A difficult dichotomy, looking for other views

[Baurak Ale]

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.

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

[Baurak Ale]

Just father to son. Only one person lets you through the veil.

So what mother would you be sealed to if you were only sealed to a father? In the scriptures, it was the mother who mattered. Did they also seal living children to the father only? Seems like if all that matters is who is going to bring you through the veil ( if this is really a correct understanding of the principle) we only need to seal children to the father.

'What mother would you be sealed to if you were only sealed to a father?' I'm not sure I understand your question. Some Biblical cultures, such as Egypt, placed special emphasis on an individual's maternity, but the Israelites and antediluvians—as far as I know—placed their emphasis on paternity. I'm not sure where you get the idea that in the scriptures it was the mother who mattered more than the father.

Children born in the covenant or "sealed" to parents (after legal adoption) inherit certain blessings depending on their faithfulness, but they are not the same blessings as the sealing between man and woman (husband to wife) or the sealing of a man to man (father to son). In other words, the sealing of children to parents and the sealing of men and women to one another are two different categories of sealing: the former vouchsafes salvation for the children in the lowest level of the Celestial Kingdom predicated on the faithfulness of the parents; the latter vouchsafes exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom predicated on the faithfulness of the individuals in the covenant themselves (husbands, wives, and married "sons").

It's important to realize that the law of adoption only applies to married men!

Hope that helps.

In regards to the Law of Adoption, you make it sound like in this post that a married man today, even if he is already sealed to his father and mother, will still need to be sealed to another man as his father. Do you think that?

Ideally, a married man would have his natural father to be his head and path to exaltation, but if his father is not more righteous than his son or has rejected his covenants, then the son would need to be adopted to a new covenant father. This is not unlike the provision for a righteous woman to be given to a more righteous priesthood holder should she be offered the path. Then she does not have two husbands, but she leaves the old one for the new. Likewise, a man is not sealed to multiple fathers, but has only one—be he a blood father or not. A man and a woman can only be sealed to ONE head. The head of the man is his covenant father, and the head of the woman is her covenant husband. Conversely, a father may have many sons sealed to him and a husband may have many wives. This is the patriarchal order.

[NeveR]

I still don’t get why you people are so against polygamy when our lord and savior wasn’t. The Jewish people practice polygamy and yet he didn’t tell them it was an abomination? To me this is simple math.

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

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

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

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

[Sarah]

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.

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

[Sarah]

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.

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

Regarding your views about Mary and her eternal destiny, and who she is allowed to have as a husband, and what your wives will all be doing together, and the idea that you alone will be peopling a world with all of your many wives - that is speculation.

And I'm perfectly fine with the idea that animal sacrifice and aspects of plural wives for the raising up of seed is not just a part of Mosaic Law, but is part of eternal law of the gospel. Like I said earlier, just because we have something as part of the Law, doesn't mean there is more that can't be added or included. These laws make allowance for every situation that may come up in mortality as well as eternity. It is all God's law, applied to different circumstances and different times, all to teach us how to ultimately love perfectly. And as Joseph said, "Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive."

When it comes to borrowing and all the past rules we see, it just points to a principle, that's all. I'm not saying it has to exactly work the same way with everything, like spouses. The principle is that what you have is the Lord's and not your own. And I don't see how you can not call a sealed wife being with another man (with a holy anointing) not employing that principle of a wife being used for another purpose than simply building up your stewardship as a couple. From that verse it is obvious she can help to build up another stewardship with another man.

I did not include the Eliza Snow quote to imply that the women would be wives to God. The reason I included Eliza's quote was to point out that she did not say wives would be queens unto their husbands, but unto their God. Why did she say that and where did she get that language from? I agree that it is the same relationship as you have with God.

[Baurak Ale]

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.

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png (20.06 KiB) Viewed 171 times

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

[Sarah]

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

Yes, I got confused on which Orson it was who provided the diagram. At first I did think it was Orson Pratt, but maybe somewhere I saw that someone said it was Hyde and got confused. Anyway, Pratt had some issues as well, he and Brigham disagreeing on doctrine, so the point still stands that these men were always debating doctrine and didn't have a full understanding of it, but were speculating.

I think you are still not getting my point, and that is, the Kingdom of God was speculated to be based on one man ruling over another for eternity. Like I said before, this is all speculation on their part. Should your wife's father be any less to her than your father? What does it matter who lets you into the Celestial Kingdom after it happens. The early brethren and saints seemed to not care who it was that was their gatekeeper. They were just interested in being sealed to someone, anyone. But you have this idea that whoever you are sealed to as a father or husband is your "head" or "ruler" in this forever tidy kingdom that doesn't change. We don't function like that today. We have a church order, with many men and women rotating callings of leadership. This demonstrates a principle. Leadership is fluid. The spiritual "head" of the ward is different today than it was 5 years ago. We move around and have different wards and assignments. Your wife's head or husband today many be different than it will be a hundred years from now.

[Sarah]

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

When I type in the term "patriarchal order of marriage" into the LDS search tool, it turned up zero search results. Perhaps because this was a term made up by the Brigham era boys who were still learning.

Wilford Woodruff:

I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption."

