A difficult dichotomy, looking for other views

[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.

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.

Oh I see. Yes, those who endured the sacrifices that led them to become heirs of Christ through Joseph Smith were born with a specific mission that entailed more glory than those who did not. God sends us into the world at specific times for wise purposes in him.

[Sarah]

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?

My guess is that because of the misinterpreted scripture in Genesis of the prophecy that husband would rule over wife because of the curse of her weakness and sorrow, that Brigham felt that that notion should be included in the drama and covenants. What was in the endowment with Eve covenanting to obey Adam, does not line up with scripture. So I don't think that was ever meant to be a thing. I think Eve should covenant to obey God. I think it's a bad idea to covenant to obey any mortal! I think Brigham got ahead of himself and was concerned about justifying polygny only. Brigham and his brethren were not obeying the Laws of Consecration and Stewardship, therefore, as the Lord promised, they would not have an abundance of the spirit, or of blessings. The Lord allowed them to stumble so they could learn from it and be chastened, as they were from the government being allowed to overcome them.

[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).

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.

Well, I was joking. I think you have a preoccupation with the veil, and giving glory to the husband. The Lord is who is on the other side of the veil.

[Sarah]

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).

So what if the chain exists. The point is that you can't use that quote to prove that we need to pass through each person above us on the chain to get from glory to glory. The quote points to going from one key holder to the next and meeting the requirements of those priesthood keys.

[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).

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.

At some point the husband must provide glory to his wife. It's not a one way street as you seem to think. With every new wife you take, her ability to increase diminishes, as it is impossible for you to be physically in more than one place at a time.

Would you ever consider bowing more than a dozen times to someone you ruled over, while linking arms with your brethren? What a strange notion.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (Smith)
"I want to say to you as I said before that Joseph said if I was faithful, I should see greater things than the angel. Since then I have seen other persons, three came together and stood before me just as the sun went down — Joseph, Hyrum and Heber C. Kimball. It was prophesied that I should see Joseph before I died. Still, I was not thinking about that. I was thinking about a sermon I had heard. All at once I looked up and they stood before me. Joseph stood in the middle in a circle like the new moon and he stood with his arms over their shoulders. They bowed to me about a dozen times or more. I pinched myself to be sure I was awake, and I looked around the room to see where I had placed things. I thought I would shake hands with them. They saw my confusion and understood it and they laughed, and I thought Brother Kimball would almost kill himself laughing. I had no fear. As I went to shake hands with them, they bowed, smiled and began to fade. They went like the sun sinks behind a mountain or a cloud. It gave me more courage and hope than I ever had before.12

[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.

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

You're being wishful with that terminology. The verse certainly implies something exceptional and transitory, that God can appoint a woman to lie with another man who is not her husband. That it's ordained through an anointing could just as well mean she's ill and infirm but the context rules that out too!

[Baurak Ale]

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?

My guess is that because of the misinterpreted scripture in Genesis of the prophecy that husband would rule over wife because of the curse of her weakness and sorrow, that Brigham felt that that notion should be included in the drama and covenants. What was in the endowment with Eve covenanting to obey Adam, does not line up with scripture. So I don't think that was ever meant to be a thing. I think Eve should covenant to obey God. I think it's a bad idea to covenant to obey any mortal! I think Brigham got ahead of himself and was concerned about justifying polygny only. Brigham and his brethren were not obeying the Laws of Consecration and Stewardship, therefore, as the Lord promised, they would not have an abundance of the spirit, or of blessings. The Lord allowed them to stumble so they could learn from it and be chastened, as they were from the government being allowed to overcome them.

It's literally supported by Paul!

[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).

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.

Well, I was joking. I think you have a preoccupation with the veil, and giving glory to the husband. The Lord is who is on the other side of the veil.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (1 Pet. 3:5 — 6).

[Sarah]

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.

That is speculation. If men are held more accountable for performing priesthood duties, the corollary is that women will be more accountable for how they treated their children or if they chose to have children. Even if what you suggest is true, that men who hold the priesthood will be held to a higher standard (I think endowed men and women will be held accountable equally for their covenant keeping) you're forgetting that over the course of human history, relatively few men have held the priesthood, millions have died without a knowledge of the gospel, and Joseph taught that all who would have received the gospel but didn't get the opportunity will inherit the CK. There will be plenty of worthy men at the end of the day.

