Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
dande48
Posts: 373
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:35

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by dande48 » 01 Jun 2017, 08:10

LookingHard wrote:
01 Jun 2017, 05:58
SilentDawning wrote:
31 May 2017, 18:05
Let's talk about the situation where a woman marries a man in the temple. The man falls off the wagon and does not qualify for celestial kingdom. Is the woman out of luck in terms of getting the highest level of exhaltation?
I think many people worry that is the case. Even if that isn't doctrine, many people feel that way as it is not unheard of for people to be told, "Your husband is an apostate? You MUST divorce him and find a righteous husband that you can go into the highest level of heaven." But that advice is fraught with issue both from it being wise to break up a family over that and the prospects for the wife (see The LDS Dating Crisis)
I have known several instances where that has been the case; Divorce, not from infedelity, pornography, abuse, but because the husband became disaffected with the Church. On the flip side, I have never heard a husband leaving his wife for the same reason. I am sure it's happened; but I think it's much rarer.

God bless the wonderful wives who have stayed. :clap:
"Sir, it's quite possible this asteroid is not entirely stable." - C-3PO

User avatar
Holy Cow
Posts: 247
Joined: 10 Nov 2014, 17:07
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Holy Cow » 01 Jun 2017, 08:45

SilentDawning wrote:
31 May 2017, 18:05
Let's talk about the situation where a woman marries a man in the temple. The man falls off the wagon and does not qualify for celestial kingdom. Is the woman out of luck in terms of getting the highest level of exhaltation?
For the time being we have our wives, children, farms and other possessions, but unless we prove ourselves worthy, what we seem to have will be taken from us and given to those who are worthy, consequently we need not worry with regard to the defects, you need not have the least concern in the world about meeting a man in the celestial kingdom that you, if you are worthy and are so happy as to get into the celestial kingdom, can not fellowship; and if you should happen to be the one that is in fault and you cannot pass the sentinel, and your neighbor or brother does, he will not see you there, you need not be concerned in the least about being joined to any person by the holy sealing power, that will not do right in the next world.

I say to my sisters in the kingdom, who are sealed to men, and who say, "We do not want this man in eternity if he is going to conduct himself there as he does here" - there is not the least danger in the world of your ever seeing him in eternity or of his seeing you there if he proves himself unworthy here. But if he honors his Priesthood, and you are to blame and come short of doing your duty, and prove yourself unworthy of celestial glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him if you find the fault was in yourself and not in him. But if you are not at fault, be not troubled about being joined to him there, for no man will have the privilege of gathering his wives and children around him there unless he proves himself worthy of them.
JD 17:120, Brigham Young, June 28, 1874
Never were a people upon the face of the earth since the Priesthood was among men, so bound together as we are being bound; and this is the glorious feature of the tie that binds us together; it can only operate upon those who are righteous; it can only have effect when righteousness prevails and where people live in such a manner as to receive the promises of God. A man who practices wrong may have all these blessings pronounced upon him; he may have been baptized and have had hands laid upon him; he may go through the Temple and have wives sealed to him and have every blessing promised unto him that is promised to the most faithful of the children of God, and yet if he does not live so as to be worthy of these blessings he will not receive them; he will, sooner or later, be bereft of them and left destitute.
JD 26:251 - p.252, George Q. Cannon, October 18th, 1884
“A Few Words on Doctrine,” speech at tabernacle, October 8, 1861; “The Second Way in which a wife can be separated from her husband, while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood, I have not revealed, except to a few persons in this Church; and a few have received it from Joseph the prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is… there is no need for a bill of divorcement…” – Brigham Young

It seems that (at least according to BY and GQC), if a man is not living worthy, then everything he has will be taken from him and given to another. So, the man's wife and children will be sealed to another worthy man. If a woman is not living worthy, then it's up to the husband what he wants to do with her: forgive and welcome her in, or cast her off. Wow... Typical BY... However, the other way that a woman can leave her husband is to 'trade up'. Even if a husband is worthy, the wife can leave him for a husband with higher priesthood authority. How convenient for him that he was the highest priesthood authority at the time! It's stuff like this that really pushes me away. I almost lost my marriage after my FC, because my wife completely believes that I am not worthy and she was being told by the granddaughter of one of the Q12 (since deceased) that she should leave me and find somebody who is worthy to be with her for eternity. Just one of the reasons that the temple doctrine is one of my big hot buttons.
My introduction: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6139

Roy
Posts: 4275
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Roy » 01 Jun 2017, 09:54

Ray DeGraw wrote:
31 May 2017, 00:26
Co-dependent is the official doctrine.
I believe that this is difficult because we do not really seem to talk about it (for multiple reasons). Is heavenly marriage a marriage of co-equals? I think that we would like to say yes but I have trouble seeing how that could be the case for 3 principle reasons:

1st is Heavenly Mother. Is she co-equal with HF? What does she do?

2nd is Polygamy. Polygamy is prima facie unequal. My understanding of how this works in exaltation is that the husband receives power and glory based on his governing and the size of his governed. His wives are part of his governed and receive reflected glory from him. Therefore there is a reciprocal (co-dependent?) relationship but it is not co-equal. It is like the president deriving his power from the citizenship but a citizen not being co-equal with the president. We are told not to speculate weather or not polygamy is a requirement for exaltation and there have been church teachings going both ways on this point. However the theology of polygamy seems much more developed than our current "get married in the temple and somehow that makes you into a God/Goddess in the afterlife" mentality. If the polygamy theology is wrong we seem to be reluctant to say so or to come up with a compelling replacement theology.

3rd is the temple ceremony. It is not co-equal and still has wording that indicates some of the governer/governed or presider/"presidee" relationship. I have written before that this is not just a Mormon phenomenon as the phrasing and concepts in question mirror pretty closely what Paul writes in Corinthians. However, the current LDS position of polygamy being divinely commanded and the temple ceremony being divinely revealed definitely add a unique Mormon twist to the whole thing.
SilentDawning wrote:
31 May 2017, 18:05
Let's talk about the situation where a woman marries a man in the temple. The man falls off the wagon and does not qualify for celestial kingdom. Is the woman out of luck in terms of getting the highest level of exhaltation?
With the above points in mind I believe that there is a general sentiment that a celestial husband could "cover for" the shortcomings of a less than stalwart wife (and also that celestial parents can to some degree cover for wayward children). The reverse does not seem as true. I have both heard and read that a worthy wife/child will be taken away from the slothful servant and grafted into the great patriarchal chain in a more appropriate location. I personally do not like that answer but at least it solves the problem of a woman being denied exaltation because of her husband's failings.

[Edit: Holy Cow and I were typing at the same time. Thanks for the references HC.]
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3335
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by hawkgrrrl » 01 Jun 2017, 11:02

the phrasing and concepts in question mirror pretty closely what Paul writes in Corinthians.
Many Biblical scholars don't consider the sexist stuff his authorship but rather the work of other unnamed writers using his name or modifying his work with their anti-women statements.
I have both heard and read that a worthy wife/child will be taken away from the slothful servant and grafted into the great patriarchal chain in a more appropriate location.
Convenient that polygamous church leaders saw this as such a fantastic solution. They could have their pick of the "less worthy" men's wives. Color me skeptical.

User avatar
Reuben
Posts: 364
Joined: 05 Nov 2016, 10:04

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Reuben » 01 Jun 2017, 17:27

I'm skeptical about pretty much all of it. It seems to me that a lot of doctrine and discourse related to celestial marriage exists solely to justify and thus perpetuate the status quo. Women and children being given to a worthier man is a fine example of this. Brigham's "trading up" doctrine is a particularly egregious example. Some people claim (and I find this compelling) that celestial marriage itself exists to justify Joseph Smith's habit of collecting women.

Speaking of which, I want to know how Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages are supposed to work in the hereafter. Celestial society might be much swingier than we think, eh? At any rate, if that mess can be sorted out, so can pretty much any other situation we could come up with in mortality. Maybe if more members knew what Joseph got up to, fewer members would stress about their exaltation.

As an aside, here's another weird topology I'd like to see some discourse on, just because I'm weird: suppose a man is born in the covenant, and his parents are sealed to him and his wife as children. (A cycle in the family tree! "I'm my own celestial grandpa!") Can such a topology bestow whatever children gain from sealing to parents without it being part of an unbroken chain that goes back to Adam and Eve? Can this bestowal of whatever children gain be bootstrapped? Could this solve the problem of nonexistent genealogical records?

Also, if we can work this out, we have a real shot at a doctrine of celestial marriage that accounts for time travel.

Enquiring minds want to know.
My intro

Love before dogma. Truth before loyalty. Knowledge before certainty.

Ann
Posts: 2549
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Ann » 01 Jun 2017, 23:26

Roy wrote:
01 Jun 2017, 09:54
Ray DeGraw wrote:
31 May 2017, 00:26
Co-dependent is the official doctrine.
I believe that this is difficult because we do not really seem to talk about it (for multiple reasons). Is heavenly marriage a marriage of co-equals? I think that we would like to say yes but I have trouble seeing how that could be the case for 3 principle reasons:

1st is Heavenly Mother. Is she co-equal with HF? What does she do?

2nd is Polygamy. Polygamy is prima facie unequal. My understanding of how this works in exaltation is that the husband receives power and glory based on his governing and the size of his governed. His wives are part of his governed and receive reflected glory from him. Therefore there is a reciprocal (co-dependent?) relationship but it is not co-equal. It is like the president deriving his power from the citizenship but a citizen not being co-equal with the president. We are told not to speculate weather or not polygamy is a requirement for exaltation and there have been church teachings going both ways on this point. However the theology of polygamy seems much more developed than our current "get married in the temple and somehow that makes you into a God/Goddess in the afterlife" mentality. If the polygamy theology is wrong we seem to be reluctant to say so or to come up with a compelling replacement theology.
We could fill the thread with lots of crazy quotes from leaders. Understandably, leaders don't do that anymore, but not quoting them is not the same as disavowing/clarifying and setting a new course. So until they do, people are, imo, rightly suspicious that they just don't want to.
3rd is the temple ceremony. It is not co-equal and still has wording that indicates some of the governer/governed or presider/"presidee" relationship. I have written before that this is not just a Mormon phenomenon as the phrasing and concepts in question mirror pretty closely what Paul writes in Corinthians. However, the current LDS position of polygamy being divinely commanded and the temple ceremony being divinely revealed definitely add a unique Mormon twist to the whole thing.
But we have changed it in the past. I'm left with the sinking feeling again - maybe they don't want to change it.

The more distance I get from this very hurtful issue, well...the less it hurts. If I didn't have daughters I could put it in my rear-view mirror. But I'm stuck helping (to whatever extent I do at their ages) them navigate. And ... I got nothin'. All the crazy quotes rattle around with no comment from anyone with power; the temple sits like a rock. Brian Hales recently did an interview where he doubled down on the connection between polygamy and sealing authority. (I.e., can't disavow the former without canceling the latter. I couldn't disagree more.)

I really don't know what to think, or what to tell my girls.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

User avatar
dande48
Posts: 373
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:35

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by dande48 » 01 Jun 2017, 23:40

Reuben wrote:
01 Jun 2017, 17:27
As an aside, here's another weird topology I'd like to see some discourse on, just because I'm weird: suppose a man is born in the covenant, and his parents are sealed to him and his wife as children. (A cycle in the family tree! "I'm my own celestial grandpa!") Can such a topology bestow whatever children gain from sealing to parents without it being part of an unbroken chain that goes back to Adam and Eve? Can this bestowal of whatever children gain be bootstrapped? Could this solve the problem of nonexistent genealogical records?