President Woodruff then announced to the General Conference and particularly to the presidents of the four temples in Utah that he had gone "before the Lord" to know who he should be adopted to and that the "Spirit of God" instructed him that he should be sealed to his natural father. Prior to this time it had been the practice to be sealed to the "prophets and apostles" in the Church. President Woodruff now pronounced the prior practice an incorrect procedure and called upon the membership of the church to accept as a revelation this announcement, which incidentally he had previously presented to his counselors and to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. [1]

[Sarah]

I don't have a "stake" that says only one couple or one man or one wife is assigned to each earth. I don't know the answer to the question of who all populates each earth, but each earth could very well be populated by more than one couple. You said that while you are with one wife your other wives will be working together creating. What do you imagine them doing? How do you imagine women working together vs. men working together? My impression is that you are tied up with the few examples we have in history, that your mind doesn't allow you to see any further.

We are no longer commanded to live the Mosaic Law, or how David lived, but we're commanded to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, and the Order of Enoch, which BY never revealed because he sensed the Elders weren't ready for it. We also have the beginnings of what is called the Law of the Priesthood, which outlines who is able to give and receive spouses.

A wife can't be creating other spirit children with other women, she would therefore be limited in what she could do. Your scenario also requires there to be at a minimum three times as many females in the CK as men. I don't see that happening. How many women did Joseph have sealed to him? And we are told in section 49, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” So please explain how is it that this verse can come to pass in the CK?

Brigham Young June 21, 1874
"I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch."

Regarding Mary and Joseph, It doesn't matter to me if Joseph had her first or Heavenly Father, and who gets her in the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that part of the law, whether it was Mosaic in the past, or the Law of the Priesthood in all times, allows a wife to go to more than one husband. If it is allowed in one case, it is allowed in infinite cases when considering eternity. Yes, in old times it was allowed to raise up seed to another man, and that is part of the greatness of the Law. There are provisions for lots of things, just like a driver's manual. We just don't have that all revealed yet as the Lord stated multiple times in section 132. Joseph said women would have their choice, so it really doesn't matter who she "belongs" to. Which brings us to the first issue you brought up in your comment about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The fact is that she belongs to the Lord, and he is able to direct what happens to her.

You asked if I knew how consecration worked in those early days and I was trying to read about it this morning, and came across this article https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-covenants- ... -covenants It summarizes the principles pretty well. Also points out that they only have record of about a dozen deeds that were given through consecration. So only a few saints ever participated fully, and the principles and practices were never lived very long. The revelations say that you consecrate all your property to the Lord, then the Lord gives you back a portion of what is now his or the church's, as your stewardship and inheritance. Then, any further increase or "talents" you acquire after the first consecration, are cast into the storehouse for the use of giving inheritances to the poor. So what you have is a case that the giving, receiving, and requesting, are done through the Lord (Bishop). So perhaps I gave the wrong impression or understanding in that any man could walk up to any man in the covenant as ask for his wife. It seems apparent that in any giving/receiving transaction, it is always done through the Lord's approval. If we choose to apply these principles to spouses, you are going to the Lord for the privilege of taking another wife, and he alone is able to give, as all belong to him. The Lord told Joseph that he had given Emma to him as his wife for example, so our spouses are gifts from the Lord. It's obvious that the Lord has "given" all mankind the privilege of marrying one spouse under his law, but that plural spouses are only permitted by commandment and through the one with the keys of this power.

So, when you consecrate everything with a covenant, the Lord's covenant is that you will receive all that the Father hath in return. In this way, everyone becomes a giver and receiver, according to your needs and wants. What is worth pondering is that through the Law of Sarah, the Lord is giving the first wife the same role he has, as the steward of someone, who is able to give that person away. Just as the Lord gives you a wife or wives, the wife is able to give other wives who she has stewardship over (at least in ancient days. In the early days of the church is simply represented a wife giving another woman of lower status (poor) to a husband.) The fact that a wife becomes a giver should make you pause, as we are told that it is better to give than to receive. The fact that the first wife is consecrating her husband and woman servant to the Lord, then means that she will also receive all that the Father hath, and that includes basically anything she desires, including any marriage to any man she desires and whom the Lord approves. But the Lord must also command her husband to give her another man or give her to another so that he can fulfill the Law of Consecration as well and become a giver, in order that he may receive all that the Father hath. He can't just keep accumulating wives, as we see in history that that path always leads to selfishness and heartache, as he is fulfilling the parable of the servant who buries his talent. He is therefore stuck and is not progressing. That is why Joseph was commanded to offer Emma another husband, and why Joseph asked his apostles and other men for their wives. There is even a quote that I cannot find, that was quoted by a disaffected wife as I recall, but she quoted one of the apostles wives saying that she was taught that all of the apostles wives were consecrated to the Lord (Joseph).

Here's some more quotes for your consideration...

