong to his wife and a wife's body belongs to her husband. They are in essence each-others stewards. He is to do nothing with his body that is selfish and vise versa. People need to understand who they are as men/women and understand what marriage and a union of body and soul actually means and live it before they go off thinking they can multiply that with many. Ridiculous

This debate and light chat and scriptures arguing is offensive to this bond and does in fact come across as egotistical and know it alls.

One thing I can guarantee is that everyone on this thread is wrong to one degree or another. So stop talking like you are the gate keeper and stop demeaning the sensitivities of the marriage bond and what that actually means in life and in spirit.

The arguing if Christ was married or not and a polygamist or not is really wrong. If Christ wanted to be a model for marriage, he failed in supplying the "worldly" understanding for all of you fallen and worldly men.

Think higher than you are currently thinking, open your heart to more understanding than you currently are doing. Close your mouth and shut off your "thinking", only then will you understand with your soul and heart how you should be talking about women and any or all responsibility you as men hold to care for the women in your life and see to the needs of those around you.

The way most men speak of women, I feel bad for all women. Col.flagg, people may fight you and mock you but I would take you over all the other men on this polygamy thread as you sir are in tune more with the spirit of marriage and male/female bonds beyond what the world has brainwashed and conditioned most men and women to believe. I respect you for this my friend.

To all the others....you would be wise to first learn women, understand women, and love 1 woman as a wife and women as your mother, sisters, daughters. Then, once you have that down...come back and debate your "polygamy".

And as the elders quorum has advised, "men however well you think you are treating your wife, treat her better". If men could actually understand women, they would behave much differently and in response women would be free to be better and more true to their divine nature.

That's my 2 cents. I don't care to hear back from any wordly thinking men who believe they have the right to speak over the eternal state of women. Those men dont yet have it.

[Col. Flagg]

Polygamy needs to be a man's only chat room because it's not very nice to have debates on what to do with "women" in front of women. It often is spoken of in too light of wording and intention. The arguing of polygamy and 1 wife, 2 wives, or more...old or young, widow or childless, being fair in treatment of old wives, supplying sperm for young spinsters, etc etc

Do we speak of our children in this manner? Without maturity and sensitivity or consideration? No, why? Because its not nice and not done in respect of those you are speaking about.

Men way to often exercise stewardship over over all women and it's demeaning. A man has stewardship over his wife not women. And his wife has stewardship with him and claim on him. When a couple marries, his body and heart belong to his wife and a wife's body belongs to her husband. They are in essence each-others stewards. He is to do nothing with his body that is selfish and vise versa. People need to understand who they are as men/women and understand what marriage and a union of body and soul actually means and live it before they go off thinking they can multiply that with many. Ridiculous

This debate and light chat and scriptures arguing is offensive to this bond and does in fact come across as egotistical and know it alls.

One thing I can guarantee is that everyone on this thread is wrong to one degree or another. So stop talking like you are the gate keeper and stop demeaning the sensitivities of the marriage bond and what that actually means in life and in spirit.

The arguing if Christ was married or not and a polygamist or not is really wrong. If Christ wanted to be a model for marriage, he failed in supplying the "worldly" understanding for all of you fallen and worldly men.

Think higher than you are currently thinking, open your heart to more understanding than you currently are doing. Close your mouth and shut off your "thinking", only then will you understand with your soul and heart how you should be talking about women and any or all responsibility you as men hold to care for the women in your life and see to the needs of those around you.

The way most men speak of women, I feel bad for all women. Col.flagg, people may fight you and mock you but I would take you over all the other men on this polygamy thread as you sir are in tune more with the spirit of marriage and male/female bonds beyond what the world has brainwashed and conditioned most men and women to believe. I respect you for this my friend.

To all the others....you would be wise to first learn women, understand women, and love 1 woman as a wife and women as your mother, sisters, daughters. Then, once you have that down...come back and debate your "polygamy".

And as the elders quorum has advised, "men however well you think you are treating your wife, treat her better". If men could actually understand women, they would behave much differently and in response women would be free to be better and more true to their divine nature.

That's my 2 cents. I don't care to hear back from any wordly thinking men who believe they have the right to speak over the eternal state of women. Those men dont yet have it.

