A difficult dichotomy, looking for other views

[Sarah]

Are you serious? Are you married? Would you be ok with your spouse sleeping with another 'wife' or 'husband'?

When you love a person enough to marry them you want that love to be exclusive. You don't want to physically or emotionally share them. If a person does desire that or finds it acceptable then I would suggest their marriage is lacking real love.

Harking back wistfully to the days of polygamy is too often just a way for frustrated men in loveless marriages to 'sanctify' their longings for other women.

I'm shocked your post got so many upvotes. Do all the ones who upvoted you tell their spouses about their approval of or desire for polygamy?

All I read from you is an emotional rant. The house of Judah practice polygamy until 1100AD, fact. The lord said to put your “wife away” is adultery, fact.


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

Moses 1
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Matthew 13
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Do you hear his words? I do….

Well of course this is emotional! Marriage is about love and love is emotion!

The instinctive corollary of human marital love is the desire for exclusivity, and pain and hurt follow when our spouse is NOT exclusively attached to us. This is so fundamental I can't believe it's not God-given.

Would you be ok with YOUR spouse sleeping with other people? Sharing bedroom intimacies with them? Maybe liking them better than you?

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that would not be deeply painful and feel horribly unnatural?

If a man or woman has no problem with this I don't see how there can be much real love there.

I'm a relatively new church member - but I don't see what those quotes have to do with polygamy.

For what it's worth, we would all do well to consider how Joseph Smith both taught polygyny and also said "let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly." They are not mutually exclusive concepts!

My wife is a convert too of a few years and she has already expressed her willingness to enter into a plural marriage should the Lord will it. And our love is so deep and so real.

When rightly understood (a heavenly gift of revelation!), you'll see that the foundation of polygyny is not selfishness but charity.

God bless.

Yeah, charity. Think of all those poor single guys who didn't make the cut but still have a chance to be saved and advanced. I bet there's a lot of them! They might need a good wife to help them out.

[Sarah]

Lol. Yeah, why would the church keep that around? Go to the Journal of Discourses and try again.

They don't keep it around because it's not scriptural. That term is not found in the scriptures.

Or it’s not to be profaned, like other names of a patriarchal nature that we have covenanted not to reveal and that we only hear in a certain place and yet which is also not in the scriptures.
My point isn’t that “patriarchal order of marriage” is a phrase that we’ve covenanted not to reveal but simply that there’s every reason why it’s not in the scriptures and yet valid and a part of our religion.
The church doesn’t host an archive of the Journal of Discourses because it would raise more questions from the membership that they already can’t answer!

Well that's true, the members would be a little confused. I read the J of D and come away feeling that these men were simply giving their opinions. I don't feel much of the spirit when I read them, as most talks go through lengthy, wordy, arguments as to why a certain opinion of their's must be true. There is some great stuff, which no doubt is true, but they hardly ever talk about the Book of Mormon, and seem to focus on only a few main topics, like why we need a plurality of wives.

I'm more in agreement with the modern church view which is shared by Nephi
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.(2 Nephi 28:30)

By the way, I discovered why I thought it was Hyde. Fairmormon has it attributed to him.

The patriarchal order is just another name for the priesthood that was passed from Father to Son. So the Melchizedek priesthood order of marriage is marriage performed by one who holds the sealing keys in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and doesn't break any provision with the Law of the Priesthood, but abides within it, and which is something we know very little about. We know polygyny is part of it, but we know polyandry is also hinted at as well with vs 41. So the M. Priesthood order of marriage is not just polygyny. It may also be a monogamous marriage that follows the law of the Everlasting Covenant, which is to be sealed by someone with the sealing power.

[NeveR]

Are you serious? Are you married? Would you be ok with your spouse sleeping with another 'wife' or 'husband'?

When you love a person enough to marry them you want that love to be exclusive. You don't want to physically or emotionally share them. If a person does desire that or finds it acceptable then I would suggest their marriage is lacking real love.

Harking back wistfully to the days of polygamy is too often just a way for frustrated men in loveless marriages to 'sanctify' their longings for other women.

I'm shocked your post got so many upvotes. Do all the ones who upvoted you tell their spouses about their approval of or desire for polygamy?

All I read from you is an emotional rant. The house of Judah practice polygamy until 1100AD, fact. The lord said to put your “wife away” is adultery, fact.


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

Moses 1
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Matthew 13
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Do you hear his words? I do….

Well of course this is emotional! Marriage is about love and love is emotion!

The instinctive corollary of human marital love is the desire for exclusivity, and pain and hurt follow when our spouse is NOT exclusively attached to us. This is so fundamental I can't believe it's not God-given.

Would you be ok with YOUR spouse sleeping with other people? Sharing bedroom intimacies with them? Maybe liking them better than you?

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that would not be deeply painful and feel horribly unnatural?

If a man or woman has no problem with this I don't see how there can be much real love there.

I'm a relatively new church member - but I don't see what those quotes have to do with polygamy.

For what it's worth, we would all do well to consider how Joseph Smith both taught polygyny and also said "let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly." They are not mutually exclusive concepts!

My wife is a convert too of a few years and she has already expressed her willingness to enter into a plural marriage should the Lord will it. And our love is so deep and so real.

When rightly understood (a heavenly gift of revelation!), you'll see that the foundation of polygyny is not selfishness but charity.

God bless.

I'd LOVE to hear your wife's version of that conversation. Or be a fly on the wall the day you tried to turn the theory into actual fact.

If your love really is deep and real then so would her pain be if she had to share you. Yes, it would be very charitable and forgiving of her - but you would need to be real careful you weren't just using fake 'revelation' to have some fun while feeling real good about yourself.

Reverse the situation - suppose your wife comes to you and says God told her to 'marry' that hot 22 yr old RM and have his babies.

How 'charitable' are you going to be feeling?

[Baurak Ale]

All I read from you is an emotional rant. The house of Judah practice polygamy until 1100AD, fact. The lord said to put your “wife away” is adultery, fact.


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

Moses 1
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Matthew 13
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Do you hear his words? I do….

Well of course this is emotional! Marriage is about love and love is emotion!

The instinctive corollary of human marital love is the desire for exclusivity, and pain and hurt follow when our spouse is NOT exclusively attached to us. This is so fundamental I can't believe it's not God-given.

Would you be ok with YOUR spouse sleeping with other people? Sharing bedroom intimacies with them? Maybe liking them better than you?

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that would not be deeply painful and feel horribly unnatural?

If a man or woman has no problem with this I don't see how there can be much real love there.

I'm a relatively new church member - but I don't see what those quotes have to do with polygamy.

For what it's worth, we would all do well to consider how Joseph Smith both taught polygyny and also said "let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly." They are not mutually exclusive concepts!

My wife is a convert too of a few years and she has already expressed her willingness to enter into a plural marriage should the Lord will it. And our love is so deep and so real.

When rightly understood (a heavenly gift of revelation!), you'll see that the foundation of polygyny is not selfishness but charity.

God bless.

I'd LOVE to hear your wife's version of that conversation. Or be a fly on the wall the day you tried to turn the theory into actual fact.

If your love really is deep and real then so would her pain be if she had to share you. Yes, it would be very charitable and forgiving of her - but you would need to be real careful you weren't just using fake 'revelation' to have some fun while feeling real good about yourself.

Reverse the situation - suppose your wife comes to you and says God told her to 'marry' that hot 22 yr old RM and have his babies.

How 'charitable' are you going to be feeling?

If such a situation were to come up (say like Heber C Kimball being asked by Joseph for his wife) and assuming it was not a test (as Heber had also no reason to assume), I would choose to have that charity. Everything that comes from God and is blessed by him and will bless us, even if we can't see it now. Putting that trust in God turns a fiery furnace into a pool of sanctification.

This is true of any difficulty the Lord sees fit to put us through. In the short term, we want to feel like things are unfair and we have justification for anger, but if we can overcome such myopic tendencies and instead exercise faith, we may by and by see how what we would have judged to be wrong and offensive is actually good.

