And if you’re going to regulate homeschoolers, who receive no federal funds and educate no children except their own, when are you going to start regulating home kitchens in the same way we regulate public kitchens. It’s ridiculous. The reason the state does regulate public schools is because they are public institutions. The reason it constitutionally cannot regulate homeschools is because they are NOT.

And since when would public institution with a 25 percent or greater failure rate (25 percent of GRADUATES of public schools are functionally illiterate) monitor the functions of private individuals in their homes, particularly when parents teaching their own near 100 percent success rate when it comes to literacy, and they do substantially better than public schools by every other measure as well?

I have read only half the posts. However (thanks for the blog, needing to vent), to me the bottom line issue here is, the immediate issue here is not what a cult is (although my own feeling is it is pretty much beliefs without size and power), but rather the issue is punishing kids, tots, for what we perceive as the sins of their parents.

Your thinking is straight; and I would take mine in the same direction of planning a freer life for these tots if I could. That said, the immediate problem is reuniting tots with their own families, now. The starting point for this Texas “solution” is destruction, which is definitely not the way to begin.

And while some of the mothers have said they will do anything to get their children back, including leave the reclusive, breakaway Mormon sect, Jessop said Texas ought to require psychiatric evaluations.

“I don’t think there is one of them who is stable enough to get their children back. Mind control is classed as a mental illness and a child’s right to safety far exceeds a mother’s rights.”

“The women in this society will never protect their children. . . . They turn them over to the perpetrators.”

If anyone is interested, it is at:

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/04/righteousness-vs-spirituality.html

Christians see the “image” of God’s creation (including us) a spiritual quality. As beautiful and good as this mortal creation is and can be, heaven is a more transcendent glory. All the joy, beauty and grace we experience beckons us to trust in God and magnify His glory, the pinnacle of which glory cannot be mortally beholden.

Hawkgrrrl (127): I look forward to your upcoming thread. There are a lot of assumptions and gender role divisions that sometimes are rigidly maintained on this assumption that women are more spiritual. (I believe it is more likely that primal meat-winner males feared being undermined by the creation power of women, and is regrettable that the Judeo-Christian mystical tradition has largely, IMO, perpetuated this fear into inequality and silly justifications for maintaining such.)

I personally find it makes more sense to concede Heaven just likely doesn’t work the way things do on earth.

Things Earthly are in the image of things Heavenly.

I think she’d also happily sign up for terrestrial kingdom living with me, too. (Of course that’s only where we end up anyway as well-intentioned Christians, I guess. *grin*)

Don’t worry… One of us will do your proxy work here on Earth, and you’ll receive those blessings before the eternal judgment in the spirit world. I have no doubt that you’ll be exalted to the Celestial sphere!

As they say, “No empty seats!”

This is an excellent question, one that has been asked of me by several different Christian friends who are curious about what LDS believe and why they believe what they do. I agree that it doesn’t make much sense what import “sealing” means, especially, when one really gets down to it, the only basic Celestial unit is the husband & wife(s).

It also begs the question of the whole procreation thing, too. And here I confess that neither the Christian or LDS belief is very concrete on the matter. If, according to Christians, we abide deep relationships in the hereafter, even if that may not called by the mortal term ‘marriage’ what is the purpose of resurrected sexual organs? Perhaps we are raised androgynous? Perhaps we can participate in emotionally bonding or pleasure sex, but would not need to (or can’t) procreate?

Carlos said, “The difference is that those in the terrestrial [won't] have access to the same blessings as the celestial, especially procreation.” And here is where the LDS belief makes even less sense to me. Are non-topmost-level Celestial beings on downward resurrected androgynous? How does God keep terrestrial beings from procreating? Are they just sterile? (In which case procreation isn’t a vital human identity, nor something which ‘resurrection’ perfects.) Does God punish ‘lower beings’ if they engage in any type of sex, even emotional or playful? Does he abort spiritual pregnancies?

