Preloading vs. postloading.

[dantana]

(Dan)Tana wrote:
What I see as possibly incongruent is, If J.Smith was marrying partners for eternity only and not for time, it must have been pretty important to God for some reason to have J. assemble his wives while he was in the mortal. If it's so important to assemble ones wives while in the flesh, why was J. the only man in the history of men to have ever been given that accommodation?

Weebles wrote:
Early polygamy is a little weird. I don't think that is the right way to ask the question. For instance, John Bernhisel wrote an affidavit in Joseph's journal stating that Joseph sealed him (John) to 11 women. All of them are deceased; many of them are relatives of his (sisters, cousins, etc). You can see the affidavit at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... y-1844/152. Why did he do that? Did he really think that his sister, Maria, was now his wife? Was he assembling wives for the eternities? The affidavit wasn't written till 1868 so maybe there's some memory issues going on.
Now a days, when we talk about sealings, we assume that the couple will be husband/wife in the eternities. But early polygamy doesn't quite fit that. There are cases where it does (Hyrum publicly talked about his sealing to both of his wives and he seems to be talking about spousal relationships) but John Bernhisel (who was a bachelor at the time) doesn't. For me, John's situation feels similar to the later Adoption sealings. People wanted to be sealed to someone who they knew was going to the Celestial Kingdom. If the choice was between being sealed to your parent who hadn't joined the church vs being sealed to an apostle, the answer was easy. John wanted to help his female relations and so he was sealed to them. I feel like that same idea fits with many of Joseph's polyandrous relations.

Tana:
OK, but adding a few more saints who practiced the sealings doesn't really return fire on my position.
Google says 100 billion people have existed on earth so far. So, if the way of existence truly does fit LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter, 99.99999999 % of people will have to pick their wives later. Not in the flesh. That makes me believe that the theme that J. and the handful of people who did get to pick while in the flesh is incongruent with it being of dire importance to do so.

Weebles
What is the "LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter"? I don't plan on being a polygamist in the hereafter. I don't see why 99.9999999% of the people have to pick a wife later. Why do they need to pick a wife?
Also, the Celestial Kingdom is probably going to be closer to a 50/50 split of men and women. We believe that all children who die under the age of accountability reach the Celestial Kingdom. That's a LOT of kids. And deaths at that age are fairly equal.

Tana:
I don't blame you at all for not believing in plural marriage in the afterlife. But, clearly, Joseph, Brigham, and all the early saints did. So, my point stands.

Weebles:
I didn't say I don't believe that people will be polygamist in the hereafter. I do believe that there are polygamist in the hereafter. I just don't see myself being one.
I'm not sure what your point is.

Tana:
On 12/6/2024 at 10:36 AM, webbles said:

What is the "LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter"? I don't see why 99.9999999% of the people have to pick a wife later. Why do they need to pick a wife?

11 hours ago, webbles said:

I didn't say I don't believe that people will be polygamist in the hereafter. I do believe that there are polygamist in the hereafter.

These two statements are incongruent. OK, so I did cut some of your content as to your personal preference regarding polygamy in heaven. I didn't feel it relevant. Let me restate then. 99.99999% of men who desire to live a polygamous style in the CK, will have to pick their wives later. They missed their chance in the mortal. So, Joseph, and a few others needing to pick theirs now in the mortal seems suspicious.

OK, predictions for which checkers Wobbles will move next. Will it be:

(1) What does "polygamous style" in the CK even mean? I've no idea what you're talking about.
(2) Many are called but few are the chosen so, only those who preloaded their pop-up wife dispensers earlier, get them later.
(3) Joseph is special and deserves first shot at all the hotties. In fact, he's one in 100 billion. Oh and, so are these other couple of guys.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76 ... se/page/4/

[drumdude]

If Joseph Smith cooked and ate an infant in front of a crowd of 1,000 eye witnesses, Mormons would still find a way to frame it as God’s will. I’ve found arguing with them to be a complete waste of time.

But I admire your tenacity!

[IWMP]

(Dan)Tana wrote:
What I see as possibly incongruent is, If J.Smith was marrying partners for eternity only and not for time, it must have been pretty important to God for some reason to have J. assemble his wives while he was in the mortal. If it's so important to assemble ones wives while in the flesh, why was J. the only man in the history of men to have ever been given that accommodation?