I can add that when we choose faith and charity over selfishness and frail human perspectives, angels are dispatched to buoy us up and confirm God's good road we have chosen. If you had been a fly on the wall, I do not know but that the veil would have thinned for you as well.

Hope this helps unfold things a little.

God bless.

[Baurak Ale]

It is certainly not a good thing to neglect the redemption of the dead in order to pursue status, and though some people may have made it their goal to get sealed to the prophet directly, anyone who understood the doctrine would have seen how that they had an adopted covenant father line that got them there just the same. Then that person could have their ancestors sealed to them so that their ancestors could have salvation through them (not the other way around!).
I don't think there's so much evidence (I certainly have not seen it) to make the claim that the law of adoption was creating social problems in the church.
As for Joseph's quote, you're right that he doesn't mention sealings there, but he talks about it quite a bit. Here's an example demonstrating that people are saved by being sealed to people in a line back to the prophet:

• "I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel" (STPJS, p. 340).

But if we're talking about what wasn't written that Joseph taught as proof that he never taught it, let's be clear that what you believe is less supportable that what I believe.

Your beliefs align with our early church leaders, that is true, but mine seem much more logical and scriptural. They also seem to align with more of what our church teaches today, (minus my assumption of plural husbands.)

You said a man who had an adoptive line would then seal his ancestors to himself. If a man was sealed to an adoptive father in those early days, could he be sealed to his earthly father in a father/son relationship?

Not concurrently inasmuch as a person only has 1 head to whom he is sealed. Let’s say Heber was sealed as a son to Brigham and later Heber did the ordinance work for his deceased non-Mormon earthly father, then the earthly father would likely have been sealed to Heber as a son. This shows how much of a savior Heber could be for his father, administering salvation and exaltation to him in the kingdom.

If it were not that way, and let’s suppose the goal of sealing would be to make a chain backwards to Adam, bypassing Christ (familysearch says my wife is his descendant, incidentally!), then those who would administer an entrance into the kingdom of God for me would necessarily pass through characters from the misty ages of dubious moral rectitude. If I had to wait for them to receive and accept the gospel and repent (before my resurrection, I hope, since the morning of the first is fast dawning upon me!) then it would prove them saviors on mount zion for having sacrificed nothing in the flesh for the truth. But you see, this is backwards.

One head for each person who is admitted to the Celestial, connecting from Christ to all others who have ever lived and will be heirs of salvation, regardless of when they lived on the earth (meaning people of each dispensation need to be sealed to their dispensation head to make it up to Christ in the line).

Okay, so let's say Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors are now actually Heber's children in the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham is Heber's father, and Joseph is Brigham's father. Does that mean that Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors can never work with or have a relationship with any other father figure forever in the kingdom? They must always be directed by Heber through all eternity and only work on building up Heber's glory?

You are partially correct. Heber's ancestors in blood would in spirit become part of his kingdom, and all the glory they bring up would pass to Heber, and all that glory he would pass to Brigham, and so on to Jesus, who passes the glory on up to God the Father.
Commands from God the Father down to Heber's subjects (his blood ancestors) would be passed down the channel through Heber to them.

Does this mean they can't associate with all the other gods along the chain? No, for the point of the chain is also admittance so that the exalted may pass into the presence of the Father to dwell with him. It would be like going to general conference and trying to raise an objection about the brethren. Can you go see them and mingle in the congregation? Of course. But if you want to do official business they will direct you to your Stake President where the issue can be duly escalated. Brigham Young explained that the chain exists to administer an entrance to the presence of God:

"Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, 'I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;' and after awhile you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, 'Here; you have been faithful, good boys' I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass.' Then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam" (JOD 5:332).

[Baurak Ale]

All I read from you is an emotional rant. The house of Judah practice polygamy until 1100AD, fact. The lord said to put your “wife away” is adultery, fact.


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

Moses 1
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Matthew 13
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Do you hear his words? I do….

Well of course this is emotional! Marriage is about love and love is emotion!

The instinctive corollary of human marital love is the desire for exclusivity, and pain and hurt follow when our spouse is NOT exclusively attached to us. This is so fundamental I can't believe it's not God-given.

Would you be ok with YOUR spouse sleeping with other people? Sharing bedroom intimacies with them? Maybe liking them better than you?

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that would not be deeply painful and feel horribly unnatural?

If a man or woman has no problem with this I don't see how there can be much real love there.

I'm a relatively new church member - but I don't see what those quotes have to do with polygamy.

For what it's worth, we would all do well to consider how Joseph Smith both taught polygyny and also said "let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly." They are not mutually exclusive concepts!

My wife is a convert too of a few years and she has already expressed her willingness to enter into a plural marriage should the Lord will it. And our love is so deep and so real.

When rightly understood (a heavenly gift of revelation!), you'll see that the foundation of polygyny is not selfishness but charity.

God bless.

Yeah, charity. Think of all those poor single guys who didn't make the cut but still have a chance to be saved and advanced. I bet there's a lot of them! They might need a good wife to help them out.

If this was going to be the situation, then the need for polygynous charity would not be needed. But, alas, this won't be the situation. As Lyman O. Littlefield reported Joseph Smith as having taught:

"He also said many would awake in the morning of the resurrection sadly disappointed; for they, by transgression, would have neither wives nor children, for they surely would be taken from them, and given to those who should prove themselves worthy."

[Baurak Ale]

They don't keep it around because it's not scriptural. That term is not found in the scriptures.

Or it’s not to be profaned, like other names of a patriarchal nature that we have covenanted not to reveal and that we only hear in a certain place and yet which is also not in the scriptures.
My point isn’t that “patriarchal order of marriage” is a phrase that we’ve covenanted not to reveal but simply that there’s every reason why it’s not in the scriptures and yet valid and a part of our religion.
The church doesn’t host an archive of the Journal of Discourses because it would raise more questions from the membership that they already can’t answer!

Well that's true, the members would be a little confused. I read the J of D and come away feeling that these men were simply giving their opinions. I don't feel much of the spirit when I read them, as most talks go through lengthy, wordy, arguments as to why a certain opinion of their's must be true. There is some great stuff, which no doubt is true, but they hardly ever talk about the Book of Mormon, and seem to focus on only a few main topics, like why we need a plurality of wives.

I'm more in agreement with the modern church view which is shared by Nephi
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.(2 Nephi 28:30)

By the way, I discovered why I thought it was Hyde. Fairmormon has it attributed to him.

The patriarchal order is just another name for the priesthood that was passed from Father to Son. So the Melchizedek priesthood order of marriage is marriage performed by one who holds the sealing keys in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and doesn't break any provision with the Law of the Priesthood, but abides within it, and which is something we know very little about. We know polygyny is part of it, but we know polyandry is also hinted at as well with vs 41. So the M. Priesthood order of marriage is not just polygyny. It may also be a monogamous marriage that follows the law of the Everlasting Covenant, which is to be sealed by someone with the sealing power.

Despite the existence a of a priesthood called "patriarchal," the essential question here is what did the brethren mean when they used the words "patriarchal order of marriage"? Go study all the Journal of Discourses references and you will see that they only had reference to polygyny. That fact cannot be debated away. That said, I agree that D&C 132 outlines exaltation for the monogamous and the polygynous (different degrees likely). Verse 41, however, makes no hint of polyandry, which is being married to multiple men at once. It is referencing intercourse, I will grant that, but not a woman having multiple heads.

[Sarah]

Well of course this is emotional! Marriage is about love and love is emotion!

The instinctive corollary of human marital love is the desire for exclusivity, and pain and hurt follow when our spouse is NOT exclusively attached to us. This is so fundamental I can't believe it's not God-given.

Would you be ok with YOUR spouse sleeping with other people? Sharing bedroom intimacies with them? Maybe liking them better than you?

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that would not be deeply painful and feel horribly unnatural?