Now the gestation of a spiritual being is certainly unknown, but hey, as much as I love my two kids, if I could enjoy an emotionally bonding, and perhaps even sexually pleasurable relationship without having my wife/soul partner be perpetually pregnant (which is a logical perpetual state if you have to populate worlds) I think she’d also happily sign up for terrestrial kingdom living with me, too. (Of course that’s only where we end up anyway as well-intentioned Christians, I guess. *grin*)

While what I said above is a bit tongue-in-cheek, I personally find it makes more sense to concede Heaven just likely doesn’t work the way things do on earth. I think this is natural given how often Jesus denounced all the way people thought heaven would work (ex: giving in marriage), or affirmed how the Kingdom doesn’t operate by mortal standards of power, glory, righteousness, who deserves admittance, etc. It just may be highly probable that even mortal natures by which we self-identify as extremely important here on earth — gender, sex, marriage, procreation — may not be mirrored in the hereafter the way LDS or Christians expect. Therefore, for now, I’m more content to have faith and enjoy God’s Reign/Kingdom/Heaven on Earth, and put more trust and humility in God’s mercy, righteousness and justice in the hereafter. Most LDS I know seem to really feel similarly even where our doctrines of heaven don’t agree.

Certainly there must be a solid reason for it existing in the food purity laws of Deuteronomy (I can imagine cooking meat in milk of the same species to be not the most healthy thing, maybe prions develop under such conditions or something). But you’ve overlooked its initial context in Exodus 23 where it is listed among regulations as to appropriate forms and methods of worship.

I don’t wish to discount what you’ve contributed to the topic, but we are taught in Sunday School that Scripture has multiple layers of meaning. I think that we are dealing with one such verse here. It would probably be very insightful for all of us if we were to reference the Hebrew and Strong’s Numbers directly on this one.

Aside from that, hawkgrrrl, congrats on the wildest thread on Mormon Matters in quite some time.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/cicero/2008/apr/18/texas_pouring_piss_from_a_boot

I’m trying to get the Conservative-libertarian alliance to take a look at the situation, but we’ll see how it goes.

Hawkgirl: My asumption that women are more righteous then men tends to be driven by my mission experiences.

Women investigators were always easier to get to:
Read the BofM
Attend Church
and commit to Baptism.

In fact Elders often whined about having to give up their best investigators tot he Sister missionaries.

Additionally, when dealing with a part member family usually it was pretty easy to get the non-member wife to investigate the church even if the husband was inactive, but almost impossible to get non-member husbands to- even if the wife was very active.

There were a few exceptions as always. I in fact had a reputation for getting male investigators to church, but even I saw that women seemed more responsive to spiritual promptings. I wonder at what other people’s missionary experiences were.

In any case, I would posit that Zeus and Krishna come from a perversion of genealogical sources, just like Odin (Zeus) and Thor (Herakles) come from the misinterpretation and deification of the Irish/Nordic genealogical oral tradition into a pantheon of paganism.

I’m well aware that Elohim means Gods. It doesn’t particulary matter to me if you reject the usage as a name for the head God. I use it that way and I will continue to use it that way. It works for me, and I don’t care what anybody says. It doesn’t even matter to me if this is a new 20th Century Mormon thing that was never that way in ancient scripture or even in Joseph Smith’s day. I’m a believer in the ability of our leaders to get new revelation, or to even apply things a certain way that were never historically applied a certain way. I’m a veil worker at a temple and I know I stand at the veil for who I stand there for. I know his identity, and I don’t care which name anyone cares to apply to him. Allah is good for me too. Krishna and Zeus are good names too for all that matters to me, if they are referring to the same guy which they are.

A link to the PDF of the original pamphlet is located at the end of article.

‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest covered in the New York Times (March 8, 1886, Wednesday):

MORMON WOMEN PROTEST.
POLYGAMOUS WIVES WHO ARE CONTENT IN THEIR SLAVERY.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E0DF1638E533A2575BC0A9659C94679FD7CF

This is our heritage, and we are still seeing the same thing from the media today, over 100 years later!

“Do not cook the kid in the milk of its mother” (Exodus 23:19) is the Old Testament’s condemnation of milk-before-meat theology. It can be translated variously; but the Jews interpret “do not give milk before meat” literally, so they will not cook meats in milks, nor will they have a glass of milk to drink when eating meats, etc.

I interpret the passage as relating to the practice of teaching milky concepts (Elohim as God the Father) before teaching meaty concepts (Eloheim as the Grand Council of the Gods, or simply Gods) as our Church does today.

