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

[JVW]

I wanted to post my questions about sealing here. If anyone knows the answers to these questions please let me know. I wanted to demonstrate how little we actually know about sealing.

- I understand that to be sealed means to be married in the afterlife. What does it mean to be married in the afterlife? How does that differ from non-marital relationships in the afterlife?

- Do you believe that married couples who aren't sealed aren't going to love each other anymore? That two formerly married people can't still build a life together in heaven? Do you believe that kids who aren't sealed will not still be loved and treated like the children of their parents even though they aren't sealed? That God will place some sort of barrier preventing any form of communication between non-sealed "former families"?

- I understand that being sealed to my children means that they'll be my children in the afterlife. What does that mean? How does that differ from non-parent/child relationships in the afterlife?

- When Jesus says He's preparing mansions in heaven, is that literal? If so, I suppose that being married in heaven means that I get to live together with my spouse in our mansion. Do my kids live in that same mansion or do they get their own? Will we be neighbors? Does it even matter if someone shares the same mansion? How does this work if you have 100 generations sealed? One, big, giant gated community with a ton of mansions that somehow are all neighbors to each other? A million people all living in the same mansion?

- Do you believe in the quotes (I believe there are 3 quotes and that they were all made before the year 1900) that if a child is sealed to their parents that the "tendrils" of God will reach out to them and eventually every sealed child will make it to the Celestial kingdom? How do you rationalize and support this using the canonized religious texts?

- Do you believe that if a man and woman are sealed that if either commits any, or every sin, excepting cold-blooded murder that they have a golden ticket to the Celestial kingdom? How do you rationalize this outside of section 132? To me it sounds quite blasphemous.

- Is being married in the afterlife the same thing as being married on Earth? Do you believe that, somehow, exalted beings are going to have sex all the time and women are going to be relegated to infinite baby making machines? Do you have any evidence in the canonized text to support this belief?

So, again I ask what does it mean to be sealed?

The only thing I can concretely understand about being sealed is that it is a binding covenant with God that strengthens my relationship with Him and that, for some reason, it requires one member of the opposite sex. (I don't think sealing has ever been done with one man and more than one woman simultaneously, or vice versa, I believe that each woman got their own distinct ceremony.)

There is very little support for sealing in the canonized text; basically 132 (which *directly* contradicts Jacob 2) and some inferences pressed onto the Bible and Book of Mormon based on 132 and a few tiny snippets of talks from General Authorities, most of whom were in JoD days which are not regarded as canon. The Bible and the Book of Mormon do not preach sealing. So what do we really know about sealing? What has actually been revealed about it?

[webbles]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

- Do you believe that if a man and woman are sealed that if either commits any, or every sin, excepting cold-blooded murder that they have a golden ticket to the Celestial kingdom? How do you rationalize this outside of section 132? To me it sounds quite blasphemous.

D&C 132 is talking about getting your "calling and election made sure" which has several other scriptural connections.  So for me, it fits quite nicely.  Being sealed in the temple isn't enough to get that promise.  It says you need to be sealed by the "Holy Spirit of Promise" which doesn't happen immediately.  And we even have another ordinance called the "second anointing" which is kind of the follow on to a marriage sealing.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

So, again I ask what does it mean to be sealed?

The only thing I can concretely understand about being sealed is that it is a binding covenant with God that strengthens my relationship with Him and that, for some reason, it requires one member of the opposite sex. (I don't think sealing has ever been done with one man and more than one woman simultaneously, or vice versa, I believe that each woman got their own distinct ceremony.)

You mentioned marriage sealings and children sealings and second anointing sealings.  Those are different types of sealings.  So each one is different in how it works.  Even our baptism has to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng.  The marriage sealing requires one member of each sex but most sealings don't require that.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

basically 132 (which *directly* contradicts Jacob 2)

It only contradicts it if you read it one way.  And I've read lots of attempts to explain that "one way" and none of them make sense to me.  So I disagree that it *directly* contradicts.  Additionally, it is acceptable for prophets to contradict previous prophets.  See the Law of Circumcision being repealed in both New Testament and Book of Mormon.  Or Peter being told to eat unclean food.  Or Nephi being told to kill.  I don't expect it to happen frequently, but there is enough recorded incidents to how that it does happen.

[JVW]

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

D&C 132 is talking about getting your "calling and election made sure" which has several other scriptural connections.

What makes you believe that "calling and election made sure" is a doctrine as opposed to a cultural Mormon belief. What scriptural connections have you made to this belief?

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

Being sealed in the temple isn't enough to get that promise.  It says you need to be sealed by the "Holy Spirit of Promise" which doesn't happen immediately. 

