Sealed... for Time and for All Eternity

[kamenraider]

It is a little hard for us to discuss second anointings since we don't know much about them, but I'd say it makes sense that this woman would be told she did not need a second anointing with a different husband--the ordinance was performed for her and is binding, irrespective of whether she remains married to that man or he falls into apostasy, whatever. Just like her endowment does not have to be redone if she divorces or her spouse falls away from the gospel, or she remarries, the endowment is not redone and likewise, there should be no need to redo a second anointing.

The point is that even if a woman were sealed to two men, she could still only be a queen and priestess to one of them -- not both simultaneously. On the other hand, if a man had two women sealed to him, they could both be queens and priestesses to him simultaneously.

[alter idem]

The point is that even if a woman were sealed to two men, she could still only be a queen and priestess to one of them -- not both simultaneously. On the other hand, if a man had two women sealed to him, they could both be queens and priestesses to him simultaneously.

A man cannot be a King and Priest without a wife either. The point Juliann made is correct--deceased women are now sealed to all their deceased husbands. The assumption and teaching of the church is that a woman will have to choose one husband, but men can have all the wives sealed to them in the hereafter--and as long as their wives choose to remain with them, they can have them. Still, the ordinance work is valid and binding whether done for a man and a wife or a woman and a husband--what the Lord chooses to recognize and accept in the next life is up to him. We don't know the mind or purposes of the Lord to demand that he do things the way we think they should be done. He just might surprise some of us.

Besides, most of what we believe or assume we "know" on this subject is pure speculation when it comes to the hereafter and how things are done--and so, when we're talking about polygamy in the hereafter, we'll just have to wait and see what the reality is.

edited to add "deceased" in the description--and I think that is telling. The church is tacitly acknowledging that we do not know exactly how things will be done in the next life--best to do the work and let the Lord organize families as he sees fit.

[kamenraider]

Does that mean for all or for some?

I think it would mean all members of the Church.

Your quote mining on the subject is not clear.

If I don't post any quotes, you write "CFR," and if I post them, then I'm "quote mining"? I thought that quote mining referred to quoting a few phrases out of context in order to give a misleading impression. How many quotes would you like me to provide in support of the idea of polygamy being essential to exaltation? How many would satisfy you? Fifty? One hundred? Two hundred? Do you want me to dump that many on you all at once?

If only for some, what does that mean for those of us never asked to live the principle? Will we be excluded from the highest degree of the kingdom through no fault of our own? Seems to be the logical conclusion given the scenario you've devised.

What if I were not a member of the Church, and asked you "What about the 99.999% of the married couples in the world who do not happen to have been sealed in a Mormon temple? Would they be excluded from having their marriages last beyond death?" That's no less ridiculous of an argument than the one you're trying to present to me.

edit: I'm also wondering where this idea comes from of plural marriage as a "by invitation only" sort of thing.

It reminds me of when one of my brothers came back from his mission and people would ask him when he was going to get married, and he'd jokingly say "I don't know -- nobody has asked me yet."

Orson Pratt wrote this in the Seer about the process:

No man in Utah, who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain another, has any right to make any propositions of marriage to a lady, until he has consulted the President over the whole church, and through him, obtains a revelation from God, as to whether it would be pleasing in His sight. If he is forbidden by revelation, that ends the matter: if, by revelation, the privelege [sic] is granted, he still has no right to consult the feelings of the young lady, until he has obtained the approbation other her parents, provided they are living in Utah; if their consent cannot be obtained, this also ends the matter. But if the parents or guardians freely give their consent, then he may make propositions of marriage to the young lady; if she refuse these propositions, this also ends the matter; but if she accept, a day is generally set apart by the parties for the marriage ceremony to be celebrated. It is necessary to state, that before any man takes the least step towards getting another wife, it is his duty to consult the feelings of the wife which he al. ready has, and obtain her consent, as recorded in the 24th paragraph of the revelation, published in the first No. of "The Seer."

--The Seer, Vol.1, No.2, p.31

[kamenraider]

A man cannot be a King and Priest without a wife either.

Right. But a man can be a king and priest with multiple wives as queens and priestesses to him, whereas a woman cannot be a queen and priestess to more than one man at the same time.

The point Juliann made is correct--deceased women are now sealed to all their deceased husbands. The assumption and teaching of the church is that a woman will have to choose one husband, but men can have all the wives sealed to them in the hereafter--and as long as their wives choose to remain with them, they can have them.