From my studies, I find that Joseph Smith, Jr., only ever taught quite meaty concepts.

To quote Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 371-372:

Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844

An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James’ translators, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, “In the beginning he head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,” or, as others have translated it, “The head of the Gods called the Gods together.” I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through–Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

PS: Carlos — Duh! You speak of the Church Handbook of Instruction which I was citing. I thought you meant I was getting my ideas from some “how to be a radical mormon” handbook on some site called provocation.net. I am a professional Internet troll (GNAA anyone?), and trolling is a form of provocation… *wink* Sorry for my confusion.

‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest is a 91-page pamphlet written in 1886 by female leaders of the Relief Society as the final result of some conference they held in an attempt to redress the grievances they had with how the government was treating them for being polygamist (”give us back our husbands”, etc.). It is a very good read, check it out. Mormon women pretty much started the feminist and suffrage movements, and ‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest is a direct artifact of that era.

I think that ‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest is a very pertinent and applicable source to bring to this discussion.

Never heard of Provocation.net, what is this site (looks blank to me)? And what “handbooks” do you speak of?

I try to stick to more legitimate sources, like TPJS, or Key to the Science of Theology, and other classic works (aside from Scripture). I buy them from flea markets, eBay, or download PDFs from Google Books or BYU’s digitized library.

Are you saying that women are not re-sealed “for time and all eternity” to all of their partners upon death by proxy?

Carlos, in response to this, in case you haven’t noticed, Bushman has taken on the anointed-one-Nibley status, chief Church apologist, the one who comes up with the new explanations for everything that is controversial in our history. His theories are starting to take on quasi-official status as did Nibley’s. I don’t find fault with Bushman, because he is doing his best with a very messy thing, namely New Mormon History. And if he can put an apologetic spin on it so people who haven’t found a way to live on their own light can retain faith, more power to him. As for people that are advanced in history and doctrine to the point where no controversy can shake them, they can shed themselves of the FARMS/Nibley/Bushman type apologetics for real advanced history that isn’t pretty, but are able to still retain testimony because they are grounded in the Holy Ghost. I know about Adam God and Mountain Meadows Massacre, and yet I can still sing Give Said the Little Stream with the best of them, and I feel the Holy Ghost burning in my heart. I don’t need apologetics to know that Joseph Smith was a prophet even though he practiced Polyandry, but some people do. I don’t need apologetics to explain away Brigham Young’s Adam God theory to know that Brigham Young was a prophet, yet Adam God is false. Because I feel the Holy Ghost burning in my bones and I know that Brigham Young was a prophet of the Most High God. So let them have their spin until they are ready for the good stuff, so they won’t choke on it.

I have no idea what the heck this means. Please explain.

Ahman is one of the names of the Father, but Elohim is the Hebrew name for the Father and it is certainly one of many valid names. Adam is also another, and no, he is not Michael. He was the first Adam who had a son named Michael, who was the guy that ate the fruit and fell into mortality. This Adam never fell into a mortality after his resurrection, contrary to the messed up Adam God Theory.

Surely, we “see through a glass darkly” - essentially nothing more than the broad outline - the border of the puzzle that is life.

If it was up to me I’d have Bushman disfellowshiped, at very least, for his book.
He took malicious rumors and gave then some academic credibility. Imagine a 22nd century historian repeating the rumours about Pt Hinkle’s ’sex parties’?

Haven’t read Compton’s book so I’ll pass for now.

I think, well actually I’m certain, that the Covenant continues wherever you end up, in a way, just like it continues with parents and sealed children if they end up in the terrestrial. The difference is that those in the terrestrial wont have access to the same blessings as the celestial, especially procreation. This is one reason why its better to not have known should you end up in the terrestrial since your there as a kind of failed potential God who had all the ordinances!

Also I think that, should your mother not ‘make it’, she is still in the line although the ‘authority’ jumps to the first grandmother. Remember that in heaven we won’t be organized by stakes and wards but by family groups and, just as in a ward, within those family groups there could be a lot of less actives and others in trouble.

Whatever the case I’m sure that we are only scratching the edges of the sealing power and sealing doctrine. This is after all ‘all that God has’. Many things are still mysteries, for example, wouldn’t two Gods procreate a God a la Jesus and not spirits?