Emmeline B. Wells was a prominent campaigner for suffrage, having first been sent with Zina Williams to attend the National Suffrage Convention in 1879, and was long-time editor of The Exponent magazine. Madsen writes (quoting Emmeline) as follows:

“Appraising the broadened opportunities for women that had occurred during her lifetime, she linked those achievements with the purposes God had for his children. “The inspiring influences that have been causing this uplifting,” she wrote in a 1902 Relief Society handbook, “are all in the program marked out for the children of our Father in Heaven; let those who dare, deny it! but as sure as the Scriptures are true, and they are true, so sure woman must be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of that equality which existed when the world was created. . . . Perfect equality then and so it must be when all things are restored as they were in the beginning.””

Emmeline: “Do you not see the morning star of woman’s destiny in the ascendant? Why the whole civilized world is becoming enlightened with its beams. . . . There are some wise men who recognize the star, and who even say “peace and good will” to woman, and take her by the hand and welcome her to their circle, and would fain assign to her all that nature gave her intelligence and capacity to do, would lift her up to their level . . . and say there is room for us both, let us walk side by side.”

George Q Cannon:“In a sermon on celestial marriage given in 1869, George Q. Cannon confirmed the principle as the route to redemption. Plural marriage, he said, “will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning.” On another occasion he prophesied that “as the generations roll by nobler types of womanhood will be developed, until the penalty that was laid upon woman in the beginning, that ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee,’ will be repealed, and she will stand side by side with man, full of that queenly dignity and self control which will make her his suitable companion rather than his inferior.”… Subscribing to at least part of his argument, Emmeline Wells urged women to educate themselves for that day. “The very genius and spirit of the age is in keeping with the cry of woman, for recognition of her position by the side of man,” she wrote. “It is the consciousness in woman everywhere, if even a latent spark of her inherent divinity lingers, that the hour is hastening when the curse will be removed.”


Eliza R Snow
1872
I was very much pleased with the conference. In speaking of the people living so far beneath their privileges, President Young has said at three different times, “Yet out from this people the Lord will call a people that will do his will.” I have wondered how, when, and to whom is this call to be made. In his remarks one day during conference, President Young spoke of establishing a colony composed of those who had sufficient confidence in each other to bind themselves in an indissoluble band.14 Those that cannot see the order of Enoch will think it an excitement caused by the brethren. It rejoices my heart to see that God is working in our midst, and who are prepared to enter in? Those who have abided the whole law. When we all come to examine ourselves, we shall find the weaknesses of the flesh.

1873
You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God.


Brigham Young

Conference, April 6th 1862
I have had visions and revelations instructing me how to organize this people so that they can live like the family of heaven, but I cannot do it while so much selfishness and wickedness reign in the Elders of Israel. Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives—the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. How long it will be before they are prepared to enjoy the blessings God has in store for them, I know not—it has not been revealed to me. I know the Lord wants to pour blessings upon this people, but were he to do so in their present ignorance, they would not know what to do with them. They can receive only a very little and that must be administered to them with great care.

Aug. 1874

1. Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Brigham,
2. Call ye, call ye, upon the inhabitants of Zion, to organize themselves in the Order of Enoch, in the New and Everlasting Covenant, according to the Order of Heaven, for the furtherance of my kingdom upon the earth, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the salvation of the living and the dead.


Brigham Young 1876

You Elders of Israel, do you not see the necessity of an advance? Do you not see that we have traveled just as far as we can, without adopting the revelation the Lord gave at Independence, Jackson County, namely, that “the property of the Saints should be laid at the feet of the Bishops, etc., and unless this was done a curse would befall them?” They refused to do it, and the consequence was, they were driven from their homes. Unless we obey these first revelations, the people will decline in their faith, and they will leave the faith of the holy Gospel. Do the Elders sense this? Yes, a great many of them do—also a great many of the sisters. Were it not for the faith and prayers of the faithful ones, this Church would have been given into the hands of our enemies. It is the faith of the Priesthood, who cling to the commandments of the Lord, that holds the people where they are.

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

"I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about."

This is not my idea. This is what was taught by BY and all his contemporaries. Just pointing out that they took the ordinances to mean something they were never meant to mean. Just as you are taking the sealing ordinance to mean something it was never meant to mean. You're taking it to mean that the father or husband someone is sealed to is forever the person who is your direct ruler, and that you cannot be directly under or working with another in the same relationship. That's all speculation and only fulfills one's desire to have control and simplicity.
We have to ask ourselves why the sealing of parents to children is important, and why we are creating that chain. The hope is to have everyone sealed into the family of god, and to give everyone relationships that are meaningful and loving: fathers and mothers, wives, husbands, children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, and most importantly friends for eternity. We have different relationships with different people, be we are not bound to work with one person only. You still have not told me how you imagine the men of God's Kingdom working together and what that will look like. I doubt it is simply a game of telephone and everything needing to go down a chain of command.

[Baurak Ale]

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

Yes, I got confused on which Orson it was who provided the diagram. At first I did think it was Orson Pratt, but maybe somewhere I saw that someone said it was Hyde and got confused. Anyway, Pratt had some issues as well, he and Brigham disagreeing on doctrine, so the point still stands that these men were always debating doctrine and didn't have a full understanding of it, but were speculating.