Thanks for the kind words of support MMbelieve - I often feel alone in my defense of monogamy - it's nice to see someone else covering my back! This board seems to have become infiltrated with polygamists left and right, which is unfortunate to see. But I'll stand by my defense of Joseph's innocence of polygamy and marriage being sanctioned by God only between one man and one woman until the cows come home!

[BruceRGilbert]

I have witnessed "self-less" love many times. It happened on my father's death bed when he informed me that it would be quite o.k. if his eternal companion wished to remarry after his death. It is at that point when the happiness of another supersedes that of oneself. It is the type of LOVE that self-sacrifice is made of and which prompted the Savior to descend below all things. The heart strings between soul mates cannot be drawn any tighter than when each desires the utmost happiness, well being and fulfillment of the other - no matter what the sacrifice.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is nice and all but of course he would want his wife to remarry, he loves her and wants her to be provided for. He also knows that she will not keep this second husband and it's a temporary situation.

In reverse, many husbands that remarry is a permanent situation, not temporary. Quite a bit different in the eternal perspective.

I don't like it when women are deemed unloving or jealous or not giving when the cards are stacked against their own happiness but are expected to give give give to others.

MMbelieve - (which I would suppose means "Monogomous Marriage Believe,") My father more than adequately provided for my mother. He was a Doctor of Medicine. She lived for 38 years after his death, single and very much in love with him - anticipating her reunion. She passed away the day before yesterday. His concern was not that she be provided for, but that she not be lonely in this dark, dreary world called mortality. This was her "suffering" for which he was most concerned. I suspect that this is the reason that the Brethren have remarried, as well. It is NOT GOOD that man should be alone in these instances . . . and a HELPMEET is warranted to assist in strengthening and nurturing. I have stated in other places on this forum that I believe that this issue is a "two way" street and have provided evidence to support such. Further, a Celestial relationship has nothing to do with being unloving or jealous or resentful. It isn't about "ownership" or "inadequacy." It is about being "needed" and feeling "wanted." According to the dictates of some who have commented on this particular thread, my father would be unjust, etc., etc. because he remarried after my "birth mother" died. Too, I know a faithful man whose first marriage was to a widow who lost her eternal companion - knowing full well of that which you have pointed out. In my heart of hearts, I know Heavenly Father has a plan to provide for the happiness and fulfillment of His children in the best possible way. And by the way, I have told my wife that for me, it is all about her happiness - that if she ever wanted to be with someone else, that I would never stand in her way. I don't think that you get it when it comes to selflessness. It isn't about "me, me, me" and my happiness - it is about the other.

True love is a flame that kindles others and is never diminished in so doing. No amount of it is ever lost or spent in vain. True love does not possess, but admires and cherishes.

[shadow]

I have witnessed "self-less" love many times. It happened on my father's death bed when he informed me that it would be quite o.k. if his eternal companion wished to remarry after his death. It is at that point when the happiness of another supersedes that of oneself. It is the type of LOVE that self-sacrifice is made of and which prompted the Savior to descend below all things. The heart strings between soul mates cannot be drawn any tighter than when each desires the utmost happiness, well being and fulfillment of the other - no matter what the sacrifice.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is nice and all but of course he would want his wife to remarry, he loves her and wants her to be provided for. He also knows that she will not keep this second husband and it's a temporary situation.

In reverse, many husbands that remarry is a permanent situation, not temporary. Quite a bit different in the eternal perspective.

I don't like it when women are deemed unloving or jealous or not giving when the cards are stacked against their own happiness but are expected to give give give to others.

Actually, I know two women who passed away. I knew them but they didn't know each other. In both cases they knew they were dying (cancer) and in both cases they requested their husbands remarry and in both cases they picked out the new wife and in both cases they requested they be sealed in the Temple which means in both cases they knew the husband would have plural wives. The first one requested her husband marry her sister who had never married before, and they did. The second one requested he marry her best friend who had never married before, and he did (a bit more reluctantly IMO). I suppose they had a different understanding of things. In life they were most charitable and Christlike and obviously that carried on.

For me, for many reasons I would actually prefer my wife not remarry if I died. And if my wife passed away I have no interest in marrying again either. Of course, both of us are still alive so we haven't been put in that situation. Like Flagg, and probably most here, I'm all for monogamy but I'm not ignorant enough to claim polygamy can't work eternally. I've not been commanded to live it so I'm not worrying about it.