We could go on for ever but hopefully those girls in Texas won’t have to marry at 16 anymore!

Again you are misreading and misleading; obviously you have read a handbook (i guess provocation.net?) but unfortunately you don’t actually grasp how it all works.

Even today people can marry in the temple for time only (as to Pratt) and separately for ‘time and all eternity’ (ie to Smith in celestial marriage). There two separate ordinances which mean that you live as a couple now with your ‘time’ partner but will probably have your ‘time&all eternity’ partner in heaven; but even that can change.

In the post-polygamy era the church wants to control this more closely so one can only do this with one person at a time during life without cancellations etc but, via proxy, where you first husband died, a woman can do the same thing even today that Mary Ann did back in 1843.

That doesn’t mean that you ’share’ a wife at all. Almost every widow today does the same thing but usually first for ‘time and all eternity’ and then later for ‘time’.

The author of “‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest” didn’t understand this either and I now believe that only those who actually work in the temple understand how it all works. But at least that author recognizes that Pratt and Mary Ann didn’t get along!

(Ah that Handbook reference is in brackets in the hardcover copy but provocation.net missed it)

This statement make shows a serious lack of understanding of home school. I agree that there are some parents doing it for the wrong reasons, but to generalize like you have done is silly. Home schooling should be the first choice of parents if they are committed and able to do it. Kids learn better in home school and do better than their public school peers. Just because some people that home school do it for religious purposes is not a reason to think home school is backward. It would not help to make everyone go to public school. In many cases you would be sentencing many children to academic mediocrity or worse.

Good answer. I guess it’s true. Most contemporary polygs are pretty weird. We don’t really have any good examples of what a healthy contemporary polygamous relationship would look like.

You say, “Do you think Elohim treats his wife/wives(?) like that! Of course not.”

The Eloheim is the “grand council of the gods”. Ahman is the revealed name of God the Father, who is a member of the Eloheim. (Son Ahman is the revealed name of Jesus Christ.)

The Elohim as God the Father thing results from Mormonism being a milk-before-meat religion at the moment. When Mormonism taught meaty doctrines, the difference was well understood (or at least better understood than it is today).

It’s a technicality, though, as our God the Father is in the Eloheim, and he is the only God in the Eloheim with which we are concerned.

Too bad we’re not supposed to cook the kid in the milk of its mother!

James - “My question is why do we feel so viscerally threatened that we use words like “revolting” or “disgusting” when we describe the practice of polygamy?” I think it has more to do with our only contemporary examples. If Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie were scouting for additional spouses, the sign up list might be a bit longer.

I really can’t imagine ancestral polygamy very clearly. And if I were in a polygamous marriage I would either want to be the top wife or opt out entirely, but that’s just the kinda gal I am. I just can’t relate. It’s too foreign. But so are lots of things, like death, the law of consecration, being born and raised in a different country, etc. I didn’t call it revolting, but I did compare it to eating a live cockroach. They might be delicious I guess.

Because my ancestors that had 5 wives weren’t “revolting” or “disgusting” people who did what God commanded. And if Elohim has 10 wives, that relationship is certainly not “revolting” or “disgusting.” If your Heavenly Mother is a plural wife, is she engaging in an revolting principle? I think not. We are talking about something that is a holy principle that among adults who are of age, if commanded by God, are doing a work God commands.

FLDS pedophiles are who are “revolting” and “disgusting” who marry little girls in puberty, who take advantage of little girls before they come of age, before they know what they are getting into. What is disgusting is pedophilia and incest, marrying ones nieces or daughters or whatever crap they are doing.

“What does your “for time and all eternity” sealing between you and your husband mean?” Well, that’s a good question. If we die, and it turns out my husband merits celestial glory, but I only merit terrestrial, it doesn’t mean we’re together. Or does it? Does he come down to the terrestrial kingdom for non-procreative conjugal visits? Do I become a perk? And what am I doing in the terrestrial kingdom? Gardening? I always pictured gardening, but that’s probably just because of the latin root of the word terrestrial. Not sure I want to garden for eternity, but maybe it’s better than playing gin rummy with my husband’s other wives.

