In a word…
yes
Kathy
Are infertile couples unworthy of attaining celestial heaven?
Darn it, after I hit submit I realized that didn’t sound like what I wanted to ask.
How about:
Are infertile couples unable to attain celestial heaven?
Thanks for the informative answers.
I understood what you were saying either way you worded it.
The answer is no.
The Church’s position is as long as you are living a life which would qualify you for the Celestial Kingdom, then that is the level you will be.
There as been speculation by members for years, probably as a way to console childless members or members who have experienced miscarriages or had their children pass on at an early age, that they will be able to raise them in the hereafter. Or childless couples would be given children that didn’t have parents.
That’s a very simplified answer and I don’t have a cite for it. I’m not even sure there is an official basis for any of that. But it is something that I, having had miscarriages but no live births, have had to listen to countless times as different people expected it would be of some comfort to me.
Is anyone else more qualified to address this?
Kathy
You’re very welcome.
Anything else we can help you with?
Kathy
PS, the refreshment table is to the left… homemade cookies, brownies, several combinations of lime jello and, of course, Hawaiian Punch. Help yourself 
Almost 24 hrs without a question…
The lines are open. No waiting.
Kathy
How deep is the Great Salt Lake? I’m 6’, how far can I wade in before it gets chin-high? What national acts play the clubs in Salt Lake City resorts?
I didn’t frequent the clubs in SLC so I can’t really answer your second question. The two sites I recommend you checking are:
City Search - Salt Lake City, Utah and
The Delta Center I suggest the Delta Center since, as I understand it (I could be wrong), most of the clubs don’t draw national acts. The entertainment found in the clubs are mostly local acts. But like I said, I didn’t frequent them myself so my information may well be incorrect.
Kathy
FYI: If there is an interest in an “Ask about Salt Lake City” or “Ask about Utah” threads, let me know. This response was “on the house” so to speak as it was not about the LDS Church.
“City Search” turned up some interesting shows in Salt Lake City, incl. Cheap Trick, Ministry, Bon Jovi and Dirty Dozen Brass Band. I thought it was just hot and cold running Osmonds, but that looks like a pretty decent selection.
I used to live pretty close to the Mormon Temple in Silver Spring, MD; from the Beltway, it resembles the Emerald City of Oz (Some local prankster even painted “Surrender Dorothy!” on one of the nearby bridges in plain view of the Temple). Since the DC area Mormon population is pretty slight, any idea what function this building serves? I’m told it’s not very large or cathedral-like inside, and that it’s mostly office space, but my information is all second-hand.
Re: Krokodil’s question about the DC temple
-
As far as I know, most of the space in the DC temple is devoted to regular LDS temple space (e.g. a baptistry, cafeteria, endowment rooms, sealing rooms, and locker/changing areas).
-
The reason it’s so huge is that for a few years it was one of the only temples built anywhere east of Utah. Even though the LDS population in the DC metro isn’t huge by itself, the temple was originally meant to serve the entire mid-Atlantic and New England regions. I went to college in Rhode Island, and until the Boston Temple was finished in 99-2000, the closest temple was DC (a seven-hour drive if you go slower than 70 MPH!).
So, it used to be that LDS church groups, families, and individuals from around 15 states all used to use the DC temple. Occasionally the crowds were so big that the temple would run 24 hours a day to accomodate them. (Not so here in Boston, where although we also cover a big geographical area, nobody ever goes on weekdays.)
On a side note, there’s been a strong shift in Church temple-building policies. It used to be that temples were all very large undertakings, producing huge buildings that took 3-5 years to build. Around 1997 IIRC, Church leadership announced a new streamlined temple design, much smaller and cheaper and with smaller volunteer staff requirements, that could be finished in 1-2.5 years. Now there are temples going up all over the world, and I think eventually there’ll be much less demand for the large temples.
I don’t have links handy, but someone earlier in the thread posted an unofficial temple web page that shows pictures of the new smaller temples.
emarkp wrote: “If a man remarries (and is worthy to be sealed) he can be sealed to his second wife without cancelling the first sealing. This is the practical, but not ideal solution (ideally, the first separation wouldn’t happen at all). If a woman chose to remarry, she would have to have the first sealing cancelled.”
Please tell me why men can be resealed to additional wives after “divorces”, then later be “sealed” to all of them in heaven (polygamy in heaven is allowed) BUT women cannot do the same thing? This strikes me as horrible unfair and sexist. If god is a loving and fair god, WHY in the world would he advocate discrimination and unfairness against women in this way?
Also, in the beginning of the thread, you spoke of the special underwear and said it reminds people of their duties to god. How does wearing special underwear remind you of god? Underwear is only a material object. Why would god care what you wore under your clothes if he really loved and cared about you???
I guess the question would be… how is it unfair? The most practical answer I’ve ever been given regarding the practice of polygamy at ANY time has to do with the number of men and number of women available. This is particularily true of the period of time that polygamy was practiced within the Church. There were simply more women than men and the portion of men willing to practice plural marriage was only a fraction of the whole… why deny faithful women a strong, spiritual spouse if the man (and his existing spouse) was willing to support and love another?