Ok. So if I'm to understand you correctly when a man and woman are sealed in the temple they are not actually sealed, got it.

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

And we even have another ordinance called the "second anointing" which is kind of the follow on to a marriage sealing.

The Second Anointing is well documented and I believe that this is what people are referring to when they say "calling and election made sure" though most everyone I've ever spoken with who talked about "calling and election made sure" didn't know there were additional ordinances in the temple for General Authorities.

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

You mentioned marriage sealings and children sealings and second anointing sealings.  Those are different types of sealings.  So each one is different in how it works.  Even our baptism has to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng.  The marriage sealing requires one member of each sex but most sealings don't require that.

Ok, let me see if I am understanding you correctly here. Please note that I read your link which is a quote from the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie. I'm assuming that you regard this commentary as doctrinal because: it was written by an apostle, and it was published in a church manual 20 years ago. Do you regard the entire text of Mormon Doctrine as doctrinal? Why, or why not? From what I've read in your comments plus the quoted Mormon Doctrine text here is how I'm understanding you:

Every covenant priesthood ritual is a sealing ceremony. An ordained "sealer", the ones set apart by apostles and who have to dress in church clothes everywhere they go, is not required in order for someone to be sealed. Being sealed is dependent on two things alone: 1) the ordinance being performed by an authorized priesthood bearer and 2) the individuals personal righteousness before God.

If I understand you correctly and this is the case then could you explain to me the differences between:

- marriage sealing
- children sealing
- second anointing sealing
- baptism sealing, etc.

Also, how do you reconcile the Mormon Doctrine quoted text and your commentary with these verses in our canon?

Quote

DC 132:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

This verse states that to be sealed is done through an authorized servant. It also can be reasonably interpreted to say that the sealing can only be broken if the sealed commits cold-blooded murder as we all "abide in our covenants" as we constantly break them every day. (i.e. There are none among us who fully live the covenant to live the law of consecration.) What do you think "abide in our covenants" means? Whatever definition you give it, just add "don't murder" to the list and you are guaranteed a golden ticket to the Celestial Kingdom.

Also please consider and reconcile this verse for me:

Quote

Helaman 10:6-7 Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people. Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

Am I to understand this to be a different sealing power than what is used in the baptismal sealing and/or the temple sealing sealing?

Based on the above two quoted canonized texts it appears to me that God gives power to authorized servants to seal and what they seal is bound "as above, so below" and that, outside of the people's response to the authorized servant, what is bound is bound until the authorized servant says otherwise and has no other bearing on one's personal righteousness before God.

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

It only contradicts it if you read it one way.  And I've read lots of attempts to explain that "one way" and none of them make sense to me.  So I disagree that it *directly* contradicts.

Ok, please reconcile these two verses for me. I understand the churches apologetics, but it does not reconcile this contradiction.

DC 132:39 "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me ... and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife" - I interpret this verse to mean that God commanded/authorized/gave David all of his wives and concubines except for Bath-Sheba. I hope we can both agree to that interpretation.

Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David ... truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." - I interpret this verse to mean that David's wives and concubines were not commanded/authorized/given to David but, in fact, God views his polygamy as an abomination. I hope we can both agree on that interpretation.

I feel like both of these verses are incredibly clear without any ambiguity. So which is it? Did God give David his wives and concubines (not abominable)? Or was it an abomination before God?

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

Additionally, it is acceptable for prophets to contradict previous prophets.  See the Law of Circumcision being repealed in both New Testament and Book of Mormon.  Or Peter being told to eat unclean food.  Or Nephi being told to kill.  I don't expect it to happen frequently, but there is enough recorded incidents to how that it does happen.

It is also acceptable to believe that prophets can make mistakes and can mistakenly state their own personal opinion as a doctrinal revelation from God when it was not.

I am keenly interested in your response to my thoughts here. Thanks for your time in having this discussion with me!

[webbles]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

What makes you believe that "calling and election made sure" is a doctrine as opposed to a cultural Mormon belief. What scriptural connections have you made to this belief?

The idea behind it was taught multiple times by Joseph Smith and later prophets.  The phrase "calling and election made sure" is from 2 Peter 1:10.  Here's a talk (written down by James Burgess) from Joseph in 1844 where he basically says the same thing that D&C 132 says - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-10-march-1844-as-reported-by-james-burgess/5

Quote

Make your calling and election sure go on from grace to grace untill you obtain a promise from God for yourselves that you shall have eternal life, this is eternal life to know God and his son Jesus Christ, it is to be sealed up unto eternal life and obtain a promise for our posterity. Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, this is the power of Elijah to seal or bind or turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, sealed against all sin but the sin of sheding innocent blood and the sin against the holy ghost. David was one of the promised seed yet he was guilty of murder see Acts Chap 2 & 3 other sins will go to judgement before hand. 