I seem to remember her pointing out that the Church Handbook no longer mentions that a woman will have to choose one though, as if it had some particular significance (such as that women could now be polyandrists in the eternities?).

[juliann]

The assumption and teaching of the church is that a woman will have to choose one husband,

Actually this isn't a teaching anymore. This used to be in the CHI but it has been removed. That is highly significant.

[juliann]

I'm a bit confused by all this too, but I think ttribe is asking you to be more direct with what you say. You tend to post quotes from other sources for us to read for ourselves, but we don't seem to getting the same information from the quotes that you intend us to (if that makes sense).

I think ttribe wants you to make your 'points' using 30 of you own words, rather than 400 of a long-dead prophet's words.

However, I think I get what you're trying to say. I think you're saying that a lot of mormons claim not to believe in polygamy, and are actually vehemently opposed to it, yet, it is still part of our doctrine. You think the church should be more clear to its members about our beliefs regarding polygamy. You think that at the moment, the church is vague, and possibly embarrassed, when it comes to our polygamous beliefs, and you think that this is causing most members to presume we don't believe in polygamy, when we actually do.

Have I got it correct? If this if what your view is, I mostly agree with you.

He thinks our prophet has abandoned a true principle. We will be treated to very old quotes but not a thing from living prophets who have it all wrong. He will spam the same stuff over and over and over on endless threads.

[MorningStar]

Right. But a man can be a king and priest with multiple wives as queens and priestesses to him, whereas a woman cannot be a queen and priestess to more than one man at the same time.

Why couldn't a woman be a queen and a priestess to more than one man? Why can a man be a king and a priest to more than one woman? I don't see a difference.

[ttribe]

I think it would mean all members of the Church.

That would be a first.

If I don't post any quotes, you write "CFR," and if I post them, then I'm "quote mining"? I thought that quote mining referred to quoting a few phrases out of context in order to give a misleading impression. How many quotes would you like me to provide in support of the idea of polygamy being essential to exaltation? How many would satisfy you? Fifty? One hundred? Two hundred? Do you want me to dump that many on you all at once?

I don't care how many - I want some equal consideration of any quotes from any modern prophets and apostles that might stand in contrast. In other words, evidence that you've considered all the words in front of you.

What if I were not a member of the Church, and asked you "What about the 99.999% of the married couples in the world who do not happen to have been sealed in a Mormon temple? Would they be excluded from having their marriages last beyond death?" That's no less ridiculous of an argument than the one you're trying to present to me.

You don't see a fundamental difference? Really? Let's set this out plainly - I've partaken of all the ordinances of salvation offered to me thus far, including sealing to my wife. Rejected nothing. I die tomorrow. What's my remedy for falling short (according to your paradigm), or am I doomed to fall short of the highest degree of the CK?

edit: I'm also wondering where this idea comes from of plural marriage as a "by invitation only" sort of thing.

Actually, I think your Pratt quote captures the concept I was trying to convey quite well.

Please be clear now - are the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as presently constituted, in error for excommunicating members of the Church who attempt to live a polygamous life?

[Deborah]

The whole concept of sealing, and providing the connecting link from one generation to another is so much more significant than how many wives one has. The sealing isn't just about the man and woman but In section 128:18 we read:

I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or otherâ??and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

Now this of course is speaking about baptism for the dead. But we know that genealogy work and baptism for the dead are only the first steps on "welding" these generations together. To me the purpose of sealing has to do with some law of the universe that requires the bonding of all spirits. How many wives one has is a very insignificant part of this as the purpose is linking generations together not just husbands and wives. I think our understanding of the purpose of the sealing power is very limited. We already know that in the beginning sealings were improperly done because the saints didn't fully understand the principles involved. That is why we must listen to what the living prophet is saying, and not what prophets of old have said on something they may not have fully understood, as the church has increased in knowledge precept by precept.

[Calm]

The whole concept of sealing, and providing the connecting link from one generation to another is so much more significant than how many wives one has. The sealing isn't just about the man and woman but In section 128:18 we read:

Now this of course is speaking about baptism for the dead. But we know that genealogy work and baptism for the dead are only the first steps on "welding" these generations together.

Which is not surprising when Brigham Young calls baptism the New and Everlasting Covenant....

I would also like to know why women can't be Queens and Priestesses to more than one man if men can function in their role of Kings and Priests to more than one woman. What is the significant difference that has been revealed (and is just not assumed) between the two roles?