The other thing that seems problematic about sealings is that our children are sealed to us, but they are also adults for eternity, equals with us. And we are sealed to our ancestors. So, is being sealed that significant? I’m sealed to my mom, but if she’s not celestial, do I get sealed to my dad’s new celestial wife or wives? So, again, what’s the significance of it. Does it have some sort of benefit? Do we have to show a “sealed” membership card to get in? Maybe it’s for communication purposes, like the Verizon network. We can telepathically communicate with those to whom we are sealed. See? Not so clear what it means to be sealed.

UFO Skeptic - your “natural man” vote is for polygamy? Well, my “natural woman” vote would be for monogamy.

I used to get comments like “how many wives do you have?” all the time. So I understand wanting to separate “Us” from “Them” in the public view. My question isn’t about that. My question is why do we feel so viscerally threatened that we use words like “revolting” or “disgusting” when we describe the practice of polygamy? Why are we so offended by it?

I think Jesus Christ is better than that. I think Jesus Christ treats people as human beings. I think that early Mormon leaders were mistaken in their mistreatment of women as much as they were about bigotry and blacks. Brigham Young was responsible for the denying of priesthood to blacks, and it took a revelation to fix it! Joseph Smith never denied it to them. But that was the time these people lived in. They had a lack of light and knowledge that we have now about how everyone, black or white, male or female, are human beings, and Jesus Christ will never allow women who are HEAVENLY MOTHERS IN EMBRYO for crying out loud, to be treated that way in eternity!!!!!!! Do you think Elohim treats his wife/wives(?) like that! Of course not. Do you think he would allow his daughters to be treated like that!? Heavens no.

RE: “and especially cautions us to be careful about transposing modern conventions of how relationships (marriage or otherwise) will or ought to work on Heaven.”

Nobody is transposing anything, or at least not me. I’m the first to admit that I don’t know how it will work. I only have my beliefs, and I can only acknowledge a myriad of possibilities.

Like I alluded to before, the Sadducee trick to Jesus was to ask which of seven brothers would own the woman in the hereafter. (Thiis has been the conventional norm through most of human history.) Jesus sidestepped the issue, and went right at the heart of their disbelief in the resurrection. But this is also a pretty well preserved synoptic clarity: relationships in heaven don’t work like they do here in earth. If God entrusts us joy and “heaven on earth” that can be found in sexual satisfaction, abiding relationship, and the pleasure of birthing and parenting, one can imagine his love, joy and glory held for those who are His Own, since the marriage is a common metaphor. Still I don’t think any of this biblical material supports the traditional LDS celestial marriage doctrine — polygamist or monogamist — and especially cautions us to be careful about transposing modern conventions of how relationships (marriage or otherwise) will or ought to work on Heaven. That’s not “feminazi bullcrap.”

Ah, the wonderful world of the written word lacking spoken inflection and containing many typos and unspoken assumptions!

Gooble gobble, gooble gobble, one of us, one of us!

Love ya and yer posts, g-money homey loke!

Derek:

Far from it. I think you actually misunderstand ME as well. You see, I BELIEVE in plural marriage in eternity. You see, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY will be polygamists in the Celestial Kingdom and that they will ALL be required to live it, otherwise, God will be a respecter of persons, allowing some men to have the blessing of plural marriage, and not allowing others to ever have that blessing. I am elated by the concept that I will be a polygamist, if I make it, so I am no longer tormented by the natural man.

You see, I cannot deny the possibility that I am WRONG in my belief. And if I am wrong in my belief, the only other possibility is that Eugene England is right. Because I have been denied the blessing of plural marriage in mortality, and must deal with the anguish of seeing other women and having to bridle my feelings and fight my passions to keep the commandments. If plural marriage is true for eternity, then I will be blessed with putting these feelings to good use.

If Eugene England is right, then the only way I will not be tormented in eternity by the natural man is for these feelings to be taken away in eternity. Do you get my drift? This is why I’m even talking about Eugene England’s beliefs, because I might be wrong in my beliefs.

The race of Gods is co-eternal with matter which is chaotic element and in which dwells all glory.

The terms of the Priesthood are established from everlasting to everlasting. They are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow; they are eternal and unchanging.

Our little world in the sea of worlds will not hold some Nicene-like council in the hereafter where we petition to change the Order of the Priesthood as it has existed from time immemorial.