It talks about making your calling and election sure, having it sealed, and also that it seals you against all sin except murder.

Here's another one from 1839 (recorded by Willard Richards) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-2-july-1839-as-reported-by-willard-richards/3

Quote

St Paul exhorts us to make our calling & Election shure. This is that sealing power spoken of by Paul in other places (See Eph I.13.14. In whom ye also trusted, that after ye heard the word of truth; the gospel of your salvation, in whom also after that ye believed. ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. Which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of his glory.) That we may be sealed up unto the day of redemption, this principle ought, (in its proper place) to be taught, for God hath not revealed any thing to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve & even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to.

It doesn't talk about murder, but it does talk about the Holy Spirit of promise and calling & elections being made sure.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

The Second Anointing is well documented and I believe that this is what people are referring to when they say "calling and election made sure" though most everyone I've ever spoken with who talked about "calling and election made sure" didn't know there were additional ordinances in the temple for General Authorities.

Not all General Authorities get the Second Anointing and you don't have to be a General Authority to get it.  There was a Stake President who left the church and he had received it and divulged what occurred.  The leaders of the church have gone back and forth on whether more people or less people should get it.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Ok, let me see if I am understanding you correctly here. Please note that I read your link which is a quote from the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie. I'm assuming that you regard this commentary as doctrinal because: it was written by an apostle, and it was published in a church manual 20 years ago. Do you regard the entire text of Mormon Doctrine as doctrinal? Why, or why not? From what I've read in your comments plus the quoted Mormon Doctrine text here is how I'm understanding you:

Every covenant priesthood ritual is a sealing ceremony. An ordained "sealer", the ones set apart by apostles and who have to dress in church clothes everywhere they go, is not required in order for someone to be sealed. Being sealed is dependent on two things alone: 1) the ordinance being performed by an authorized priesthood bearer and 2) the individuals personal righteousness before God.

If I understand you correctly and this is the case then could you explain to me the differences between:

- marriage sealing
- children sealing
- second anointing sealing
- baptism sealing, etc.

Also, how do you reconcile the Mormon Doctrine quoted text and your commentary with these verses in our canon?

Quote

DC 132:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

This verse states that to be sealed is done through an authorized servant. It also can be reasonably interpreted to say that the sealing can only be broken if the sealed commits cold-blooded murder as we all "abide in our covenants" as we constantly break them every day. (i.e. There are none among us who fully live the covenant to live the law of consecration.) What do you think "abide in our covenants" means? Whatever definition you give it, just add "don't murder" to the list and you are guaranteed a golden ticket to the Celestial Kingdom.

Also please consider and reconcile this verse for me:

Quote

Helaman 10:6-7 Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people. Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

Am I to understand this to be a different sealing power than what is used in the baptismal sealing and/or the temple sealing sealing?

Based on the above two quoted canonized texts it appears to me that God gives power to authorized servants to seal and what they seal is bound "as above, so below" and that, outside of the people's response to the authorized servant, what is bound is bound until the authorized servant says otherwise and has no other bearing on one's personal righteousness before God.

I understand it quoted Mormon Doctrine.  There are things in that book that are good and things that are bad.  The fact that another publication from the church (lesson manual for "Preparing for an Eternal Marriage") quotes this specific part from it makes it look like this specific part is fine.

We use the term "sealing" for a lot of different things.  There are things that require someone with sealing keys to do (such as marriage).  There are things that really have nothing to do with eternity (Like Nephi being able to seal the heavens and cause famine).  There are things that the Holy Spirit of Promise seals (such as baptism and every other covenant).  There are things that sometimes needs a person with the sealing key and sometimes doesn't (such as children; my children are sealed to me and no one was present with the sealing keys when they were born).

So, discussing "sealing" is hard for me since it is a generic term that encompasses several different things.  But a "marriage sealing" is sealing two people together so that they can come forth in the resurrection and take their place in the Celestial Kingdom.  And just because you got sealed at the temple doesn't mean that the sealing is permanent.  That only happens once it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  Because we can still break our own sealing.

For "parent-children sealings", I'm not exactly sure why it is needed.  It is probably one of the most important sealings we have since Moroni mentioned it to Joseph, Elijah restored it, and we do a lot of geneology for it.  But what does this sealing do and why?  I think it might have to do with the idea that sealed children will somehow be saved easier, though I expect everyone to be sealed at some point so I'm not sure how that fits in.  I'm a bit of a universalist (I believe God is really good at rescuing His children) so the idea that a sealing link all the way back to Adam to make it easier for us to accept Christ fits fine with me.

