Mormon/Polygamy question

[Alma147]

It appears that heaven is a well-defined and complex place for Mormons. There are at least three levels of it, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Celestial. The Terrestrial level is apprently here on Earth, and though it isn’t in the highest realm, it is supposed to be a very wonderful place. Most of us “apostates” will be there. I believe that Mormons think that only people who have temple sealed marriages can access the Celestial area, which is where the sex is happening and souls being born among the polygamous groupings, which are then sent to inhabit human bodies on other worlds. I’ve probably got some of this wrong, so I hope Alma or another Mormon will help me out.

Not quite. This earth will become the Celestial Kingdom and every child who died in infancy will be there as well as all those who were authoritatively baptized (or baptized by proxy and accept the ordinance.) As far as “sex happening” I don’t know of any authoritative statement dealing with the subject, but many assume that procreation will continue in eternity and that it functions in a similar manner. Within the Celestial glory there are also three levels and marriage and procreation will be the capacity of only those entering the highest level.

According to LDS scripture, there aren’t necessarily polygamous
groupings. D&C 132:19 states that a man and a woman (singular) qualify for the highest level. The rest is so highly speculative, that I’d be hesitant to comment on it.

Alma

 

[majick275]

specualtive? please. it has been recorded in numerous places where apostles and prophets of the LDs church consistently teach that polygamy is how it will be in the celestial kingdom.

 

[Allweather]

Not quite. This earth will become the Celestial Kingdom and every child who died in infancy will be there as well as all those who were authoritatively baptized (or baptized by proxy and accept the ordinance.) As far as “sex happening” I don’t know of any authoritative statement dealing with the subject, but many assume that procreation will continue in eternity and that it functions in a similar manner. Within the Celestial glory there are also three levels and marriage and procreation will be the capacity of only those entering the highest level.

According to LDS scripture, there aren’t necessarily polygamous
groupings. D&C 132:19 states that a man and a woman (singular) qualify for the highest level. The rest is so highly speculative, that I’d be hesitant to comment on it.

Alma

Thanks for clarifying, Alma. I’m no expert on Mormon teachings. I sure wish Mormons had a catechism that we could go to to find “authoritative” teachings. Why do you think it is that there is no Mormon catechism? Mormons seem to like to compare their religion to Catholicism. Why not just put all the authoritative things down into one or two volumes, put an imprimatur on it, and get an end of all this “speculation?”

 

[Alma147]

Thanks for clarifying, Alma. I’m no expert on Mormon teachings. I sure wish Mormons had a catechism that we could go to to find “authoritative” teachings. Why do you think it is that there is no Mormon catechism? Mormons seem to like to compare their religion to Catholicism. Why not just put all the authoritative things down into one or two volumes, put an imprimatur on it, and get an end of all this “speculation?”

Have you seen the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism?” by Macmillan Publishing? It’s pretty good, but there’s no mention of celestial sex there either.

Alma

 

[Allweather]

Have you seen the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism?” by Macmillan Publishing? It’s pretty good, but there’s no mention of celestial sex there either.

Alma

No, but I’ll look for it. Is it authoritative?

In the past I’ve used McConkie’s 1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine, but have had it debunked by certain Mormon apologists as not being authoritative.

Speaking of “celestial sex,” are you saying that people in the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom will certainly NOT be engaging in a type of sexual intercourse the purpose of which is to generate new souls?

 

[Allweather]

I found an ebook version of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in Mobipocket format for an unbelievably low price of $15.00. The full set of four (five?) bound volumes is kinda pricey, even used.

Again, Alma, is this equivalent of the Mormon catechism? Or is it subject to being dismissed by Mormon apologists as non-authoritative?

 

[Hellisreal]

I found an ebook version of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in Mobipocket format for an unbelievably low price of $15.00. The full set of four (five?) bound volumes is kinda pricey, even used.

Again, Alma, is this equivalent of the Mormon catechism? Or is it subject to being dismissed by Mormon apologists as non-authoritative?

How much money does one have to spend to get the information?

I know I said I was not coming back here, but gee whiz, how can they expect people to spend money like that? My CCC was all of ten bucks.
You can get it online for free!

What is going on here?

Alma, I think I found it by the way (PM thing) give me until tomorrow as I lost it in my cut and paste!

Its pretty accessible online too just so you know., but dont think I ignored you I just am suffering from selfish and lazy lately.
pray for me please!

I know things get heated up on forums where we sometimes forget we are all speaking to real people, who have real feelings and I hope that my confusion or my comments have not given you the wrong impression of me or more importantly, my faith.

This topic is bound to bring a lot of controversy, as I am sure you realize.

