I guess for the same reason that Nuns marry Jesus.question for BrotherofJared
Not sure where you get the idea that there will be a separate between polygamists and monogamists. First off, the sealing is only a promise that CAN be claimed. It doesn’t mean that anyone is forcefully bound to the contract. If a woman chooses to be excluded from a marriage (say for example: because of the other woman), then she doesn’t have to be sealed. Eternal marriage and polygamy are not the same thing. Eternal marriage applies to any marriage between a man and a woman, so there won’t be a division. Polygamy answers the question, what happens to the spouse who marries a widower? Will he only be married to the first and the second wife be cut off?But will you be sealed to all the women you married on earth in heaven if you practice polygamy? Also, why would God want to cause a division among its followers (polygamist families) because we know that people get jealous, angry, hurt and so on when it comes to love from a spouse(s)? I don’t think God would want you to sin.
There is no difference between what William Law was accused of doing, calling it adultery, and what Smith was doing. Absolutely none. That makes Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum hypocrites.There are two things which lead me to believe there is some basis, and certainly enough for it to be sufficient reason to excommunicate William Law. 1) Joseph refused to seal William to his wife and the reason was, according to Joseph: Law “was an adulterous man” and 2) Hyrum testified that Law confessed to him that he had committed adultery. All of this happened on the heels of Dr. Bennett’s trollop through Nauvoo teaching spiritual-wifery, running a brothel and performing abortions all while being in the same circle of association with Joseph Smith and William Law. I am speculating here, that is entirely possible that Law bought Bennett’s brand of spiritual-wifery before Joseph could put an end to it.
Jan 8, 1844:
I don’t think you have the ability to discern what is acceptable and what is not. Certainly, if a married man had come to the parent’s of Mary, and proposed as Smith did to Helen, most likely he would have been drummed out on his ear, or worse.So it CAN be okay. hmmm… Ok. As long as you can accept that, then I would think that you wouldn’t find it difficult that we [Mormons] can accept that Joseph married a 14 year-old in the 1800s. Nice how that works out, 1800s, 1800 year difference.
You’ll note that Joseph, the one Mary was betrothed to marry, wasn’t young. So life-expectancy was not the all deciding factor.
The “cans” opened up by eternal marriage being a requirement to obtain exaltation are opened up by Joseph Smith. Christianity has never taught that eternal marriage is required for eternal life (there is no hint of such a thing in the New Testament nor other ancient Christian writings). No, we do not believe that a loving God will cut one off from eternal life (i.e. deification) simply because they died too soon, or that they couldn’t get eternally married, since we don’t believe that eternal marriage is necessary to live the life that God lives in Heaven (which is also related to the Mormon idea of the Father being married to a Heavenly Mother goddess deity, again an idea found nowhere in ancient Christianity). Joseph Smith is therefore answering a question that he asked, not one that Christians were wondering about.Eternal marriage being a requirement to obtain exaltation, opens a lot of cans. Polygamy is only one of them. It seems no one asks the question that if that was the case, what about all the children who die before they get a chance to marry (especially babies)? Will a loving God cut them off exaltation (which is not the same as salvation) simply because they died too soon? Joseph Smith answered that question too, but wasn’t complete in describing how, but that there was an answer to that question.
I never said that I think it is okay for a 14 year old to get married. I said based on life expectancy at the time of Mary it was probably common.So it CAN be okay. hmmm… Ok. As long as you can accept that, then I would think that you wouldn’t find it difficult that we [Mormons] can accept that Joseph married a 14 year-old in the 1800s. Nice how that works out, 1800s, 1800 year difference.
You’ll note that Joseph, the one Mary was betrothed to marry, wasn’t young. So life-expectancy was not the all deciding factor.
So when a Mormon woman marries a Mormon man it is comparable to a nun devoting her life to Jesus Christ? Is it because a Mormon man is responsible for his wife’s salvation?I guess for the same reason that Nuns marry Jesus.
That we are all one family in no way means that the mother/daughter relationship I have with my mom will end, the same with other relationships, father/son, brother/sister, etc. Even husbands and wives will have their relationship, which will also be perfected, our family will just expand and our relationships will be perfected. Mormons think they have a trump card with their “families can be together forever” but every single Christian from every single denomination I have ever met or read believes they will be with their loved ones after death. With their loved ones not some unknown brother/sister, they will be with grandma, dad, husband, wife. The person they love, not some brother or sister indistinguishable from the masses.Nice spin, but you didn’t answer the question. Since you told me how mine looks, let me tell you how yours looks… All brothers and sisters, spiritually begotten sons and daughters. No mother and no father, no wife and no husband, all broken off and neutered, never to know the bonds of marriage or family that we now have. Sounds kind of sterile.
There is no “implies” here your manuals teach that worthy members will have spirit children. So will exalted LDS members be spending any time with their spirit grandkids? By the way I didn’t tell you how it looks I asked you to do that, I just raised obvious questions resulting from the LDS “eternal families” theology.Mormons teach a continuation of the seeds after death, which implies children as you suggest, but that’s as far as we know. There is some speculation, but I’d rather speculate enjoying the continued relationships that I developed here than to speculate the results of not having that family.
