Faithful LDS woman ex'd for publicly announcing she doesn't believe JS lived polygamy.

[MustardSeed]

Since so much of religion is determining what is right and what is wrong, it doesn’t seem like much of a leap to me to identify a behavior which a church condones supports or otherwise, as being wrong and therefore a reason to decide that the church is off base. 
 

My understanding is that we (the church) still support polygamy and the imbalances that come from it in our temple practices.  I don’t see polygamy as strictly historical.  I see it as past present and future in various forms. 

 

 

[JVW]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

My understanding is that we (the church) still support polygamy and the imbalances that come from it in our temple practices.  I don’t see polygamy as strictly historical.  I see it as past present and future in various forms. 

I understand your views here but I don't agree with them. This is solely because we don't really know what it means to be sealed, and we don't know what relationships will look like in heaven. If being sealed to multiple women means living like Warren Jeffs or something then I have a big problem with it. But I think heaven is going to be a lot different than we are expecting, and this difference will apply to how we currently view sealings. It sure would be nice if a living oracle of God gave us some more information about sealing!

Based off of my reasoning the only conclusion I have reached is that being sealed means being part of God's post-mortality, heavenly family. I don't know why being sealed requires more than one person in the covenant with God, that's the thing I hope will be revealed one day.

[MustardSeed]

You don’t agree with my displeasure - I’m assuming you agree with the fact that we still practice presently through our temple activity. 

 

[Senator]

44 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Since so much of religion is determining what is right and what is wrong, it doesn’t seem like much of a leap to me to identify a behavior which a church condones supports or otherwise, as being wrong and therefore a reason to decide that the church is off base.

Yes, but one would have to keep such things to themselves, or else face possible disciplinary actions.

44 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

 

 

[JVW]

47 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You don’t agree with my displeasure - I’m assuming you agree with the fact that we still practice presently through our temple activity. 

 

To believe that the temple still promotes the practice of polygamy means that we have to believe that people will live in heaven like they do on Earth, intimate relations and all. I don't know if I believe that to be the case, that's all.

[Senator]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

My understanding is that we (the church) still support polygamy and the imbalances that come from it in our temple practices.  I don’t see polygamy as strictly historical.  I see it as past present and future in various forms. 

 

It is being said that we are not asked to have a testimony of the past practice of polygamy.  But we are asked to, at least at some level, affirm or sustain the practice.  To do otherwise would put one at odds with doctrines and teachings of the church. 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Senator said:

It is being said that we are not asked to have a testimony of the past practice of polygamy.  But we are asked to, at least at some level, affirm or sustain the practice.  To do otherwise would put one at odds with doctrines and teachings of the church. 

In your opinion, at what level are we asked to affirm it? Sincere question.

Like, do you believe every woman who has a temple recommend is affirming the practice, regardless of what she personally believes about it?  Or do you mean something else?

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, JVW said:

To believe that the temple still promotes the practice of polygamy means that we have to believe that people will live in heaven like they do on Earth, intimate relations and all. I don't know if I believe that to be the case, that's all.

If a young woman is widowed and it is difficult for her to find a new partner who is willing to get married outside the temple, I would say that our policies of  today have an impact on us today. This is just one example.

I also believe that ritual, tradition, symbolism, etc. has a significant impact on one’s view of the self and even of their relationship.  I believe that our practices around sealings speak volumes to a lot of people and has an impact on how we experience this earthly life.  
I’m less concerned about eternity because I agree with you, we know absolutely nothing. 

 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, JVW said:

To believe that the temple still promotes the practice of polygamy means that we have to believe that people will live in heaven like they do on Earth, intimate relations and all. I don't know if I believe that to be the case, that's all.

Speaking only for myself, I think it promotes the idea of agency.

 

[Senator]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In your opinion, at what level are we asked to affirm it? Sincere question.

At an intellectual level, at least.

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like, do you believe every woman who has a temple recommend is affirming the practice, regardless of what she personally believes about it?  Or do you mean something else?

It would seem to be a logical implication, yes.   If she sustains the current leadership as "prophets, seers and revelators", she is indicating that she is affirming the divine origin of the practice. That it was a command of God, which is the current doctrine and teaching of the church.

Edited December 17, 2025 by Senator

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, Senator said:

At an intellectual level, at least.

It would seem to be a logical implication, yes.   If she sustains the current leadership as "prophets, seers and revelators", she is indicating that she is affirming the divine origin of the practice. That it was a command of God, which is the current doctrine and teaching of the church.

One would think. But this is a very complicated religion, even though we like to think it’s very simple. The gospel is simple, but the religion is not. We are entrenched in a lot of rich history, heavy expectations, family, pressures, etc. Sometimes belief is layered underneath a lot of things.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, gopher said:

have no desire to practice polygamy, but I can't dismiss it as man-made when multiple prophets have taught or practiced it. 