Good night to all here and may God give us strength for another day!

In Jesus Christ’s name, Amen

 

[Allweather]

I went ahead and bought the mobipocket version of Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Only $15. I like ebooks, which I read out of my handheld Ipaq. I’ve spent the last couple of hours poking around in this Encyclopedia. The articles seem to be very good. Unfortunately the ebook version doesn’t have any illustrations, but that is a small lack.

I still wish the Mormons had a catechism, though. It seems like we’ve spent a huge amount of time trying to find out what Mormons actually believe, and why, and they are often unable to give definitive answers to questions. If they had a catechism, there’d be a lot less to wonder about.

 

[cor]

I doubt the LDS Church would allow polygamy today even if it were legal. It is legal in African countries but we don’t allow polygamists to be baptized (nor divorce current wives to qualify for baptism.)

So then those polygamists can’t ever be Mormon (since even if they divorce all of their wives but one, they can’t be baptized)? How would they attain the celestial kingdom then? Are they stuck?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Because God said, “It is not good for man to be alone” and Paul said, “Neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man in the Lord.” Paul’s comments in 1 Cor. 7 are qualified by the statement in verse 26 that “this is good for the present distress.” He points out in verse 29 that time is short for everyone and even those with wives would be as if they had none." I think that Paul’s comments were of a temporary exigency that did not revoke God’s teaching regarding marriage.

True God’s allowance of something (such as winking at idol worship) doesn’t indicate His approval, but that’s because He didn’t produce a divorce or the worshipping of idols. He did, however explicitly give additional wives to David.

Mormons believe that their leaders are Apostolic with the same authority as those anciently. So, “discarded” might not be the proper word. They did ordain deacons who weren’t married.

I doubt the LDS Church would allow polygamy today even if it were legal. It is legal in African countries but we don’t allow polygamists to be baptized (nor divorce current wives to qualify for baptism.)

I think Solomon crossed the line somewhere between 7 and 1,000. David already had 8 wives when God gave him Saul’s wives, so I don’t know precisely where that line might be.

Alma

Hi Alma, thanks, as always, for your thoughtful replies.
My Bible (NAB) reads, “It is not good for the man to be alone”. God was speaking specifically of Adam here. 1 Cor 11:11 doesn’t necessarily refer to marriage. I’m wondering if the Bible alone is insufficient to demonstrate why marriage is so essential for Mormons.

You assert that Paul, in 1 Cor 7, put God’s teachings regarding marriage “on hold” for a while to encourage the single life. He dared to contradict God (and himself) directly because times were tough? Are we all allowed to do that? My bet is that Paul was familliar with God’s intentions for marriage (highly beneficial but not necessasry for all) and lines up his teachings accordingly.

If polygamy were to be made legal, (I’m Canadian-we never know what’s going to be legalized next.) surely it would be impossible for any Mormon to say the LDS Church wouldn’t allow it at some point in the future. What if God requires it again? You can’t know for certain that He won’t, can you?

One noteworthy difference between OT polygamy and that of the early Mormons seems to be the practice was permitted by God in the OT but required for Mormons. Brigham Young said in 1866, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of Gods, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses 11:269) It’s odd how the few Mormons I’ve talked to find polygamy, an essential part of Mormon spiritual history, so distasteful.

 

[Alma147]

No, but I’ll look for it. Is it authoritative?

I think it’s as close as you’re going to get to authoritative.

In the past I’ve used McConkie’s 1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine, but have had it debunked by certain Mormon apologists as not being authoritative.

In that there were other apostles who disagreed with McConkie’s expositions at the time that he published it–and given that he revised it significantly over the years makes me think that the later versions are better, but it certainly isn’t what I would say “authoritative.” For it to qualify as authoritative it pretty much has to be made scripture–and that was the big criticism of McConkie’s book. Mormons have always understood that Mormon doctrine was limited to scripture and many people felt that McConkie overstepped his authority by naming his book “Mormon Doctrine.”

Speaking of “celestial sex,” are you saying that people in the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom will certainly NOT be engaging in a type of sexual intercourse the purpose of which is to generate new souls?

I’m saying that discussion of the subject is entirely speculative. I’ve never taught a lesson about it, nor have I heard one nor ever seen the subject treated in any Church lesson manual. I’m also pretty sure that if I taught such a lesson in my Institute class I would be reprimanded.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

So then those polygamists can’t ever be Mormon (since even if they divorce all of their wives but one, they can’t be baptized)? How would they attain the celestial kingdom then? Are they stuck?

That’s pretty much the circumstance. They’re not eligible for membership in the church.