[skmo]

I suspect that this is the reason that the Brethren have remarried, as well. It is NOT GOOD that man should be alone...

>
>
>

[Elizabeth]

I am not sealed. My children tell me they will make sure I am after I have passed on. It is their opinion I will accept the sealing then. It is my understanding it will be my choice to make if there is the opportunity for me to be sealed in the eternities.

[gardener4life]

I am not sealed. My children tell me they will make sure I am after I have passed on. It is their opinion I will accept the sealing then. It is my understanding it will be my choice to make if there is the opportunity for me to be sealed in the eternities.

There's a lot of people like this. And you know a few days ago I was thinking of the story of Joseph's brother Alvin dying before he actually received the ordinances. And I felt even before seeing your comment that I needed to bring up the story of Alvin in church next Sunday because there's a LOT of people like him. And a lot of people need the comfort from the spirit that it will work out for them, being types of Alvin that might not get everything in this life.

It's more important how we live I think than these other things. Alvin was living right and it was amazing that he could see the truth and light in Joseph. You are trying to be like that too. There are a lot of people that someone will do the work for them...AND put them in their families.

[MMbelieve]

I have witnessed "self-less" love many times. It happened on my father's death bed when he informed me that it would be quite o.k. if his eternal companion wished to remarry after his death. It is at that point when the happiness of another supersedes that of oneself. It is the type of LOVE that self-sacrifice is made of and which prompted the Savior to descend below all things. The heart strings between soul mates cannot be drawn any tighter than when each desires the utmost happiness, well being and fulfillment of the other - no matter what the sacrifice.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is nice and all but of course he would want his wife to remarry, he loves her and wants her to be provided for. He also knows that she will not keep this second husband and it's a temporary situation.

In reverse, many husbands that remarry is a permanent situation, not temporary. Quite a bit different in the eternal perspective.

I don't like it when women are deemed unloving or jealous or not giving when the cards are stacked against their own happiness but are expected to give give give to others.

MMbelieve - (which I would suppose means "Monogomous Marriage Believe,") My father more than adequately provided for my mother. He was a Doctor of Medicine. She lived for 38 years after his death, single and very much in love with him - anticipating her reunion. She passed away the day before yesterday. His concern was not that she be provided for, but that she not be lonely in this dark, dreary world called mortality. This was her "suffering" for which he was most concerned. I suspect that this is the reason that the Brethren have remarried, as well. It is NOT GOOD that man should be alone in these instances . . . and a HELPMEET is warranted to assist in strengthening and nurturing. I have stated in other places on this forum that I believe that this issue is a "two way" street and have provided evidence to support such. Further, a Celestial relationship has nothing to do with being unloving or jealous or resentful. It isn't about "ownership" or "inadequacy." It is about being "needed" and feeling "wanted." According to the dictates of some who have commented on this particular thread, my father would be unjust, etc., etc. because he remarried after my "birth mother" died. Too, I know a faithful man whose first marriage was to a widow who lost her eternal companion - knowing full well of that which you have pointed out. In my heart of hearts, I know Heavenly Father has a plan to provide for the happiness and fulfillment of His children in the best possible way. And by the way, I have told my wife that for me, it is all about her happiness - that if she ever wanted to be with someone else, that I would never stand in her way. I don't think that you get it when it comes to selflessness. It isn't about "me, me, me" and my happiness - it is about the other.

True love is a flame that kindles others and is never diminished in so doing. No amount of it is ever lost or spent in vain. True love does not possess, but admires and cherishes.

I don't know why you say I don't get it.

She lived for 38 years , single. Why? Why didn't she remarry? He loved her and wanted her to not be alone...and she loved him and wanted only to be with him. Beautiful!

[MMbelieve]

I have witnessed "self-less" love many times. It happened on my father's death bed when he informed me that it would be quite o.k. if his eternal companion wished to remarry after his death. It is at that point when the happiness of another supersedes that of oneself. It is the type of LOVE that self-sacrifice is made of and which prompted the Savior to descend below all things. The heart strings between soul mates cannot be drawn any tighter than when each desires the utmost happiness, well being and fulfillment of the other - no matter what the sacrifice.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is nice and all but of course he would want his wife to remarry, he loves her and wants her to be provided for. He also knows that she will not keep this second husband and it's a temporary situation.