“Monogamous polyandry” what the heck is that, even google can’t find the animal? You need to provide substantiation that the Jewish people ever practiced polyandry. Finally, no the LDS do not solve the problem of the widowed and divorced, since there is no teaching that a woman can be married polyandrously in the next life. If a woman marries more than one man in this life and has children with all of her husbands the LDS theology rips those families apart.This concept of family naturally imposes a problem introduced by death and remarriage. Polygamy solves that problem as well as monogamous polyandry as practiced by the Jews before Christ (and Joseph Smith). All the LDS church does is introduce the authority to bind those relationships so they’ll be in force beyond the grave which is a concept that, by itself, satisfies me that I’m in the right place.
Except Joseph was married to his wives and William wasn’t. You can’t see the difference? Going to a brothel and selecting a wife for sex that was someone else’s wife for the duration of that sex just a few minutes before. I guess if you slander Joseph you slander all his wives assuming that handed it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry that came along. But we know that’s not true and most, if not all, would not have sided with such a hypocrite. There is a difference.There is no difference between what William Law was accused of doing, calling it adultery, and what Smith was doing. Absolutely none. That makes Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum hypocrites.
Well you prove my point. You believe it, but your religion doesn’t teach it. No other church that I know of teaches that they have the authority bind a marriage so that it’ll be in effect after death. Consequently, the phrase, “til death do you part.”That we are all one family in no way means that the mother/daughter relationship I have with my mom will end, the same with other relationships, father/son, brother/sister, etc. Even husbands and wives will have their relationship, which will also be perfected, our family will just expand and our relationships will be perfected. Mormons think they have a trump card with their “families can be together forever” but every single Christian from every single denomination I have ever met or read believes they will be with their loved ones after death. With their loved ones not some unknown brother/sister, they will be with grandma, dad, husband, wife. The person they love, not some brother or sister indistinguishable from the masses.
Yes it does teach that we will be reunited with our loved ones and carry on our previous relationship in a perfected way, no authority is needed for this, it is the natural consequence of a loving relationship. Till death do you part, only means you are free to marry again, in Christian thought, unlike Mormonism, men and women can form new loving and everlasting relationships. It is easier for us to visualize this because there is no sexual exclusivity due to the paternity issues involved in reproduction in the after life as there is in the LDS version.Well you prove my point. You believe it, but your religion doesn’t teach it. No other church that I know of teaches that they have the authority bind a marriage so that it’ll be in effect after death. Consequently, the phrase, “til death do you part.”
To explain what I meant by implies would take a book, but as your post suggests, you have no idea what your talking about. In order to have “spirit grandkids” the “spirit children” would have to have kids. No one knows if that’s the way it will work. If you have some reference to actual doctrine that says otherwise, I’d love to see it.There is no “implies” here your manuals teach that worthy members will have spirit children. So will exalted LDS members be spending any time with their spirit grandkids? By the way I didn’t tell you how it looks I asked you to do that, I just raised obvious questions resulting from the LDS “eternal families” theology.
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of what Catholics actually believe regarding this (and I do think this has been explained to you before). The Catholic Church teaches that in Heaven, we live the life that God lives, in His eternal, unmediated, presence. This is termed the “beatific vision”, and is also related to the Catholic doctrine on “deification”, or becoming like God. In Heaven, we love like God loves. It is this very concept that seems lost on LDS, who seem to be focused on recreating earth in Heaven, where there will be separate family units. Interestingly, the LDS idea of sealings demonstrates that what is imagined as an eternal family unit doesn’t actually work. As someone already stated, lets say that I am sealed to my wife. We have kids, who are born in the covenant and sealed to us. But then, I’m sealed to my parents, and my wife is sealed to her parents, who are also sealed to their own parents. So how exactly does this idea of an eternal family “unit” work? Who will you be with?Well you prove my point. You believe it, but your religion doesn’t teach it. No other church that I know of teaches that they have the authority bind a marriage so that it’ll be in effect after death. Consequently, the phrase, “til death do you part.”
Correct. The words cancel themselves out. I meant serial polyandry. A classic example of serial polyandry is in the New Testament“Monogamous polyandry” what the heck is that, even google can’t find the animal? You need to provide substantiation that the Jewish people ever practiced polyandry. Finally, no the LDS do not solve the problem of the widowed and divorced, since there is no teaching that a woman can be married polyandrously in the next life. If a woman marries more than one man in this life and has children with all of her husbands the LDS theology rips those families apart.
(This requires a lot of explanation and discussion, but I bring it up here only to demonstrate the meaning of serial polyandry. Some of you will surely bring up Matt 22:30 as the reason there are no marriages in heaven, but to do so would contradict the “good feelings” that God wouldn’t separate us after death even though it appears to be what that passage says. I’ll post a link if I ever find any good discussion on it.) In order for this to operate “fairly” the Jews had to practice polygamy. It would be unfair to the surviving kinsman because he would cut off his own inheritance as soon as he married his brother’s wife. Therefore, his brother’s wife would to have been his second wife so that he could have his own heir by his own wife.Matt 22:23-28. “…whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.”