For "baptism sealing", it is only between us and the Holy Spirit of Promise.  No other person is involved.  No sealing keys are needed.  Only priesthood authority to have a valid baptism and then it is up to us to keep our covenants.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Ok, please reconcile these two verses for me. I understand the churches apologetics, but it does not reconcile this contradiction.

DC 132:39 "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me ... and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife" - I interpret this verse to mean that God commanded/authorized/gave David all of his wives and concubines except for Bath-Sheba. I hope we can both agree to that interpretation.

Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David ... truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." - I interpret this verse to mean that David's wives and concubines were not commanded/authorized/given to David but, in fact, God views his polygamy as an abomination. I hope we can both agree on that interpretation.

I feel like both of these verses are incredibly clear without any ambiguity. So which is it? Did God give David his wives and concubines (not abominable)? Or was it an abomination before God?

In 2 Samuel 12:8, Nathan says "And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."  For me, that looks like Nathan did give David wives.  So those wives were fine.  But when he took an unlicensed wife (Bethsheba), then he crossed the line.  So for me, the two are in sync.  Not all of his wives were abominable but some were.  Also Jacob is talking about both David and Solomon and Solomon took a lot more wives and concubines than he was authorized.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

It is also acceptable to believe that prophets can make mistakes and can mistakenly state their own personal opinion as a doctrinal revelation from God when it was not.

I am keenly interested in your response to my thoughts here. Thanks for your time in having this discussion with me!

Yes, completely agree.  If you think polygamy is a mistake, then that is fine with me.  I disagree with it but it is a valid belief.

Edited December 22, 2025 by webbles

[manol]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

I received revelation from God about this issue. The issue is that properly communicating personal revelation to others is impossible. For me, the revelation boiled down to this "believe the Book of Mormon more than the Doctrine and Covenants" and the Book of Mormon clearly states that the practice of polygamy is an abomination before God

I agree with you.

Imo "polygamy is okay with God or even commanded by God" can be a very seductive concept.  

 

7 hours ago, JVW said:

[God] allows us to continue living life in error and false belief.

Agreed!  Imo God respects our free agency to make mistakes, even pretty bad mistakes, far beyond the point where most of us (from our limited perspectives) would draw the line and say "no way!" 

And imo it would be a mistake to assume that just because something hasn't yet been "corrected", it must therefore inevitably be "correct".

 

7 hours ago, JVW said:

I have many reasons to believe that the church currently espouses false beliefs, policies, principles, or doctrines.

Agreed.

Imo God plows with the horses he's got.  That being said, imo right now God has a LOT of "horses" which are outside of the LDS Church.

 

7 hours ago, JVW said:

I have a question for you. Is there ever a time throughout Biblical history where God's chosen prophet or Apostle led Israel, or the church, astray?

Good question!

Based on the Biblical history as we "know" it, no.  I cannot make a case for there having been a prophet or Apostle who led Israel, or the Church, astray, drawing from the Biblical text that we have. 

 

7 hours ago, JVW said:

I think it's safe to assume that a prophet would be murdered before a prophet would successfully rebel against God to destroy Israel.

I don't share you assumption; I don't think that's how it works.  I think God's policy is more "non-interference" than that.

My guess is the things we assume would put souls in jeopardy are not the things God assumes would put souls in jeopardy.  And my guess is that God has a backup plan for every contingency. 

 

7 hours ago, JVW said:

I wanted to demonstrate how little we actually know about sealing...

I agree that there is a great deal we don't know about sealing. 

My opinion is that our associations in the next life will be in accord with what might be called "the law of affinity".   Imo a sealing might be an affirmation of something which is already true, but I do not think sealings make true something which would otherwise not be true.

(Imo Jesus' teaching on the subject in Matthew 22:30 was the higher law, and I wish somebody would have raised their hand and said, "Um... can you explain exactly what "as the angels of God in Heaven" means in this context?") 

Anyway whatever "sealing" may be, I do not think it is at odds with free will in the next life.

 

Edited December 23, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've always leaned toward 'leading astray' meaning leading into apostasy, because that is the one place the scriptures teach God's church will not go in the last days. 