In reverse, many husbands that remarry is a permanent situation, not temporary. Quite a bit different in the eternal perspective.

I don't like it when women are deemed unloving or jealous or not giving when the cards are stacked against their own happiness but are expected to give give give to others.

Actually, I know two women who passed away. I knew them but they didn't know each other. In both cases they knew they were dying (cancer) and in both cases they requested their husbands remarry and in both cases they picked out the new wife and in both cases they requested they be sealed in the Temple which means in both cases they knew the husband would have plural wives. The first one requested her husband marry her sister who had never married before, and they did. The second one requested he marry her best friend who had never married before, and he did (a bit more reluctantly IMO). I suppose they had a different understanding of things. In life they were most charitable and Christlike and obviously that carried on.

For me, for many reasons I would actually prefer my wife not remarry if I died. And if my wife passed away I have no interest in marrying again either. Of course, both of us are still alive so we haven't been put in that situation. Like Flagg, and probably most here, I'm all for monogamy but I'm not ignorant enough to claim polygamy can't work eternally. I've not been commanded to live it so I'm not worrying about it.

When I hear people tell stories in favor of some women being okay with polygmay...I always hear that the dying women picked out their husbands next wife. Why on earth is she picking her husbands next wife? If she loves him and trust him and is not in anyway being selfish in this, then she would spend her dying days with her husband and not pawning him off to another woman of her choosing. Let the man chose if he wants to and to whom he wants to, if that be the case.

Why are they finding women for their husbands? Is he not capable? He found his first wife by himself. Sounds controlling by the woman and it's only "okay" if I get to pick her, then I know I won't be jealous or envious etc.

These stories don't he opposite effect to me than what people intend them to do.

[BruceRGilbert]

1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Correlation between the Law of Sarah and the previous scripture may add some appropriate and contextual insight.

[Sarah]

I have witnessed "self-less" love many times. It happened on my father's death bed when he informed me that it would be quite o.k. if his eternal companion wished to remarry after his death. It is at that point when the happiness of another supersedes that of oneself. It is the type of LOVE that self-sacrifice is made of and which prompted the Savior to descend below all things. The heart strings between soul mates cannot be drawn any tighter than when each desires the utmost happiness, well being and fulfillment of the other - no matter what the sacrifice.

This is nice and all but of course he would want his wife to remarry, he loves her and wants her to be provided for. He also knows that she will not keep this second husband and it's a temporary situation.

In reverse, many husbands that remarry is a permanent situation, not temporary. Quite a bit different in the eternal perspective.

I don't like it when women are deemed unloving or jealous or not giving when the cards are stacked against their own happiness but are expected to give give give to others.

Actually, I know two women who passed away. I knew them but they didn't know each other. In both cases they knew they were dying (cancer) and in both cases they requested their husbands remarry and in both cases they picked out the new wife and in both cases they requested they be sealed in the Temple which means in both cases they knew the husband would have plural wives. The first one requested her husband marry her sister who had never married before, and they did. The second one requested he marry her best friend who had never married before, and he did (a bit more reluctantly IMO). I suppose they had a different understanding of things. In life they were most charitable and Christlike and obviously that carried on.

For me, for many reasons I would actually prefer my wife not remarry if I died. And if my wife passed away I have no interest in marrying again either. Of course, both of us are still alive so we haven't been put in that situation. Like Flagg, and probably most here, I'm all for monogamy but I'm not ignorant enough to claim polygamy can't work eternally. I've not been commanded to live it so I'm not worrying about it.

When I hear people tell stories in favor of some women being okay with polygmay...I always hear that the dying women picked out their husbands next wife. Why on earth is she picking her husbands next wife? If she loves him and trust him and is not in anyway being selfish in this, then she would spend her dying days with her husband and not pawning him off to another woman of her choosing. Let the man chose if he wants to and to whom he wants to, if that be the case.

Why are they finding women for their husbands? Is he not capable? He found his first wife by himself. Sounds controlling by the woman and it's only "okay" if I get to pick her, then I know I won't be jealous or envious etc.