If a man or woman has no problem with this I don't see how there can be much real love there.

I'm a relatively new church member - but I don't see what those quotes have to do with polygamy.

For what it's worth, we would all do well to consider how Joseph Smith both taught polygyny and also said "let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly." They are not mutually exclusive concepts!

My wife is a convert too of a few years and she has already expressed her willingness to enter into a plural marriage should the Lord will it. And our love is so deep and so real.

When rightly understood (a heavenly gift of revelation!), you'll see that the foundation of polygyny is not selfishness but charity.

God bless.

Yeah, charity. Think of all those poor single guys who didn't make the cut but still have a chance to be saved and advanced. I bet there's a lot of them! They might need a good wife to help them out.

If this was going to be the situation, then the need for polygynous charity would not be needed. But, alas, this won't be the situation. As Lyman O. Littlefield reported Joseph Smith as having taught:

"He also said many would awake in the morning of the resurrection sadly disappointed; for they, by transgression, would have neither wives nor children, for they surely would be taken from them, and given to those who should prove themselves worthy."

There will no doubt also be many women who awake in the morning of the first resurrection to find they are not married or have children. Joseph also said another time that "the disappointment of hopes and expectations at the resurrection, would be indescribably dreadful."
This idea that there is going to be a tremendous amount of extra women in the CK because they are more righteous is speculation, and not only illogical, but goes against every notion that God is impartial and treats his children with justice and mercy. How many extra women do you think there will be?

[Sarah]

Or it’s not to be profaned, like other names of a patriarchal nature that we have covenanted not to reveal and that we only hear in a certain place and yet which is also not in the scriptures.
My point isn’t that “patriarchal order of marriage” is a phrase that we’ve covenanted not to reveal but simply that there’s every reason why it’s not in the scriptures and yet valid and a part of our religion.
The church doesn’t host an archive of the Journal of Discourses because it would raise more questions from the membership that they already can’t answer!

Well that's true, the members would be a little confused. I read the J of D and come away feeling that these men were simply giving their opinions. I don't feel much of the spirit when I read them, as most talks go through lengthy, wordy, arguments as to why a certain opinion of their's must be true. There is some great stuff, which no doubt is true, but they hardly ever talk about the Book of Mormon, and seem to focus on only a few main topics, like why we need a plurality of wives.

I'm more in agreement with the modern church view which is shared by Nephi
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.(2 Nephi 28:30)

By the way, I discovered why I thought it was Hyde. Fairmormon has it attributed to him.

The patriarchal order is just another name for the priesthood that was passed from Father to Son. So the Melchizedek priesthood order of marriage is marriage performed by one who holds the sealing keys in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and doesn't break any provision with the Law of the Priesthood, but abides within it, and which is something we know very little about. We know polygyny is part of it, but we know polyandry is also hinted at as well with vs 41. So the M. Priesthood order of marriage is not just polygyny. It may also be a monogamous marriage that follows the law of the Everlasting Covenant, which is to be sealed by someone with the sealing power.

Despite the existence a of a priesthood called "patriarchal," the essential question here is what did the brethren mean when they used the words "patriarchal order of marriage"? Go study all the Journal of Discourses references and you will see that they only had reference to polygyny. That fact cannot be debated away. That said, I agree that D&C 132 outlines exaltation for the monogamous and the polygynous (different degrees likely). Verse 41, however, makes no hint of polyandry, which is being married to multiple men at once. It is referencing intercourse, I will grant that, but not a woman having multiple heads.

I know very well that this teaching comes from the teaching in the JofD. I invite you to consider that these brethren were incorrect in their understanding of what polygyny actually was. It was a provision in the Law. It was not the entire law itself. They were totally wrong in assuming that polygyny pointed to this eternal male government over many women, and that male government equaled the "patriarchal order." The "patriarchal order" is not a term found in scripture, but should refer to the Melchizedek priesthood which was passed down from Father to Son.

Ezra Taft Benson

How did Adam bring his descendants into the presence of the Lord? The answer: Adam and his descendants entered into the priesthood order of God. Today we would say they went to the house of the Lord and received their blessings. The order of priesthood spoken of in the scriptures is sometimes referred to as the patriarchal order because it came down from father to son. But this order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government wherein a man and woman enter into a covenant with God just as did Adam and Eve to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality. 12

[Sarah]

Well that's true, the members would be a little confused. I read the J of D and come away feeling that these men were simply giving their opinions. I don't feel much of the spirit when I read them, as most talks go through lengthy, wordy, arguments as to why a certain opinion of their's must be true. There is some great stuff, which no doubt is true, but they hardly ever talk about the Book of Mormon, and seem to focus on only a few main topics, like why we need a plurality of wives.

I'm more in agreement with the modern church view which is shared by Nephi
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.(2 Nephi 28:30)

By the way, I discovered why I thought it was Hyde. Fairmormon has it attributed to him.

The patriarchal order is just another name for the priesthood that was passed from Father to Son. So the Melchizedek priesthood order of marriage is marriage performed by one who holds the sealing keys in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and doesn't break any provision with the Law of the Priesthood, but abides within it, and which is something we know very little about. We know polygyny is part of it, but we know polyandry is also hinted at as well with vs 41. So the M. Priesthood order of marriage is not just polygyny. It may also be a monogamous marriage that follows the law of the Everlasting Covenant, which is to be sealed by someone with the sealing power.

Despite the existence a of a priesthood called "patriarchal," the essential question here is what did the brethren mean when they used the words "patriarchal order of marriage"? Go study all the Journal of Discourses references and you will see that they only had reference to polygyny. That fact cannot be debated away. That said, I agree that D&C 132 outlines exaltation for the monogamous and the polygynous (different degrees likely). Verse 41, however, makes no hint of polyandry, which is being married to multiple men at once. It is referencing intercourse, I will grant that, but not a woman having multiple heads.

I know very well that this teaching comes from the teaching in the JofD. I invite you to consider that these brethren were incorrect in their understanding of what polygyny actually was. It was a provision in the Law. It was not the entire law itself. They were totally wrong in assuming that polygyny pointed to this eternal male government over many women, and that male government equaled the "patriarchal order." The "patriarchal order" is not a term found in scripture, but should refer to the Melchizedek priesthood which was passed down from Father to Son.

Ezra Taft Benson

How did Adam bring his descendants into the presence of the Lord? The answer: Adam and his descendants entered into the priesthood order of God. Today we would say they went to the house of the Lord and received their blessings. The order of priesthood spoken of in the scriptures is sometimes referred to as the patriarchal order because it came down from father to son. But this order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government wherein a man and woman enter into a covenant with God just as did Adam and Eve to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality. 12

In other words, it is a patriarchal and matriarchal order. It may be that the truth about this priesthood in the early days was not understood, and the true destiny, identity, and role of women as matriarchs was a mystery withheld because too few men would be able to bear it. They were under the strong delusion that it was their right to "rule" over their wives.

[Baurak Ale]

For what it's worth, we would all do well to consider how Joseph Smith both taught polygyny and also said "let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly." They are not mutually exclusive concepts!

My wife is a convert too of a few years and she has already expressed her willingness to enter into a plural marriage should the Lord will it. And our love is so deep and so real.

When rightly understood (a heavenly gift of revelation!), you'll see that the foundation of polygyny is not selfishness but charity.

God bless.

Yeah, charity. Think of all those poor single guys who didn't make the cut but still have a chance to be saved and advanced. I bet there's a lot of them! They might need a good wife to help them out.

If this was going to be the situation, then the need for polygynous charity would not be needed. But, alas, this won't be the situation. As Lyman O. Littlefield reported Joseph Smith as having taught:

"He also said many would awake in the morning of the resurrection sadly disappointed; for they, by transgression, would have neither wives nor children, for they surely would be taken from them, and given to those who should prove themselves worthy."