[Sarah]

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.

Well, I was joking. I think you have a preoccupation with the veil, and giving glory to the husband. The Lord is who is on the other side of the veil.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (1 Pet. 3:5 — 6).

The mystery here that Paul and Peter are not yet aware of (remember they are not perfect yet! They both made a lot of mistakes), is that Sarah is also a Lord in her own right. She is the one who gives the spouse, a greater deed than receiving one. The scripture says Abraham hearkened unto Sarah. Abraham tells Sarah that it's her right to do with Hagar as she pleases. You would think a Lord who is ruling over his wife, whose wife was in subjection to him, would not give his wife these privileges. You'd think that God would not take a woman, who was subordinate to her husband, and give her the same power he has, to give a spouse.

[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).

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.

At some point the husband must provide glory to his wife. It's not a one way street as you seem to think. With every new wife you take, her ability to increase diminishes, as it is impossible for you to be physically in more than one place at a time.

Would you ever consider bowing more than a dozen times to someone you ruled over, while linking arms with your brethren? What a strange notion.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (Smith)
"I want to say to you as I said before that Joseph said if I was faithful, I should see greater things than the angel. Since then I have seen other persons, three came together and stood before me just as the sun went down — Joseph, Hyrum and Heber C. Kimball. It was prophesied that I should see Joseph before I died. Still, I was not thinking about that. I was thinking about a sermon I had heard. All at once I looked up and they stood before me. Joseph stood in the middle in a circle like the new moon and he stood with his arms over their shoulders. They bowed to me about a dozen times or more. I pinched myself to be sure I was awake, and I looked around the room to see where I had placed things. I thought I would shake hands with them. They saw my confusion and understood it and they laughed, and I thought Brother Kimball would almost kill himself laughing. I had no fear. As I went to shake hands with them, they bowed, smiled and began to fade. They went like the sun sinks behind a mountain or a cloud. It gave me more courage and hope than I ever had before.12

"Man...is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:7 – 9).

D&C 132 explains how that the woman bears children, which glorify her, which glorifies her husband. A man would need about 337 wives to run up against a theoretical problem with diminishing glory returns. That number assumes he gets one woman pregnant per day not returning to the first until 6 weeks after birth so that she might get pregnant again. But that's a ridiculous notion (getting a woman pregnant every night, or having a woman pregnant all her life), so in what practical way is the woman's glory diminished with each new wife? Are the wives of Jacob any less glorified because of each other? I'm sure they have quite the opposite to say to us about that.

The scriptural concept of glory that rises through the chain, through the heads, is mutually exclusive with the concept of honoring someone. God the Father surely honors his wives with the greatest love and respect in the universe (above that which he has for even us, his children). But the glory of his work comes through to him as he brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of those children borne of his wives, and he passes that glory up to his father who is glorified by his sons and his wives, so on and so forth ad infinitum.

[Sarah]

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.

Going along with my earlier comment, the reason there are many women represented in this verse is because of the great destruction of the men in war. These men were no more righteous or wicked than the women. The women were wicked and have a similar punishment. The men get killed because of wickedness, and the women are left without husbands because of their wickedness, so they ended up begging for one. This has nothing to do with who gets into the CK.

[Baurak Ale]

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.

That is speculation. If men are held more accountable for performing priesthood duties, the corollary is that women will be more accountable for how they treated their children or if they chose to have children. Even if what you suggest is true, that men who hold the priesthood will be held to a higher standard (I think endowed men and women will be held accountable equally for their covenant keeping) you're forgetting that over the course of human history, relatively few men have held the priesthood, millions have died without a knowledge of the gospel, and Joseph taught that all who would have received the gospel but didn't get the opportunity will inherit the CK. There will be plenty of worthy men at the end of the day.

What you are saying is speculation as well. How many people have died who would have received the gospel? I wager very few as the number is slim among the living. Many are called but few are chosen.
We think that it's every man and woman who makes a covenant that will get these blessings of the CK, but it's not. As Joseph said, many would wake up disappointed. Not a few, many.
Men who have the priesthood will be held to a higher degree of responsibility because they are the HEAD and the one responsible for ensuring the wives and children are properly cared for, taught, reproved, etc. The man and the woman work together to accomplish this, but the failure in the end falls upon the priesthood holding man who is the head. Can't get away from the headship!