I think you are still not getting my point, and that is, the Kingdom of God was speculated to be based on one man ruling over another for eternity. Like I said before, this is all speculation on their part. Should your wife's father be any less to her than your father? What does it matter who lets you into the Celestial Kingdom after it happens. The early brethren and saints seemed to not care who it was that was their gatekeeper. They were just interested in being sealed to someone, anyone. But you have this idea that whoever you are sealed to as a father or husband is your "head" or "ruler" in this forever tidy kingdom that doesn't change. We don't function like that today. We have a church order, with many men and women rotating callings of leadership. This demonstrates a principle. Leadership is fluid. The spiritual "head" of the ward is different today than it was 5 years ago. We move around and have different wards and assignments. Your wife's head or husband today many be different than it will be a hundred years from now.

I think I get your point but I disagree with it:
(1) My wife's father is in actuality her spirit brother and thus has no import to her in the Kingdom of Heaven when compared to her head, me. As my wife's father has rejected the gospel (at the moment), he is destined to be at most a single angel. This is our doctrine. The memory of his role as her father will be cherished on high, but it will not replace the covenant she has with her one head, her husband.
(2) The church and the kingdom of God are not synonymous. Saying that people swap callings around as a demonstration of an eternal principle that cancels out the notion of headship and the covenant body of the kingdom is nonsense. Joseph Smith described quite a different system in operation in heaven, one which accords perfectly with the diagram I cited above:

• "We are to go from glory to glory, and as one is raised to a higher [degree], so the next under him may take his degree. And so [we] take...exaltation through [a regulated] channel. When we get to where Jesus is, he will be just as far ahead of us again in exaltation."

Thus, leadership in heaven is not fluid; it is fixed in a regular channel into which we can be grafted or not. The Kingdom of God doesn't have callings like the church does, it has titles for rulers over various jurisdictions: principalities, powers, nations, etc. Do you want to see what your next station will be as a leader there? Then look to your head. When the time comes for him to move up to his next station, your time to ascend may be soon at hand (or at hand if you are the next in covenant "birthright" order).

Paul says that we are all born after the earthly at the moment, but we must be reborn into a new structure that is heavenly and the earthly pattern will go away, for all contracts, covenants, expectations, etc., not entered into by the sealing power will have an end with this world.

Also you say the saints didn't care who was their gatekeeper. How can this be? Their zeal for wanting to get sealed to the prophet shows exactly the opposite.

[Baurak Ale]

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

"I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about."

This is not my idea. This is what was taught by BY and all his contemporaries. Just pointing out that they took the ordinances to mean something they were never meant to mean. Just as you are taking the sealing ordinance to mean something it was never meant to mean. You're taking it to mean that the father or husband someone is sealed to is forever the person who is your direct ruler, and that you cannot be directly under or working with another in the same relationship. That's all speculation and only fulfills one's desire to have control and simplicity.
We have to ask ourselves why the sealing of parents to children is important, and why we are creating that chain. The hope is to have everyone sealed into the family of god, and to give everyone relationships that are meaningful and loving: fathers and mothers, wives, husbands, children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, and most importantly friends for eternity. We have different relationships with different people, be we are not bound to work with one person only. You still have not told me how you imagine the men of God's Kingdom working together and what that will look like. I doubt it is simply a game of telephone and everything needing to go down a chain of command.

"I doubt it is simply a game of telephone and everything needing to go down a chain of command."

You have been through the endowment, right? People might not call some of the script "telephone" but it's not far off...

[Baurak Ale]

I can see clearly what you're saying—that's always been clear—but I don't believe that's what the hinted at family organization is that Brigham Young talked about. "Let's seal everyone and adopt everyone into families with the strictest and most harmonious order and then remove all of that and just say they're all married to each other in the Lord's eyes." That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

I can't find the quote off hand, but Hyrum said that the Levirite marriage laws pertained to the fulness of the gospel. To dismiss everything that the Law of Moses covered without the aid of revelation so that you may know which items predated the Law of Moses and thus pertain to the fulness, is not advisable. Joseph Smith also said that animal sacrifice is one of those items that belongs to the fulness and is not actually done away when the Law was fulfilled (only sacrifices for sin). If you compare carefully the items of the Law of Moses pertaining to marriage to the stipulations put forth in D&C 132, you will see that the Levirite marriage laws must have pertained to the fulness and not just the Law of Moses.

For clarification:

• Also, Mary did not have two husbands. A woman only has one husband, and Mary's was Joseph. Per the holy anointing referenced in D&C 132, Mary could conceive through God the Father, but this did not give her two husbands.
• As for the founding of a world by the gods, I think you misunderstood me. What will wife #1 do when I am peopling a world with wife #10? All 10 wives will be with me peopling the world together. There is only one man who comes down to do this, and he is the true God of that world, but he may have many wives with him (not many couples, as you said).

I am glad you did some research on consecration. I was hoping that would open your eyes a little, but you seem to not see the point: everything belongs to the Lord and men are deeded stewardship over certain items and, yes, surplus went to feed the poor. You could borrow a neighbors hammer over which he had stewardship if you needed it, just like the Bible says, but then you would give it back—yes. But NONE of that implies that a hammer can be deeded to two stewards at once OR that a wife could be loaned to a neighbor. The scriptures deal with wife lending already, and it's called adultery (the holy anointing excepting).