Do you accept the Priesthood Ban as revelation?

[JVW]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

If a young woman is widowed and it is difficult for her to find a new partner who is willing to get married outside the temple, I would say that our policies of  today have an impact on us today. This is just one example.

I also believe that ritual, tradition, symbolism, etc. has a significant impact on one’s view of the self and even of their relationship.  I believe that our practices around sealings speak volumes to a lot of people and has an impact on how we experience this earthly life.  
I’m less concerned about eternity because I agree with you, we know absolutely nothing. 

 

I agree with you. I just remarked to my wife the other day about my recently divorced sister-in-law and how if she wasn't in the church she would have a really easy time getting remarried. But, being in the church, no single man of her age is going to want to marry (and not be sealed to) a woman with three children.

Another woman I know is in her late 30's and her husband died early last year from brain cancer leaving her single, sealed, with 4 young children. There's no way she's getting remarried either, even though I'm sure she'd make a great wife. I think it's rare that there are instances where a man is willing to marry a sealed woman in the church.

I do think that it shouldn't matter how many people either gender is sealed to, I don't think it should be exclusive to man having multiple sealings until church leadership comes out with a revelation explaining why this should be the case. As it stands there is so much messiness in our record keeping that there are doubtless many women who are sealed to multiple husbands, so what's the big deal?

When I was on the market my primary concern was to marry someone I wouldn't get divorced from, I didn't really care as much about getting sealed because that doesn't matter until after I'm dead and doesn't impact my quality of life. While sealing may strengthen the marital commitment, I believe that it inversely negatively impacts the female divorcee. Not to mention that it is easy to interpret Jesus as saying, in the New Testament, that a man who is sealed to more than one living woman at a time is committing adultery.

The church has done a lot to try and separate marriage and sealing, yet at the same time people view sealing as "marriage +1". We can't have it both ways, which one is it?

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

At an intellectual level, at least.

It would seem to be a logical implication, yes.   If she sustains the current leadership as "prophets, seers and revelators", she is indicating that she is affirming the divine origin of the practice. That it was a command of God, which is the current doctrine and teaching of the church.

I disagree with this. A man can be a prophet, seer, and revelator and promote things that are wrong. I firmly believe that God revealed to me that Nelson was His chosen prophet. I also firmly believe that Nelson's decision to close down the temples for covid was anti-Christ. But in any discussion I had when Nelson was brought up (and there were many contentious discussions alleging otherwise) I always stood in defense of Nelson because of what God revealed to me. And I always respected and sought to follow Nelson's teachings about the gospel. I can love that man and think he's an idiot at the same time, those aren't mutually exclusive things.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Senator said:

Because Houston, we would really, really, really have a problem!

Even if they were mostly right in other ways? (Not insisting one has to accept that they were even if that’s my belief).

Especially in cases the major error likely wasn’t independent, the later prophets most likely assume the first one’s interpretation was correct.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Based off of my reasoning the only conclusion I have reached is that being sealed means being part of God's post-mortality, heavenly family. I don't know why being sealed requires more than one person in the covenant with God, that's the thing I hope will be revealed one day.

I agree.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

To believe that the temple still promotes the practice of polygamy means that we have to believe that people will live in heaven like they do on Earth, intimate relations and all. I don't know if I believe that to be the case, that's all.

But how the next life is taught in the here and now must always use the language of the here and now and that’s likely going to involve some false assumptions.

The language has in the past was often seen ime as implying that a woman would not have a direct relationship with God, but through her husband (she listens to him, he listens to God)…which seems to me like it removes women from the immediate family of God (like always being considered in-laws rather than children and siblings).

[Senator]

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

 A man can be a prophet, seer, and revelator and promote things that are wrong.

Not without limits.  He can even be removed by the twelve if his wrongs are serious enough.

9 minutes ago, JVW said:

 I can love that man and think he's an idiot at the same time, those aren't mutually exclusive things.

You are capable of things I'm not...

I do not think I would be able to love my wife, if I thought she was an idiot.

[Senator]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if they were mostly right in other ways? (Not insisting one has to accept that they were even if that’s my belief).

Especially in cases the major error likely wasn’t independent, the later prophets most likely assume the first one’s interpretation was correct.

Then perhaps I could mostly sustain them😉

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, JVW said:

I do think that it shouldn't matter how many people either gender is sealed to, I don't think it should be exclusive to man having multiple sealings until church leadership comes out with a revelation explaining why this should be the case. As it stands there is so much messiness in our record keeping that there are doubtless many women who are sealed to multiple husbands, so what's the big deal?

Indeed.