[Baurak Ale]

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.

Well, I was joking. I think you have a preoccupation with the veil, and giving glory to the husband. The Lord is who is on the other side of the veil.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (1 Pet. 3:5 — 6).

The mystery here that Paul and Peter are not yet aware of (remember they are not perfect yet! They both made a lot of mistakes), is that Sarah is also a Lord in her own right. She is the one who gives the spouse, a greater deed than receiving one. The scripture says Abraham hearkened unto Sarah. Abraham tells Sarah that it's her right to do with Hagar as she pleases. You would think a Lord who is ruling over his wife, whose wife was in subjection to him, would not give his wife these privileges. You'd think that God would not take a woman, who was subordinate to her husband, and give her the same power he has, to give a spouse.

You honestly believe that Peter and Paul knew less of God's mysteries than we do? That's the height of hubris there.
And then to quote Abraham's giving Sarah some authority as proof that she had inherent authority? That doesn't even make sense. What that passage demonstrates is the hierarchy of the wives. This was a subject well understood by the early brethren. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Baurak Ale]

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.

Going along with my earlier comment, the reason there are many women represented in this verse is because of the great destruction of the men in war. These men were no more righteous or wicked than the women. The women were wicked and have a similar punishment. The men get killed because of wickedness, and the women are left without husbands because of their wickedness, so they ended up begging for one. This has nothing to do with who gets into the CK.

Compare the symbols of food and clothing between chapters 3 and 4 in Isaiah. In chapter 3 the people want leaders and the men say they lack those things and are therefore unfit to be spiritual leaders; in chapter 4 the women who survive the men are those who possessed the spiritual prowess that the men previously lacked. Who do they marry? The worthy men who survive. These are spiritual symbols and show that the men in the end perish (perhaps physically but at least spiritually [pornography addiction, failing hearts, etc.]) because of their spiritual ineptitude.

[Sarah]

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.

At some point the husband must provide glory to his wife. It's not a one way street as you seem to think. With every new wife you take, her ability to increase diminishes, as it is impossible for you to be physically in more than one place at a time.

Would you ever consider bowing more than a dozen times to someone you ruled over, while linking arms with your brethren? What a strange notion.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (Smith)
"I want to say to you as I said before that Joseph said if I was faithful, I should see greater things than the angel. Since then I have seen other persons, three came together and stood before me just as the sun went down — Joseph, Hyrum and Heber C. Kimball. It was prophesied that I should see Joseph before I died. Still, I was not thinking about that. I was thinking about a sermon I had heard. All at once I looked up and they stood before me. Joseph stood in the middle in a circle like the new moon and he stood with his arms over their shoulders. They bowed to me about a dozen times or more. I pinched myself to be sure I was awake, and I looked around the room to see where I had placed things. I thought I would shake hands with them. They saw my confusion and understood it and they laughed, and I thought Brother Kimball would almost kill himself laughing. I had no fear. As I went to shake hands with them, they bowed, smiled and began to fade. They went like the sun sinks behind a mountain or a cloud. It gave me more courage and hope than I ever had before.12

"Man...is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:7 – 9).

D&C 132 explains how that the woman bears children, which glorify her, which glorifies her husband. A man would need about 337 wives to run up against a theoretical problem with diminishing glory returns. That number assumes he gets one woman pregnant per day not returning to the first until 6 weeks after birth so that she might get pregnant again. But that's a ridiculous notion (getting a woman pregnant every night, or having a woman pregnant all her life), so in what practical way is the woman's glory diminished with each new wife? Are the wives of Jacob any less glorified because of each other? I'm sure they have quite the opposite to say to us about that.

The scriptural concept of glory that rises through the chain, through the heads, is mutually exclusive with the concept of honoring someone. God the Father surely honors his wives with the greatest love and respect in the universe (above that which he has for even us, his children). But the glory of his work comes through to him as he brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of those children borne of his wives, and he passes that glory up to his father who is glorified by his sons and his wives, so on and so forth ad infinitum.

Paul was not perfect in his understanding of this. Because of the latter day revelation we have we know that God equal man and wife, not just man.