"Queens and priestesses unto the most high" does not mean "Queens and priestesses OF the most high." I am going to become, if I am faithful, a king and priest unto the most high God. Is that the Lord's sneaky way of saying exalted men are homosexual companions of God? Your inclusion of such quotes to your defense imply that logic, as abhorrent as the conclusion is.

None of the quotes you supplied show what the "Order of Enoch" is that you imply pertains to women being swapped around. I do like all the quotes, but I don't see how they help your case here.

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

When I type in the term "patriarchal order of marriage" into the LDS search tool, it turned up zero search results. Perhaps because this was a term made up by the Brigham era boys who were still learning.

Wilford Woodruff:

I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption."

President Woodruff then announced to the General Conference and particularly to the presidents of the four temples in Utah that he had gone "before the Lord" to know who he should be adopted to and that the "Spirit of God" instructed him that he should be sealed to his natural father. Prior to this time it had been the practice to be sealed to the "prophets and apostles" in the Church. President Woodruff now pronounced the prior practice an incorrect procedure and called upon the membership of the church to accept as a revelation this announcement, which incidentally he had previously presented to his counselors and to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. [1]

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

[Bronco73idi]

I still don’t get why you people are so against polygamy when our lord and savior wasn’t. The Jewish people practice polygamy and yet he didn’t tell them it was an abomination? To me this is simple math.

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

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

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

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

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


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

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

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

Do you hear his words? I do….

[Sarah]

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

Yes, I got confused on which Orson it was who provided the diagram. At first I did think it was Orson Pratt, but maybe somewhere I saw that someone said it was Hyde and got confused. Anyway, Pratt had some issues as well, he and Brigham disagreeing on doctrine, so the point still stands that these men were always debating doctrine and didn't have a full understanding of it, but were speculating.

I think you are still not getting my point, and that is, the Kingdom of God was speculated to be based on one man ruling over another for eternity. Like I said before, this is all speculation on their part. Should your wife's father be any less to her than your father? What does it matter who lets you into the Celestial Kingdom after it happens. The early brethren and saints seemed to not care who it was that was their gatekeeper. They were just interested in being sealed to someone, anyone. But you have this idea that whoever you are sealed to as a father or husband is your "head" or "ruler" in this forever tidy kingdom that doesn't change. We don't function like that today. We have a church order, with many men and women rotating callings of leadership. This demonstrates a principle. Leadership is fluid. The spiritual "head" of the ward is different today than it was 5 years ago. We move around and have different wards and assignments. Your wife's head or husband today many be different than it will be a hundred years from now.

I think I get your point but I disagree with it:
(1) My wife's father is in actuality her spirit brother and thus has no import to her in the Kingdom of Heaven when compared to her head, me. As my wife's father has rejected the gospel (at the moment), he is destined to be at most a single angel. This is our doctrine. The memory of his role as her father will be cherished on high, but it will not replace the covenant she has with her one head, her husband.
(2) The church and the kingdom of God are not synonymous. Saying that people swap callings around as a demonstration of an eternal principle that cancels out the notion of headship and the covenant body of the kingdom is nonsense. Joseph Smith described quite a different system in operation in heaven, one which accords perfectly with the diagram I cited above:

• "We are to go from glory to glory, and as one is raised to a higher [degree], so the next under him may take his degree. And so [we] take...exaltation through [a regulated] channel. When we get to where Jesus is, he will be just as far ahead of us again in exaltation."

Thus, leadership in heaven is not fluid; it is fixed in a regular channel into which we can be grafted or not. The Kingdom of God doesn't have callings like the church does, it has titles for rulers over various jurisdictions: principalities, powers, nations, etc. Do you want to see what your next station will be as a leader there? Then look to your head. When the time comes for him to move up to his next station, your time to ascend may be soon at hand (or at hand if you are the next in covenant "birthright" order).

Paul says that we are all born after the earthly at the moment, but we must be reborn into a new structure that is heavenly and the earthly pattern will go away, for all contracts, covenants, expectations, etc., not entered into by the sealing power will have an end with this world.

Also you say the saints didn't care who was their gatekeeper. How can this be? Their zeal for wanting to get sealed to the prophet shows exactly the opposite.

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

[Baurak Ale]

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:



As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

Yes, I got confused on which Orson it was who provided the diagram. At first I did think it was Orson Pratt, but maybe somewhere I saw that someone said it was Hyde and got confused. Anyway, Pratt had some issues as well, he and Brigham disagreeing on doctrine, so the point still stands that these men were always debating doctrine and didn't have a full understanding of it, but were speculating.

I think you are still not getting my point, and that is, the Kingdom of God was speculated to be based on one man ruling over another for eternity. Like I said before, this is all speculation on their part. Should your wife's father be any less to her than your father? What does it matter who lets you into the Celestial Kingdom after it happens. The early brethren and saints seemed to not care who it was that was their gatekeeper. They were just interested in being sealed to someone, anyone. But you have this idea that whoever you are sealed to as a father or husband is your "head" or "ruler" in this forever tidy kingdom that doesn't change. We don't function like that today. We have a church order, with many men and women rotating callings of leadership. This demonstrates a principle. Leadership is fluid. The spiritual "head" of the ward is different today than it was 5 years ago. We move around and have different wards and assignments. Your wife's head or husband today many be different than it will be a hundred years from now.