There will no doubt also be many women who awake in the morning of the first resurrection to find they are not married or have children. Joseph also said another time that "the disappointment of hopes and expectations at the resurrection, would be indescribably dreadful."
This idea that there is going to be a tremendous amount of extra women in the CK because they are more righteous is speculation, and not only illogical, but goes against every notion that God is impartial and treats his children with justice and mercy. How many extra women do you think there will be?

It's not so much that they are inherently more righteous, which is true on the one hand, but because they will not be judged like the men who were given priesthood. As a woman, you will be glad for the inequality of men and women when the judgement day comes.

[Baurak Ale]

For what it's worth, we would all do well to consider how Joseph Smith both taught polygyny and also said "let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly." They are not mutually exclusive concepts!

My wife is a convert too of a few years and she has already expressed her willingness to enter into a plural marriage should the Lord will it. And our love is so deep and so real.

When rightly understood (a heavenly gift of revelation!), you'll see that the foundation of polygyny is not selfishness but charity.

God bless.

Yeah, charity. Think of all those poor single guys who didn't make the cut but still have a chance to be saved and advanced. I bet there's a lot of them! They might need a good wife to help them out.

If this was going to be the situation, then the need for polygynous charity would not be needed. But, alas, this won't be the situation. As Lyman O. Littlefield reported Joseph Smith as having taught:

"He also said many would awake in the morning of the resurrection sadly disappointed; for they, by transgression, would have neither wives nor children, for they surely would be taken from them, and given to those who should prove themselves worthy."

There will no doubt also be many women who awake in the morning of the first resurrection to find they are not married or have children. Joseph also said another time that "the disappointment of hopes and expectations at the resurrection, would be indescribably dreadful."
This idea that there is going to be a tremendous amount of extra women in the CK because they are more righteous is speculation, and not only illogical, but goes against every notion that God is impartial and treats his children with justice and mercy. How many extra women do you think there will be?

As for how many extra, it appears that for every one man who will have a name worthy of giving in marriage, there will be 7 women who spiritually can feed and clothe themselves enough to stand beside him.

[Baurak Ale]

Well that's true, the members would be a little confused. I read the J of D and come away feeling that these men were simply giving their opinions. I don't feel much of the spirit when I read them, as most talks go through lengthy, wordy, arguments as to why a certain opinion of their's must be true. There is some great stuff, which no doubt is true, but they hardly ever talk about the Book of Mormon, and seem to focus on only a few main topics, like why we need a plurality of wives.

I'm more in agreement with the modern church view which is shared by Nephi
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.(2 Nephi 28:30)

By the way, I discovered why I thought it was Hyde. Fairmormon has it attributed to him.

The patriarchal order is just another name for the priesthood that was passed from Father to Son. So the Melchizedek priesthood order of marriage is marriage performed by one who holds the sealing keys in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and doesn't break any provision with the Law of the Priesthood, but abides within it, and which is something we know very little about. We know polygyny is part of it, but we know polyandry is also hinted at as well with vs 41. So the M. Priesthood order of marriage is not just polygyny. It may also be a monogamous marriage that follows the law of the Everlasting Covenant, which is to be sealed by someone with the sealing power.

Despite the existence a of a priesthood called "patriarchal," the essential question here is what did the brethren mean when they used the words "patriarchal order of marriage"? Go study all the Journal of Discourses references and you will see that they only had reference to polygyny. That fact cannot be debated away. That said, I agree that D&C 132 outlines exaltation for the monogamous and the polygynous (different degrees likely). Verse 41, however, makes no hint of polyandry, which is being married to multiple men at once. It is referencing intercourse, I will grant that, but not a woman having multiple heads.

I know very well that this teaching comes from the teaching in the JofD. I invite you to consider that these brethren were incorrect in their understanding of what polygyny actually was. It was a provision in the Law. It was not the entire law itself. They were totally wrong in assuming that polygyny pointed to this eternal male government over many women, and that male government equaled the "patriarchal order." The "patriarchal order" is not a term found in scripture, but should refer to the Melchizedek priesthood which was passed down from Father to Son.

Ezra Taft Benson

How did Adam bring his descendants into the presence of the Lord? The answer: Adam and his descendants entered into the priesthood order of God. Today we would say they went to the house of the Lord and received their blessings. The order of priesthood spoken of in the scriptures is sometimes referred to as the patriarchal order because it came down from father to son. But this order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government wherein a man and woman enter into a covenant with God just as did Adam and Eve to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality. 12

I think Brigham knew more about the Patriarchal Order of Marriage than Benson. Thank you for the invitation, but I have considered that and it does not square with the understanding that has been imparted to me. And I similarly invite you to consider that these brethren were correct in their understanding of what polygyny actually was. You will probably find that that does not square with your present understanding either.

I think you believe that the patriarchal order of marriage only applied to polygyny, but I think that is a misapplication of their understanding. Any marriage sealing falls under the patriarchal order, be it one wife (monogamy) or many (polygyny). The point is that the man is the head of the woman. The modern church leaders have slowly let that doctrine slip, but the truth remains with Joseph, Brigham, and the other early brethren.

[Sarah]

Your beliefs align with our early church leaders, that is true, but mine seem much more logical and scriptural. They also seem to align with more of what our church teaches today, (minus my assumption of plural husbands.)

You said a man who had an adoptive line would then seal his ancestors to himself. If a man was sealed to an adoptive father in those early days, could he be sealed to his earthly father in a father/son relationship?

Not concurrently inasmuch as a person only has 1 head to whom he is sealed. Let’s say Heber was sealed as a son to Brigham and later Heber did the ordinance work for his deceased non-Mormon earthly father, then the earthly father would likely have been sealed to Heber as a son. This shows how much of a savior Heber could be for his father, administering salvation and exaltation to him in the kingdom.

If it were not that way, and let’s suppose the goal of sealing would be to make a chain backwards to Adam, bypassing Christ (familysearch says my wife is his descendant, incidentally!), then those who would administer an entrance into the kingdom of God for me would necessarily pass through characters from the misty ages of dubious moral rectitude. If I had to wait for them to receive and accept the gospel and repent (before my resurrection, I hope, since the morning of the first is fast dawning upon me!) then it would prove them saviors on mount zion for having sacrificed nothing in the flesh for the truth. But you see, this is backwards.

One head for each person who is admitted to the Celestial, connecting from Christ to all others who have ever lived and will be heirs of salvation, regardless of when they lived on the earth (meaning people of each dispensation need to be sealed to their dispensation head to make it up to Christ in the line).

Okay, so let's say Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors are now actually Heber's children in the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham is Heber's father, and Joseph is Brigham's father. Does that mean that Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors can never work with or have a relationship with any other father figure forever in the kingdom? They must always be directed by Heber through all eternity and only work on building up Heber's glory?

You are partially correct. Heber's ancestors in blood would in spirit become part of his kingdom, and all the glory they bring up would pass to Heber, and all that glory he would pass to Brigham, and so on to Jesus, who passes the glory on up to God the Father.
Commands from God the Father down to Heber's subjects (his blood ancestors) would be passed down the channel through Heber to them.

Does this mean they can't associate with all the other gods along the chain? No, for the point of the chain is also admittance so that the exalted may pass into the presence of the Father to dwell with him. It would be like going to general conference and trying to raise an objection about the brethren. Can you go see them and mingle in the congregation? Of course. But if you want to do official business they will direct you to your Stake President where the issue can be duly escalated. Brigham Young explained that the chain exists to administer an entrance to the presence of God:

"Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, 'I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;' and after awhile you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, 'Here; you have been faithful, good boys' I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass.' Then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam" (JOD 5:332).

So the point of the chain is admittance. And then after admittance, the point of the chain is a chain of command. Problem with applying this last quote you your vision of how this chain operates, is that these men along the admittance path are the ones holding priesthood keys. So progress according to this quote, depends on meeting the requirements of those who hold certain keys. So we are not passing by Brigham or Heber necessarily at each level of progression. They don't hold particular keys or dispensations. So this idea that we need to communicate or advance from one father to the next when we reach the City Eternal seems pretty unrealistic. Heber's earthy father would forever be lower in status to Heber, but higher in status than his own father, Heber's grandfather, and Heber's grandfather would be higher in status than Heber's great grandfather. All that seems to determine your eternal status is what generation you happen to be born in. So considering this quote you posted, the "head" would have to be someone with priesthood keys. I don't see my husband holding any keys that I don't also have myself.

[Baurak Ale]

The patriarchal order is just another name for the priesthood that was passed from Father to Son. So the Melchizedek priesthood order of marriage is marriage performed by one who holds the sealing keys in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and doesn't break any provision with the Law of the Priesthood, but abides within it, and which is something we know very little about. We know polygyny is part of it, but we know polyandry is also hinted at as well with vs 41. So the M. Priesthood order of marriage is not just polygyny. It may also be a monogamous marriage that follows the law of the Everlasting Covenant, which is to be sealed by someone with the sealing power.

Despite the existence a of a priesthood called "patriarchal," the essential question here is what did the brethren mean when they used the words "patriarchal order of marriage"? Go study all the Journal of Discourses references and you will see that they only had reference to polygyny. That fact cannot be debated away. That said, I agree that D&C 132 outlines exaltation for the monogamous and the polygynous (different degrees likely). Verse 41, however, makes no hint of polyandry, which is being married to multiple men at once. It is referencing intercourse, I will grant that, but not a woman having multiple heads.

I know very well that this teaching comes from the teaching in the JofD. I invite you to consider that these brethren were incorrect in their understanding of what polygyny actually was. It was a provision in the Law. It was not the entire law itself. They were totally wrong in assuming that polygyny pointed to this eternal male government over many women, and that male government equaled the "patriarchal order." The "patriarchal order" is not a term found in scripture, but should refer to the Melchizedek priesthood which was passed down from Father to Son.

Ezra Taft Benson

How did Adam bring his descendants into the presence of the Lord? The answer: Adam and his descendants entered into the priesthood order of God. Today we would say they went to the house of the Lord and received their blessings. The order of priesthood spoken of in the scriptures is sometimes referred to as the patriarchal order because it came down from father to son. But this order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government wherein a man and woman enter into a covenant with God just as did Adam and Eve to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality. 12

In other words, it is a patriarchal and matriarchal order. It may be that the truth about this priesthood in the early days was not understood, and the true destiny, identity, and role of women as matriarchs was a mystery withheld because too few men would be able to bear it. They were under the strong delusion that it was their right to "rule" over their wives.

I appreciate your speculation and willingness to look into mysteries, but to get to where you are you must completely unmoor yourself from the teachings of the early brethren, including Joseph Smith. The priesthood after the order of the son of God comprehends both priests and priestesses. This the early brethren knew, not that there is some yet-to-be-revealed matriarchal priesthood, and I find that their foundation is not only strong on its own, but it is supported on every hand by all the scriptures, not just a smattering that seem to imply something opposite of what the rest say.

On the grounds of having left the revelatory cohesion of the entirety of the scriptures and the early brethren, I patently reject your views as untenable and unfounded.

[Baurak Ale]

Not concurrently inasmuch as a person only has 1 head to whom he is sealed. Let’s say Heber was sealed as a son to Brigham and later Heber did the ordinance work for his deceased non-Mormon earthly father, then the earthly father would likely have been sealed to Heber as a son. This shows how much of a savior Heber could be for his father, administering salvation and exaltation to him in the kingdom.

If it were not that way, and let’s suppose the goal of sealing would be to make a chain backwards to Adam, bypassing Christ (familysearch says my wife is his descendant, incidentally!), then those who would administer an entrance into the kingdom of God for me would necessarily pass through characters from the misty ages of dubious moral rectitude. If I had to wait for them to receive and accept the gospel and repent (before my resurrection, I hope, since the morning of the first is fast dawning upon me!) then it would prove them saviors on mount zion for having sacrificed nothing in the flesh for the truth. But you see, this is backwards.

One head for each person who is admitted to the Celestial, connecting from Christ to all others who have ever lived and will be heirs of salvation, regardless of when they lived on the earth (meaning people of each dispensation need to be sealed to their dispensation head to make it up to Christ in the line).

Okay, so let's say Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors are now actually Heber's children in the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham is Heber's father, and Joseph is Brigham's father. Does that mean that Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors can never work with or have a relationship with any other father figure forever in the kingdom? They must always be directed by Heber through all eternity and only work on building up Heber's glory?

You are partially correct. Heber's ancestors in blood would in spirit become part of his kingdom, and all the glory they bring up would pass to Heber, and all that glory he would pass to Brigham, and so on to Jesus, who passes the glory on up to God the Father.
Commands from God the Father down to Heber's subjects (his blood ancestors) would be passed down the channel through Heber to them.

Does this mean they can't associate with all the other gods along the chain? No, for the point of the chain is also admittance so that the exalted may pass into the presence of the Father to dwell with him. It would be like going to general conference and trying to raise an objection about the brethren. Can you go see them and mingle in the congregation? Of course. But if you want to do official business they will direct you to your Stake President where the issue can be duly escalated. Brigham Young explained that the chain exists to administer an entrance to the presence of God:

"Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, 'I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;' and after awhile you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, 'Here; you have been faithful, good boys' I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass.' Then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam" (JOD 5:332).

So the point of the chain is admittance. And then after admittance, the point of the chain is a chain of command. Problem with applying this last quote you your vision of how this chain operates, is that these men along the admittance path are the ones holding priesthood keys. So progress according to this quote, depends on meeting the requirements of those who hold certain keys. So we are not passing by Brigham or Heber necessarily at each level of progression. They don't hold particular keys or dispensations. So this idea that we need to communicate or advance from one father to the next when we reach the City Eternal seems pretty unrealistic. Heber's earthy father would forever be lower in status to Heber, but higher in status than his own father, Heber's grandfather, and Heber's grandfather would be higher in status than Heber's great grandfather. All that seems to determine your eternal status is what generation you happen to be born in. So considering this quote you posted, the "head" would have to be someone with priesthood keys. I don't see my husband holding any keys that I don't also have myself.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Brigham's example passed by the notable brethren between dispensations, but then goes backward to Christ at the end. It has nothing to do with when you were born.
Can you explain what you meant by Heber's father and grandfather? That seemed out of the blue and does not compute with anything I've said so far.

[Baurak Ale]

Not concurrently inasmuch as a person only has 1 head to whom he is sealed. Let’s say Heber was sealed as a son to Brigham and later Heber did the ordinance work for his deceased non-Mormon earthly father, then the earthly father would likely have been sealed to Heber as a son. This shows how much of a savior Heber could be for his father, administering salvation and exaltation to him in the kingdom.

If it were not that way, and let’s suppose the goal of sealing would be to make a chain backwards to Adam, bypassing Christ (familysearch says my wife is his descendant, incidentally!), then those who would administer an entrance into the kingdom of God for me would necessarily pass through characters from the misty ages of dubious moral rectitude. If I had to wait for them to receive and accept the gospel and repent (before my resurrection, I hope, since the morning of the first is fast dawning upon me!) then it would prove them saviors on mount zion for having sacrificed nothing in the flesh for the truth. But you see, this is backwards.

One head for each person who is admitted to the Celestial, connecting from Christ to all others who have ever lived and will be heirs of salvation, regardless of when they lived on the earth (meaning people of each dispensation need to be sealed to their dispensation head to make it up to Christ in the line).

Okay, so let's say Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors are now actually Heber's children in the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham is Heber's father, and Joseph is Brigham's father. Does that mean that Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors can never work with or have a relationship with any other father figure forever in the kingdom? They must always be directed by Heber through all eternity and only work on building up Heber's glory?