"Man (and woman. God's children) ...is (are) the image and glory of God (man and wife)"

Husband and wife both give glory to one another. Section 132 explains that a sealed polygamous wife is fulfilling her eternal role to have the chance to bear children. The misunderstanding lies in thinking that a man is also not also fulfilling his role by being sealed to a wife. This verse could equally apply to a single man taking one wife, that he is fulfilling his purpose by becoming a father and procreating children.

"so in what practical way is the woman's glory diminished with each new wife?"

I already answered that. You can only be in one place at one time. So while you are increasing at a faster rate than she is, she cannot produce as quickly. You are putting bounds and stakes on how many children a Celestial wife can create.

[Sarah]

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.

That is speculation. If men are held more accountable for performing priesthood duties, the corollary is that women will be more accountable for how they treated their children or if they chose to have children. Even if what you suggest is true, that men who hold the priesthood will be held to a higher standard (I think endowed men and women will be held accountable equally for their covenant keeping) you're forgetting that over the course of human history, relatively few men have held the priesthood, millions have died without a knowledge of the gospel, and Joseph taught that all who would have received the gospel but didn't get the opportunity will inherit the CK. There will be plenty of worthy men at the end of the day.

What you are saying is speculation as well. How many people have died who would have received the gospel? I wager very few as the number is slim among the living. Many are called but few are chosen.
We think that it's every man and woman who makes a covenant that will get these blessings of the CK, but it's not. As Joseph said, many would wake up disappointed. Not a few, many.
Men who have the priesthood will be held to a higher degree of responsibility because they are the HEAD and the one responsible for ensuring the wives and children are properly cared for, taught, reproved, etc. The man and the woman work together to accomplish this, but the failure in the end falls upon the priesthood holding man who is the head. Can't get away from the headship!

And I would venture to say that the failure of men to care for their wives and children properly is partly because of incorrect traditions, which in the long run can be overcome. I also think you think too highly of women. It's what's in the heart that matters, and because of unrighteous men and other circumstances, most women I find are very hard of heart in one way or another and are not Celestial material. But we shall she what ultimately happens. You are riding on this assumption that God has placed his sons in more unfavorable circumstances when it comes to their chance for overcoming. Christ will help them overcome. Christ will ask you to help them overcome by consecrating your wives to him, so he can appoint them to other men.

[Baurak Ale]

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.

That is speculation. If men are held more accountable for performing priesthood duties, the corollary is that women will be more accountable for how they treated their children or if they chose to have children. Even if what you suggest is true, that men who hold the priesthood will be held to a higher standard (I think endowed men and women will be held accountable equally for their covenant keeping) you're forgetting that over the course of human history, relatively few men have held the priesthood, millions have died without a knowledge of the gospel, and Joseph taught that all who would have received the gospel but didn't get the opportunity will inherit the CK. There will be plenty of worthy men at the end of the day.

What you are saying is speculation as well. How many people have died who would have received the gospel? I wager very few as the number is slim among the living. Many are called but few are chosen.
We think that it's every man and woman who makes a covenant that will get these blessings of the CK, but it's not. As Joseph said, many would wake up disappointed. Not a few, many.
Men who have the priesthood will be held to a higher degree of responsibility because they are the HEAD and the one responsible for ensuring the wives and children are properly cared for, taught, reproved, etc. The man and the woman work together to accomplish this, but the failure in the end falls upon the priesthood holding man who is the head. Can't get away from the headship!

And I would venture to say that the failure of men to care for their wives and children properly is partly because of incorrect traditions, which in the long run can be overcome. I also think you think too highly of women. It's what's in the heart that matters, and because of unrighteous men and other circumstances, most women I find are very hard of heart in one way or another and are not Celestial material. But we shall she what ultimately happens. You are riding on this assumption that God has placed his sons in more unfavorable circumstances when it comes to their chance for overcoming. Christ will help them overcome. Christ will ask you to help them overcome by consecrating your wives to him, so he can appoint them to other men.

Why would I have to consecrate my wives to other men? Are you saying there won't be enough women in the CK?

[Baurak Ale]

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.

At some point the husband must provide glory to his wife. It's not a one way street as you seem to think. With every new wife you take, her ability to increase diminishes, as it is impossible for you to be physically in more than one place at a time.

