Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28,419 Excellent

About Calm

  • Rank
    Dulce de labris loquuntur, corde vivunt noxio.
  • Birthday October 28

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Here be dragons

Recent Profile Visitors

10,186 profile views
  1. Calm

    Who is a widow supposed to marry...?

    Not sure what you are applying "cannot" to. If you mean they have a choice to share if they change their minds, sure. But generally the fear of women who want to be exclusive is the husband will choose to remarry if they die or may choose an additional wife in the next life....perhaps a woman who was not able to be married in this one, but was faithful. Doctrine isn't there that says her expection to remain her spouse's only companion trumps her husband's choice to remarry. So she cannot choose to be both married to her husband and not share just as you see the choice being taken away of choosing to be married to your husband and sharing your life as well with someone else. If her husband refuses to walk away from additional marriages, as far as we know her only choice is to turn her back on the blessing of marriage. And many in my experience interpret doctrine and practice to imply that if they reject the marriage, they will forfeit exaltation as it will be viewed as a sin, so they see exaltation as a plural wife as an enforced hell if they choose to be obedient to God as they truly desire to be. I assume there are men who are fearful of a wife choosing a different husband after they die and breaking the sealing and with the typical interpretation they don't even get to choose whether to stay or go. Limiting a woman to only one husband in eternities while allowing multiple husbands in mortality sets up a very confusion doctrine, imo. But requiring widows to remain single or only accepting the first husband as a valid one for sealing of ancestors in a faith that emphasizes parenthood, the need for a mother and father in a family, and an eternal connection with their children whenever possible...too many contradictions on what should be our righteous desires we should be choosing, imo. What we are moving towards, an equal policy of sealing all relationships, makes the most sense to me given that God allows for parents to die through no fault of their own and often even through righteousness ( such as a woman desiring to bring up children in the Gospel dying in childbirth leaving motherless children or a father dying in a dangerous line of work he choose to protect his family and community) and neither the children nor the remaining parent should be automatically barred from a possible future blessing of once more having two parents in the home when they have already suffered the greatest emotional tragedy that can happen in a family according to psychological research. We are a culture that likes to talk about the next life in concrete terms, so it isn't surprising that this life gets transposed on the next life since this is all we know at this time. But a lot of it isn't terribly logical when you start thinking about the implications. The whole sealing of parents to children doesn't make much sense to me as we will, I assume, all be adults in our progression and all be one with God, so why would a parent-child relationship still exist between me and my children? Why wouldn't some sort of nonheirarchal relationship be in place instead, such as brothers and sisters instead since we are first spiritually siblings? And if they are one with God than why would I be presiding over them through my oneness with God in any way instead of them being directly dealing with God through their own oneness? I don't believe the confusion renders sealings meaningless or unrelated to our families. I just think we only see a vague pattern at this point.
  2. Calm

    Who is a widow supposed to marry...?

    Which means what exactly? Has the woman in this case forfeited sealing blessings because she chose the wrong man to be sealed to? And what do you think the first husband could say or do to affect it? Do you believe as BY apparently did a wife couldn't be "stolen" from a dead man even if she chose the other man? Though perhaps he only meant when the wife was not loved by the other man, but seduced for the glory of multiplying wives, but it came across to me that BY viewed any men being sealed for eternity to a widow causing her to chose to break her sealing was committing a sin. (Serious question, it isn't clear about how you are thinking about your example save that they are future blessings, not ones applied to the here and now...which I am not sure is how the Church teaches it; my impression is it is more along the lines of 'eternity starts now for the faithful')
  3. I agree. My experience is most people don't respond to the terms polyandry, polygyny, and polygamy in that way though if they have issues with them...they more often just transpose what they assume a mortal experience is like to how they talk about the eternal relationship, but that makes little sense to me because I don't believe we can conceive of what we will be like after a million years of existence or just having our previous existence become part of our conscious thought again. For one thing, I figure God must have done a huge number on the majority of us suppressing what we were like before birth because when I know people's upbringing and environment, personality and motivations are usually reasonable to me (though not always predictable), so either God works really hard to match our premortal identies up perfectly to our mortal circumstances...which seems unlikely just figuring out the odds of all the people having to live a certain way to achieve it...or there are pretty faint traces of our eternal experiences currently in our mortal lives. It seems to me our eternal being wouldn't show up as tendencies if we were just unaware of it and it was there as our unconscious as opposed to major suppression. How could a few years of mortality have impact on behaviours established for eons? So worrying about eternity based on what we are experiencing here is a waste of effort, imo...outside of it just making practical sense to do our best. Too wrapped up in my own head today. Need to go watch something really frivolous.
  4. Do you think most people would see it that way looking at the relationship from the outside rather than the personal feelings of those involved?
  5. Calm