These stories don't he opposite effect to me than what people intend them to do.

Brigham actually agreed that the wives should not be dictating to their husbands who their other wives should be. I know that doesn't help you win the case for monogamy, but I thought I would throw that out there anyway. And I agree that a wife or husband shouldn't try to dictate what the other does after he or she dies. The Law of Sarah isn't about the woman getting to pick out the wife for the husband, as most assume.
Just like there is a right/law/commandment for a wife to give herself to her husband, the Law of Sarah (in my opinion) is the right/law/commandment a wife has to give another wife to the husband. But as Bruce explained, if you really loved your spouse you would put his or her preferences above your own and allow him or her to choose a spouse and not dictate it. Marriage gives each rights within that relationship, but those rights are only exercised without compulsion.

When the Lord tells Joseph he is exempt from the Law of Sarah if Emma doesn't go along with it, what is he exempt from? Most would say he's exempt from getting her permission, or in other words waiting for her to give him a wife, but if that's all it is, what is the point of even having such a law, if he can take another wife to himself anyway. (And he has a right to because ultimately the Lord is who gives us our spouses, and the Lord gave Joseph this right.) I suspect that there is more to the Law of Sarah than what has been revealed, in that by obeying this Law she is entitled to some particular blessing (and not the right to choose the woman). This blessing is what Joseph was exempt in offering her as it says in sec. 132.

[shadow]

I have witnessed "self-less" love many times. It happened on my father's death bed when he informed me that it would be quite o.k. if his eternal companion wished to remarry after his death. It is at that point when the happiness of another supersedes that of oneself. It is the type of LOVE that self-sacrifice is made of and which prompted the Savior to descend below all things. The heart strings between soul mates cannot be drawn any tighter than when each desires the utmost happiness, well being and fulfillment of the other - no matter what the sacrifice.

This is nice and all but of course he would want his wife to remarry, he loves her and wants her to be provided for. He also knows that she will not keep this second husband and it's a temporary situation.

In reverse, many husbands that remarry is a permanent situation, not temporary. Quite a bit different in the eternal perspective.

I don't like it when women are deemed unloving or jealous or not giving when the cards are stacked against their own happiness but are expected to give give give to others.

Actually, I know two women who passed away. I knew them but they didn't know each other. In both cases they knew they were dying (cancer) and in both cases they requested their husbands remarry and in both cases they picked out the new wife and in both cases they requested they be sealed in the Temple which means in both cases they knew the husband would have plural wives. The first one requested her husband marry her sister who had never married before, and they did. The second one requested he marry her best friend who had never married before, and he did (a bit more reluctantly IMO). I suppose they had a different understanding of things. In life they were most charitable and Christlike and obviously that carried on.

For me, for many reasons I would actually prefer my wife not remarry if I died. And if my wife passed away I have no interest in marrying again either. Of course, both of us are still alive so we haven't been put in that situation. Like Flagg, and probably most here, I'm all for monogamy but I'm not ignorant enough to claim polygamy can't work eternally. I've not been commanded to live it so I'm not worrying about it.

When I hear people tell stories in favor of some women being okay with polygmay...I always hear that the dying women picked out their husbands next wife. Why on earth is she picking her husbands next wife? If she loves him and trust him and is not in anyway being selfish in this, then she would spend her dying days with her husband and not pawning him off to another woman of her choosing. Let the man chose if he wants to and to whom he wants to, if that be the case.

Why are they finding women for their husbands? Is he not capable? He found his first wife by himself. Sounds controlling by the woman and it's only "okay" if I get to pick her, then I know I won't be jealous or envious etc.

These stories don't he opposite effect to me than what people intend them to do.

I don't know why they did, but they did. I guess some wives have a mind of their own. Go figure.

[BeNotDeceived]

Mary and Martha were sisters.

So were Rachel and Leah. Like I said, scriptures are inconclusive and/or contradictory.

Genetically, my cousins are my half brothers and sisters.

Human Life began with just Adam and Eve, and then 8 from Noah.

Go figure

The dawning of SuperHero UnderWear is optional, but suggested when all else fails.

Abraham and Sarah had the same father.

