A difficult dichotomy, looking for other views

[Baurak Ale]

"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.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Well, I don't doubt the manner of gestating a child in the CK will be somewhat different than down here among flesh and blood—I will hardly be disappointed at that. The apocrypha says it happens with just a kiss between the man and the woman. Great! But that's only the process of spiritual generation—only half the picture.

Utter speculation on gestational periods of resurrected women aside, how will the glory of the woman be inhibited by having one head? The glory of the man is not inhibited by having many brothers who all share one head, a father.

Also, there is some interesting evidence for the wives of heaven staying and defending the homefront and the children as the men go forth to war against the devils that threaten their kingdoms. If I had 5 wives at home right now and I had to go out to do business I would expect them to work together to ensure that the children are fed, taught, clothed, and producing necessary goods. Two or three of them might be at varying stages of pregnancy, but that would not reduce their value.

Now take that same situation and remove the curse of gestation (if that's an element of the curse—who knows) and labor. What would change? Nothing. Less encumbrance for getting things done for a woman, but that's about it. Now the man comes back to his wives and finds his home in order. Then they spend time together as a unit, the husband counseling with his wives and the whole group working toward expanding and improving what they've been given. It's very natural and differs for the most part from this life only on account of the glory that is coupled with the sociality we now enjoy:

"That same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy" D&C 130:2.

[Sarah]

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.

You're the one who accused me of speaking with the "height of hubris." I think you need to apologize, as that clearly also applies to yourself if you dare to also question a prophet of God.

[Baurak Ale]

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?

I would say no. I would also dispute the claim by Sarah that I criticized Benson, but I was trying to make a point, which is that if she says that I am criticizing in one place she is merely doing the same in another.

My point about Benson and the modern prophets is that they contradict the early brethren in many places unfortunately, whereas the early brethren taught cohesively with their predecessor, Joseph, and the scriptures in many places.

Is either group without fault? No. But I would rather side with the more cohesive group and hold my Bible together with them than stray from that message as it was delivered from heaven.

[Baurak Ale]

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.

You're the one who accused me of speaking with the "height of hubris." I think you need to apologize, as that clearly also applies to yourself if you dare to also question a prophet of God.

Why would I apologize for saying that assuming Peter and Paul knew less than yourself is the height of hubris? I'm pretty sure that's an apt description of the position you've taken.
Here's the deal: Peter accords with Genesis and Jesus, Paul accords with Peter, Joseph Smith accords with Paul, Brigham accords with Joseph, but Benson does not accord with Joseph. With the scriptures and the Journal of Discourses open before me, I can state that Benson is at odds with his predecessors. I don't question him; his statements speak for itself. It's just simple scholarship.

[Sarah]

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.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Well, I don't doubt the manner of gestating a child in the CK will be somewhat different than down here among flesh and blood—I will hardly be disappointed at that. The apocrypha says it happens with just a kiss between the man and the woman. Great! But that's only the process of spiritual generation—only half the picture.

Utter speculation on gestational periods of resurrected women aside, how will the glory of the woman be inhibited by having one head? The glory of the man is not inhibited by having many brothers who all share one head, a father.

Also, there is some interesting evidence for the wives of heaven staying and defending the homefront and the children as the men go forth to war against the devils that threaten their kingdoms. If I had 5 wives at home right now and I had to go out to do business I would expect them to work together to ensure that the children are fed, taught, clothed, and producing necessary goods. Two or three of them might be at varying stages of pregnancy, but that would not reduce their value.

Now take that same situation and remove the curse of gestation (if that's an element of the curse—who knows) and labor. What would change? Nothing. Less encumbrance for getting things done for a woman, but that's about it. Now the man comes back to his wives and finds his home in order. Then they spend time together as a unit, the husband counseling with his wives and the whole group working toward expanding and improving what they've been given. It's very natural and differs for the most part from this life only on account of the glory that is coupled with the sociality we now enjoy:

"That same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy" D&C 130:2.

I think you need to join one of the polygamous groups so you can live out your fantasy ideal. Really, I think you should. If it really is like that in the CK, I'm sure the Lord will eventually give you a pass because our prophets obviously don't get it and are off track.
You should go read some of the most recent quotes from the husband of Sister Wives...

"Your" kingdom would be benefited from some other males around. More males to do all the work. "Your" kingdom is going to be pretty big. You think you can defend it all by yourself? I don't know

One thing you are limiting yourself on is that your only definition of glory is children. The word glory can encompass lots of things, including lots of plural relationship of all sorts, not just mother child.

[Sarah]

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.

You're the one who accused me of speaking with the "height of hubris." I think you need to apologize, as that clearly also applies to yourself if you dare to also question a prophet of God.

Why would I apologize for saying that assuming Peter and Paul knew less than yourself is the height of hubris? I'm pretty sure that's an apt description of the position you've taken.
Here's the deal: Peter accords with Genesis and Jesus, Paul accords with Peter, Joseph Smith accords with Paul, Brigham accords with Joseph, but Benson does not accord with Joseph. With the scriptures and the Journal of Discourses open before me, I can state that Benson is at odds with his predecessors. I don't question him; his statements speak for itself. It's just simple scholarship.