I was going to post this next time I popped into the thread, lol.  How can one get back on the path if they are in apostasy?  Not only has doctrine been confused, but authority lost and authority matters a great deal in LDS theology.  It would be at the very least “blind leading the blind”.  At that point to get back to the path, a restoration will need to occur and we would anticipate that as happening outside what would then be viewed as the mainstream church, since it’s apostate and too influenced by falsehoods and likely false traditions.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, JVW said:

John C. Bennett was the assistant president of the Church

Anyone know what his duties were?  How much of a spiritual leader/teacher was he considered as opposed to being involved in more temporal things (overseeing administrative stuff, welfare, etc)…what the Presiding Bishopric is seen as in a lot of ways.  Hopefully that question makes sense.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, JVW said:

which is, oddly, what the josephsmithspolygamy site does as well

You view all lies as intending to harm?***  There is no thing as a white lie?  Or are you claiming that site conveys Joseph wanted to harm or take advantage of others and so deceived them?

Because if that is Brian Hales’ site, I find that very hard to believe.

***”snake” in this context is meant to convey danger and intent to harm imo

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, JVW said:

understand that to be sealed means to be married in the afterlife

But we speak of being sealed in the here and now and our children of being born in the covenant, so while being sealed has the promise of continuing our relationship as a couple (I use this rather than marriage as marriage can also refer to the legal, nonreligious contract that won’t be relevant once we are dead), that is not all it is and it may even not be its main purpose (I think we need to understand what a sealing actually entails before we can know its primary purpose).

Quote

The only thing I can concretely understand about being sealed is that it is a binding covenant with God that strengthens my relationship with Him and that, for some reason, it requires one member of the opposite sex.

There is also the sealing that takes place between the parent and the child, which can be of the same sex.

Sealings are spoken of as on earth as in heaven, so they have implications for the here and now, not just the afterlife.

Parking this here in case it’s helpful.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/15christofferson?lang=eng (sealing power by Christofferson, Oct 2023)

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, JVW said:

Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David ... truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." - I interpret this verse to mean that David's wives and concubines were not commanded/authorized/given to David but, in fact, God views his polygamy as an abomination. I hope we can both agree on that interpretation.

 Just an fyi, but Ben Spackman iirc has pointed out that “many wives” is defined in Jewish tradition as more than four wives (Jacob had four wives).  The problem was not polygyny itself, but excess polygyny because iirc one cannot treat all wives considerately with more than four in terms of time and caring. (Added: This last is my addition remembering discussion on this that may not have come from Ben as he was focused on the kings having many wives).

Nope, it’s @Benjamin McGuire, maybe he will notice this and pop in and correct my understanding if I have conflated others’  ideas with his.

For those who don’t have Deu 17:17 on instant recall:

New International Version
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

New Living Translation
The king must not take many wives for himself, because they will turn his heart away from the LORD. And he must not accumulate large amounts of wealth in silver and gold for himself….

King James Bible
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/17-17.htm

This more recent thread has a more detailed post from Ben (the archived on has posts cut off, so details could be missing)

his comments continue here

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75542-is-polygamy-eternal/page/5/#findComment-1210167098

 

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I was going to post this next time I popped into the thread, lol.  How can one get back on the path if they are in apostasy?  Not only has doctrine been confused, but authority lost and authority matters a great deal in LDS theology.  It would be at the very least “blind leading the blind”.  At that point to get back to the path, a restoration will need to occur and we would anticipate that as happening outside what would then be viewed as the mainstream church, since it’s apostate and too influenced by falsehoods and likely false traditions.

I agree. I think if the church went into apostasy there would have to be another restoration.   Maybe that’s one of the reasons we are promised. It won’t go into apostasy again. Maybe there’s not enough time before the second coming for another restoration.

[The Nehor]

On 12/22/2025 at 11:19 AM, JVW said:

I have a question for you. Is there ever a time throughout Biblical history where God's chosen prophet or Apostle led Israel, or the church, astray? I haven't studied this but my gut response to this question is that prophets have never led Israel astray. What happens to lead the church astray is the members begin worshipping false gods and then murder the prophets. Under that assumption I think it's safe to assume that a prophet would be murdered before a prophet would successfully rebel against God to destroy Israel. I think the best attempt made was by Jonah, and he failed spectacularly.

Ezekiel 32 and Jeremiah 32 where God talks about the old days when he commanded Israel to sacrifice their firstborn children to Him. You can argue about whether that was God commanding it or bad leadership but if these prophets are speaking for God then yeah, it seems God gave them the human sacrifice bit as a punishment. Eventually they came up with the idea of paying a religious tax to redeem the firstborn so you didn’t have to do the human sacrifice thing.

If human sacrifice isn’t going astray I am not sure what is. Maybe commanding and condoning slavery? Divine commands for genocide? Oh wait, those are in there too. Oh boy.

Read about this and more in Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? (This is a Douglas Adams joke).