To be honest… I would probably have been one of the men who didn’t practice polygamy during that period had I lived then because I am terrible at sharing my heart and monogamous to a fault.
But that leads us to Polygamy in Heaven. Looking around me week in and week out I see more women who are doing what they should be and who are likely to achieve that highest degree of reward than men. If that’s true… should they be denied a worthy spouse?
I’ll say this though… If (when!) I remarry, I will not be sealed to another woman unless my ex says okay or asks me to remove her sealing first. She and I are good friends and I wouldn’t presume to mess with that sealing until she and I have an agreement.
as for Temple Garments. You ask why God would care? Why wouldn’t he? The bible is full of symbolic things that God commanded his faithful to do simply to demonstrate their faith and in similitude of some portion of Christ’s mission on earth. The covenants made in the temple are sacred and important to those who receive them. Wearing my garments reminds me constantly of what I have told the Lord I will do. What I have promised I will do.
It is like anything in life. If you have something that you gained through a special experience… a life changing moment. That thing, whether it is a favorite hat, a picture, a stuffed animal… will always remind you of that event. The experience of attending the temple and taking out your own endowments (as it is called) is big, life changing big. Wearing the garments as we are commanded to do is a daily reminder to keep our covenants. Covenants between us and the Lord.
The Lord cares because he wants us to keep those covenants. He wants us to keep our side of the deal so he can deliver the blessing he promises for obedience. Just like I love my kids but they don’t get their allowance if they don’t do their chores. I want them to remember to do their chores so that I can give them a few bucks. They learn to do their duty and I get to reward them in addition to having the work I requested done.
Please tell me why, djxiii that answer sound’s so familiar.
Oh yeah!! It’s the same reasoning emarkp, genie and others give for why the LDS doesn’t accept homosexuals, isn’t it?
I understand these are hard questions, but putting forth lame rationalizations doesn’t make things any easier. It doesn’t really ease the doubt.
Again, it’s not just the Mormons, but pretty much all religions that do that “non-answer” thing.
Am I yelling? Sorry.
Peace,
mangeorge
No I understand the frustration. It’s hard though, to answer questions when the real answer any of us want to give is because “that’s the way it is and you need to have Faith.” Everyone hates that answer even more. Boy do they hate it!
and I think emarkp went a lot further than that with his answer regarding homosexuality and acceptance within the Church. Really. I have a close friend who is a member in good standing and has same-sex attractions he’s not acting on. Is it easy for him? Not at all. He likens it to being crippled and in a wheel chair… born that way. Some people would cry out that it was unfair of a loving God to place such a burden on anyone. He shoulders the burden and carries on because it’s his burden to bear. Now I know there are people who will be appalled to hear someone refer to homosexuality as a disability, but that is his take on it and I agree. He would rather be gay and temple worthy than crippled, blind, or whatever. Because he believes that he can withstand this trial. So far he’s doing fine.
As far as my previous answer goes, which part was the same old same old? The response to polygamy or the response to the wearing of temple garments? I’m assuming the former.
Re: Polygamy, I think the simple answer is baby-making. If one woman had 3 husband, she can still only have one baby in nine months. If one man had 3 wives, he could have 3 children in 9 months. The same principle that applies on Earth applies in Heaven.
I have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion, but as one more LDS Doper, I would like to thank you all for the good questions and answers.
mangeorge, I suggest you need to chill nearly as much as Monty does in the pit thread. This passive-agressive schtick is getting annyoing.
I’m glad you’ve read the talk I linked. Any comments on it? Would you like to start a GD thread on the subject?
Although the issues are complicated wrt same-sex attraction, it basically comes down to “God said so”–that is, revealed doctrine is unequivocal in condemning homosexual acts. Indeed, sexual transgressions are named as being of greatest severity besides murder. In any framework of belief, there are fundamental axioms. In math and science, we don’t question the axioms–they just are. In religion we have some basic axioms–e.g., God exists, and that He reveals truths to His servants. While we may speculate or reason about what God has revealed, or debate about how to enact His will, we don’t question the statements that begin “Thus saith the Lord” (or something like that).
We LDS do not condemn homosexual acts only from a reading from Leviticus, or other Biblical works, but because God has continued to reveal His will to us on such matters. The article I linked to is written by Dallin H. Oaks, who we sustain as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. You may disagree with our belief, but it is intellectually dishonest to claim that it’s a “non-answer”.
djxiii
I don’t expect you to have a source for how many men were “willing,” but I would like to see the population stats. (I have no idea when the church did this - didn’t it stop during the Gay Ninties?)
I cannot believe what I am reading here in regards to the discrimination against homosexuals and the polygamy. I can’t imagine any god who would allow or encourage such behavior. Such a god is not one I would ever follow or worship.