LDS Freedom Forum

It is the belief of Latter-day Saints that a person cannot achieve the highest degree of celestial glory in a single state (see D&C 131:1-4). Celestial marriage refers to marriage in which a man and a woman are sealed together for both time and eternity by those holding appropriate priesthood keys. This is now done only in temples. However, since plural marriage was instituted at about the same time that Joseph began sealing husbands and wives together in celestial marriage, some early members assumed that these two were the same and that a man will someday have to have plural wives in order to be exalted. In a 1933 statement, the First Presidency of the Church specifically stated that celestial, or eternal, marriage and plural marriage are not synonymous terms and that it was incorrect to assume plural marriage is required for exaltation (see James R Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75], 5:315-30).
Gerald N. Lund

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:

It is the belief of Latter-day Saints that a person cannot achieve the highest degree of celestial glory in a single state (see D&C 131:1-4). Celestial marriage refers to marriage in which a man and a woman are sealed together for both time and eternity by those holding appropriate priesthood keys. This is now done only in temples. However, since plural marriage was instituted at about the same time that Joseph began sealing husbands and wives together in celestial marriage, some early members assumed that these two were the same and that a man will someday have to have plural wives in order to be exalted. In a 1933 statement, the First Presidency of the Church specifically stated that celestial, or eternal, marriage and plural marriage are not synonymous terms and that it was incorrect to assume plural marriage is required for exaltation (see James R Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75], 5:315-30).
Gerald N. Lund

I think people read section 132 and apply polygamy where it is not discussed.

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:I think people read section 132 and apply polygamy where it is not discussed.

patriotsaint wrote:

reese wrote: My biggest question is if I am equal in worth and value to my husband, and we are to commit ourselves to each other 100%, where does another woman fit into an equasion like that. If I give myself 100% to my husband, and he gives himself 100% to me, which we are commanded to do, how can he give himself 100% to another woman, and to me.

I have never understood why women have trouble with this particular item. For those of you with more than one child, is there some finite amount of love you have for your children that must be divided amongst them, or do you love them all infinitely? Does having more children somehow take away from the love you already have for your existing children? Absolutely not. I find my capacity to love increases with each child I welcome into my home. Because of that increased love, I am a better father to the children I already have. Hopefully that makes sense?

It seems to me that polygamy gets a bad rap because it is always discussed in a worldly context. The scriptures teach that our relationships in eternity will be coupled with eternal glory. When we are all filled with the pure love of Christ to overflowing we will not feel the insecurity/competitiveness/jealousy that we feel now. Whether in a monogamous or polygamous marriage in the hereafter, our relationships will be perfected. We will simply seek the wellbeing of those around us. Our unity will be like the unity of a prayer circle. In a prayer circle we are all bound together in doing the will of the Lord. We act as one. There are no issues with ownership.....and lets be honest, ownership and sex are the issues most people seem concerned about when it comes to polygamy.

Now let me state here, I am not anxiously awaiting the day when I can live the law of polygamy, but I am reconciled to the law intellectualy and can see how such a marriage could provide joy for all the participants. If each participant, man and women alike, were to care for each other's needs with perfect Christ-like love, it would be a wonderful marriage to be a part of.

Now like I said, I'm not ready to run off with a bunch of women to some compound in Colorado city, but when viewed from an eternal perspective, leaving prejudice aside I don't see any problem with the principle of polygamy.

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:One at a time, line upon line...

Polygamy would operate in a similar manner. It would test our faith and would require us to sacrifice everything........even some of our preconceived notions about celestial life and marriage.

I don't believe that for those that already seem more than willing the minute the Lord says go. Those anxiously preparing now show that it would be no test of their faith, and a willing sacrifice requiring but little thought.

I agree that we will see a restoration of all things including animal sacrifice and likely polygamy as well, but I do not see anyone here breeding fit livestock so as to be unblemished(okay BG you get a pass here), nor half so excited to prepare for this facet of our blessed future lives.

I don't wonder why.

braingrunt wrote:

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:I think people read section 132 and apply polygamy where it is not discussed.

I agree. And any statements by brethren which seem to imply that living polygamy is necessary were spoken to people to whom polygamy had been commanded. Therefore we can throw them out.

Obviously, failure to live polygamy when expected to do so would lead to reduced blessings, perhaps reduced exaltation--so such statements are obviously applicable to those hearing.

To illustrate, if I was commanded to kill laban but did not, it would hurt my salvation... and the prophets would tell me so in addresses. But that doesn't mean that joe who was not commanded to kill laban should say, if he was cursed for not killing laban, then I will be too. I better go (or get ready to) kill laban. That's not righteous of Joe and stems from a lack of the spirit which would help him discern better.

No doubt Joe should prepare in a general way to receive any command from the lord, but should not be surprised if the lord doesn't want him to kill laban.

LukeAir2008 wrote: Throw them out? You flatter yourself! We are talking about a divine principle and a divine revelation. Are you going to throw out Pres. Monson for authorizing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants? When Section 132 is removed I will accept that the LDS church has rejected the God given revelation on plural wives. Until that time I will read Section 132 and understand that for a wise purpose the church has suspended the 'practice' of plural marriage but has not rejected the principle.