I think you misunderstand my point, for we agree: plural marriage must be commanded by valid priesthood authority; and there is only one man on Earth at a time that holds these keys (the President of the Melchizedek priesthood); and vain polygamy like that of David and Solomon is an abomination before God, the Lord being pained by the sorrows and sufferings of the daughters of his people; and plural marriage is commanded to raise up a righteous branch unto the Lord, to enlarge his kingdom. (Jacob 2)

I have not said in all of this that one must maintain polygamous relationships in order to attain the Celestial kingdom, but I think that was Brigham Young (can’t cite a source here, going from memory)…

The Holy Ghost has born witness to me that I have 3 mothers and 3 fathers, and that I will so have them for eternity in the hierarchy of the everlasting Priesthood. So what if you and Bro. Eugene England are offended by this idea, for I am elated by it!

I also believe the Lord will yet reveal more details as to how plural marriage in the new and everlasting covenant ties together with the law of consecration, but this is only personal speculation and feeling that something must still be missing from our understanding of these doctrines.

But the purpose of eternal life is to enlarge the Kingdom of our Father, and what better way to do that than to have multiple relations under which to bring about our own kingdoms within God’s Kingdom.

Like it or not, it is part of our history, and it defined the Church for a long period of time. And we will continue to be defined by it because it is in the public consciousness and wont die. We have to continue to remind people we have nothing to do with it.

RE: “(And in like fashion I find it caustic any teachings or beliefs about God just assigning partners for eternity in the hereafter, as if such persons are property of the other partner.)”

Nobody said that in this scenario of monogamy in heaven where excess plural wives would be given to others would be just “assigned”. Its amazing how people are reading so much more into these things than I was actually saying. People are so sensitive to anything and make one an offender because of feminazi bullcrap that it just amazes me. What happens in our day when someone is “given” to another after a marriage is dissolved? They DATE, AND THEY FIND SOMEONE THEY LOVE, AND THEY MARRY. This is how the process of “given to another” will work in the Celestial kingdom, just as it is done here, if plural unions are dissolved and wives are given to others.

My word people. Get off this “property” thing and start thinking with your brains about what we are really talking about.

Marriage is never been ONLY about procreation, though this is probably its most significant function. I know the logical extension — or at least how it manifests itself in LDS ‘common doctrine’ — of LDS Celestial Marriage, be it polygamist or otherwise. I reject this doctrine on the heretical nature of such theosist extension, and I also have concerns about how I think it perverts the holiness of a committed monogamous marriage.

Admittedly, the Bible does not teach at length about what relationship husband and wife have in the hereafter. We have numerous passages where Jesus refers to his abiding commitment to humanity or the church as the marriage covenant, so this would lead one to believe that when marriage works well, the Lord sees it as reflective of all that was holy in his relationship to and sacrifice for Man. Similarly in the creation narrative God considers the union of Adam and Eve as good. But we also have “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” (Matthew 22:30). Critical exegetical analysis of these passages in Matthew and Mark may not necessarily refute that earthly marriage relationships do not abide after the resurrection, which is the common, and possibly correct reading. However the act of marrying or being given (an act in this cultural period of two men, father and husband-to-be exchanging the property: the woman) appears not to be heavenly. I think the transformative exegetical reading would support Jesus criticizing the cultural Jewish notions of how marriages were conducted, and rejecting that this is how Heaven operates. (And in like fashion I find it caustic any teachings or beliefs about God just assigning partners for eternity in the hereafter, as if such persons are property of the other partner.) Nevertheless, I am comfortable with the traditional Christian reading of these passages, because the other analogies by Jesus leads me to believe true committed relationships endure regardless of what heavenly institution houses it. In this sense, Heavenly union is BEYOND procreation.

I really don’t believe Joseph’s “Restoration” brought any new light to the world on this matter: doctrinally or pragmatically; to me the polygamy doctrine and evidence in practice is revolting.

I’m sorry if my use of redistribution was somewhat perplexing, but perhaps it isn’t the right word, and it certainly wasn’t implying “ownership” by any means. This is in reference to a doctrine in D&C 132:

“44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.”