You are partially correct. Heber's ancestors in blood would in spirit become part of his kingdom, and all the glory they bring up would pass to Heber, and all that glory he would pass to Brigham, and so on to Jesus, who passes the glory on up to God the Father.
Commands from God the Father down to Heber's subjects (his blood ancestors) would be passed down the channel through Heber to them.

Does this mean they can't associate with all the other gods along the chain? No, for the point of the chain is also admittance so that the exalted may pass into the presence of the Father to dwell with him. It would be like going to general conference and trying to raise an objection about the brethren. Can you go see them and mingle in the congregation? Of course. But if you want to do official business they will direct you to your Stake President where the issue can be duly escalated. Brigham Young explained that the chain exists to administer an entrance to the presence of God:

"Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, 'I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;' and after awhile you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, 'Here; you have been faithful, good boys' I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass.' Then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam" (JOD 5:332).

So the point of the chain is admittance. And then after admittance, the point of the chain is a chain of command. Problem with applying this last quote you your vision of how this chain operates, is that these men along the admittance path are the ones holding priesthood keys. So progress according to this quote, depends on meeting the requirements of those who hold certain keys. So we are not passing by Brigham or Heber necessarily at each level of progression. They don't hold particular keys or dispensations. So this idea that we need to communicate or advance from one father to the next when we reach the City Eternal seems pretty unrealistic. Heber's earthy father would forever be lower in status to Heber, but higher in status than his own father, Heber's grandfather, and Heber's grandfather would be higher in status than Heber's great grandfather. All that seems to determine your eternal status is what generation you happen to be born in. So considering this quote you posted, the "head" would have to be someone with priesthood keys. I don't see my husband holding any keys that I don't also have myself.

Please tell me what keys the brethren Brigham mentioned held. To imagine that keys have nothing to do with all of this is a strange thought. Nothing in that quote goes against my position.

[Sarah]

Despite the existence a of a priesthood called "patriarchal," the essential question here is what did the brethren mean when they used the words "patriarchal order of marriage"? Go study all the Journal of Discourses references and you will see that they only had reference to polygyny. That fact cannot be debated away. That said, I agree that D&C 132 outlines exaltation for the monogamous and the polygynous (different degrees likely). Verse 41, however, makes no hint of polyandry, which is being married to multiple men at once. It is referencing intercourse, I will grant that, but not a woman having multiple heads.

I know very well that this teaching comes from the teaching in the JofD. I invite you to consider that these brethren were incorrect in their understanding of what polygyny actually was. It was a provision in the Law. It was not the entire law itself. They were totally wrong in assuming that polygyny pointed to this eternal male government over many women, and that male government equaled the "patriarchal order." The "patriarchal order" is not a term found in scripture, but should refer to the Melchizedek priesthood which was passed down from Father to Son.

Ezra Taft Benson

How did Adam bring his descendants into the presence of the Lord? The answer: Adam and his descendants entered into the priesthood order of God. Today we would say they went to the house of the Lord and received their blessings. The order of priesthood spoken of in the scriptures is sometimes referred to as the patriarchal order because it came down from father to son. But this order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government wherein a man and woman enter into a covenant with God just as did Adam and Eve to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality. 12

In other words, it is a patriarchal and matriarchal order. It may be that the truth about this priesthood in the early days was not understood, and the true destiny, identity, and role of women as matriarchs was a mystery withheld because too few men would be able to bear it. They were under the strong delusion that it was their right to "rule" over their wives.

I appreciate your speculation and willingness to look into mysteries, but to get to where you are you must completely unmoor yourself from the teachings of the early brethren, including Joseph Smith. The priesthood after the order of the son of God comprehends both priests and priestesses. This the early brethren knew, not that there is some yet-to-be-revealed matriarchal priesthood, and I find that their foundation is not only strong on its own, but it is supported on every hand by all the scriptures, not just a smattering that seem to imply something opposite of what the rest say.

On the grounds of having left the revelatory cohesion of the entirety of the scriptures and the early brethren, I patently reject your views as untenable and unfounded.

Perhaps they understood that there were Priests and Priestesses, but they had a huge stumbling block when it came to actually comprehending what that meant for family government. They interpreted the polygny provision to mean that men would be rulers over multiple wives, with wives being subordinate for eternity, at least some of them interpreted it this way. This is an if/then provision in the Law, was given for Joseph and Emma to fulfill by commandment, and should only apply in certain circumstances when it is commanded. Again, These men interpreted the ordinance and revelation (to Joseph and not the entire church) to mean something the Lord never commanded them to do - to rule over their wives.
The correct principle is to have a couple council, mother and father ruling equally the children, counseling together as equal partners. The stumbling block for many has been the prophecy in the garden that a husband would rule over his wife (because of her curse), and Paul's words, which have produced the same effect on all of Christianity, thinking it's man's right to rule over his wife, and producing this so-called "headship" doctrine, where the husband is the Lord and ruler over his wife rather than the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord already told us in a revelation that Paul once gave a commandment of himself and not from the Lord, so this was one of his opinions. He was comparing the church to a wife, and the husband to the Lord, which is a fine comparison, if you realize that the goal of the Lord is to make the church "equal" with him.

[Sarah]

Okay, so let's say Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors are now actually Heber's children in the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham is Heber's father, and Joseph is Brigham's father. Does that mean that Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors can never work with or have a relationship with any other father figure forever in the kingdom? They must always be directed by Heber through all eternity and only work on building up Heber's glory?

You are partially correct. Heber's ancestors in blood would in spirit become part of his kingdom, and all the glory they bring up would pass to Heber, and all that glory he would pass to Brigham, and so on to Jesus, who passes the glory on up to God the Father.
Commands from God the Father down to Heber's subjects (his blood ancestors) would be passed down the channel through Heber to them.

Does this mean they can't associate with all the other gods along the chain? No, for the point of the chain is also admittance so that the exalted may pass into the presence of the Father to dwell with him. It would be like going to general conference and trying to raise an objection about the brethren. Can you go see them and mingle in the congregation? Of course. But if you want to do official business they will direct you to your Stake President where the issue can be duly escalated. Brigham Young explained that the chain exists to administer an entrance to the presence of God:

"Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, 'I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;' and after awhile you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, 'Here; you have been faithful, good boys' I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass.' Then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam" (JOD 5:332).

So the point of the chain is admittance. And then after admittance, the point of the chain is a chain of command. Problem with applying this last quote you your vision of how this chain operates, is that these men along the admittance path are the ones holding priesthood keys. So progress according to this quote, depends on meeting the requirements of those who hold certain keys. So we are not passing by Brigham or Heber necessarily at each level of progression. They don't hold particular keys or dispensations. So this idea that we need to communicate or advance from one father to the next when we reach the City Eternal seems pretty unrealistic. Heber's earthy father would forever be lower in status to Heber, but higher in status than his own father, Heber's grandfather, and Heber's grandfather would be higher in status than Heber's great grandfather. All that seems to determine your eternal status is what generation you happen to be born in. So considering this quote you posted, the "head" would have to be someone with priesthood keys. I don't see my husband holding any keys that I don't also have myself.

Please tell me what keys the brethren Brigham mentioned held. To imagine that keys have nothing to do with all of this is a strange thought. Nothing in that quote goes against my position.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the keys do have everything to do with progression. The gatekeepers of glory to glory are those who hold keys. So why should I need to go through my husband my so-called "head" if he does not hold keys? Why should I need to go through Brigham before I go through Joseph on my way from glory to glory?

[Sarah]

The saints wanted to get as far up the ladder as possible, and were not concerned about the actual relationship or the welfare of their fathers. They were concerned about receiving as much status as possible, and their hearts were not turned to their fathers. Sounds like a recipe for a curse. That is one reason the Law of Adoption had problems. Everyone wanted to be Joseph or Brigham's son or wife because it was assumed that they would be furthest up the ladder. Is that good to have so much focus on the chain of command and trying to marry the man with the most status? Or seal yourself as a son to the man with the most status? I really doubt that is what God intended the sealing ordinances to be about. You have this quote from Joseph which talks about going from glory to glory and rising up, with those above you in status also rising, but doesn't say that who you are sealed to determines your starting point, or how much glory you have, nor does Joseph talk about headship.