Edited December 23, 2025 by The Nehor

[webbles]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Anyone know what his duties were?  How much of a spiritual leader/teacher was he considered as opposed to being involved in more temporal things (overseeing administrative stuff, welfare, etc)…what the Presiding Bishopric is seen as in a lot of ways.  Hopefully that question makes sense.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Hales-JohnCBennett-2015.pdf has a bunch of details about Bennet.  Page 143 (page 14 of the pdf) has a section about being "Assistant President".

Quote

Available documents show that Bennett never formally functioned as a member of the First Presidency or as a counselor to them in any meaningful way. He seldom, if ever, met in private council with Joseph Smith or other Church leaders. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve met many times in the months immediately after the Twelve’s July 1841 return from England. While no minutes of those meetings are available, multiple journal entries fail to list Bennett’s presence at any of those gatherings.

Quote

Also, the Times and Seasons referred to several Church leaders as “president” many times during the year after Bennett was sustained as “Assistant President,” yet the paper does not identify him as “president” even once.

Quote

Bennett’s biographer, Andrew F. Smith, concludes: “Despite the importance of his position, Bennett appears to have officiated at few public religious activities. He occasionally preached, and as mayor of Nauvoo he performed a few [civil] marriage ceremonies. He did serve as president pro tem in a special conference held on April 6, 1842, but otherwise he played little role in church conferences.”

It seems like Bennet hardly did anything, either spiritually or temporally.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, webbles said:

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Hales-JohnCBennett-2015.pdf has a bunch of details about Bennet.  Page 143 (page 14 of the pdf) has a section about being "Assistant President".

It seems like Bennet hardly did anything, either spiritually or temporally.

Why was he even appointed then?   (Reading the article now, looks like it will answer that for me)

Edited December 23, 2025 by Calm

[Senator]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ezekiel 32 and Jeremiah 32 where God talks about the old days when he commanded Israel to sacrifice their firstborn children to Him. You can argue about whether that was God commanding it or bad leadership but if these prophets are speaking for God then yeah, it seems God gave them the human sacrifice bit as a punishment. Eventually they came up with the idea of paying a religious tax to redeem the firstborn so you didn’t have to do the human sacrifice thing.

If human sacrifice isn’t going astray I am not sure what is. Maybe commanding and condoning slavery? Divine commands for genocide? Oh wait, those are in there too. Oh boy.

Read about this and more in Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? (This is a Douglas Adams joke).

Yes, when you believe God is commanding you, pretty much anything is possible 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

It seems like BennetNehor hardly did anything, either spiritually or temporally.

Put this on my tombstone please.

[gopher]

On 12/21/2025 at 8:07 AM, Calm said:

It’s a valid view, imo.  Just to be clear in case I wasn’t, I wasn’t challenging you, just presenting my own view, exchange of ideas kind of thing.

No problem, I didn't take it that way.  Bluebell mentioned that people leave the church over issues like polygamy.  The priesthood ban can also be included on that list.  I'm just curious if it's possible to maintain belief and trust in prophets if we think they are wrong about issues we feel strongly about.  There seems to be a lot to lose and very little to gain by adopting such a position. 

[gopher]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ezekiel 32 and Jeremiah 32 where God talks about the old days when he commanded Israel to sacrifice their firstborn children to Him. You can argue about whether that was God commanding it or bad leadership but if these prophets are speaking for God then yeah, it seems God gave them the human sacrifice bit as a punishment. Eventually they came up with the idea of paying a religious tax to redeem the firstborn so you didn’t have to do the human sacrifice thing.

If human sacrifice isn’t going astray I am not sure what is. Maybe commanding and condoning slavery? Divine commands for genocide? Oh wait, those are in there too. Oh boy.

Read about this and more in Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? (This is a Douglas Adams joke).

63% of the country supports human sacrifice of children so maybe that it isn't a good example.  ha ha, just trolling.

[Senator]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

No problem, I didn't take it that way.  Bluebell mentioned that people leave the church over issues like polygamy.  The priesthood ban can also be included on that list.  I'm just curious if it's possible to maintain belief and trust in prophets if we think they are wrong about issues we feel strongly about.  There seems to be a lot to lose and very little to gain by adopting such a position. 

Again, are we asked to trust and believe, or sustain?

[Senator]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

63% of the country supports human sacrifice of children so maybe that it isn't a good example.  ha ha, just trolling.

There’s a prophet behind that group too…

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

63% of the country supports human sacrifice of children so maybe that it isn't a good example.  ha ha, just trolling.

And God considers an accidental abortion *checks notes* a property crime so not sure how that constitutes human sacrifice..