I think I get your point but I disagree with it:
(1) My wife's father is in actuality her spirit brother and thus has no import to her in the Kingdom of Heaven when compared to her head, me. As my wife's father has rejected the gospel (at the moment), he is destined to be at most a single angel. This is our doctrine. The memory of his role as her father will be cherished on high, but it will not replace the covenant she has with her one head, her husband.
(2) The church and the kingdom of God are not synonymous. Saying that people swap callings around as a demonstration of an eternal principle that cancels out the notion of headship and the covenant body of the kingdom is nonsense. Joseph Smith described quite a different system in operation in heaven, one which accords perfectly with the diagram I cited above:

• "We are to go from glory to glory, and as one is raised to a higher [degree], so the next under him may take his degree. And so [we] take...exaltation through [a regulated] channel. When we get to where Jesus is, he will be just as far ahead of us again in exaltation."

Thus, leadership in heaven is not fluid; it is fixed in a regular channel into which we can be grafted or not. The Kingdom of God doesn't have callings like the church does, it has titles for rulers over various jurisdictions: principalities, powers, nations, etc. Do you want to see what your next station will be as a leader there? Then look to your head. When the time comes for him to move up to his next station, your time to ascend may be soon at hand (or at hand if you are the next in covenant "birthright" order).

Paul says that we are all born after the earthly at the moment, but we must be reborn into a new structure that is heavenly and the earthly pattern will go away, for all contracts, covenants, expectations, etc., not entered into by the sealing power will have an end with this world.

Also you say the saints didn't care who was their gatekeeper. How can this be? Their zeal for wanting to get sealed to the prophet shows exactly the opposite.

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

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

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

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

[NeveR]

I still don’t get why you people are so against polygamy when our lord and savior wasn’t. The Jewish people practice polygamy and yet he didn’t tell them it was an abomination? To me this is simple math.

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

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

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

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

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


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

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

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

Do you hear his words? I do….

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah]

Yes, I got confused on which Orson it was who provided the diagram. At first I did think it was Orson Pratt, but maybe somewhere I saw that someone said it was Hyde and got confused. Anyway, Pratt had some issues as well, he and Brigham disagreeing on doctrine, so the point still stands that these men were always debating doctrine and didn't have a full understanding of it, but were speculating.

I think you are still not getting my point, and that is, the Kingdom of God was speculated to be based on one man ruling over another for eternity. Like I said before, this is all speculation on their part. Should your wife's father be any less to her than your father? What does it matter who lets you into the Celestial Kingdom after it happens. The early brethren and saints seemed to not care who it was that was their gatekeeper. They were just interested in being sealed to someone, anyone. But you have this idea that whoever you are sealed to as a father or husband is your "head" or "ruler" in this forever tidy kingdom that doesn't change. We don't function like that today. We have a church order, with many men and women rotating callings of leadership. This demonstrates a principle. Leadership is fluid. The spiritual "head" of the ward is different today than it was 5 years ago. We move around and have different wards and assignments. Your wife's head or husband today many be different than it will be a hundred years from now.

I think I get your point but I disagree with it:
(1) My wife's father is in actuality her spirit brother and thus has no import to her in the Kingdom of Heaven when compared to her head, me. As my wife's father has rejected the gospel (at the moment), he is destined to be at most a single angel. This is our doctrine. The memory of his role as her father will be cherished on high, but it will not replace the covenant she has with her one head, her husband.
(2) The church and the kingdom of God are not synonymous. Saying that people swap callings around as a demonstration of an eternal principle that cancels out the notion of headship and the covenant body of the kingdom is nonsense. Joseph Smith described quite a different system in operation in heaven, one which accords perfectly with the diagram I cited above:

• "We are to go from glory to glory, and as one is raised to a higher [degree], so the next under him may take his degree. And so [we] take...exaltation through [a regulated] channel. When we get to where Jesus is, he will be just as far ahead of us again in exaltation."

Thus, leadership in heaven is not fluid; it is fixed in a regular channel into which we can be grafted or not. The Kingdom of God doesn't have callings like the church does, it has titles for rulers over various jurisdictions: principalities, powers, nations, etc. Do you want to see what your next station will be as a leader there? Then look to your head. When the time comes for him to move up to his next station, your time to ascend may be soon at hand (or at hand if you are the next in covenant "birthright" order).

Paul says that we are all born after the earthly at the moment, but we must be reborn into a new structure that is heavenly and the earthly pattern will go away, for all contracts, covenants, expectations, etc., not entered into by the sealing power will have an end with this world.

Also you say the saints didn't care who was their gatekeeper. How can this be? Their zeal for wanting to get sealed to the prophet shows exactly the opposite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah]

I didn't say everyone would be married to everyone, did I? There is still order in this set up, it just doesn't have to look like Orson Hyde's tree. All these guys theorized and speculated on how the "order" worked, and based their thinking on Joseph's teaching that there needed to be a linking of the fathers back to Adam. You'll recall as well that Orson Hyde left the church in 1938.