    Video games

    US culture likes to act like none of the men really want women to act like dolls (but our movies would seem to indicate that isn't quite accurate, Weird Science anyone?) but we have imported at least once some of this culture. Wonder if this restaurant is still open: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/dining/25maid.html
  6. Would you call it polyandry if it was believed she could only be married to one of you in the eternities?
  7. Already married women were definitely in a different category as far as I can tell from unmarried women, and younger women all fell in the later category. I suspect power dynamics were very different when it came to the married women. This started out with the comment the only reason people were upset with the marriages to young women was the gross factor, so I have only been talking about power dynamics for that subset of his wives.
  8. I would say I don't dismiss out of hand, but I definitely look for confirming evidence and question the narrative if I see contradictions....for example, how teens talk about how their parents treat them and how their parents actually treat them in my personal experience often doesn't line up very well in terms of deprivations (why the kids aren't given something or allowed to do something), so my skepticism towards teens talking about mistreatment by parents tends to be higher than adults talking about mistreatment by their spouse. However, research detailing typical interactions between teens and parents I have often found useful. ----- Realized I skipped this part of the question first time around: As far as testimonies being compelling, I don't think I have ever looked on others' experiences as "compelling" in the sense of causing me to want to live like them. Thinking "hey, that's cool" is probably as far as it goes. I never had a role model, but there would be bits and pieces of people's lives that I thought I would like to have in my life. Don't think I ever consciously modeled myself after anyone to get them though...the life I want has never been close enough to anyone else's to do that really (believe that through imitation I could achieve it) and I have as long as I can remember seen people's experiences as a whole...what makes them who they are...as unique. My parents pushed us to be independent and think for ourselves in theory (that is what they talked about and admired), but they were authoritarian in other ways...not terribly comfortable if we started to explore new ways of doing things if it intruded on their spheres. So I was taught to see myself as unique and then given opportunity to rebel when I felt I was being pushed to fall in line too much. Not that I looked rebellious I am sure, also being painfully shy I kept to the norms in many ways. As far as believeable, if it is extraordinary, I have to know the person to not be skeptical when I think about it, but I feel no need to challenge most things in real life unless I see actual damage being done because people learn in different ways and I doubt I know best for how that should be for anyone, except myself...and even there I would phrase it as knowing better than others, but still having the level of an idiot probably. In that sense of believing people's descriptions of their own experiences, I am probably not a very trusting person. I don't really believe my own, probably ask for reality checks to the point of annoyance from my friends and family who know me well enough. Otoh, I want to believe people are fundamentally good and reasonable, so I assume positive reasons for behaviour in the majority of cases. Someone generally has to have burned me pretty badly or someone I loved or a child for me to go first to negatives. There are a few people who I have instinctively distrusted just by their appearance or the tones of their voice, but that is rare face to face. The exception to that rule is politicians. Possibly also people who come across as arrogant plus humorless to me. Big button pusher that. I am as much of a mass of contradictions as anyone else, I suspect.
  9. Calm

    Who is a widow supposed to marry...?

