What does it mean to be destroyed?


cobbettjus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Doctrine & Covenants 132 lays out the framework for plural marriage. A man's wife must give consent if he is going to take on additional wives (verse 61). If his wife does not accept plural marriage, however, the man no longer requires his wife's consent (verse 65). It also says that if the wife does not accept plural marriage she will be destroyed (verse 64).

 

What is meant by "destroyed"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read this verse I then ponder this verse, Matthew 10:28, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

The scripture appears to coincide with this verse specifying the already understood outcome of those who deny the commandments of God, and do not have a repentant heart.

 

Edit -- the verse applies to both men and women.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at those verses.  I think it's a real stretch to get your interpretation out of verse 65.  "destroyed" was in verse 63.  While words may be subject to interpretation, you need to go back to how it was applied in practice.

 

If the wife did not give consent, she was not excommunicated or disfellowshipped or...  Many men voluntarily opted out.  And the man was NOT allowed to participate anyway.  Otherwise what would the wife's permission be worth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is actually moot since polygamy is not a requirement for exaltation.  It was not a requirement even then for all men and women to practice polygamy.  Go to https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng#15 and read the official church statement.  This puts a different light on the subject.  This practice will never come back.  It was originally necessary to build up a righteous generation.  There were very few LDS at the time this practice was instituted.  Additionally, the new converts brought with them old, false traditions and it was necessary, especially for the early leaders, for children to be born into these homes to steep them in righteous, correct principles.  This will no longer be necessary, now and in the Millennium, because the Gospel is firmly established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is actually moot since polygamy is not a requirement for exaltation.  It was not a requirement even then for all men and women to practice polygamy.  Go to https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng#15 and read the official church statement.  This puts a different light on the subject.  This practice will never come back.  It was originally necessary to build up a righteous generation.  There were very few LDS at the time this practice was instituted.  Additionally, the new converts brought with them old, false traditions and it was necessary, especially for the early leaders, for children to be born into these homes to steep them in righteous, correct principles.  This will no longer be necessary, now and in the Millennium, because the Gospel is firmly established.

 

I see it much more than that.

 

Polygamy was a part of the Restoration of Eternal Marriage in this last dispensation.  It brought home the teaching that Marriage is not for time only but for eternity.

 

Christians prior to the Restoration already practiced the substance of it - they just didn't know it because of the missing doctrine of Eternal Marriage.  To them, marriage ends in death.  So that, when their spouses die and they remarry, they don't think they have 2 marriages because the first marriage ended at death.

 

The Restoration of Eternal Marriage puts no difference between a person who married for eternity 2 people, one of whom has passed away, and 2 people both of whom are living.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a topic that can and has been debated til the cows come home. 

 

Personally, I find the best clarification and peace from Jacob chapter 2. Past that, I trust that Heavenly Father wants me to be happy, and whatever happens in the Eternities will be for my happiness, and that I'll have a much greater understanding of what is and was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This practice will never come back.

 

I'm not sure you have the authority for such a declaration.

 

It was originally necessary to build up a righteous generation. 

 

And the current generation gets more and more wicked...hmmm.....

 

There were very few LDS at the time this practice was instituted.  Additionally, the new converts brought with them old, false traditions and it was necessary, especially for the early leaders, for children to be born into these homes to steep them in righteous, correct principles.  This will no longer be necessary, now and in the Millennium, because the Gospel is firmly established.

 

Yeah...this isn't, realistically, a very good reason to explain the practice at all. Maybe a small part of it. Maybe. But seventh-day Adventists didn't practice polygamy, and yet they established a church that built up a unique new culture that has spread even wider than the LDS church has.

 

Anatess pointed out one of the other reasons for it. There are more (to try the people, etc), including many, I am sure, that we do not understand at all.

 

I'm not saying by any means that it will come back. But I certainly don't find it convincing that it won't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is actually moot since polygamy is not a requirement for exaltation.  It was not a requirement even then for all men and women to practice polygamy.  Go to https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng#15 and read the official church statement.  This puts a different light on the subject.  This practice will never come back.  It was originally necessary to build up a righteous generation.  There were very few LDS at the time this practice was instituted.  Additionally, the new converts brought with them old, false traditions and it was necessary, especially for the early leaders, for children to be born into these homes to steep them in righteous, correct principles.  This will no longer be necessary, now and in the Millennium, because the Gospel is firmly established.

 

It is not true to say that polygamy will never come back. It may, it may not. Doctrinally, there is nothing wrong with polygamy. It is in the D&C, it was practiced by many of the Prophets (both before and after the restoration) and quite possibly by Heavenly Father himself (though we have no way of knowing that. The structure of Heavenly Father's family is speculation, all we have been revealed is that he has one). God cannot command what is immoral, so there isn't anything immoral with plural marriage per se. It's sinful now because it has not been commanded by God through his living prophets.