Forgetting Lilith and her posterity? Anyway, things were probably way more complicated in the Garden of Eden than most people dare to suppose.

As for Noah, we have gone over that quite a bit. You see, the Book of Mormon says all, and I mean all, Jaradites perished. Yet how realistic is that? No people from that population ever broke off and left? No guy and his wife said, "Lets take the kids and find a quieter place to live?" The author of the histories wrote from his perspective and the same was true of Noah. His civilization and its cities perished and thus he lamented the loss in his records. You really think he was going to make note of primitive peoples in areas that were not flooded? To him they were probably not even part of humanity any more than an upper-class British colonial officer saw subjugated people as his equals.

What scriptures are there about Lilith?

A local flood doesn’t baptize the Earth as intended.

I made a thread about Cain being the son of Satan, which would make us have some of his DNA, but that’s all speculation. God certainly has His ways irrespective of physical DNA. There’s an interesting thread here suggesting than Jesus has an unique number of chromosomes.

[BruceRGilbert]

All authority, power, blessing and direction comes from Him who is Supreme. The Covenant is between three. Majority rules - and that means that man and woman do not constitute a majority over God. Whoever is doing the will of God; acting within the bounds that God has established, this is the "contractual party," as it were - who carries the weight of righteousness. Problems arise when "individuals" take matters into their own hands and decide individually and independently how they will conduct themselves with reference to the Covenant agreement. These are the instances where selfishness, vanity, unrighteousness, pride and whoredoms become abominations in the sight of God.

The woman, having an "internal womb," takes that which is "spiritual" and tabernacles it with that which is physical. This is an inherent and God given "unalienable" power of nature in procreation. (One which, despite the directives of some cab drivers, cannot be accomplished alone.) The man, having an "external womb," whereby he is proficient at creating in the physical world, by virtue of the Priesthood, takes "ordinances" which are "symbols" and "figurative" and conditionally tabernacles that which is "physical" into that which may become "spiritual." By viewing the "triangle" shown, above, it becomes apparent that there is a "symbiotic" cycle. Spiritual to Physical, Physical to Spiritual. It would seem to me that MAN and not WOMAN is the weak link in that this "power" is only conditional upon our righteousness. With the Woman, it is not so.

Because I lost my first mother at a very tender age and grew up with "hired help" in the form of "housekeepers" to provide the necessities of life, I have had to learn about love and nurturing. I did not know that I did not know what these things meant. I have stated over the pulpit in testimony meeting that we had 6 children, but my wife had to raise 7. I have learned what these things are, too, because I have learned what they are not. It would seem that the peaks can only be as high as the valleys are low. There is much to be said about descending below all things in order to comprehend what it means to ascend above them. The foremost principle that I learned about LOVE is that it is had only upon the principle of sacrifice. It is a Telestial lesson. A mother loves her unborn child because of the sacrifice that she makes in bringing new life into the world. I had to be witness to this process in a delivery room in order to appreciate and understand what that meant . . . to witness the "change" that transpires at the reward of a newborn infant in the arms and not the belly of a new mother. It was a very sobering experience in making a connection between actions and consequences. I remain in absolute awe of this "Motherly" power and understand that if birthing were up to man . . . there would be little, if any, civilization.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Now, I do not agree with Paul with respect to some of his thoughts about marriage, but I do agree with respect to what is brought out in verse 15 of the preceding scripture . . . and that is the notion that women are "saved" in childbearing. It is a holy and Divine thing that is done . . . and it is a real power not conditioned upon "righteousness."

Man did need a HELPMEET who could help him become a better person. I have one and she has made all the difference.

[skmo]

It is my understanding it will be my choice to make if there is the opportunity for me to be sealed in the eternities.

This agrees with my point earlier in the discussion: God is loving and just There is no way He'd force anyone to be sealed to a person they refused.

[harakim]

Mary and Martha were sisters.

So were Rachel and Leah. Like I said, scriptures are inconclusive and/or contradictory.

Pre law of Moses

And we're post-LoM. Didn't apply to Jacob, doesn't apply to us. More importantly:

DOES - NOT - MATTER.

God has His Church. His church is run by His prophet. His prophets have given us His standards for us today regarding marriage. If you have faith in God and His restored gospel, live it how you think is best. If you don't like how your neighbor is living it, So What? He's not you, you're not him.