Also, if we can work this out, we have a real shot at a doctrine of celestial marriage that accounts for time travel.

Enquiring minds want to know.
So if I get your meaning...

Code: Select all

for (i = 0; i < ancestry.length; i++) {geneology += ancestry[i]; i--;}
Geneology recursion. I like it. :clap:

In the recursion script you'll end up with an eternal pedigree, BUT it still wouldn't be linked to Adam. Your "ancestry array" would remain the same, but your sealings wouldn't match it. You'd probably be better off doing the proxy work for "undefined". Do you think God would count it? I could have the geneology of the entire human race printed out by noon tomorrow...

But in all seriousness, even as a TBM I never understood why parents need to be sealed to their children. It's not a covenant like marriage... your parents are your parents, and your children are your children regardless of what happens. And each worthy child of God will be sealed to their spouse(s), and recieve their exaltation; so why would they need to be under the thumb of an ancestrial patriarch? What benifit would it provide, that I wouldn't automatically recieve as a child of God?
"Sir, it's quite possible this asteroid is not entirely stable." - C-3PO

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 3134
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by nibbler » 02 Jun 2017, 04:59

Ann wrote:
01 Jun 2017, 23:26
But we have changed [the temple endowment] in the past. I'm left with the sinking feeling again - maybe they don't want to change it.
Thread jack:

The last (major) change to the temple endowment was in 1990. I didn't have a pulse on the culture of the church in 1990. I find myself wondering whether the prevailing church culture has become more literal, less literal, or has remained relatively the same in the last 27 years.

Was it easy for members in 1990 to accept the changes made to the endowment or did many members experience cognitive dissonance because a part of the ordinance had changed?

Do you think maintaining ordinance purity serves as a barrier of sorts to making another round of sweeping changes? Or do you believe that the top leaders are comfortable enough with continued revelation that maintaining ordinance purity wouldn't come into play. It probably depends on the person, the change being considered, etc., etc. but I wonder whether the current environment of the church (regular Joe members) could handle sweeping changes made to the endowment and whether that factors into decisions made at the top.

Tangential details to my point:

I was a missionary right about the time the 1990 changes were made and one of our teaching points about the Great Apostasy was that other religions changed the ordinances so they needed to be restored to the proper methodology. Maintaining ordinance purity was a thing to the culture. Maybe people compartmentalize ordinances.

There have been more recent changes (2005 & 2008) but they were small enough to make me wonder whether the majority of people noticed.

Maybe the endowment is more pliable because:
1) It's not canonized anywhere in scripture. Baptism and the sacrament have rules and specific language mentioned in scripture.
2) The endowment wasn't codified by JS. It was sort of an oral tradition for 30 years before being scripted and probably 50+ years before it was "correlated."
“We understand how dangerous a mask can be. We all become what we pretend to be.”
― Patrick Rothfuss


“No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.”
― Nathaniel Hawthorne

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 15315
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Curt Sunshine » 02 Jun 2017, 06:35

I never said "co-equal". I said "co-dependent". There is a difference, and it is important.

I feel a bit like Elder Stephenson in this thread: Said one thing, but the responses we're about something else. :lol: ;) :D
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Ann
Posts: 2549
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Ann » 02 Jun 2017, 07:11

Ray DeGraw wrote:
02 Jun 2017, 06:35
I never said "co-equal". I said "co-dependent". There is a difference, and it is important.

I feel a bit like Elder Stephenson opin this thread: Said one thing, but the responses we're about something else. :lol: ;) :D
I agree! I'm saying that as I watch the ones close to me process this in a kind of slo-mo, they're realizing that all their lives in the church, the distinction has been blurred. And so many of us didn't care too much. We were okay with it because men and women were co-...something, and that sounded acceptable.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Curt Sunshine