Deleted

[harakim]

Mary and Martha were sisters.

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

Pre law of Moses

[Col. Flagg]

Isn't it fascinating how, as a church, we practiced polygamy during Joseph's day and then especially after Brigham Young assumed the reigns, Joseph publicly denied ever having anything to do with the practice, it was doctrinal and then not doctrinal, most biblical and LDS scriptures condemn the practice as an abomination, then there was the manifesto which ended it all while a faction breaks off from the church which continues to practice polygamy as the mainstream church denounces it, several Prophets and Apostles since then are sealed to more than one woman as we continue to allow men to be sealed to multiple women in the temple (although not simultaneously), President Hinckley goes on national TV in 1998 and says polygamy is not doctrinal and now our current and next church President have more than one wife. For something that is an 'eternal principle', the practice has sure had wild swings in conviction while being convoluted with ups and downs as well as a ton of uncertainty. Interesting.

[Joel]

[abijah]

Isn't it fascinating how, as a church, we practiced polygamy during Joseph's day and then especially after Brigham Young assumed the reigns, Joseph publicly denied ever having anything to do with the practice, it was doctrinal and then not doctrinal, most biblical and LDS scriptures condemn the practice as an abomination, then there was the manifesto which ended it all while a faction breaks off from the church which continues to practice polygamy as the mainstream church denounces it, several Prophets and Apostles since then are sealed to more than one woman as we continue to allow men to be sealed to multiple women in the temple (although not simultaneously), President Hinckley goes on national TV in 1998 and says polygamy is not doctrinal and now our current and next church President have more than one wife. For something that is an 'eternal principle', the practice has sure had wild swings in conviction while being convoluted with ups and downs as well as a ton of uncertainty. Interesting.

The vacillation is due to the conflict between righteous men who were attempting to do as God commanded them, and a society with a very low tolerance for the practice. You have talked a lot about "the church". It might help to bear in mind what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is and what it is not. It is the restoration of Christ's original Church in it's most fundamental form, bringing with it the renewal of ecclesiastical priesthood authority and revelation. It is not however a fullness of truth, or of priesthood authority. It is not eternal, but a stepping stone to Zion, the Celestial Kingdom and the Church of the Firstborn. There are many higher, celestial laws not currently practiced in the LDS faith.

Given your distaste for plural marriage, I'm interested in how you reconcile that with the long list of spiritual giants who have practiced it, from ancient times up till this present dispensation.

[Fiannan]

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.

[skmo]

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.

[BruceRGilbert]

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
.
.
.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
.
.
.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

The only person that we ever will have hope in controlling is ourselves . . . and that only by the grace of God.

[EmmaLee]

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

[Benjamin_LK]

Polygamy or advancing the idea that single motherhood through eugenic breeding programs (sperm donation) is the only way that developed nations will be able to maintain their populations. If you disagree please share your ideas.

I would rather be married to every mother of my children than the other option. I would rather be committed than walk away.

[BeNotDeceived]

Isn't it fascinating how, as a church, we practiced polygamy during Joseph's day and then especially after Brigham Young assumed the reigns, Joseph publicly denied ever having anything to do with the practice, it was doctrinal and then not doctrinal, most biblical and LDS scriptures condemn the practice as an abomination, then there was the manifesto which ended it all while a faction breaks off from the church which continues to practice polygamy as the mainstream church denounces it, several Prophets and Apostles since then are sealed to more than one woman as we continue to allow men to be sealed to multiple women in the temple (although not simultaneously), President Hinckley goes on national TV in 1998 and says polygamy is not doctrinal and now our current and next church President have more than one wife. For something that is an 'eternal principle', the practice has sure had wild swings in conviction while being convoluted with ups and downs as well as a ton of uncertainty. Interesting.

Kinda, sorta like how wheat is good and bad at the same time; also eating fruit in the correct state and season.

It all comes down to your understanding of Lectins and proper meal preparation, lest you suffer food poisoning.

Unfortunately we are yet to discover The Grand Unification Theory of Matrimony to properly understand this seeming paradox. Perhaps we need to first master A2 Milk of the Plant Paradox, before we are able to properly digest the Meat of Celestial Glory.

[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.