I’m applying this concept of giving someone to another to a hypothetical situation in heaven where all people would be monogamous, championed by Eugene England. Bro. England believed that all people would be monogamous in the Celestial Kingdom. If that is true, then the implication is that all plural wives with the exception of the first wife will be “given” to other men, certainly not in some sense of “ownership” as if they are property, but in the sense that people who are married “belong” to each other, in that they are sealed to each other, and have a bond. For example, the phrase “belongeth unto him and to no one else” (D&C 132:61). My point is, if there is no polygamy in the Celestial kingdom, these wives must be given to others, otherwise they cannot be married, and if they are not married, they cannot be exalted, according to d&C 131.

RE:”Please see The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (the bracketed aside is an editorial clarification written by Joseph Fielding Smith):”

Where does it say polygamy here in D&C 131??? No mention of it at all. It doesn’t say anything about it, and your reading into this of polygamy is unjustified. Of course someone has to have a temple marriage to be exalted. There is no mention of polygamy here.

RE: “It has already been decided how things will be in the next life, and when you have access to those truths and that perfect knowledge, you will have no contentions with it (unless you just happened to forget to rebel in the pre-existence and join Lucifer’s host).”

I suggest to you that you don’t have an understanding of how things will be in the next life and how things will be sorted out, and neither does anybody else, including me.

You said, “Your statement is misleading and wrong. Pratt and his wife where almost divorced, so they then decided to continue their ‘life’ marriage to be faithful to the law, but the wife wanted to be sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity. They all agree to this set up. That was far from ’sharing wives’.”

Obviously, you do not know what you are talking about. I quote from the notes of “‘Mormon’ Women’s Protest: An Appeal for Freedom, Justice and Equal Rights”:

“Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt Smith, 1808–1891, born in Bethel, Maine. Mary Ann married Nathan Stearns and had one daughter born in 1833. She was left a widow when Nathan Stearns died five months later. She and her mother heard the gospel and were baptized by Apostle David W. Patten… They gathered to Kirtland, Ohio, and in 1837 Mary Ann married a widower, apostle Parley P. Pratt. In 1838, they moved to Caldwell County where they experienced unimaginable persecution. Elder Pratt was incarcerated in the Richmond Jail, without trial, for eight months. The family was reunited in Nauvoo, Illinois, in July 1839. In 1840 the family accompanied him on a mission to England. They returned to Nauvoo in 1843. Mary Ann was sealed for time and eternity to Joseph Smith on 24 July 1843; and for time to Parley P. Pratt on the same day. The family ‘was expelled from [Illinois] in the fall of 1846, just after the battle of Nauvoo. They settled at Winter Quarters.’ Mary Ann then left Winter Quarters and returned to Maine. Several years later, ‘She again retraced her steps westward, arriving at Salt Lake City, overland in the fall of 1852.’ Parley P. Pratt, returning from his second mission to the Pacific, wrote: ‘On my arrival home, I found my wife, Mary Ann Frost, and my two children, Olivia and Moroni, who had arrived from Maine, her former home, where they had been for several years. The two children were glad to see me, but their mother had for several years been alienated from me. I however, supported her until the following spring, when she applied for and obtained a bill of divorce; after which, with the two children, she removed to Utah County.’ Mary Ann Pratt never remarried.”

So she was still married to Parley P. Pratt and need a bill of divorce. Looks to me like Joseph and Parley shared a wife any way you look at it!

Theologically and historically, marriage has ONLY ever been about procreation. Mormons expect to be married in Heaven precisely because they expect to procreate in Heaven.

We procreate on Earth to bring down our brother and sisters. We procreate in Heaven to have children of our own.

I cannot find this “clarification” of which you speak. Please feel free to quote your copy of the Church Handbook of Instruction (mine is copyright 1998). There is such such “one-woman-to-many-men proxy sealings are only for the benefit of their terrestrial children, and not for the reproductive benefits of Celestial kingdom” language.

To complete my quote of The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith above (#75):

“Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory. The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood, or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgment in the flesh, and the spirit being delivered to the buffetings of Satan until the day of the Lord Jesus.”

I expect that a woman sealed to many men and exalted to the Celestial kingdom will “continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory” by all of her husbands. It is simple logical extrapolation in the absence of negating revelation.

And please feel free to explain away D&C 132:41 in support of your contention that women can’t have multiple husbands in this probationary life (that is, men sharing wives):

“And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.”