 

There were many righteous plural families. Given that men can be sealed twice there are probably going to be many righteous, eternal plural families in the celestial kingdom from our own generation. It's different and no longer permitted, but let's not be rash and say it's wrong.

Edited by brothermason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it requisite with the justice of God that a very small group of people have had access to what Brigham Young and others described as the blessings that are said to come from plural marriage, while the rest of us do not? All those who died without the gospel will eventually have access to all the blessings that come with the gospel, but it seems that of all of those with the gospel, no matter if they receive it in this life or the next, only a very few will have access to the blessings that are said to have come with plural marriage. And we can argue back and forth whether or not plural marriage did entail any blessings for those who entered into it, but its highly probable that many of the early church proponents of plural marriage spoke of the blessings that come from it. So unless all eventually have access to plural marriage, it would seem that, all other things being equal, some will have access to the blessings of plural marriage and some will not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at those verses.  I think it's a real stretch to get your interpretation out of verse 65.  "destroyed" was in verse 63.  While words may be subject to interpretation, you need to go back to how it was applied in practice.

 

If the wife did not give consent, she was not excommunicated or disfellowshipped or...  Many men voluntarily opted out.  And the man was NOT allowed to participate anyway.  Otherwise what would the wife's permission be worth?

 

The way I have understood verse 65 seems to be how Joseph understood it.

 

"The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage. Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said that if the first wife “receive not this law”—the command to practice plural marriage—the husband would be “exempt from the law of Sarah,” presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women. After Emma opposed plural marriage, Joseph was placed in an agonizing dilemma, forced to choose between the will of God and the will of his beloved Emma. He may have thought Emma’s rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the law of Sarah. Her decision to “receive not this law” permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent." https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like the highest degrees of exaltation would require polygamy, as there does not seem to be any other way for perfect beings to bear children.  

 

Can you expand on this more? I always understood exaltation to mean that our celestial offspring were spirit children, and they were sent to earths we created in the same way we have been sent to worlds created by our God. Why would polygamy be necessary for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe plural marriage is symbolic of the handmaid Mary being the mother of Christ.  ... Perfect beings cannot bear children - Adam and Eve were unable to have children in their perfect form, and Heavenly Father only has one begotten son - only one - and a mortal handmaid was needed for this.  I think birth goes against agency, so our first birth can only be performed through transgression.  Why do we not practice infant baptism?  The second birth is the more perfect birth... the first birth is still needed, but cannot be given by perfect beings.  

 

Consider Abraham and Sarah (polygamy is the "Law of Sarah".  Abraham/Isaac represent Heavenly Father and Jesus, so Sarah represents Heavenly Mother.  Abraham was let off at the last minute, and did not have to kill his son - Sarah was also let off at the last minute, and did not have to reply on a handmaid... but for our Savior?  Jesus really was born to a handmaid.  Adam and Eve really did have to eat the fruit in order to have children.

 

It seems like the highest degrees of exaltation would require polygamy, as there does not seem to be any other way for perfect beings to bear children.  

 

Changed, 

 

The way you have phrased things here it sounds as if you're saying The Father committed incest with Mary (His daughter). If that is what you meant, I believe you need to look up a lot more on the topic of "the condescension of God".  

 

Mary was equivalent to a surrogate mother.  This in no way made Mary another wife to The Father.  Since there was no such thing as a surrogate mother back then (how could there be) "handmaid" was the closest word that could be used.

 

When earlier interpreters read this, they had no knowledge of our true relationship to Heavenly Father--i.e. we are his literal spirit children.  Therefore other faiths had no problem with the literal meaning of handmaid.  We should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Bearing children is not something that perfect beings are able to do...

 

 

So, we were created ex-nihilo?  That is not an LDS doctrine.

 

I’ve looked much more closely at some of what you’ve said and I was about to ask if you’re LDS because the doctrines you were stating were simply wrong.  Then I looked at your logo.  You call yourself “LDS Convert”.  Is that a recent change?

 

I hope you’re not taking this as a harsh criticism.  That is not how I intend it.  But based on some of the statements you’ve made, you seem to have carried over some of your previous religious background into LDS theology.  Some of the things you say are common to certain other faiths.  But not to this one.

 

Let me ask you this question: When I said we are the literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents, what did you think I meant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every subject here has been debated til the cows come home.  The point of a forum is not to debate, it's to talk to one another, and support those who are struggling with one subject or another...

 

If there are two or more different opinions in a discussion, it is by definition a debate. 

 

 

 

 I think birth goes against agency, so our first birth can only be performed through transgression. 

 

 

Changed, our very existence here on Earth is evidence that we chose Heavenly Father's plan, which was to be born on Earth. We were given that agency from the beginning. Our birth was absolutely brought about by agency, because agency was vital to His plan. If we had not chosen to be born here, we wouldn't have been. We would have been among the host that followed Lucifer. Maybe you're talking about when we are born or to whom? Agency doesn't mean that we choose every circumstance of our mortality, it means we choose what we do with those circumstances. But birth itself? We absolutely chose that, and to deny such is to deny a very basic tenet of LDS doctrine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand that our existence doesn't start at birth? That a veil is over us at birth, not before? Before birth, we made an informed decision to be born. 

 

I'm not sure what the rest of it has to do with your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand that it is impossible to make a fully informed choice on something that has never been experienced?  We chose to trust God, we chose faith - but it was blind faith.  

 

We do not practice infant baptism because the perfect birth involves someone who has had enough experience that they can make an informed choice.

 

No, this is sophistry. This  life is not a mere artifice, a test in a vacuum. This life is part of eternity. We are living our eternal life right now, if we are worthy.

 

The idea that you must fully understand every nuance of what might happen because of your choice before you have earned that consequence is vain and foolish. Satan and those who followed him would surely never have chosen outer darkness and complete spiritual destruction -- eternal death -- at their moment of rebellion. That they did not foresee the consequence of their actions is a mark of their blindness and deafness, their rebellion against God. They are no less spiritually dead today because of their earlier ignorance.

 

When we reach the point of being able to make decisions, we then make those decisions, and in so choosing, we choose the consequences. That we do not fully know the consequences does not mean it "doesn't count". It most certainly counts. Remember, only those "ordained" to the condemnation of eternal death and outer darkness will ever actually understand it (see D&C 76:48).

 

Do you agree, that Adam and Eve, in their perfect condition, were unable to have children?

 
No. Adam and Eve, in their innocent state in the Garden, could not have children. They were not perfect; they were merely in a deathless state.
 

Do you agree that our Savior needed to be half mortal - that he needed one parent who was mortal?  that a handmaid was needed?

 

No. Jesus Christ was not Mister Spock. He was not "half mortal". He was mortal. He was a man, just like we are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Jesus Christ was not Mister Spock. He was not "half mortal". He was mortal. He was a man, just like we are.

 

 

Even lds.org, through a teaching manual uses the term "half mortal".

 

"He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal. He dwelt among the most lowly, taught among them, did his works among them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even lds.org, through a teaching manual uses the term "half mortal".

 

"He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal. He dwelt among the most lowly, taught among them, did his works among them."

 

I love J. Reuben Clark as much as the next man, but that does not make his characterization TRVTH. The very phrase "half-mortal" doesn't make sense, any more than "half-pregnant".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it doesn't count if we act without knowledge -

 

But we have knowledge. We do not need to know exactly what the outcome will be; that is not given us to know. That's what our challenge is. We must develop faith to act despite not being sure of the outcome. We must learn to trust God rather than forever depend on our own experience.

 

Transgression vs. sin.  Transgressions involve acting without experience.

 
I know of no scripture that distinguishes between sin and transgression. 1 John 3:4 says that sin is transgression of the law.
 

Do you agree that the only way for Jesus to be mortal, was for him to have a mortal parent?

 
I suspect this might be true, but I do not know it.
 

Do you do believe that Heavenly Father was his other begotten parent?

 
I understand this to be the revealed doctrine about Christ's parentage. I acknowledge that our understanding of it may be deficient.
 

Heavenly Mother is perfect, could not provide a mortal body, a handmaid was needed?

 

I draw no such conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than think of people as "half mortal/half divine" I think it makes sense to think of ourselves as gods in training (or as the term goes, 'gods in embryo'). Mortals are divine beings on their way to perfection and exaltation. God is the father of our spirits and, at the beginning of the human race in the Garden, he fashioned our bodies too. That doesn't make us "half mortal/half Gods". It makes us gods in embryo striving to be like our Father.

 

Our life here as father and mother over a family is to prepare us for the eternities where we will be Heavenly Fathers and Mothers over the generations and worlds we will produce as gods in the celestial kingdom.

Edited by brothermason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we are getting way off topic.  Can we begin a new thread?

 

I warn that this is tougher meat than is right for those who have a difficult time with milk.  Do we really want to get into this?  I hope we end this here.  But if this discussion is to continue, please do so in another thread.

 

I for one will not participate if it becomes obvious that it is truly a "religious debate".  And it may have already turned into one.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply responding to the question in the title of the thread.

 

To be destroyed means to halt any progression.  That means, no chance at all - not even a smidgen of being God or being with God.  A Spirit destroyed becomes like it was in the beginning - without knowledge, without joy.  Not even a little.

 

No, I do not believe that it ceases to exist.  We are eternal Spirits - we were not created, therefore, we will not cease to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share