It is certainly not a good thing to neglect the redemption of the dead in order to pursue status, and though some people may have made it their goal to get sealed to the prophet directly, anyone who understood the doctrine would have seen how that they had an adopted covenant father line that got them there just the same. Then that person could have their ancestors sealed to them so that their ancestors could have salvation through them (not the other way around!).
I don't think there's so much evidence (I certainly have not seen it) to make the claim that the law of adoption was creating social problems in the church.
As for Joseph's quote, you're right that he doesn't mention sealings there, but he talks about it quite a bit. Here's an example demonstrating that people are saved by being sealed to people in a line back to the prophet:

• "I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel" (STPJS, p. 340).

But if we're talking about what wasn't written that Joseph taught as proof that he never taught it, let's be clear that what you believe is less supportable that what I believe.

Your beliefs align with our early church leaders, that is true, but mine seem much more logical and scriptural. They also seem to align with more of what our church teaches today, (minus my assumption of plural husbands.)

You said a man who had an adoptive line would then seal his ancestors to himself. If a man was sealed to an adoptive father in those early days, could he be sealed to his earthly father in a father/son relationship?

Not concurrently inasmuch as a person only has 1 head to whom he is sealed. Let’s say Heber was sealed as a son to Brigham and later Heber did the ordinance work for his deceased non-Mormon earthly father, then the earthly father would likely have been sealed to Heber as a son. This shows how much of a savior Heber could be for his father, administering salvation and exaltation to him in the kingdom.

If it were not that way, and let’s suppose the goal of sealing would be to make a chain backwards to Adam, bypassing Christ (familysearch says my wife is his descendant, incidentally!), then those who would administer an entrance into the kingdom of God for me would necessarily pass through characters from the misty ages of dubious moral rectitude. If I had to wait for them to receive and accept the gospel and repent (before my resurrection, I hope, since the morning of the first is fast dawning upon me!) then it would prove them saviors on mount zion for having sacrificed nothing in the flesh for the truth. But you see, this is backwards.

One head for each person who is admitted to the Celestial, connecting from Christ to all others who have ever lived and will be heirs of salvation, regardless of when they lived on the earth (meaning people of each dispensation need to be sealed to their dispensation head to make it up to Christ in the line).

Ya know, I've found hundreds, maybe even over a thousand names of ancestors or just people somewhere on the tree. If it wasn't for me they wouldn't have progressed and have had the chance to be sealed to their family members. And I know my deceased brother is up there helping to teach all of them. Maybe I should be their "head" because I ensured their salvation.

[Sarah]

Okay, so let's say Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors are now actually Heber's children in the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham is Heber's father, and Joseph is Brigham's father. Does that mean that Heber's father and all of Heber's ancestors can never work with or have a relationship with any other father figure forever in the kingdom? They must always be directed by Heber through all eternity and only work on building up Heber's glory?

You are partially correct. Heber's ancestors in blood would in spirit become part of his kingdom, and all the glory they bring up would pass to Heber, and all that glory he would pass to Brigham, and so on to Jesus, who passes the glory on up to God the Father.
Commands from God the Father down to Heber's subjects (his blood ancestors) would be passed down the channel through Heber to them.

Does this mean they can't associate with all the other gods along the chain? No, for the point of the chain is also admittance so that the exalted may pass into the presence of the Father to dwell with him. It would be like going to general conference and trying to raise an objection about the brethren. Can you go see them and mingle in the congregation? Of course. But if you want to do official business they will direct you to your Stake President where the issue can be duly escalated. Brigham Young explained that the chain exists to administer an entrance to the presence of God:

"Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, 'I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;' and after awhile you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, 'Here; you have been faithful, good boys' I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass.' Then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam" (JOD 5:332).

So the point of the chain is admittance. And then after admittance, the point of the chain is a chain of command. Problem with applying this last quote you your vision of how this chain operates, is that these men along the admittance path are the ones holding priesthood keys. So progress according to this quote, depends on meeting the requirements of those who hold certain keys. So we are not passing by Brigham or Heber necessarily at each level of progression. They don't hold particular keys or dispensations. So this idea that we need to communicate or advance from one father to the next when we reach the City Eternal seems pretty unrealistic. Heber's earthy father would forever be lower in status to Heber, but higher in status than his own father, Heber's grandfather, and Heber's grandfather would be higher in status than Heber's great grandfather. All that seems to determine your eternal status is what generation you happen to be born in. So considering this quote you posted, the "head" would have to be someone with priesthood keys. I don't see my husband holding any keys that I don't also have myself.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Brigham's example passed by the notable brethren between dispensations, but then goes backward to Christ at the end. It has nothing to do with when you were born.
Can you explain what you meant by Heber's father and grandfather? That seemed out of the blue and does not compute with anything I've said so far.

What I was trying to point out is that in your view, status has everything do with where you fall in the chain of command. So Heber's father is higher in status than his father's father and so on, which each father down from Heber being lower in status, being farther from Christ. So what I was saying is that according to your teachings, it would seem that the time you were born on earth would determine greatly where you ended up on that chain.

[Baurak Ale]

I know very well that this teaching comes from the teaching in the JofD. I invite you to consider that these brethren were incorrect in their understanding of what polygyny actually was. It was a provision in the Law. It was not the entire law itself. They were totally wrong in assuming that polygyny pointed to this eternal male government over many women, and that male government equaled the "patriarchal order." The "patriarchal order" is not a term found in scripture, but should refer to the Melchizedek priesthood which was passed down from Father to Son.

Ezra Taft Benson

How did Adam bring his descendants into the presence of the Lord? The answer: Adam and his descendants entered into the priesthood order of God. Today we would say they went to the house of the Lord and received their blessings. The order of priesthood spoken of in the scriptures is sometimes referred to as the patriarchal order because it came down from father to son. But this order is otherwise described in modern revelation as an order of family government wherein a man and woman enter into a covenant with God just as did Adam and Eve to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality. 12

In other words, it is a patriarchal and matriarchal order. It may be that the truth about this priesthood in the early days was not understood, and the true destiny, identity, and role of women as matriarchs was a mystery withheld because too few men would be able to bear it. They were under the strong delusion that it was their right to "rule" over their wives.

I appreciate your speculation and willingness to look into mysteries, but to get to where you are you must completely unmoor yourself from the teachings of the early brethren, including Joseph Smith. The priesthood after the order of the son of God comprehends both priests and priestesses. This the early brethren knew, not that there is some yet-to-be-revealed matriarchal priesthood, and I find that their foundation is not only strong on its own, but it is supported on every hand by all the scriptures, not just a smattering that seem to imply something opposite of what the rest say.

On the grounds of having left the revelatory cohesion of the entirety of the scriptures and the early brethren, I patently reject your views as untenable and unfounded.

Perhaps they understood that there were Priests and Priestesses, but they had a huge stumbling block when it came to actually comprehending what that meant for family government. They interpreted the polygny provision to mean that men would be rulers over multiple wives, with wives being subordinate for eternity, at least some of them interpreted it this way. This is an if/then provision in the Law, was given for Joseph and Emma to fulfill by commandment, and should only apply in certain circumstances when it is commanded. Again, These men interpreted the ordinance and revelation (to Joseph and not the entire church) to mean something the Lord never commanded them to do - to rule over their wives.
The correct principle is to have a couple council, mother and father ruling equally the children, counseling together as equal partners. The stumbling block for many has been the prophecy in the garden that a husband would rule over his wife (because of her curse), and Paul's words, which have produced the same effect on all of Christianity, thinking it's man's right to rule over his wife, and producing this so-called "headship" doctrine, where the husband is the Lord and ruler over his wife rather than the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord already told us in a revelation that Paul once gave a commandment of himself and not from the Lord, so this was one of his opinions. He was comparing the church to a wife, and the husband to the Lord, which is a fine comparison, if you realize that the goal of the Lord is to make the church "equal" with him.

