Sorry this is a week late. I wrote it last week, but somehow neglected to click “Publish” and didn’t follow up to see if it had been posted.
This week: Lesson 31, “Sealed…for Time and for All Eternity” (D&C 131:1–4; 132:4–33).
Subjects covered: Eternal marriage; plural marriage.
Potential issues:
- Eternal marriage and Biblical statements on marriage.
- Jews and early Christians on marriage after death.
- Apostles married in early Church?
- Divorce not allowed except for fornication.
- Topical guide to articles on plural marriage.
If you can think of any other issues from this week’s lesson, please comment below so we can add more links.
PLEASE NOTE: This information is a preparatory resource for gospel doctrine teachers to help them formulate answers to questions that might arise during their class. It is not in any way a substitute for the Gospel Doctrine manual, nor should instructors make these topics the focus of class instruction. This information is provided with the understanding that it is an additional resource only.
Excellent research and article on “Marriage not needed for exaltation.”
I believe the reason he gave the advice he did about marriage in 1 Cor. 7 is because he believed the second coming of Christ was soon, and it would distract them from their missionary work of gathering the elect before He came.
This scripture makes celibacy sound like a virtue and like not all men were meant to be married and receive exaltation. I was thinking, if God meant for all of us to be exalted and married/sealed and polygamists, then he would have to create more women than men, but I think on average about the same number of each are born. Don’t use the argument that more women are righteous than men, because God did not create anyone to be unrighteous. We’re supposed to all have a fair chance, and that means that anyone and everyone could make it if they choose to. So he instituted polygamy because he knew more women would make it than men?
Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for afornication, and shall marry another, committeth badultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 ¶ His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
onika,
Your comment prompted me to add links to two articles demonstrating that is not LDS doctrine that polygamy is required for exaltation. This idea was floated in 19th century Utah, and still persists among some Latter-day Saints today, but it is not true.
FWIW, I agree with you that the ratio of men-to-women doesn’t work out, and the argument that women are often more righteous than men (and are therefore going to be in surplus in the eternities) is fallacious.
I read the article, and it does say that we are required to believe in it and obey it if we are ever commanded to live it. That’s the same thing to me. I think it’s fine if a married couple wants to live it, but I don’t think this is something one should ever be commanded to do.
onika,
There are lots of things God has commanded people to do that they don’t want to do. That’s part and parcel with acceptance of religious faith.
The point is that specific people — not all, but some — were commanded to live it. Their exaltation is not based on their plural marriage, per se, but on their obedience to God. If one is commanded, one should do it; if one is not commanded, one should not do it.
It should be considered part of the law of sacrifice.
Mike,
One problem I’ve always had with polygamy (and other shifting commandments) is that they seem to make God capricious — demanding obedience *for the sake of obedience*, rather than obedience to true, eternal principles in order to make those principles our second nature.
That goes along with the pondering I’ve given “let us prove them now herewith, to see whether they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them.” I’ve always been inclined to believe that God commands only that which is also commanded by natural law, with which God is co-equal and co-eternal. There is a school of thought in Islam that holds that God’s sovereignty is absolute, like that of an oriental despot, such that literally anything he might have a mind to command automatically becomes the standard of righteousness. One Islamic writer (name escapes me) said that even if God commanded people to practice idolatry, idolatry would then become the standard of righteousness.
What eternal principle could obedience for obedience’s sake possibly be connected with? Obedience is a morally neutral principle. Obeying an illegitimate authority is no virtue; obeying an immoral authority tends to magnify the power of wickedness, and so may be considered immoral itself. Obedience is only moral when the obedience is to principles of righteousness.
Wow, Thomas , well said; I agree with you! I was thinking polygamy is the same as living the law of consecration. The wife must consecrate (at least in her mind if not literally) her husband to some other woman/women via the Lord.
Thomas,
All things are right if God commands them. Joseph Smith explained this principle in a letter he wrote in 1842:
Because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob “did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.” David also received wives from God, “and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me…therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation…” (D&C 132:37–39).
Mike:
Joseph’s 1842 letter — an effort at apologetics for polygamy — is not canonized doctrine. And for good reason. It comes very close to moral relativism — indeed, to making God Himself the Supreme Relativist. Based on what I understand of Him, He is not amused.
The “Thou shalt not kill” vs. “Thou shalt utterly destroy” comparison is poor logic. “Kill,” in the Commandment, is generally understood as referring to murder. The “utter destruction” commanded in other places (assuming we accept those parts of the Old Testament in which the Israelites practiced genocide as reflecting authentic divine command, which Joseph evidently did and I definitely do not) refers to killing done under the then-applicable laws of war. Not the same thing. It’s not a case of a capricious God deciding one day to call evil good, and good evil. He doesn’t do that. Rather, God distinguishes — as do we — between identical acts whose moral character depends on the context.
As somebody once put it, there is a moral difference between a man who shoves an old lady out of the way of a speeding bus, and a man who shoves the old lady under its wheels, notwithstanding that they’re both pushing old ladies around.
Now, I believe you can fairly argue that God understands the moral law better than we do, and so a divine commandment that appears to violate that law may (because of contexts we aren’t comprehending) actually be consistent with it. The letter itself suggests that’s what it’s trying to express: “[As] God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances.”
But that’s not the same thing as saying that if God decided to decree that lying was now morally preferable to truth, lying would become the new righteousness. God isn’t Nixon (“If the President does it, it’s not illegal!”).
Thomas,
You asked, so I gave you Joseph Smith’s explanation. I happen to agree with him. If you don’t, it doesn’t bother me.
Mike,
How about “thou shalt not kill” vs. “chop Laban’s head off” or making a prophet out of somone who killed Goliath or killing anyone–via command–who violated the Temple?
Your examples stay “in the box.” God has commanded and/or sanctioned what we call murder many times. It’s not really up to us to explain but obey.
I don’t fully understand polygamy either. From a historical perspective it appears Joseph Smith followed what many other persuasive and powerful men practiced. The fact that many leaders practiced it after the command to stop also raises “moral” or “spiritual” questions, in my book.
What does this mean?:
15 Therefore, if a aman marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in amarriage; but are appointed angels in bheaven, which angels are ministering cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are aangels of God forever and ever.
18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.
eve,
The passage you quoted includes two of three “case studies” on how to apply the LDS covenant of eternal marriage.
I recently taught a class on D&C 132; the notes attached at this web page might be useful to you:
The passage in question is treated is treated on page 4.
What do we have here?
It appears that a marriage covenant is not binding unless done by [Jesus Christ] me.
Does that mean that I, married civilly, will only be an angel–never able to inherit God’s glory?
Why do/does we/the church even care about gays becoming married if civil marriage is so limited?
Tilly,
Eternal marriage is a covenant made by priesthood authority. Your marriage is holy and good, but it is designed for this life only. God ultimately is the judge of you and your heart. You need to ask yourself if you are doing what he has required for exaltation. Only you can answer that question.
Claude,
The Church has spoken on that issue, and we will let them speak for themselves. Please see: