LaLaLove wrote:Hello all. I have a few questions about the pre-existence.
First this has come about b/c DH and I have realized that many friends/family have asked us if we believe "Having more children = Higher degree of Heaven".
I would like to know if anyone has insight into how this "Rumor" or "Theory" has gotten into peoples minds over the years. Was it a theory implied by a leader? Or have non-members and members alike put "Mormons have big families" and "Mormons believe in levels of Heaven" together to eventually come up with "Having more children = Higher degree of Heaven."
Yes, the theory is implied by Joseph Smith's teachings concerning Polygamy, Polyandry, temple work for the dead, patriarchy and doctrine of adoption.
I think Joseph was trying to make the adage "As above, so below" literal by tying together familial, patriarchal relationships through priesthood sealings, in an effort to duplicate what he saw in Heaven. He explained that the networks of sealed people into linked families increased our power and dominion, etc. in heaven, much like the European royalty did it in the middle ages.
Obviously, if that were worth pursuit, what would make more sense than having a lot of kids with your own wife/wives in the first place? Why adopt if you can have a bajillion kids yourself? So, I think it's all tied together. Saturday's Warrior is simply a sociological outgrowth of this kind of thinking, IMO.
LaLaLove wrote:As of right now I personally love the theory/doctrine of The Pre-existence. It makes sense to me and is a beautiful concept.
However, (There always seems to be "Howevers" these days) were and is there an agenda with the theory-Completely un-gospel related. IOW I believe it is a part of the plan of salvation but does the Church, do leaders add a little extra something to get the most out of it that they can?
-Does it help bring about large families/ increase membership? Is it used in a way to push us towards making babies at a fast and numerous rate? Is there a sub-consious message in the mix, of have children b/c they are waiting-a type of guilt trip. I've been a member for 5 years now. Many times I've heard we were spirit children in the pre-existence and that millions of spirits are still waiting to be born. Honestly it has made me think to myself "Well I need to do my part - I can't have them waiting". If any of you have come to the conclusion that there is some type of agenda, some type of psychological push to have many children, to ultimately increase membership, to be more pleasing unto God by bringing more children into his Church .. How do you still keep the Doctrine beautiful? Can you admit there might possibly be a sub-consious agenda, or even an open - out there for everyone to hear type of guilt induced teaching to have many children:IN THE CHURCH and still know it is/was a part of the plan of salvation?
Wow. I had never even had an inkling that this subterfuge could potentially exist. I'm a lifelong member, and nothing I've ever heard would validate that. Maybe I'm just too naive.
When my wife & I first talked about getting married, we discussed family size. For her, it was a theological duty; for me it was something I really thought was 'cool' because I was a youngest child (of 5) and I knew a few families with 10-12 kids and they were all really fun to be around. In the end, we finished up with 9 children.
When we look at the Church's involvement in member's family size, it is important to keep in mind the legal environment here in the USA. Birth control was *illegal* in many (most?) parts of the US until the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down the law forbidding it. see
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/un ... .03.x.html So when the 'brethren' spoke on the topic of having children and not limiting the size of the family, it was a matter not only of Joseph Smith's earlier teachings, but a matter of "obeying, honoring and sustaining the law".
When the law changed in 1965, the rhetoric began to diminish in the Church, save for the 'conservative' leaders of whom the Apostles pretty much to the man belonged. A few noteable exceptions were David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown and... uh, and... well. I can't think of any others...
HiJolly
Men are not moved by events but by their interpretations.
-- The Stoic Epictetus