Instead of making up your own doctrine and ideas why don't you just read the scriptures and find out why plural marriage is of God (Section 132) and why we don't practice it today (Official Declaration 1).

patriotsaint wrote:[I don't wonder why.

NoGreaterLove wrote:It is called Christlike love and is the highest love of all. It is perfect love. There is no love beyond it. We will all share this type of love fore everyone. So your husband will love all women with a perfect love, the love of Christ. You will love all men with a perfect love, Christlike love. There is no higher order of love.

reese wrote:
Women have trouble with this particular item because they are the ones required to share their husband. I would assume men would have the same problems if they were required to share their wives. I cannot even compare my love for my children to my love for my husband. My relationship to my children is completely different from my marriage. I love each of my children equal to each other, but we are not in a marriage relationship with each other. I don't even get why people use this comparision. Do you love your wife the same way you love your children. Your wife is required for your eternal salvation, not your children. Your marriage is an equal partnership, your parent/child relationship is not. I am not my husbands child! Sorry paitriotsaint, I'm not trying to rail on you, I have just heard this comparision so many times and I don't get it.

braingrunt wrote:

LukeAir2008 wrote: Throw them out? You flatter yourself! We are talking about a divine principle and a divine revelation. Are you going to throw out Pres. Monson for authorizing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants? When Section 132 is removed I will accept that the LDS church has rejected the God given revelation on plural wives. Until that time I will read Section 132 and understand that for a wise purpose the church has suspended the 'practice' of plural marriage but has not rejected the principle.

Instead of making up your own doctrine and ideas why don't you just read the scriptures and find out why plural marriage is of God (Section 132) and why we don't practice it today (Official Declaration 1).

I'm not throwing out section 132 it's just that I don't think it's about polygamy as much as you think it is.

reese wrote:

NoGreaterLove wrote:It is called Christlike love and is the highest love of all. It is perfect love. There is no love beyond it. We will all share this type of love fore everyone. So your husband will love all women with a perfect love, the love of Christ. You will love all men with a perfect love, Christlike love. There is no higher order of love.

I guess I can see what your saying. But I would like to think that I'm going to love my hubby just a bit more. It seems there has got to be some exclusive feelings or whats the point of having an exclusive relationship?

patriotsaint wrote:

reese wrote:
Women have trouble with this particular item because they are the ones required to share their husband. I would assume men would have the same problems if they were required to share their wives. I cannot even compare my love for my children to my love for my husband. My relationship to my children is completely different from my marriage. I love each of my children equal to each other, but we are not in a marriage relationship with each other. I don't even get why people use this comparision. Do you love your wife the same way you love your children. Your wife is required for your eternal salvation, not your children. Your marriage is an equal partnership, your parent/child relationship is not. I am not my husbands child! Sorry paitriotsaint, I'm not trying to rail on you, I have just heard this comparision so many times and I don't get it.

Reese,

I was not implying that a spousal relationship is exactly the same as a parent/child relationship. I was merely pointing out the fact that love is not definite, but infinite. If your husband were to have other wives, that does not somehow steal love or fidelity away from you, rather both are glorified by the increase in your family.

In a celestial mindset, these ownership issues and insecurities won't exist. As has been pointed out already, when we love one another with a perfect Christ-like love we will love the whole human family with the same perfect love. I don't believe there are varrying degrees of love in the celestial world. We will be one complete, sealed human family.

patriotsaint wrote:

reese wrote:

NoGreaterLove wrote:It is called Christlike love and is the highest love of all. It is perfect love. There is no love beyond it. We will all share this type of love fore everyone. So your husband will love all women with a perfect love, the love of Christ. You will love all men with a perfect love, Christlike love. There is no higher order of love.

I guess I can see what your saying. But I would like to think that I'm going to love my hubby just a bit more. It seems there has got to be some exclusive feelings or whats the point of having an exclusive relationship?

If exclusive realationships are the goal, and the spousal relationship take precedence, then what would be the point of sealing the whole human family through all generations? Being sealed as one eternal family seems to be more important than who belongs to who.

Now I'm just thinking out loud here for discussions sake, so anyone feel free to jump in with any clarifications or corrections.

But I want an exclusive, special relationship with my husband. Something that just the two of us share, something that no one else has access to, except our savior. Is that so wrong?

I don't see why it has to be either or. Why can't I be sealed to all generations of my family and also have a special, exclusive relationship with my husband. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

reese wrote:But I want an exclusive, special relationship with my husband. Something that just the two of us share, something that no one else has access to, except our savior. Is that so wrong?

LukeAir2008 wrote:
Are you trying to say that we shouldn't look at/read D&C Section 132?

zionlist.com wrote:

reese wrote:But I want an exclusive, special relationship with my husband. Something that just the two of us share, something that no one else has access to, except our savior. Is that so wrong?

Yes, that is wrong. You are coveting your single marriage. The Lord will ask all men who qualify for the blessing to take a plurality of wives in His own due time. You should accept it and prepare for it by ridding yourself of these jealousies so that you may give freely upon the Lord's instruction.