If you've ever worked with FamilySearch you'll realize that it is a web, and not a tidy, harmonious tree, as it goes in every way possible. There may be a man who resurrects you. Perhaps that is the idea behind someone letting you in. But just because someone may baptize you, or confer the priesthood to you, doesn't make them your Lord, head, Father, ruler, or anything else. And just because you have someone above you in your sealed chain, doesn't mean you can't have the same or similar father/son, or mother/son relationships with other people. And your wife is sealed to her parents as well and has hundreds of grandfathers on her side of the family. Does your father need to be more important to her than her own? So don't get stuck on this idea of needing a head, or being a head over your wives and children. Christ is our head.

You have not had a vision of the Order of Enoch as far as I know, so how would you know how the family of God is organized? The term "patriarchal order" has been grossly misused over the years. I've quoted our prophets teaching that the Melchizedek priesthood which is passed down from father to son may be termed the "patriarchal order" because it is passed down from father to son. Again, just because something is passed down to you in an ordinance, doesn't mean that person is your eternal head. The term "patriarchal order" doesn't exist in scripture. But these early apostles took the tree idea, and this "who is the head of who theory," and taught in their sermons that the "patriarchal order" was the form of government where a husband ruled over his wife and children, and the father above you ruled over you. That's why the Law of Adoption turned out to be a mess, because these apostles who had dozens of sons sealed to them, taught them that as sons they owed them their obedience and service, and in exchange they would see to their temporal needs (which they never could fulfill) this was the exact same problem with multiplying wives. You owe me your obedience and I will take care of you (which they struggled to do.) This is a total misunderstanding of what the truth is about the priesthood. Joseph taught that the "patriarchal priesthood" would be revealed in the temple. So what is that? Is it not the priesthood ordinances that make us fathers and mothers, Kings and Queens? It is a patriarchal and matriarchal priesthood! Mothers rule just as much as the fathers. We receive the same blessings. So when thinking about your tree or web, you have to include a mother at each juncture, as well as a man. It is not just men who "rule" as they imagine they do. With that in mind, the possibility that your wife would have another husband should not be a concern, because you do not rule over her, nor does your father or grandfather.

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:

The above diagram shows the order and unity of the kingdom of God. The eternal Father sits at the head, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Wherever the other lines meet, there sits a king and a priest unto God, bearing rule, authority, and dominion under the Father. he is one with he Father, because his kingdom is joined to his Father’s and becomes part of it.… The most eminent and distinguished prophets who have laid down their lives for their testimony (Jesus among the rest), will be crowned at the head of the largest kingdoms under the Father, and will be one with Christ as Christ is one with his Father; for their kingdoms are all joined together, and such as do the will of the Father, the same are his mothers, sisters, and brothers. … It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

When I type in the term "patriarchal order of marriage" into the LDS search tool, it turned up zero search results. Perhaps because this was a term made up by the Brigham era boys who were still learning.

Wilford Woodruff:

I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption."

President Woodruff then announced to the General Conference and particularly to the presidents of the four temples in Utah that he had gone "before the Lord" to know who he should be adopted to and that the "Spirit of God" instructed him that he should be sealed to his natural father. Prior to this time it had been the practice to be sealed to the "prophets and apostles" in the Church. President Woodruff now pronounced the prior practice an incorrect procedure and called upon the membership of the church to accept as a revelation this announcement, which incidentally he had previously presented to his counselors and to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. [1]

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

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

[Baurak Ale]

Your tone seems to have taken a turn toward the defensive and I'm having a hard time understanding your points.

From what you've just said I take it you're conflating the performance of ordinances with the bond formed in the sealing ordinance. For example, the person who baptizes you stands in the place of Christ (think of the ordinance language); whereas the person to whom you are sealed in the sealing ordinance does not represent Christ. Each woman has one head: her husband by covenant; and each man has one head: a covenant father. If you want to compare it to a tree then it's a root system, branches stemming off of a main trunk. I'm not sure what this web business is about that you're talking about. If you include matriarchal lines and multiple heads then you are describing pedigrees, not the structure of the kingdom of God.

it's a root system.png

Not sure why you brought up Orson Hyde, but Orson Pratt provided the above diagram in 1847. Here's what he had to say about it back then:



As for being sealed back to Adam, I am not sure why you pick a bone with that either. The patriarchal order of marriage (which pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood and, as your research should have clearly shown you, is polygyny) and the law of adoption suit this principle exactly. For instance, let me give you the order through which Emma Smith may possibly take to enter the kingdom via her head:

• Emma is let in by Joseph Smith
• Joseph Smith is let in by Peter
• Peter is let in by Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ is let in by Adam

Everyone who gets in to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will have exactly one person to let them in: their head. Each head has itself exactly one head, until you come to the crown on that diagram, God the First.

Perhaps your ancestors had difficulty providing for all of their wives, but that does not prove the principle to be unholy. That said, I have no idea where you get off thinking that someone in a sealing covenant trades obedience for temporal provisions. That's a very telestial point that, besides being unfounded, has no bearing on the eternities, which these covenants are about.