You (meaning generic anyone you) are free to believe I'm going to hell for drinking Cherry Coke. Of course if you tell me that I may thank you for your opinion and then tell you to go to hell, or more likely, just ignore you because you're not God. Your choices don't influence me unless I allow them to. Trust me on this one, I won't. I own my own mistakes and strengths.

When I saw someone had quoted my statement, I was hoping they would respond and add more information about whether or not Jesus practiced polygamy. Instead, I got this^. I never said anything about how my neighbor was living it. In fact, if you look at the history of my likes in this thread and my commentary you will see I have no objection to polygamy being in place or not in place today.

[skmo]

Brigham actually agreed that the wives should not be dictating to their husbands who their other wives should be.

So what? Brigham Young believed many things I think were just plain stupid. It doesn't diminish his service in leading the church, and if he made mistakes in some of those decisions they'll be his to answer for, but I do not believe God would allow the imperfections of any of his modern day prophets to derail the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, and all other aspects of continuing the gospel.

President Young said something a person dislikes or disagrees with? Oh well, he's dead. Let it slide by and make a mental reminder to find him in the next life and say "I think that was dumb" and go on about your own progression. You select the manner your family, current church leaders, and most importantly you and the Holy Spirit believe is best for you.

None of the prophets have been perfect. I'm quick to jump on some of BY's controversies because I think he's easier to see them in than someone like Spencer W. Kimball of David O. McKay. Actually, I find character similarities in some of the leaders of frontier migration groups, it seems some of there quirky aspects may have helped them hold to their paths, but it is not always a bed of roses. Regardless, I still have a testimony that God chose him to be the president at that time, and the church today is still led by ordained and inspired leaders.

Don't let their mistakes (or even misunderstandings - remember there are a lot of cultural mores which are vastly different) be your barrier. Read the scriptures, fulfill your callings, uphold your covenants, pray for strength and understanding in your day-to-day activities, listen to our current leaders who give us words God wants us to hear today, and don't let satan's efforts to use misunderstanding succeed in casting doubt in the Lord's gospel in your life now.

[skmo]

When I saw someone had quoted my statement, I was hoping they would respond and add more information about whether or not Jesus practiced polygamy.

I don't believe there is any proof like that of which we're aware at this time. Personally I've no opinion or concern if He did or did not because it's immaterial to me, and I'd say it's likely the same for the 7B souls on this planet today. If we have a need to know, it will be revealed. I think that generally the reason it gets attention is to cause disputations. It's like every time a media swine asks why the LDS Church won't alter its position on gay marriage: They don't want to hear about God's love for all His children or the ultimate joy and exaltation which comes from obedience to the commandments, they want to create sound bites to demonstrate their hatred of God's church.

I never said anything about how my neighbor was living it.

Apologies if it seemed like I was accusing you of anything. the whole "neighbor" addition on my part was just an addendum to explain my belief in the senselessness of most discussions about polygamy. Whether it's an actual, legitimate attempt to learn something or a deliberately disagreeable land mine, there is a 0.000001005% chance enlightenment and positive growth will come of it and a 137.9999% chance someone will try to cause pain with it.

Again - I am not accusing you of causing or attempting to cause problems. I'm stating my belief that will be the result, but I am not saying you are doing that here.

In fact, if you look at the history of my likes in this thread and my commentary you will see I have no objection to polygamy being in place or not in place today.

Yeah, I'm pretty much neutral about it. I generally couldn't care less if it will be part of our futures or not. I have no desire for more spouses than the only one I've ever had. I am willing to say it really over-torques my head bolts that some men go out of their way to hurt women over this issue because they were being jerks or they were mad or whatever the cause.

[Arenera]

When I saw someone had quoted my statement, I was hoping they would respond and add more information about whether or not Jesus practiced polygamy. Instead, I got this^. I never said anything about how my neighbor was living it. In fact, if you look at the history of my likes in this thread and my commentary you will see I have no objection to polygamy being in place or not in place today.