    Did he date after she died or was it more or less his conscious choice?
  10. But if married, it is generally assumed they were not available to be married to other men...or do you believe that Joseph married his wives and told them they should feel okay to go out and look for other men to marry? The marriage in and of itself altered their lives. Those who believe they didn't have a fully informed and free choice because of their age find that problematic. Often the example of Helen Mar Kimball not being allowed to go to a dance like her friends is used ( though this is inaccurate because the reason was not that she was sealed to Joseph, but because there were "blacklegs" at that particular dance and she notes iirc those girls who went had their reputations damaged by association).
  11. For me, it gets offensive when people act like they are honoring a culture when they are treating it as a source of souvenirs, especially if there is little effort to learn the significance at any real depth. If they want to display things that remind them of their experience or they think are beautiful, then why not as long as they are not sacred to a culture as long as that is how they express their engagement of it. If someone goes into a culture and takes an idea out of it to make money off of it, that I dislike, but if it is their own culture and not sacred, it is their right imo (and here I think of my experience with Russians and many being eager to seek us old coins and ethnic clothing....though one woman refuse to serve us in a hat store; I always felt awkward about icons, especially individually made ones). Valuable works of art that are collected that are one of a kind or quite limited are in a separate class imo because removing those for personal or museum ownership from a culture prevents the culture from enjoying/engaging with them. I don't think people not of a culture have a right to assume protector status of a culture if by doing so they are preventing individuals of that culture from interacting with that aspect of their heritage. I get there is a certain world heritage so that outsiders might feel it necessary to step in when works are being destroyed like the Buddhas of Bamiyan (to take this to a serious level), but I have mixed feelings about that even though the destruction of such saddens me. Mass produced, nonreligious items being sold to tourists doesn't prevent anyone from the original culture from enriching their cultural heritage experience. And last I checked neither flags nor tacos were sacred items (though some people feel that way so, but they should be offended by those who make those cheap tiny, tacky flags imo rather than the people who buy them) and those boys don't appear to be trying to make a statement about how much reverence they have for the Mexican culture either.
  12. Calm

    Who is a widow supposed to marry...?

    I have told my husband multiple times if I died, I would want him to remarry and he just rolls his eyes. There is no real reason to assume I die first because my health issues aren't any more likely to kill me than his are (his dad had bypasses, but lived as long as mine did, same with grandparents, he has sleep apnea to go with my rls). I think I have mentioned it because of these kinds of conversations plus I am a big time planner for disasters...at least in my head if not that great on followthrough any more. However, I bet there are women who will not date a sealed man because they don't like the idea of sharing him....it just isn't discussed openly like the history of men having multiple wives is, so it is often seen imo as selfishness or jealousy on the woman's part while for men refusing to date sealed women is about the righteous desire ofhaving a temple marriage themselves. There is also the reality that in most places historically speaking there are many more single women attending than men once you get past 30, so even if there are women who refuse to date widowers for that reason, the dating pool was still relatively large for men in the past. With greater financial independence for women, there seems to have lessen the perception women will likely or should be willing to get married to anyone that offers except extreme losers once they get to a certain age. But I can't think of any widower under 70 who has not gotten remarried and usually within a few years of his wife's death, while I can think of numerous widows of all ages who have not.
  13. Calm

    Who is a widow supposed to marry...?

    The problem is it is all very well to hold that belief oneself, but dating is a two person game and if that is not the way the Church teaches it, it doesn't really matter what she believes...and it is not what is taught explicitly, even the possibility is allowed for only recently in a few comments I am aware of where "men" is not used with multiple sealings, but "people"; most of the time if equally presented, it does so by avoidance.... it is just not talked about what multiple eternal sealings means it seems to me. I think you can only get there by inferring from teachings of equality that are not being discussed in terms of sealings, like God not being a respecter of persons, all equal before God, etc.
  14. While this may be it for some, I think a number of people take issue with power dynamics in marriages now (not so much when I was younger)...teens are generally more likely to be pressured into giving in or even thinking they don't have a right to say no to people who are significantly older than they are. I don't believe this is a valid criticism of Joseph Smith as while polygamy itself was abnormal to his cultural, if his wives had been married to all different men, none of the marriages would have been viewed as extreme or with distrust according to statistical norms. It is the fact he had multiple wives that was abnormal to his culture.
  15. I get it as more rolling of the eyes than foaming at the mouth.