Here's the deal, the modern day prophets line up with my beliefs. You are saying that you know better than the modern-day prophets, which is the same thing you are accusing me of, thinking I know better than a certain prophet.

[Baurak Ale]

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

You're the one who accused me of speaking with the "height of hubris." I think you need to apologize, as that clearly also applies to yourself if you dare to also question a prophet of God.

Why would I apologize for saying that assuming Peter and Paul knew less than yourself is the height of hubris? I'm pretty sure that's an apt description of the position you've taken.
Here's the deal: Peter accords with Genesis and Jesus, Paul accords with Peter, Joseph Smith accords with Paul, Brigham accords with Joseph, but Benson does not accord with Joseph. With the scriptures and the Journal of Discourses open before me, I can state that Benson is at odds with his predecessors. I don't question him; his statements speak for itself. It's just simple scholarship.

Here's the deal, the modern day prophets line up with my beliefs. You are saying that you know better than the modern-day prophets, which is the same thing you are accusing me of, thinking I know better than a certain prophet.

I fully accept that I have to choose to align my beliefs either with the early prophets or the modern prophets. You have done this too. Does that mean that either of us think that we know better than the other group? Well, what would you call it if not thinking that we know better than the group with which our beliefs do not align?

The difference between you and me is that I have chosen to align my beliefs with the early brethren and you have chosen to align your beliefs with the modern ones. It just so happens that my position does not require me to think myself wiser than Peter or Paul.

[Sarah]

You're the one who accused me of speaking with the "height of hubris." I think you need to apologize, as that clearly also applies to yourself if you dare to also question a prophet of God.

Why would I apologize for saying that assuming Peter and Paul knew less than yourself is the height of hubris? I'm pretty sure that's an apt description of the position you've taken.
Here's the deal: Peter accords with Genesis and Jesus, Paul accords with Peter, Joseph Smith accords with Paul, Brigham accords with Joseph, but Benson does not accord with Joseph. With the scriptures and the Journal of Discourses open before me, I can state that Benson is at odds with his predecessors. I don't question him; his statements speak for itself. It's just simple scholarship.

Here's the deal, the modern day prophets line up with my beliefs. You are saying that you know better than the modern-day prophets, which is the same thing you are accusing me of, thinking I know better than a certain prophet.

I fully accept that I have to choose to align my beliefs either with the early prophets or the modern prophets. You have done this too. Does that mean that either of us think that we know better than the other group? Well, what would you call it if not thinking that we know better than the group with which our beliefs do not align?

The difference between you and me is that I have chosen to align my beliefs with the early brethren and you have chosen to align your beliefs with the modern ones. It just so happens that my position does not require me to think myself wiser than Peter or Paul.

That is true.

[Sarah]

I think I would agree that the temple might need cleansing. I cringe at some of the irreverent things I see happening there sometimes, and no doubt there are many who enter unworthily. I think we just differ on what the biggest problems are and who is to blame, and who is going to get us back on track.

You keep harping on the idea that you can't have equality, and I've only pointed out that the Lord has used the word "equal" repeatedly to describe how Zion and the Celestial Kingdom function. They function on the idea of equality, in that everyone has equal claim on the properties and stewardships. We are to be made "equal" with Christ. We are to receive "all" that the Father hath. I don't think people understand what this means. I've explained numerous times why I see the need for inequality in every aspect of life here on this earth. It is a great teaching tool to see the good and evil of it all. I also see the reality of unequal spirits and their intelligence level. That's a different issue in my mind, different than what I am getting at. In regards to the laws that govern the giving and receiving of wives, and who can marry who, the principle of equality should exist so that all have equal opportunity, and equal "claim" on a family member. Family members, be they wives, children, parents, husbands, etc, are not yours and yours alone. That's the point.

So you think Joseph Smith buried his talent and John Taylor is the guy who received the most talents?

We've talked about this before. You take a very singular stance regarding possessing all things in common and receiving all the father hath.

Here are some additional points to ponder:

Your extrapolations overlooks the fact that God's kingdom has many mansions and Jesus goes to prepare a place among them severally for God's children (not one giant playpen for the heirs of salvation). Joseph Smith taught that God is glorified through posterity, and as each world he makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father and his kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father does now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his own posterity.

When a man inherits "wives, fathers, mothers, children," etc., it is the fathers and mothers of his additional wives that he gains, as well as the children that will be born of these wives. The man is not being told that every familial connection on earth will become his to partake of at will. Brigham Young explained that when we get back to God and we present our families to him that we will see that we are not fathers, mothers, children, aunts, uncles, etc., but all just brothers and sisters, males and females, connected and defined solely through covenant bonds (father-son, husband-wife, parents-children, etc.)—those outside covenant terms are single angels. But those covenant relationships will be orderly, and those who have 5 talents will have more wives, fathers, mothers, etc., than those who have 3, etc.