Ether 14 shows polygamy with the Jaredites.
2 Wherefore every man did cleave unto that which was his own, with his hands, and would not borrow neither would he lend; and every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand, in the defence of his property and his own life and of his wives and children.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jesu ... us_married

Several early Latter-day Saint leaders believed Jesus was married and preached this from the pulpit

Several early LDS leaders believed Jesus was married, and said so from the pulpit on occasion. Here is one example from Apostle Orson Hyde:

Now there was actually a marriage [at Cana (John 2:1–11)]; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed (Isaiah 53:10), before he was crucified. "Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?" No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Savior's in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered. I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me. [3]

Joseph Fielding Smith apparently believed that Jesus had been married

Joseph Fielding Smith apparently believed that Jesus had been married, and that He had children. In a 1963 letter to Elder Smith (then President of the Quorum of the Twelve), J. Ricks Smith asked for clarification on a question he had concerning the marital and paternal status of Jesus:

Burbank, California March 17, 1963

President Joseph Fielding Smith 47 East South Temple Street Salt Lake City 11, Utah

Dear President Smith:

In a discussion recently, the question arose, "Was Christ married?" The quote of Isaiah 53:10 was given, which reads,

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put Him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul and offering for sin, he shall see His seed, he shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

What is meant by "he shall see his seed"? Does this mean that Christ had children?

In the Temple ceremony we are told that only through Temple marriage can we receive the highest degree of exaltation and dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Christ came here to set us the example and, therefore, we believe that he must have been married. Are we right?

Sincerely,

J. Ricks Smith 1736 N. Ontario Street Burbank, California

In a written response (on the same letter), Elder Smith indicated his feelings on the matter—both in the positive. Placing an asterisk next to the words "His seed" in the letter, at the bottom of the letter Elder Smith wrote:

*Mosiah 15:10-12 Please Read Your Book of Mormon!

Placing two asterisks next to the words "he must have been married," at the bottom of the letter Elder Smith wrote:

**Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!

Apparently Elder Smith believed that the married state of Jesus was true, but that it should not be preached to others.

Mosiah 15
10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Also: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... -wife.html

[Arenera]

Also see http://www.mrm.org/jesus-married

[Mindfields]

I found the following statements online attributed to Joseph Smith. The way I see it; Joseph was either a liar who taught and practiced polygamy in secret or he was telling the truth. You can't have it both ways. I personally believe he was telling the truth.

It's easy to fool a man, but nearly impossible to convince him he's been fooled. --Mark Twain


• "MARRIAGE. v. 4 "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, C1, p. 251 (1835)
"...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." (Joseph Smith - who at the time had supposedly and secretly taken at least 25 plural wives)
• Joseph Smith refers people to extract from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage which disavows polygamy, stating that this is "the only rule allowed by the church." Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 909 (1842).
• Joseph Smith repeats again statement from Doctrine and Covenants on Marriage to deny all allegations of polygamy being practice. Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 939 (1842)
• Joseph and Hyrum Smith announce the excommunication of Hiram Brown, a member of the Church, for "preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan." Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 423 (1844)
• Hyrum Smith, with full knowledge and consent of his brother Joseph, publishes statement categorically denying any teaching of plural wives or polygamy, and that all such teaching is false doctrine.
• “… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may has as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.” Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844)
• "...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (History of the Church, vol 6, p. 411) Joseph Smith made this statement preaching from the stand to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo on Sunday May 26, 1844.

The dishonesty regarding polygamy is exemplified in the following statement regarding these denials by historian D. Michael Quinn:
Some elements of these Nauvoo denials obviously did not square with the historically verifiable practice of plural marriage during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In an effort to counter the Reorganized Church’s use of these Nauvoo denials, Joseph Fielding Smith, an assistant in the Church Historian’s Office since 1901, asserted in 1905:
"I have copied the following from the Prophet’s manuscript record of Oct.5, 1843, and know it is genuine" and then quoted Joseph Smith’s diary that he alleged concluded, ". . . and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise." The handwritten Nauvoo diary of Joseph Smith for 5, October 1843 actually ends: "No men shall have but one wife."

[Sirius]

Regardless anyone's feelings or current position on polygamy, the very being we're all striving to become like, namely our Heavenly Father is a polygamist in every sense of the word. If He is literally the Father of our spirits, which I believe He is, and also the literal Father of our Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, which I believe he is, plurality of wives as a celestial law becomes very difficult to deny.