Alma

 

[Allweather]

I think it’s as close as you’re going to get to authoritative.

I got the mobipocket version. I need to get other materials too that can be linked from it, like BoM and D&C, etc. It is good reading, I like it. The article on plural marriage is revealing, and I kind of feel like the writer is reasonably objective, considering he’s working from a Mormon POV.

Mormons have always understood that Mormon doctrine was limited to scripture and many people felt that McConkie overstepped his authority by naming his book “Mormon Doctrine.”

I’ve got a copy of it here, and have done a bit of browsing in it. It looks and feels like a catechism, but as you say, isn’t. From our POV the problem with relying only on Scripture is that different people will arrive at various interpretations. I’m sure this is as true of Mormonism as it is among the various Christian denominations. Of all the things that have caused divisions, Scripture interpretations are the most significant. That’s why we need an authoritative interpreter. In our case, that interpreter is the Church, past, present, future. I’m very surprised that the LDS authorities don’t issue an authoritative catechism, considering that they lay claim to being the institute of God’s will upon Earth. Who else to issue such a thing? Leaving people to wonder what this or that means, and to picking through statements from this or that prophet or theologian and arguing whether this or that is true teaching, is not, IMHO, a good thing.

I’m saying that discussion of the subject is entirely speculative. I’ve never taught a lesson about it, nor have I heard one nor ever seen the subject treated in any Church lesson manual. I’m also pretty sure that if I taught such a lesson in my Institute class I would be reprimanded.Alma

Nevertheless, it is widely believed among Mormons, as I’m sure you know. Because of this widespread belief about sexual relations in the Celestial Kingdom as a source of new souls, it seems safe to say that it is a teaching of the LDS church. In the absence of any determined statement from the leadership denying it, and the absence of definitive characterizations of it via a catechism, and given the fact that many, if not most, Mormons believe in it, it must be a church teaching.

But tell me, if you DID teach such a lesson in your Institute class, approximately what would you teach? I promise, I won’t reprimand you, LOL.

 

[Alma147]

Hi Alma, thanks, as always, for your thoughtful replies.
My Bible (NAB) reads, “It is not good for the man to be alone”. God was speaking specifically of Adam here.

I guess it depends on your interpretation. The term “man” there is literally, “adam” and also means “human being” and “mankind.”

1 Cor 11:11 doesn’t necessarily refer to marriage.

I think it does because the following verse gives the context as the creation of Eve for Adam: “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman;”

I’m wondering if the Bible alone is insufficient to demonstrate why marriage is so essential for Mormons.

I generally only cite the Bible to people who aren’t Mormons, but if I’m demonstrating what Mormons believe, I’ll occasionally add LDS scripture, but it doesn’t generally work very well. From LDS scripture: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.” (D&C 131:1-3)

You assert that Paul, in 1 Cor 7, put God’s teachings regarding marriage “on hold” for a while to encourage the single life. He dared to contradict God (and himself) directly because times were tough? Are we all allowed to do that?

I don’t see why not. When I was a missionary, I was told not to marry due to current conditions. If a man were leaving for war, I would suggest that he postpone marriage lest he leave his bride a widow. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where it would be appropriate to postpone marriage. Whatever the “present distress” was, surely it could have been comparable to one of the circumstances I suggest above.

If polygamy were to be made legal, (I’m Canadian-we never know what’s going to be legalized next.) surely it would be impossible for any Mormon to say the LDS Church wouldn’t allow it at some point in the future. What if God requires it again? You can’t know for certain that He won’t, can you?

Never say never, but my money is on it not coming back. I think the time will come when “diversity” will be the law of the land and any kind of discriminating behavior will be illegal. Marriage will no longer be restricted to opposite sex or to monogamy. I think the chance that the LDS Church will restore polygamy is about as likely as recognizing homosexual marriage.

One noteworthy difference between OT polygamy and that of the early Mormons seems to be the practice was permitted by God in the OT but required for Mormons. Brigham Young said in 1866, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of Gods, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses 11:269)

I don’t see polygamy commanded in the Old Testament, but I do see the possibility that it was anciently from the Book of Mormon where polygamy was enjoined. The passage says that polygamy is forbidden to them but if God desires to produce more children he will command them. "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; Certainly, plural marriage was viewed as a command to certain people, and I think that this is the context in which Brigham Young made those comments, because he also said, "If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church. (Aug 19, 1866). He also indicated that plural marriage wasn’t necessary, so it’s possible that these stenographic notes might not be entirely complete. He said, “But to preach the Gospel, save the children of men, build up the kingdom of God, produce righteousness in the midst of the people; … and to usher in and establish the reign of universal peace, is our business, no matter how many wives a man has got, that makes no difference here or there.” (JD 14:161)

Alma

 

[Alma147]

Scripture interpretations are the most significant. That’s why we need an authoritative interpreter. In our case, that interpreter is the Church, past, present, future. I’m very surprised that the LDS authorities don’t issue an authoritative catechism, considering that they lay claim to being the institute of God’s will upon Earth. Who else to issue such a thing? Leaving people to wonder what this or that means, and to picking through statements from this or that prophet or theologian and arguing whether this or that is true teaching, is not, IMHO, a good thing.