Then again God doesn’t care that much about small children post-birth either.

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks!" -Psalm 137:9

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

No problem, I didn't take it that way.  Bluebell mentioned that people leave the church over issues like polygamy.  The priesthood ban can also be included on that list.  I'm just curious if it's possible to maintain belief and trust in prophets if we think they are wrong about issues we feel strongly about.  There seems to be a lot to lose and very little to gain by adopting such a position. 

I’m still here. 

[JVW]

On 12/22/2025 at 4:22 PM, webbles said:

The idea behind it was taught multiple times by Joseph Smith and later prophets.  The phrase "calling and election made sure" is from 2 Peter 1:10.  Here's a talk (written down by James Burgess) from Joseph in 1844 where he basically says the same thing that D&C 132 says - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-10-march-1844-as-reported-by-james-burgess/5

It talks about making your calling and election sure, having it sealed, and also that it seals you against all sin except murder.

Here's another one from 1839 (recorded by Willard Richards) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-2-july-1839-as-reported-by-willard-richards/3

It doesn't talk about murder, but it does talk about the Holy Spirit of promise and calling & elections being made sure.

From the references you gave it sounds like "calling and election made sure" doesn't require authority or being sealed. All of the references tell -the person- to make their calling and election sure. As if the one seeking it is in control over obtaining it. The bits about sealing just sound like the behind-the-scenes operations that God does in order to ratify the individuals choice.

On 12/22/2025 at 4:22 PM, webbles said:

I understand it quoted Mormon Doctrine.  There are things in that book that are good and things that are bad.  The fact that another publication from the church (lesson manual for "Preparing for an Eternal Marriage") quotes this specific part from it makes it look like this specific part is fine.

That's a fair way to look at it.

On 12/22/2025 at 4:22 PM, webbles said:

We use the term "sealing" for a lot of different things.  There are things that require someone with sealing keys to do (such as marriage).  There are things that really have nothing to do with eternity (Like Nephi being able to seal the heavens and cause famine).  There are things that the Holy Spirit of Promise seals (such as baptism and every other covenant).  There are things that sometimes needs a person with the sealing key and sometimes doesn't (such as children; my children are sealed to me and no one was present with the sealing keys when they were born).

My view here is different. I think that McConkie was getting into the weeds too much. If someone receives any priesthood ordinance it is valid as long as it's performed in authority, period. Sealing has nothing to do with it. If one is baptized then they are baptized. That gate has been opened and they can walk through it by enduring to the end and keeping their promises, or not. McConkie feels like he's saying as much but he's using all of this weird confusing language. There is no indication anywhere in the standard works outside of 132 that mentions that a baptized person needs to be sealed in order to go to heaven, and in 132 that is only inferred as sealing is talked about being the sort of mechanical framework behind how the priesthood operates.

I'm not sure but off the top of my head I don't think Jesus mentioned sealing a single time in the NT or BoM.

If someone has the priesthood they can perform priesthood ordinances but they cannot seal unless they are authorized with those keys. Yet all of these non-sealers can perform every priesthood ordinance except for sealing. That clearly indicates to me that baptism, priesthood ordination, endowment, etc. are not sealings.

Someone who is given the sealing power has the power to change the will of the heavens. That is what sealing means to me. It means that someone on Earth can act in place of God and God will support their decision even if it's a different choice than He would personally make. That is according to what I read in the Bible and Book of Mormon. What I see from todays church is that someone given the sealing power can perform an LDS marriage ceremony and that's it. I feel like our current understanding and application of sealing is woefully inadequate and way below what sealing could actually accomplish. Which supports my point that we don't really know anything about sealing as a church.

On 12/22/2025 at 4:22 PM, webbles said:

a "marriage sealing" is sealing two people together so that they can come forth in the resurrection and take their place in the Celestial Kingdom.

Your definition of marriage sealing doesn't make sense to me. Because someone can be a baptized, unsealed member of the church and can come forth in the morning of the first resurrection and take their place in the Celestial Kingdom as well. So what makes "marriage sealing" special? Unless I'm wrong about what ordinances are required to gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom.

On 12/22/2025 at 4:22 PM, webbles said:

For "parent-children sealings", I'm not exactly sure why it is needed.  It is probably one of the most important sealings we have since Moroni mentioned it to Joseph, Elijah restored it, and we do a lot of geneology for it.  But what does this sealing do and why?  I think it might have to do with the idea that sealed children will somehow be saved easier, though I expect everyone to be sealed at some point so I'm not sure how that fits in.  I'm a bit of a universalist (I believe God is really good at rescuing His children) so the idea that a sealing link all the way back to Adam to make it easier for us to accept Christ fits fine with me.