Weebles wrote:
Early polygamy is a little weird. I don't think that is the right way to ask the question. For instance, John Bernhisel wrote an affidavit in Joseph's journal stating that Joseph sealed him (John) to 11 women. All of them are deceased; many of them are relatives of his (sisters, cousins, etc). You can see the affidavit at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... y-1844/152. Why did he do that? Did he really think that his sister, Maria, was now his wife? Was he assembling wives for the eternities? The affidavit wasn't written till 1868 so maybe there's some memory issues going on.
Now a days, when we talk about sealings, we assume that the couple will be husband/wife in the eternities. But early polygamy doesn't quite fit that. There are cases where it does (Hyrum publicly talked about his sealing to both of his wives and he seems to be talking about spousal relationships) but John Bernhisel (who was a bachelor at the time) doesn't. For me, John's situation feels similar to the later Adoption sealings. People wanted to be sealed to someone who they knew was going to the Celestial Kingdom. If the choice was between being sealed to your parent who hadn't joined the church vs being sealed to an apostle, the answer was easy. John wanted to help his female relations and so he was sealed to them. I feel like that same idea fits with many of Joseph's polyandrous relations.

Tana:
OK, but adding a few more saints who practiced the sealings doesn't really return fire on my position.
Google says 100 billion people have existed on earth so far. So, if the way of existence truly does fit LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter, 99.99999999 % of people will have to pick their wives later. Not in the flesh. That makes me believe that the theme that J. and the handful of people who did get to pick while in the flesh is incongruent with it being of dire importance to do so.

Weebles
What is the "LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter"? I don't plan on being a polygamist in the hereafter. I don't see why 99.9999999% of the people have to pick a wife later. Why do they need to pick a wife?
Also, the Celestial Kingdom is probably going to be closer to a 50/50 split of men and women. We believe that all children who die under the age of accountability reach the Celestial Kingdom. That's a LOT of kids. And deaths at that age are fairly equal.

Tana:
I don't blame you at all for not believing in plural marriage in the afterlife. But, clearly, Joseph, Brigham, and all the early saints did. So, my point stands.

Weebles:
I didn't say I don't believe that people will be polygamist in the hereafter. I do believe that there are polygamist in the hereafter. I just don't see myself being one.
I'm not sure what your point is.

Tana:
On 12/6/2024 at 10:36 AM, webbles said:

What is the "LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter"? I don't see why 99.9999999% of the people have to pick a wife later. Why do they need to pick a wife?

11 hours ago, webbles said:

I didn't say I don't believe that people will be polygamist in the hereafter. I do believe that there are polygamist in the hereafter.

These two statements are incongruent. OK, so I did cut some of your content as to your personal preference regarding polygamy in heaven. I didn't feel it relevant. Let me restate then. 99.99999% of men who desire to live a polygamous style in the Celestial Kingdom, will have to pick their wives later. They missed their chance in the mortal. So, Joseph, and a few others needing to pick theirs now in the mortal seems suspicious.

OK, predictions for which checkers Wobbles will move next. Will it be:

(1) What does "polygamous style" in the Celestial Kingdom even mean? I've no idea what you're talking about.
(2) Many are called but few are the chosen so, only those who preloaded their pop-up wife dispensers earlier, get them later.
(3) Joseph is special and deserves first shot at all the hotties. In fact, he's one in 100 billion. Oh and, so are these other couple of guys.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/76 ... se/page/4/

I think maybe this is too deep thinking. If I were alive in such a time and was told if I married people, then I will guarantee these people make it to heaven then I'd probably be inclined to marry everybody who I felt deserved a place. That's quite a power to have. I might have a different perspective once I die. And obviously a bigger choice (assuming this idea is real), I might feel that if I did this while alive, I would guarantee that I'd be bonded to people I have a connection with and would be concerned that I might not be able to find that person in amongst the billions of other souls after death. So maybe one could have still had plural wives but wanted to make it easier and choose who they already knew in life. Just a thought. I think marriage would have a whole different meaning beyond this life.

[Fence Sitter]

Smith was making it up as he went along or, if you're a believer, he was revealing it as God gave it to him. (Sort of like he gave it to Fanny. ) His motivations differed depending on time and circumstances. It would not surprise me if he introduced polygamy as a way to explain his "dirty, nasty, filthy, scrape"(s).