What?! This is unnecessary.Except Joseph was married to his wives and William wasn’t. You can’t see the difference? Going to a brothel and selecting a wife for sex that was someone else’s wife for the duration of that sex just a few minutes before. I guess if you slander Joseph you slander all his wives assuming that handed it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry that came along. But we know that’s not true and most, if not all, would not have sided with such a hypocrite. There is a difference.
But your version of God doesn’t include is wife, so living the life that God lives doesn’t necessarily include a wife or wives. Mormons teach that exaltation, which requires marriage to obtain, is living the life that God lives.The Catholic Church teaches that in Heaven, we live the life that God lives, in His eternal, unmediated, presence. This is termed the “beatific vision”, and is also related to the Catholic doctrine on “deification”, or becoming like God.
Ok. I’ll accept that you don’t understand how the LDS concept of eternal marriages works. To me, it appears that you’re going out of your way to bang up a perfectly simple concept. If you don’t know how families are connected (sealed), then I’d suggest looking at your family tree.It is this very concept that seems lost on LDS, who seem to be focused on recreating earth in Heaven, where there will be separate family units. Interestingly, the LDS idea of sealings demonstrates that what is imagined as an eternal family unit doesn’t actually work. As someone already stated, lets say that I am sealed to my wife. We have kids, who are born in the covenant and sealed to us. But then, I’m sealed to my parents, and my wife is sealed to her parents, who are also sealed to their own parents. So how exactly does this idea of an eternal family “unit” work? Who will you be with?
The Catholic view on marriage and Heaven makes all the more sense. Firstly, the Church teaches that in Heaven, besides what I have already mentioned (which focuses on how in deification, we love the way God loves, since we become like Him), our relationships on earth are perfected. We do not forget our spouses, our parents, our children, etc. Indeed, Catholicism teaches in its writings and its liturgies the future of hopefully (if we are all saved) being reunited with our loved ones in Heaven. “Till death do you part”, as understood by Catholicism (and not what you as an LDS want it to mean), does not mean that you will be forever parted from your spouse, or that you will forget who they are. Indeed, “till death do you part” is only one option used in the ceremony. “So long as you both shall live” is another option.
Again, as I already stated, the LDS idea of sealings doesn’t make sense. There is no Biblical nor ancient Christian evidence that eternal marriage is necessary for eternal life. Coupled with the idea of eternal marriage is the LDS idea of “eternal increase”, or that the couple will beget spirit children in the next life, who will have the same relationship to them as we purportedly have with Heavenly Father (and the Mother). Such an idea is utterly foreign to the New Testament and other ancient Christian documents, and was made up by Joseph Smith and others in the LDS movement. Catholics do not need a “sealing” ordinance to know that in the Catholic faith, we believe that we will, by God’s grace, be reunited with our spouses, our children, our parents, etc, live in the eternal presence of God, and love all as God loves, as one family in Jesus Christ.
I just love chasing you around and around in circles. You already know what I’m going to say. It’s like a game… if I say it last, then I win.What?! This is unnecessary.
Smith’s “marriages” were not legal. It’s called bigamy, which is adultery.
Your posts are enlightening.I just love chasing you around and around in circles. You already know what I’m going to say. It’s like a game… if I say it last, then I win.
Based on what you said, the government has no control over marriages that start after death, so those weren’t illegal, just like they aren’t illegal today. As for the “illegal” marriages, they were performed. a ceremony was held and the woman had no relations outside of “illegal” marriage. Williams adultery was not the same. He picked up a “wife” for a few hours and then someone else picked her up later.
LW, understands the concept of eternal marriage quite well. Family trees are not simple. They can be quite messy. For example, my great grandmother had two husband’s husbands because her first husband died. She could only be sealed to one but she had children with both husbands. Under LDS rules, she can only be sealed to the first (even though she admitted that she preferred to be sealed to the second, but was not allowed to), and her children with her second husband were automatically sealed to the first husband. How fair is that to her second husband? He cannot have his children sealed to him.Ok. I’ll accept that you don’t understand how the LDS concept of eternal marriages works. To me, it appears that you’re going out of your way to bang up a perfectly simple concept. If you don’t know how families are connected (sealed), then I’d suggest looking at your family tree.
At least we agree that we become like God in heaven. The problem here is that you’d have to have a correct idea of God, who He is and what he does, in order to have a correct idea of what becoming like God is. Joseph Smith saw God and challenged that the correct idea of God has been lost from Christianity. I find your concept of God to be difficult to understand and thus your concept of being pure love like God’s pure love makes no sense. It appears to be practiced in a vacuum. God’s love is what it is because he shares it with us imperfect, mortal beings. Who would we share our love with? Each other? With God? How is that being like Him?
The concept of the Mormon God is highly problematic from a philosophical perspective. Mormon metaphysics is materialism. Your god is made up of matter and exists within time and space. Materialist metaphysics has many problems and ultimately does not uphold the belief in God. I think this is why so many Ex-Mormons, especially those born in the covenant, become atheist. They never really abandon their belief in materialist metaphysics. They simply take it to its logical conclusion.I think you guys have part of it right, but; without the correct idea of who God is, it’ll never be complete.