Would you ever consider bowing more than a dozen times to someone you ruled over, while linking arms with your brethren? What a strange notion.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (Smith)
"I want to say to you as I said before that Joseph said if I was faithful, I should see greater things than the angel. Since then I have seen other persons, three came together and stood before me just as the sun went down — Joseph, Hyrum and Heber C. Kimball. It was prophesied that I should see Joseph before I died. Still, I was not thinking about that. I was thinking about a sermon I had heard. All at once I looked up and they stood before me. Joseph stood in the middle in a circle like the new moon and he stood with his arms over their shoulders. They bowed to me about a dozen times or more. I pinched myself to be sure I was awake, and I looked around the room to see where I had placed things. I thought I would shake hands with them. They saw my confusion and understood it and they laughed, and I thought Brother Kimball would almost kill himself laughing. I had no fear. As I went to shake hands with them, they bowed, smiled and began to fade. They went like the sun sinks behind a mountain or a cloud. It gave me more courage and hope than I ever had before.12

"Man...is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:7 – 9).

D&C 132 explains how that the woman bears children, which glorify her, which glorifies her husband. A man would need about 337 wives to run up against a theoretical problem with diminishing glory returns. That number assumes he gets one woman pregnant per day not returning to the first until 6 weeks after birth so that she might get pregnant again. But that's a ridiculous notion (getting a woman pregnant every night, or having a woman pregnant all her life), so in what practical way is the woman's glory diminished with each new wife? Are the wives of Jacob any less glorified because of each other? I'm sure they have quite the opposite to say to us about that.

The scriptural concept of glory that rises through the chain, through the heads, is mutually exclusive with the concept of honoring someone. God the Father surely honors his wives with the greatest love and respect in the universe (above that which he has for even us, his children). But the glory of his work comes through to him as he brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of those children borne of his wives, and he passes that glory up to his father who is glorified by his sons and his wives, so on and so forth ad infinitum.

Paul was not perfect in his understanding of this. Because of the latter day revelation we have we know that God equal man and wife, not just man.

"Man (and woman. God's children) ...is (are) the image and glory of God (man and wife)"

Husband and wife both give glory to one another. Section 132 explains that a sealed polygamous wife is fulfilling her eternal role to have the chance to bear children. The misunderstanding lies in thinking that a man is also not also fulfilling his role by being sealed to a wife. This verse could equally apply to a single man taking one wife, that he is fulfilling his purpose by becoming a father and procreating children.

"so in what practical way is the woman's glory diminished with each new wife?"

I already answered that. You can only be in one place at one time. So while you are increasing at a faster rate than she is, she cannot produce as quickly. You are putting bounds and stakes on how many children a Celestial wife can create.

Who put stakes on the number of children a celestial wife can create? She can't be impregnated multiple times as she gestates a child. She has a window at most once every 10 — 11 months if she wanted to. A man on the other hand, he can impregnate multiple times a day if he wanted to, if we're speaking strictly mechanically. Does not this show that by nature a woman is not limited in glory by a single head whereas a man IS limited in glory by a single wife?

D&C 132 does not show that men and women are equal in all things. A god is not an exalted pair, a god is an exalted man who is married to at least one exalted women, or goddess. The word in Genesis for God is Elohim, which Joseph Smith instructed should be rendered in the plural throughout. So in whose image are men and women created (Adam and Eve being typical of all men and women)? In the image of the gods, male and female: Adam in the form of God and Eve in the form of a goddess. Linguistically speaking, the plural of any noun always takes on the masculine form in most indo-european languages. Hence a person refers to their grandparents in spanish as Abuelos and not Abuelas. Other examples could be furnished, but for our discussion it suffices to say that the gods (elohim) of creation are a man (a god) and at least one woman (goddesses).

[Sarah]

That is speculation. If men are held more accountable for performing priesthood duties, the corollary is that women will be more accountable for how they treated their children or if they chose to have children. Even if what you suggest is true, that men who hold the priesthood will be held to a higher standard (I think endowed men and women will be held accountable equally for their covenant keeping) you're forgetting that over the course of human history, relatively few men have held the priesthood, millions have died without a knowledge of the gospel, and Joseph taught that all who would have received the gospel but didn't get the opportunity will inherit the CK. There will be plenty of worthy men at the end of the day.