By the way, Don Bradley has some interesting insights on this.

See here.

[Moksha]

If Joseph Smith cooked and ate an infant in front of a crowd of 1,000 eye witnesses, Mormons would still find a way to frame it as God’s will. I’ve found arguing with them to be a complete waste of time.

But I admire your tenacity!

Two weeks later there would be an article defending this action in the Interpreter, arguing that the eyewitness testimony of the 1000 was insufficient.

[dantana]

I think maybe this is too deep thinking. If I were alive in such a time and was told if I married people, then I will guarantee these people make it to heaven then I'd probably be inclined to marry everybody who I felt deserved a place. That's quite a power to have. I might have a different perspective once I die. And obviously a bigger choice (assuming this idea is real), I might feel that if I did this while alive, I would guarantee that I'd be bonded to people I have a connection with and would be concerned that I might not be able to find that person in amongst the billions of other souls after death. So maybe one could have still had plural wives but wanted to make it easier and choose who they already knew in life. Just a thought. I think marriage would have a whole different meaning beyond this life.

I'm not sure why they aren't working this angle over there more as it would be really too nebulous to counter effectively. So, don't tell them. Instead, there is just an effort to fudge the numbers. Suggesting that polygamy in heaven isn't the norm but just the random few.

From my perspective though the numbers just don't matter. Whether it's 10 billion guys or 13. if it's possible to pick one's girls in the after-world then why can't Joseph.

[IWMP]

I think maybe this is too deep thinking. If I were alive in such a time and was told if I married people, then I will guarantee these people make it to heaven then I'd probably be inclined to marry everybody who I felt deserved a place. That's quite a power to have. I might have a different perspective once I die. And obviously a bigger choice (assuming this idea is real), I might feel that if I did this while alive, I would guarantee that I'd be bonded to people I have a connection with and would be concerned that I might not be able to find that person in amongst the billions of other souls after death. So maybe one could have still had plural wives but wanted to make it easier and choose who they already knew in life. Just a thought. I think marriage would have a whole different meaning beyond this life.

I'm not sure why they aren't working this angle over there more as it would be really too nebulous to counter effectively. So, don't tell them. Instead, there is just an effort to fudge the numbers. Suggesting that polygamy in heaven isn't the norm but just the random few.

From my perspective though the numbers just don't matter. Whether it's 10 billion guys or 13. if it's possible to pick one's girls in the after-world then why can't Joseph.

Maybe he planned to is there a limit? He could have the women in his life and choose more after too. Lol.

[Marcus]

Or we could not talk about people as though one group is something to be picked out and gotten and the other group is doing the picking and getting.

Joseph's heaven sounds like hell.

[dantana]

Or we could not talk about people as though one group is something to be picked out and gotten and the other group is doing the picking and getting.

Joseph's heaven sounds like hell.

Yeah, sorry Marcus. It's just that, I have concern for all the stubby little Mormon fingers that must go numb over the years of pounding out apologetic for Joseph and his pussycats. Explaining with no small gruffity that it was all on the up-and-up. That, he did not have sex with those women, that he would only do that later, when they were all dead.

So, since this is in essence peeing down ones back and telling them it's raining, and after years and years of that I thought I would take a shot at the topic. And in my exuberance to paint to the Morms what this picture looks like to the outsider, I had to use misogynistic type language. I'll be good now.

[Marcus]

Or we could not talk about people as though one group is something to be picked out and gotten and the other group is doing the picking and getting.

Joseph's heaven sounds like hell.

Yeah, sorry Marcus. It's just that, I have concern for all the stubby little Mormon fingers that must go numb over the years of pounding out apologetic for Joseph and his pussycats. Explaining with no small gruffity that it was all on the up-and-up. That, he did not have sex with those women, that he would only do that later, when they were all dead.

So, since this is in essence peeing down ones back and telling them it's raining, and after years and years of that I thought I would take a shot at the topic. And in my exuberance to paint to the Morms what this picture looks like to the outsider, I had to use misogynistic type language. I'll be good now.

No problem, I understand!!

...to paint to the Morms what this picture looks like to the outsider, I had to use misogynistic type language...

Exactly.