And that’s one of the big distinctions between Mormonism and Catholicism. We believe that the scriptures exist to give us a foundation in the truth and that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. You don’t see Mormons calling for a catechism because we don’t believe the Holy Spirit abdicates this essential function of instruction. A passage of scripture might have many meanings but an official interpretation would remove any other meaning that God might want to convey to the reader.

Nevertheless, it is widely believed among Mormons, as I’m sure you know. Because of this widespread belief about sexual relations in the Celestial Kingdom as a source of new souls, it seems safe to say that it is a teaching of the LDS church.

It may seem safe to you to conclude that, but it’s just nonsense. Years ago, my son came home and explained that his 3rd grade teacher had taught him that the daddy long leg spider was the most venomous spider on earth but its mouth was too small to bite a human. I took him to the library where I demonstrated that this was a popular myth. It became a family joke that whenever somebody said something really ridiculous, the rest of the family would mention how venomous the daddy long leg was. Over the years, I heard that again and again. When my daughter was in the 9th grade, a student in her science class announced this myth as fact. My daughter guffawed and said it was bogus. She was corrected by the teacher who affirmed its authenticity. Only when I called the world’s leading authority on daddy long legs (which are neither spiders nor venomous) was I able to convince this science teacher that her long held view was false. That year I asked my students (college level Mormons) how many believed that daddy long legs were venomous with tiny mouths. About 80% believed it. Given your logic, it’s safe to conclude that this too is a teaching of the LDS Church. Well, it isn’t; and the idea that it might be is nothing short of ludicrous.

In the absence of any determined statement from the leadership denying it, and the absence of definitive characterizations of it via a catechism, and given the fact that many, if not most, Mormons believe in it, it must be a church teaching.

The LDS leadership rarely denounces folklore. The last time they officially denounced a teaching was 1860 (the teachings of Orson Pratt published in the Seer.) I could come up with scores of items that are false that they have not yet specifically condemned. Does that mean that these too “must be church teachings?” That’s specious.

But tell me, if you DID teach such a lesson in your Institute class, approximately what would you teach? I promise, I won’t reprimand you, LOL.

Exactly what I have taught: “We don’t know the process in which spirit children are produced. Nothing exists relative to it in the scriptures and the prophets have not indicated that anything has been revealed about it. So, when you hear anti-Mormons talking about ‘celestial sex’ remember that we don’t get doctrine from anti-Mormons. Wait until the brethren teach something about it before you think it’s authentic.”

Alma

 

[Allweather]

Exactly what I have taught: “We don’t know the process in which spirit children are produced. Nothing exists relative to it in the scriptures and the prophets have not indicated that anything has been revealed about it. So, when you hear anti-Mormons talking about ‘celestial sex’ remember that we don’t get doctrine from anti-Mormons. Wait until the brethren teach something about it before you think it’s authentic.” Alma

OK, gotcha. Are we talking about the mechanics of Celestial Sex? Because, that’s not what I’m thinking of. I take it for granted that the mechanics of it might differ quite a lot from what we’re familiar with here on this planet. I’m thinking more in terms of the idea that men and women, exalted to the Celestial Kingdom, will be joining together, by whatever method yet to be revealed, to create spirit children, and that these spirits will then go on to inhabit bodies on other planets. Wouldn’t spirit children be the logical reason to have marriages and families in Celestial Kingdom? If that is correct, then the children are being produced, apparently through the agency of these exalted men and their wives, even though we don’t know the details of Celestial coitus.

 

[Allweather]

And that’s one of the big distinctions between Mormonism and Catholicism. We believe that the scriptures exist to give us a foundation in the truth and that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. You don’t see Mormons calling for a catechism because we don’t believe the Holy Spirit abdicates this essential function of instruction. A passage of scripture might have many meanings but an official interpretation would remove any other meaning that God might want to convey to the reader.

There is also an opinion, not necessarily mine, but which I have heard expressed here and there, that the LDS church refrains from publishing a catechism because if they did so they’d lose a lot of their ability to deny things that, though crazy-sounding, have issued forth from the mouths and pens of important Mormon people since 1830, and which have been and still are believed by Mormon people. King Follet being one possible example.