What you are saying is speculation as well. How many people have died who would have received the gospel? I wager very few as the number is slim among the living. Many are called but few are chosen.
We think that it's every man and woman who makes a covenant that will get these blessings of the CK, but it's not. As Joseph said, many would wake up disappointed. Not a few, many.
Men who have the priesthood will be held to a higher degree of responsibility because they are the HEAD and the one responsible for ensuring the wives and children are properly cared for, taught, reproved, etc. The man and the woman work together to accomplish this, but the failure in the end falls upon the priesthood holding man who is the head. Can't get away from the headship!

And I would venture to say that the failure of men to care for their wives and children properly is partly because of incorrect traditions, which in the long run can be overcome. I also think you think too highly of women. It's what's in the heart that matters, and because of unrighteous men and other circumstances, most women I find are very hard of heart in one way or another and are not Celestial material. But we shall she what ultimately happens. You are riding on this assumption that God has placed his sons in more unfavorable circumstances when it comes to their chance for overcoming. Christ will help them overcome. Christ will ask you to help them overcome by consecrating your wives to him, so he can appoint them to other men.

Why would I have to consecrate my wives to other men? Are you saying there won't be enough women in the CK?

Why would we need to consecrate anything in the CK? Won't there be plenty for all to have as much as they want? Yet we know consecration is a thing. So you tell me. Why is the Law of Consecration and Stewardship a Celestial law?

Maybe another man loves your wife and wants to have a relationship with her? There are a million reasons why you may need to consecrate your wives. Each wife/person has a different personality, gifts and talents, strengths and weaknesses. How do you think we are all going to become perfected. One way is by experiencing a lot of different people and benefiting from their strengths, learning from them. I learn and benefit from each of my children and my husband. You would learn and benefit from each of your wives. Your wife would benefit by having another partner to work with in the same way you work with her. If you can't love her enough to see that she could benefit from a variety of strengths, and that other men would benefit from her righteous influence, than maybe you need to ask yourself if you can come to believe that. There are some people who may not shape up until they have a spouse who can set them straight and stand up to the bad behavior in a loving way.

[Sarah]

At some point the husband must provide glory to his wife. It's not a one way street as you seem to think. With every new wife you take, her ability to increase diminishes, as it is impossible for you to be physically in more than one place at a time.

Would you ever consider bowing more than a dozen times to someone you ruled over, while linking arms with your brethren? What a strange notion.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (Smith)
"I want to say to you as I said before that Joseph said if I was faithful, I should see greater things than the angel. Since then I have seen other persons, three came together and stood before me just as the sun went down — Joseph, Hyrum and Heber C. Kimball. It was prophesied that I should see Joseph before I died. Still, I was not thinking about that. I was thinking about a sermon I had heard. All at once I looked up and they stood before me. Joseph stood in the middle in a circle like the new moon and he stood with his arms over their shoulders. They bowed to me about a dozen times or more. I pinched myself to be sure I was awake, and I looked around the room to see where I had placed things. I thought I would shake hands with them. They saw my confusion and understood it and they laughed, and I thought Brother Kimball would almost kill himself laughing. I had no fear. As I went to shake hands with them, they bowed, smiled and began to fade. They went like the sun sinks behind a mountain or a cloud. It gave me more courage and hope than I ever had before.12

"Man...is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:7 – 9).

D&C 132 explains how that the woman bears children, which glorify her, which glorifies her husband. A man would need about 337 wives to run up against a theoretical problem with diminishing glory returns. That number assumes he gets one woman pregnant per day not returning to the first until 6 weeks after birth so that she might get pregnant again. But that's a ridiculous notion (getting a woman pregnant every night, or having a woman pregnant all her life), so in what practical way is the woman's glory diminished with each new wife? Are the wives of Jacob any less glorified because of each other? I'm sure they have quite the opposite to say to us about that.

The scriptural concept of glory that rises through the chain, through the heads, is mutually exclusive with the concept of honoring someone. God the Father surely honors his wives with the greatest love and respect in the universe (above that which he has for even us, his children). But the glory of his work comes through to him as he brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of those children borne of his wives, and he passes that glory up to his father who is glorified by his sons and his wives, so on and so forth ad infinitum.

Paul was not perfect in his understanding of this. Because of the latter day revelation we have we know that God equal man and wife, not just man.