When I type in the term "patriarchal order of marriage" into the LDS search tool, it turned up zero search results. Perhaps because this was a term made up by the Brigham era boys who were still learning.

Wilford Woodruff:

I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption."

President Woodruff then announced to the General Conference and particularly to the presidents of the four temples in Utah that he had gone "before the Lord" to know who he should be adopted to and that the "Spirit of God" instructed him that he should be sealed to his natural father. Prior to this time it had been the practice to be sealed to the "prophets and apostles" in the Church. President Woodruff now pronounced the prior practice an incorrect procedure and called upon the membership of the church to accept as a revelation this announcement, which incidentally he had previously presented to his counselors and to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. [1]

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

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

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

[Bronco73idi]

I still don’t get why you people are so against polygamy when our lord and savior wasn’t. The Jewish people practice polygamy and yet he didn’t tell them it was an abomination? To me this is simple math.

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

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

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

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

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


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

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

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

Do you hear his words? I do….

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations at becoming a new member.

Only 2-3% of the church practice polygamy between 1844-1890.

Our Heavenly Father’s work and glory is for us to come down to earth and gain a body and learn right and wrong. All this, to hope that we will choose right.

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

Then you have the lord’s beautiful and easy to understand parable

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

If kids were born in a place like Sodom or Gomorrah, could they have the opportunity to do right?

“Some seeds fell among thorns (born into a house of sin), the thorns choked them”

Brigham Young’s house was an orphanage, if you will. Any kid that needed refuge could find it there.

Should a man marry a bunch of women just for sex? No, that is called a concubine. Concubines are an abomination to the lord. This right here is why this is so controversial.

Like drinking alcohol, the lord drank whine. He told his saints in this church to sustain from drinking alcohol. To always be drunk is an abomination to the lord.

To be slothful is an abomination to the lord, the brother of Jared repented for staying in an area for too long. Try to tell this to most Christians in this world

The 7 deadly sins, in other words the 7 sins of abomination.

[Baurak Ale]

I think I get your point but I disagree with it:
(1) My wife's father is in actuality her spirit brother and thus has no import to her in the Kingdom of Heaven when compared to her head, me. As my wife's father has rejected the gospel (at the moment), he is destined to be at most a single angel. This is our doctrine. The memory of his role as her father will be cherished on high, but it will not replace the covenant she has with her one head, her husband.
(2) The church and the kingdom of God are not synonymous. Saying that people swap callings around as a demonstration of an eternal principle that cancels out the notion of headship and the covenant body of the kingdom is nonsense. Joseph Smith described quite a different system in operation in heaven, one which accords perfectly with the diagram I cited above:

• "We are to go from glory to glory, and as one is raised to a higher [degree], so the next under him may take his degree. And so [we] take...exaltation through [a regulated] channel. When we get to where Jesus is, he will be just as far ahead of us again in exaltation."

Thus, leadership in heaven is not fluid; it is fixed in a regular channel into which we can be grafted or not. The Kingdom of God doesn't have callings like the church does, it has titles for rulers over various jurisdictions: principalities, powers, nations, etc. Do you want to see what your next station will be as a leader there? Then look to your head. When the time comes for him to move up to his next station, your time to ascend may be soon at hand (or at hand if you are the next in covenant "birthright" order).

Paul says that we are all born after the earthly at the moment, but we must be reborn into a new structure that is heavenly and the earthly pattern will go away, for all contracts, covenants, expectations, etc., not entered into by the sealing power will have an end with this world.

Also you say the saints didn't care who was their gatekeeper. How can this be? Their zeal for wanting to get sealed to the prophet shows exactly the opposite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarah]

When I type in the term "patriarchal order of marriage" into the LDS search tool, it turned up zero search results. Perhaps because this was a term made up by the Brigham era boys who were still learning.

Wilford Woodruff:

I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon the subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption."

President Woodruff then announced to the General Conference and particularly to the presidents of the four temples in Utah that he had gone "before the Lord" to know who he should be adopted to and that the "Spirit of God" instructed him that he should be sealed to his natural father. Prior to this time it had been the practice to be sealed to the "prophets and apostles" in the Church. President Woodruff now pronounced the prior practice an incorrect procedure and called upon the membership of the church to accept as a revelation this announcement, which incidentally he had previously presented to his counselors and to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baurak Ale]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, that's funny. I think when I read where you said that he left the church in 1939 or something I thought you were talking about a different person entirely. But I see that must have been a typo (or my eyes getting tired) and you meant 1839. I just checked my reference again and it is in fact Orson Hyde. But he died in 1878 as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. Despite his extremely brief removal from the quorum, he was very faithful and dedicated Jerusalem for the return of the Jews in 1841. And the diagram was published in 1847.

[Baurak Ale]

I still don’t get why you people are so against polygamy when our lord and savior wasn’t. The Jewish people practice polygamy and yet he didn’t tell them it was an abomination? To me this is simple math.

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

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

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

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

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


What is our Heavenly Father purpose?

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

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

Do you hear his words? I do….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless.

[Sarah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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