Any deceased woman can be sealed to multiple men.  Iirc the explanation that only one sealing is actually meaningful (she will be making a choice of only one after death) has been removed, but it seems most members still understand it that way.

Since the explanation these members typically give justifying multiple spouses for men is it is wrong to make them choose among all they love, it makes sense to me if that is the logic, it must equally apply to women as well…unless we also believe that a man’s love is more important or meaningful than a woman’s and I suspect everyone would think that nonsense (at least I would hope everyone in the Church believes that; I have seen some men say things about women online where it makes it obvious that women’s experiences are pretty meaningless to them, so no doubt there are those who do see women’s love as trivial unless it’s about them).

There are also confirmed reports that living widows have been allowed to be sealed to multiple men (a deceased husband and a living husband).  I have a friend who as a bishop sent in a request for this to happen and it was approved, but to know you can do this seems to be a word is a word of mouth thing.  The option needs to be put into the handbook if it is truly okay.  If it isn’t okay, then why would they be allowing it?

I think making the sealing protocol the same for men and women would clean up a lot of mess, multiple sealings allowed as long as only one of the sealings is to a living spouse or multiple sealings allowed for everyone.

Edited December 17, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Senator said:

do not think I would be able to love my wife, if I thought she was an idiot.

There are a few things I think my husband is an idiot about (he is a psychologist, but he thinks labeling different ways of thinking as inappropriate rather than helpful in exploring the inner process…granted his degree is in organizational psych and he worked in the business school, but he had the same basic psych classes as I did even if he avoided the clinical ones I immersed myself in).

He is also brilliant in other areas, so I don’t see an occasional idiocy as a dealbreaker even if it causes major frustration at times.

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, webbles said:

Do you have references for authorized sealings that late?  Because my understanding is that authorization was pretty much removed by the second manifesto (1904) and only a very few after that were accepted.  Brigham Young Jr were all before 1904 as he died in 1903.  I think A. F. Macdonald also died in 1903.  I have an ancestor polygamously married in 1904 which was accepted and another one that was sometime in the 1910s and they were excommunicated for that (both in the Mexican colonies).  Authorized marriages in the 1910s and 1920s are extremely rare, in my understanding.  Most of them usually weren't authorized and would trigger an excommunication once discovered (like my ancestor).

Be patient. I am not avoiding your request. I simply haven't had time yet today to answer you with the answers you deserve. There is some  debate about the debate of Macdonald's death because his tombstone in Dublan has one day and tradition has another. I think the one who carved the tombstone made a mistake. The tombstone is newer than his death. Much more later; I am a flowing fountain on polygamy in the colonies, and on the activity of the apostles in the colonies! A flowing fount! Ha! 

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But how the next life is taught in the here and now must always use the language of the here and now and that’s likely going to involve some false assumptions.

The language has in the past was often seen ime as implying that a woman would not have a direct relationship with God, but through her husband (she listens to him, he listens to God)…which seems to me like it removes women from the immediate family of God (like always being considered in-laws rather than children and siblings).

How does that language, which I agree has been pushed historically, reconcile with "the man and woman are one in the Lord". ?

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Not without limits.  He can even be removed by the twelve if his wrongs are serious enough.

I agree and disagree with this. I know in -theory- this is always a possibility but the reality is probably much different. If the prophet, the president of the church, who has all the keys and is in charge of carving out the church's doctrinal path forward, declares new doctrine then how is anyone supposed to know if it's heretical or not? I know that, in -theory-, it has to conform to the standard works and stuff. Also that, in -theory- all of the brethren would get some magical witness from God that the doctrine is correct. But in practice is that actually the case? There are many times that God chooses not to answer and allows us to use our best judgment. And He does that for wise purposes only known to Him.

Where I agree with you is that if the prophet does something morally wrong enough, and gets caught, then he would be removed by the brethren. I assume for the prophet that means doing anything that would cause him to lose his temple recommend. But it may not be that sensitive, it might be more like disfellowship or excommunicate type sins that would cause that reaction.

2 hours ago, Senator said:

You are capable of things I'm not...

I do not think I would be able to love my wife, if I thought she was an idiot.

Lol! Well I'm glad that my wife loves me even though I am an idiot!

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Then perhaps I could mostly sustain them😉

I read in a comment that the definition of "sustain" in the old dictionary means "endure". https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sustain

I like definitions 6 and 7 lol!

Quote

6. To bear; to endure without failing or yielding. The mind stands collected and sustains the shock.

Shall Turnus then such endless toil sustain?

7. To suffer; to bear; to undergo.

You shall sustain more new disgraces.

If these definitions apply then I can sustain quite a lot of brethren! I'm like a turtle, I move slowly but can take a beating and bear burdens on my shell.