"Man (and woman. God's children) ...is (are) the image and glory of God (man and wife)"

Husband and wife both give glory to one another. Section 132 explains that a sealed polygamous wife is fulfilling her eternal role to have the chance to bear children. The misunderstanding lies in thinking that a man is also not also fulfilling his role by being sealed to a wife. This verse could equally apply to a single man taking one wife, that he is fulfilling his purpose by becoming a father and procreating children.

"so in what practical way is the woman's glory diminished with each new wife?"

I already answered that. You can only be in one place at one time. So while you are increasing at a faster rate than she is, she cannot produce as quickly. You are putting bounds and stakes on how many children a Celestial wife can create.

Who put stakes on the number of children a celestial wife can create? She can't be impregnated multiple times as she gestates a child. She has a window at most once every 10 — 11 months if she wanted to. A man on the other hand, he can impregnate multiple times a day if he wanted to, if we're speaking strictly mechanically. Does not this show that by nature a woman is not limited in glory by a single head whereas a man IS limited in glory by a single wife?

D&C 132 does not show that men and women are equal in all things. A god is not an exalted pair, a god is an exalted man who is married to at least one exalted women, or goddess. The word in Genesis for God is Elohim, which Joseph Smith instructed should be rendered in the plural throughout. So in whose image are men and women created (Adam and Eve being typical of all men and women)? In the image of the gods, male and female: Adam in the form of God and Eve in the form of a goddess. Linguistically speaking, the plural of any noun always takes on the masculine form in most indo-european languages. Hence a person refers to their grandparents in spanish as Abuelos and not Abuelas. Other examples could be furnished, but for our discussion it suffices to say that the gods (elohim) of creation are a man (a god) and at least one woman (goddesses).

Well, for all you know, the "gods" or council of Gods could be a council of men and women. But we know one thing for sure, and that is a god is only god in the sense of husband and wife.

"She can't be impregnated multiple times as she gestates a child. She has a window at most once every 10 — 11 months if she wanted to"

So I can't believe you don't see how you are setting bounds on women. You're talking about gestation and her not being able to do something. This child-birthing thing is part of her curse here in mortality. She is pregnant for 9 months or 40 weeks. Both of those numbers can represent judgment, testing, trial. God has judged her for her disobedience and this is her punishment. You are envisioning this pregnancy limitation to exist for eternity. But the curses will all be lifted my friend, to your disappointment I'm sure. She will be able to reproduce just as quickly as you can.

[Sarah]

Well, I was joking. I think you have a preoccupation with the veil, and giving glory to the husband. The Lord is who is on the other side of the veil.

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (1 Pet. 3:5 — 6).

The mystery here that Paul and Peter are not yet aware of (remember they are not perfect yet! They both made a lot of mistakes), is that Sarah is also a Lord in her own right. She is the one who gives the spouse, a greater deed than receiving one. The scripture says Abraham hearkened unto Sarah. Abraham tells Sarah that it's her right to do with Hagar as she pleases. You would think a Lord who is ruling over his wife, whose wife was in subjection to him, would not give his wife these privileges. You'd think that God would not take a woman, who was subordinate to her husband, and give her the same power he has, to give a spouse.

You honestly believe that Peter and Paul knew less of God's mysteries than we do? That's the height of hubris there.
And then to quote Abraham's giving Sarah some authority as proof that she had inherent authority? That doesn't even make sense. What that passage demonstrates is the hierarchy of the wives. This was a subject well understood by the early brethren. Thanks for bringing it up.

Says one who criticizes Benson and the modern day prophets. I suppose you also believe your first wife will for ever rule and reign over your other wives.

[Baurak Ale]

What you are saying is speculation as well. How many people have died who would have received the gospel? I wager very few as the number is slim among the living. Many are called but few are chosen.
We think that it's every man and woman who makes a covenant that will get these blessings of the CK, but it's not. As Joseph said, many would wake up disappointed. Not a few, many.
Men who have the priesthood will be held to a higher degree of responsibility because they are the HEAD and the one responsible for ensuring the wives and children are properly cared for, taught, reproved, etc. The man and the woman work together to accomplish this, but the failure in the end falls upon the priesthood holding man who is the head. Can't get away from the headship!