As for what you say about private revelation via Scripture, there is that. But there is also a level of meaning that applies to doctrine, and doctrine can’t be left to the whims of private interpretation. You suggest that Scripture can speak a variety of things to different people by means of the Holy Spirit, and that’s great, and I agree. But doctrine can’t be subject to a variety of meanings, can it? Aren’t there authoritative documents that Mormons use to deliver and explain doctrine that aren’t subject to individual interpretation?

 

[Allweather]

It may seem safe to you to conclude that, but it’s just nonsense. Years ago, my son came home and explained that his 3rd grade teacher had taught him that the daddy long leg spider was the most venomous spider on earth but its mouth was too small to bite a human… (snip)That year I asked my students (college level Mormons) how many believed that daddy long legs were venomous with tiny mouths. About 80% believed it. Given your logic, it’s safe to conclude that this too is a teaching of the LDS Church. Well, it isn’t; and the idea that it might be is nothing short of ludicrous.

That is a wonderful story, and I wonder why I never heard of this myth about the DLL, considering I grew up in central Texas which is an area literally infested with them. But nevermind that. It doesn’t have anything to do with what I was talking about. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear, for which I am sorry. Let me try again. If something regarding faith, morals, doctrine, is believed universally, even though not specifically taught as doctrine, then it can be taken as very likely true. I don’t know what this principle is called, or even if I’ve got it right, but I think I do. It has something to do with the way God leads the Church. If something faith and morals is true, then God makes sure it is believed universally, and if taught as dogma, then God makes sure it is accepted universally.

Clearly, I am not, and was not, talking about biological fact vs biological fiction. Just because a large percentage of people believe the sun orbits the Earth doesn’t make it so. But that is a field outside the realm of faith and morals, and therefore outside the realm of Church authority to teach. Same same the myth about the DDL. The Church has no authority to teach about DDL, and so doesn’t. I’d be surprised if the Mormon church had a specific teaching on the DDL, and never assumed that it does, even if 80% of college age Mormons have this opinion (which BTW I also find rather amazing).

Now, it seems to me that an awful lot of people, Mormon people, believe that they will be having some form of sexual intercourse in the Celestial Kingdom when they get there. You say that the Holy Spirit guides people into their convictions, and that Scripture is merely a rough guide upon which is writ each man’s knowledge of God as informed by the Holy Spirit. Is it possible that these believers in Celestial procreation (I’ll avoid the use of the word “sex”) have got it right? Could they have been informed of this via the Holy Spirit?

BTW let me re-emphasize that I am in learning mode when it comes to Mormonism. I’d like to learn more, and am ready to be informed. It is just that each Mormon who comes to this forum has a different slant on what Mormonism actually is. A lot of what I’ve learned was gotten from other Mormons who came here for awhile and argued. It becomes clearer to me by the day that there is quite a wide variety of beliefs among Mormons, which may account for things I thought I “knew” not being quite right according to your particular interpretations.

 

[Hellisreal]

I think John Paul had solid ideas here that may help people understand about our bodies. Once you read this, you will see how Polygamy cant be embraced by Christians.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

 

[Good_Daughter]

And that’s one of the big distinctions between Mormonism and Catholicism. We believe that the scriptures exist to give us a foundation in the truth and that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. You don’t see Mormons calling for a catechism because we don’t believe the Holy Spirit abdicates this essential function of instruction. A passage of scripture might have many meanings but an official interpretation would remove any other meaning that God might want to convey to the reader.

Hi Alma
I had a discussion with my LDS missionaries this week about the idea of the Holy Spirit leading people to the truth of Mormonism. I mentioned that people of many faiths believe the Holy Spirit has taught them the truth of their particular faith. Adding to the confusion is the fact that some of these faiths promote radically different teachings.

This might indicate further authority is helpful from the church, “the pillar and foundation of truth”. That is where the Catechism of the Catholic Church comes in. (For Mormons, maybe continuing revelation of the Prophets fills this need?) The compilation of a catechism hardly indicates that Holy Spirit has abdicated anything. Furthermore, while the Catechism quotes scripture to illuminate certain Catholic teachings, it never gives an “official interpretation” of any passage that would exclude other interpretations. As a Catholic, I am able at times to see numerous interpretations (sometimes very personal) of a single scripture passage.

It seems to me you hold a view of Catholicism that may not be entirely accurate. You’ve been most helpful with all of us Catholics on Mormonism, I wanted to try and return the favour. Thank you for your posts.