I'm sorry but I cannot reconcile your views to the teachings and insights of Joseph Smith and the early brethren whom he taught.

I think you misunderstand my stance. Just because I believe relationships can be plural in more ways than you believe, doesn't mean I am throwing out the order that must and should exist. It is just like the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. Someone who doesn't understand how it should work would think it chaos to have individual stewardship, but also say that all have equal claim on the properties. How do you reconcile this idea? You just have to operate on the principles and laws of giving, receiving, and requesting, or borrowing. These are all principles found in the scriptures. I don't see it as a giant playpen, and I also recognize that there will be an inequality in the individual stewardship. Each stewardship is not exactly the same, but it also is not yours alone for you to horde. What you posses may be requested or borrowed for another so that he may increase his own talent or stewardship, or children or glory. Yes there are many mansions and some may be big and some may be small. The important part is that every steward has his eye single to the glory of God, which is creating an increase for everyone of God's children and not just for him or herself.

A wife could have all the same blessings as a husband if you would lift up the stakes you've placed down, and I don't blame you for having them because every prophet and man who has thought upon the issue has put up stakes or bounds on what a goddess can or cannot have. They've but bounds on their fellow brethren and on themselves. You will have the right to give your wife to another. Heavenly Father did it with Mary apparently. At the very least he let her borrow her, you have to admit that.

You wonder how I reconcile all of this. Here is how I would rewrite your words:

"Joseph Smith taught that God (husband and wife) is glorified through posterity, and as each world he (and she) makes is redeemed by a savior, it is given to the father (and mother) and his (their) kingdom and exalted posterity increases. Joseph Smith also taught that the savior of a world then increases in his station and each god (and goddess) goes on in the footsteps of those who went before, going from one capacity to another, increasing over time. When we inherit all that God has, it is to become enrolled in this process to eventually become glorified by our own posterity just as the Father (and Mother) does (do) now and just as Jesus will do. Brigham Young said that there is no God in heaven but that which rules over his (or her) own posterity.

What is your wife # 1 going to be doing while you are creating, consulting, and working with wife #10. The more chaotic view, is that we have a bunch of women not doing anything with a mate, but waiting for their turn. It would be much more efficient and productive, if your wives had other husbands who were your brethren, that they could work with while you were working with or creating with an individual wife. Wives will not have the limitation as they do now. All the traditional thinking bases their assumptions on the earthly reality that a woman is limited in how many children she can have. In the Celestial realm, she has no limitations on child bearing. She is under the curse of these limitations so that the curse can be lifted and her reward amazingly glorious in comparison to what she has in mortality.

Do you know how consecration worked in Jackson county when the saints first tried it? I’ve never come across any notion of equal claims on property. Perhaps you’ve stretched some scriptural wording to the historic account that isn’t factual?

In any event, here are my responses to your questions:

(1) Did the father give Mary as his wife to Joseph per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132?

No. I believe it was the reverse: Mary was sealed to Joseph and, by way of the holy anointing, she was permitted to conceive of Jesus Christ. If Mary had been sealed to God the Father, then per the Levirite marriage laws, all other children conceived through Joseph would have been considered the children of God the Father as well. Also per Mosaic restrictions, engagement of a woman was equivalent to marriage of a woman when defining the bounds of adultery, meaning that God the Father could not have first claim on the virgin that she might belong to Him and none else. In other words, going back to our conversation distinguishing the sealing of offspring to parents versus the sealing of men to men, Jesus was legally the offspring of Joseph and inherited his lineage (backed up in the gospels) and was “born in the covenant” of his marriage to Mary; later, Jesus was sealed directly to God the Father as his only begotten covenant son, a covenant between married men.
Does any of that imply eternal wife swapping? No, but there is an exception reserved in the marriage seals for raising up seed. Legally and eternally, Mary is the wife of Joseph (probably his second wife, according to apocryphal tradition) and she belongs to him and none else.

2. What will wife #1 be doing while I’m ‘creating, consulting, and working’ with wife #10?

She will engaged in the same work beside the other wives. Speaking of putting up stakes, I don’t subscribe to the notion that each world only has one mother. I believe God the Father peoples each world by multiple wives at the same time, first spiritually and then physically. Our Adam and Eve story is an allegory to be applied to ourselves but is not a literal depiction of the state of things in the beginning.
So for me there’s no departing from and leaving wives to languish while one particular wife is engaged in a world project.

Fortunately you put these two points - one about Mary, and the other about 1 man with many wives populating an earth - in the same post so I only have to post once!

Here's a quote from Brigham. He calls Heavenly Father and Joseph both her husband.

“This matter was a little changed in the case of the Savior of the world, the Son of the living God. The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father. This answer may suffice you—you need never inquire more upon that point. Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father, and he is the Savior of the world, and full of grace and truth.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:268, 19 August 1866)

Also, it looks like in the 1877 lecture at the veil, it was stated that Eve was our common mother, bearing all the spirits with Adam in the Celestial world.