And I would venture to say that the failure of men to care for their wives and children properly is partly because of incorrect traditions, which in the long run can be overcome. I also think you think too highly of women. It's what's in the heart that matters, and because of unrighteous men and other circumstances, most women I find are very hard of heart in one way or another and are not Celestial material. But we shall she what ultimately happens. You are riding on this assumption that God has placed his sons in more unfavorable circumstances when it comes to their chance for overcoming. Christ will help them overcome. Christ will ask you to help them overcome by consecrating your wives to him, so he can appoint them to other men.

Why would I have to consecrate my wives to other men? Are you saying there won't be enough women in the CK?

Why would we need to consecrate anything in the CK? Won't there be plenty for all to have as much as they want? Yet we know consecration is a thing. So you tell me. Why is the Law of Consecration and Stewardship a Celestial law?

Maybe another man loves your wife and wants to have a relationship with her? There are a million reasons why you may need to consecrate your wives. Each wife/person has a different personality, gifts and talents, strengths and weaknesses. How do you think we are all going to become perfected. One way is by experiencing a lot of different people and benefiting from their strengths, learning from them. I learn and benefit from each of my children and my husband. You would learn and benefit from each of your wives. Your wife would benefit by having another partner to work with in the same way you work with her. If you can't love her enough to see that she could benefit from a variety of strengths, and that other men would benefit from her righteous influence, than maybe you need to ask yourself if you can come to believe that. There are some people who may not shape up until they have a spouse who can set them straight and stand up to the bad behavior in a loving way.

Of course consecration is a principle of the celestial. But I wasn't asking about general consecration, I was asking about why there would be a need for moving women around if men and women are equal and come in pairs in the end.

As for consecrating a wife, I wholly believe that a given wife belongs to one man alone and though she is consecrated to the Lord, the Lord only places one head over her, one steward of his treasure, his talent. They are bestowed, scripturally, as blessings to the faithful and removed from the unfaithful. Swapping among the faithful is an unscriptural abomination. Your attempt to justify its plausibility rely on wresting scriptures that have already been explained by Joseph Smith and setting aside anything said by his contemporaries who led the church after him. There is no evidence of authority you can provide to show that the full order of God includes this unless you want to claim the title of High Priestess of Ishtar and then cite yourself (you're close, with your imaginings).

[Baurak Ale]

"For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord" (1 Pet. 3:5 — 6).

The mystery here that Paul and Peter are not yet aware of (remember they are not perfect yet! They both made a lot of mistakes), is that Sarah is also a Lord in her own right. She is the one who gives the spouse, a greater deed than receiving one. The scripture says Abraham hearkened unto Sarah. Abraham tells Sarah that it's her right to do with Hagar as she pleases. You would think a Lord who is ruling over his wife, whose wife was in subjection to him, would not give his wife these privileges. You'd think that God would not take a woman, who was subordinate to her husband, and give her the same power he has, to give a spouse.

You honestly believe that Peter and Paul knew less of God's mysteries than we do? That's the height of hubris there.
And then to quote Abraham's giving Sarah some authority as proof that she had inherent authority? That doesn't even make sense. What that passage demonstrates is the hierarchy of the wives. This was a subject well understood by the early brethren. Thanks for bringing it up.

Says one who criticizes Benson and the modern day prophets. I suppose you also believe your first wife will for ever rule and reign over your other wives.

Says one who criticizes Brigham and the early prophets. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[nightlight]

The mystery here that Paul and Peter are not yet aware of (remember they are not perfect yet! They both made a lot of mistakes), is that Sarah is also a Lord in her own right. She is the one who gives the spouse, a greater deed than receiving one. The scripture says Abraham hearkened unto Sarah. Abraham tells Sarah that it's her right to do with Hagar as she pleases. You would think a Lord who is ruling over his wife, whose wife was in subjection to him, would not give his wife these privileges. You'd think that God would not take a woman, who was subordinate to her husband, and give her the same power he has, to give a spouse.

You honestly believe that Peter and Paul knew less of God's mysteries than we do? That's the height of hubris there.
And then to quote Abraham's giving Sarah some authority as proof that she had inherent authority? That doesn't even make sense. What that passage demonstrates is the hierarchy of the wives. This was a subject well understood by the early brethren. Thanks for bringing it up.

Says one who criticizes Benson and the modern day prophets. I suppose you also believe your first wife will for ever rule and reign over your other wives.

Says one who criticizes Brigham and the early prophets. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Is it worse to criticize Brigham than it is to criticize a neighbor?