What I'm getting out of this is that you throw out Adam and Eve's covenants of the Law of God and the Law of the Lord along with Paul's teachings in order to justify a "couple council" precept that doesn't actually appear in the scriptures?

[Sarah]

Or it’s not to be profaned, like other names of a patriarchal nature that we have covenanted not to reveal and that we only hear in a certain place and yet which is also not in the scriptures.
My point isn’t that “patriarchal order of marriage” is a phrase that we’ve covenanted not to reveal but simply that there’s every reason why it’s not in the scriptures and yet valid and a part of our religion.
The church doesn’t host an archive of the Journal of Discourses because it would raise more questions from the membership that they already can’t answer!

Well that's true, the members would be a little confused. I read the J of D and come away feeling that these men were simply giving their opinions. I don't feel much of the spirit when I read them, as most talks go through lengthy, wordy, arguments as to why a certain opinion of their's must be true. There is some great stuff, which no doubt is true, but they hardly ever talk about the Book of Mormon, and seem to focus on only a few main topics, like why we need a plurality of wives.

I'm more in agreement with the modern church view which is shared by Nephi
For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.(2 Nephi 28:30)

By the way, I discovered why I thought it was Hyde. Fairmormon has it attributed to him.

The patriarchal order is just another name for the priesthood that was passed from Father to Son. So the Melchizedek priesthood order of marriage is marriage performed by one who holds the sealing keys in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and doesn't break any provision with the Law of the Priesthood, but abides within it, and which is something we know very little about. We know polygyny is part of it, but we know polyandry is also hinted at as well with vs 41. So the M. Priesthood order of marriage is not just polygyny. It may also be a monogamous marriage that follows the law of the Everlasting Covenant, which is to be sealed by someone with the sealing power.

Despite the existence a of a priesthood called "patriarchal," the essential question here is what did the brethren mean when they used the words "patriarchal order of marriage"? Go study all the Journal of Discourses references and you will see that they only had reference to polygyny. That fact cannot be debated away. That said, I agree that D&C 132 outlines exaltation for the monogamous and the polygynous (different degrees likely). Verse 41, however, makes no hint of polyandry, which is being married to multiple men at once. It is referencing intercourse, I will grant that, but not a woman having multiple heads.

Holy anointing sounds pretty special. We are anointed to become or to be something (like a queen or priestess)

[Baurak Ale]

You are partially correct. Heber's ancestors in blood would in spirit become part of his kingdom, and all the glory they bring up would pass to Heber, and all that glory he would pass to Brigham, and so on to Jesus, who passes the glory on up to God the Father.
Commands from God the Father down to Heber's subjects (his blood ancestors) would be passed down the channel through Heber to them.

Does this mean they can't associate with all the other gods along the chain? No, for the point of the chain is also admittance so that the exalted may pass into the presence of the Father to dwell with him. It would be like going to general conference and trying to raise an objection about the brethren. Can you go see them and mingle in the congregation? Of course. But if you want to do official business they will direct you to your Stake President where the issue can be duly escalated. Brigham Young explained that the chain exists to administer an entrance to the presence of God:

"Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, 'I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;' and after awhile you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, 'Here; you have been faithful, good boys' I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass.' Then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam" (JOD 5:332).

So the point of the chain is admittance. And then after admittance, the point of the chain is a chain of command. Problem with applying this last quote you your vision of how this chain operates, is that these men along the admittance path are the ones holding priesthood keys. So progress according to this quote, depends on meeting the requirements of those who hold certain keys. So we are not passing by Brigham or Heber necessarily at each level of progression. They don't hold particular keys or dispensations. So this idea that we need to communicate or advance from one father to the next when we reach the City Eternal seems pretty unrealistic. Heber's earthy father would forever be lower in status to Heber, but higher in status than his own father, Heber's grandfather, and Heber's grandfather would be higher in status than Heber's great grandfather. All that seems to determine your eternal status is what generation you happen to be born in. So considering this quote you posted, the "head" would have to be someone with priesthood keys. I don't see my husband holding any keys that I don't also have myself.

Please tell me what keys the brethren Brigham mentioned held. To imagine that keys have nothing to do with all of this is a strange thought. Nothing in that quote goes against my position.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the keys do have everything to do with progression. The gatekeepers of glory to glory are those who hold keys. So why should I need to go through my husband my so-called "head" if he does not hold keys? Why should I need to go through Brigham before I go through Joseph on my way from glory to glory?

The quote from Brigham in no way demonstrates that headship only passes through key holders. It just so happens that everyone almost everyone he mentioned (sacred and holy patriarchs from before Joseph Smith) holds keys. But what keys does Abraham hold? How can you prove that everyone mentioned holds keys? How can you prove that everyman who is worthy of the highest degree in the CK won't hold keys? It's a strange bone to try and pick with that quote. The fact is Brigham was very clear that the chain exists exactly as I described (I can only guess at who the next people are in the chain from Joseph to Christ).

[Baurak Ale]

It is certainly not a good thing to neglect the redemption of the dead in order to pursue status, and though some people may have made it their goal to get sealed to the prophet directly, anyone who understood the doctrine would have seen how that they had an adopted covenant father line that got them there just the same. Then that person could have their ancestors sealed to them so that their ancestors could have salvation through them (not the other way around!).
I don't think there's so much evidence (I certainly have not seen it) to make the claim that the law of adoption was creating social problems in the church.
As for Joseph's quote, you're right that he doesn't mention sealings there, but he talks about it quite a bit. Here's an example demonstrating that people are saved by being sealed to people in a line back to the prophet:

• "I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel" (STPJS, p. 340).

But if we're talking about what wasn't written that Joseph taught as proof that he never taught it, let's be clear that what you believe is less supportable that what I believe.

Your beliefs align with our early church leaders, that is true, but mine seem much more logical and scriptural. They also seem to align with more of what our church teaches today, (minus my assumption of plural husbands.)

You said a man who had an adoptive line would then seal his ancestors to himself. If a man was sealed to an adoptive father in those early days, could he be sealed to his earthly father in a father/son relationship?

Not concurrently inasmuch as a person only has 1 head to whom he is sealed. Let’s say Heber was sealed as a son to Brigham and later Heber did the ordinance work for his deceased non-Mormon earthly father, then the earthly father would likely have been sealed to Heber as a son. This shows how much of a savior Heber could be for his father, administering salvation and exaltation to him in the kingdom.

If it were not that way, and let’s suppose the goal of sealing would be to make a chain backwards to Adam, bypassing Christ (familysearch says my wife is his descendant, incidentally!), then those who would administer an entrance into the kingdom of God for me would necessarily pass through characters from the misty ages of dubious moral rectitude. If I had to wait for them to receive and accept the gospel and repent (before my resurrection, I hope, since the morning of the first is fast dawning upon me!) then it would prove them saviors on mount zion for having sacrificed nothing in the flesh for the truth. But you see, this is backwards.

One head for each person who is admitted to the Celestial, connecting from Christ to all others who have ever lived and will be heirs of salvation, regardless of when they lived on the earth (meaning people of each dispensation need to be sealed to their dispensation head to make it up to Christ in the line).

Ya know, I've found hundreds, maybe even over a thousand names of ancestors or just people somewhere on the tree. If it wasn't for me they wouldn't have progressed and have had the chance to be sealed to their family members. And I know my deceased brother is up there helping to teach all of them. Maybe I should be their "head" because I ensured their salvation.

You can't administer salvation to them through the veil though. Your husband can, and their gratitude will be toward your diligent work and your standing in proxy for them in the ordinances. But their "head" in the chain would eventually come through your husband. In this way, you truly glorify your husband having been such an instrument for righteousness for the dead.