I think you are asking a very intriguing question. If sealing is a vehicle for salvation then I assume that Adam had all of his children sealed to him so once we roll up to them we are good whether we are sealed or not? See these quotes https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/09/hope-for-parents-of-wayward-children?lang=eng

Quote

[Allegedly] Joseph Smith "the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity."

Brigham Young "I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity"

etc.

 

On 12/22/2025 at 4:22 PM, webbles said:

In 2 Samuel 12:8, Nathan says "And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."  For me, that looks like Nathan did give David wives.  So those wives were fine.  But when he took an unlicensed wife (Bethsheba), then he crossed the line.  So for me, the two are in sync.  Not all of his wives were abominable but some were.  Also Jacob is talking about both David and Solomon and Solomon took a lot more wives and concubines than he was authorized.

Ok, so "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." I shouldn't interpret as Q: What was abominable before God? A: Having many wives and concubines. Instead I should interpret it as "David had a few wives that were unauthorized, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord, but the rest were my treat. And all [or most] of Solomon's wives and concubines were abominable before me."? Even though 132:38 says "[Solomon] received many wives and concubines...; and in nothing did [he] sin save in those things which [he] received not of me."

Here is how I interpret that verse in 2 Samuel you shared which, by the way, you make a very compelling argument with. God's servant approaches the king who is currently wicked and tells him that all of the stuff that he has was given to him by God because that king was anointed in his youth and chosen by God to become king. Don't forget where you got your status, wealth, power, and prestige. Humble yourself you arrogant brat David! And the things that Nathan specifically points out are the things that David treasures the most to give his message the most bang for the buck.

I do things that are abominable before God from time to time, and I can say that they were given to me from God. I would not say that they were authorized by God or that God is pleased in what I've done with the power He's given me.

ETA: I made this comment before reading that talk you recommended from Elder Christofferson. According to the talk Joseph Smith's own baptism was not valid until Elijah bestowed the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple years later. Do you agree or disagree with this idea?

Edited December 24, 2025 by JVW

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

I'm just curious if it's possible to maintain belief and trust in prophets if we think they are wrong about issues we feel strongly about.  There seems to be a lot to lose and very little to gain by adopting such a position. 

The underlying assumption that I see is it is more important to believe and trust (and maintain loyalty and obedience to??) prophets than to follow your own moral compass.

Based on my experience and what I hear talked about in various faith crisis circles, I think your observation is largely correct. Something about the tension between prophetic moral authority, prophetic ecclisiastical authority, and personal authority to discern right and wrong is a significant part of many faith crises. I am less convinced that it is a universal negative that some decide that they can no longer submit to the moral authority of our leaders (and sometimes even refuse to accept their ecclisiastical authority).

In my own current state, I have no trouble granting the church ecclisiastical authority -- the authority to decide who receives sacraments/ordinances/rituals and who serves in what callings and so on. However, I can no longer grant the church and its leaders unquestioned moral authority because of the doubts and questions and concerns about several current and historical issues. At present, I think one of the biggest "blocks" to this is the church's refusal to really wrestle with what it means to be led by a fallible prophet.

IMO, if it is such a horrible thing to have people conclude that the church is not everything that it claims and then leave the church, I think it would serve the church well to explore why people leave and seriously consider what, if anything, the church can do to help people stay. IME, the church as a whole does not really want to do the hard work necessary to help people resolve their doubts, questions, and concerns.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, gopher said:

'm just curious if it's possible to maintain belief and trust in prophets if we think they are wrong about issues we feel strongly about.  There seems to be a lot to lose and very little to gain by adopting such a position. 

I think that depends on the person.  I do hold that position.  My belief and trust in prophets has only grown with my knowledge that includes quite a few major mistakes imo.   

I can have strong disagreements with someone and still think they are wise, good people.  My husband is one of them.  Our political views are at times very different, yet I have never seen any reason to consider divorce because of it and I even still take his advice in many things and accept that in some areas it’s best he make the decision just as in other areas he has me make the decision as the better informed.  

Might see the leaders I believe as having made mistakes as having blind spots, iow human.  I find there is a lot less anxiety having this position about my leaders than not because I don’t have to defend or try to find valid reasons for things I believe are wrong and then being concerned if I can’t find them.

The Church is run on earth by humans like me even though God is overseeing it all.  If God can work with them and still turn the Church into his great work to help mankind towards salvation even with their missteps, he won’t likely be casting me out as unworthy for the mistakes I have made.  That is a very good reason in my view to stay committed and keep trying.

Edited December 24, 2025 by Calm