[kamenraider]

Which is not surprising when Brigham Young calls baptism the New and Everlasting Covenant....

I would also like to know why women can't be Queens and Priestesses to more than one man if men can function in their role of Kings and Priests to more than one woman. What is the significant difference that has been revealed (and is just not assumed) between the two roles?

Men function in the role of kings and priests to God, not to their wives.

Matthew 6:24

No (wo)man can serve two masters: for either (s)he will hate the one, and love the other; or else (s)he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

[MorningStar]

Men function in the role of kings and priests to God, not to their wives.

Matthew 6:24

No (wo)man can serve two masters: for either (s)he will hate the one, and love the other; or else (s)he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

You're seriously using that scripture as an argument for polygamy? That scripture is about how you can't follow God and Satan at the same time and our husbands are not our masters! So you think it's a woman's role to serve her husband (aka master) for eternity? And he doesn't serve her?

[staccato]

This doesn't address, at all, the post to which you replied.

Please feel free to read your last paragraph again.

We are asked to follow the living Prophet and not dead prophets. This fascination with polygamy has lured many good people away from the true church. It has been an effective way that Satan is able to pick off some faithful LDS who would not succomb to the worldly temptations and vices that usually work--with this fascination with having greater knowledge, or being called to specially live something that others don't have--thinking they know the mysteries and they are especially privileged to ignore the rules and the commandments the rest are expected to live because they are special--and so; some end up being deceived into thinking they are "called" to live this and end up causing great suffering and destruction to their innocent families. This is not what our Heavenly Father wants. He wants us to follow our living Prophet.

I believe many believing mormon would take issue with your stance that you are to disregard dead prophets.

[Wants2know]

I have several friends who have two. One in heaven and one here.

What is amusing is how hard it is for women to accept being the second wife even when the first is dead. I first became familiar with this in college when a good friend lost his first wife and really had a hard time dating because the women he met didn't want to be number two. This guy was such a great catch they were nuts. I was too young and not interested in marriage at the time or I would love to have gone out with him, so we were just friends. If only....

I wouldn't have a problem accepting if the first wife was deceased. But I have a problem with the "x wife". Ergo... why my fiance and I are not yet married and we have no agreement on religion!! But insofar as this post... as non-lds I'm trying to figure out what I'm reading. Is the OP stating that he is interpreting that plural marriage is still the expectation of the church?

[Deborah]

I believe many believing mormon would take issue with your stance that you are to disregard dead prophets.

No one has said to disregard dead prophets. We after all study their teachings on gospel principles in RS and Priesthood. However, we are to follow the instructions of the living prophets, not what saints were instructed to do 100 years ago or 50 years ago.

[thesometimesaint]

Wants2know:

We do have our FAIR share of jokesters on the Board, but no I don't believe he/she is advocating for polygamy. To actually be in a polygamous marriage in the Church will get you ex'ed quicker than greased lightening.

[Wants2know]

This topic, or variations thereof, always seems to evoke incredible responses. It makes me feel better to know that there are all sorts of opinions and thoughts on this point, since I struggle with the concept so much. I value everyone's thoughts and experiences, and I understand how people feel from the many varied positions. The bottom line, for me, it's whatever the couple wants and feels comfortable in participating in is what is important. I understand the cultural pieces, the emotional pieces, the church opinions and feelings about the sanctity of the Temple ceremony. Having been through one wedding that turned out to be about everyone else and NOT about my former husband and I, I can see the many pros of how LDS manages marriage ceremony in the temple. I see a lot of value in optimizing the covenant of marriage in the way the temple ceremony has been portrayed to me. It's so stressful having to consider all the peripheral feelings when it comes to a wedding, and I do believe all those peripherals have a great potential to distract the couple from the true meaning of marriage vows. (Ergo, in part why my fiance and I aren't married yet!).

[ttribe]

Please feel free to read your last paragraph again.

I believe many believing mormon would take issue with your stance that you are to disregard dead prophets.

I didn't write that paragraph.

[kamenraider]

You're seriously using that scripture as an argument for polygamy? That scripture is about how you can't follow God and Satan at the same time and our husbands are not our masters! So you think it's a woman's role to serve her husband (aka master) for eternity? And he doesn't serve her?

I was just trying to make the point that a person can't follow two people simultaneously, rather than to try to teach that men are women's masters or something. I don't believe that a husband/wife relationship is equivalent to a master/servant one. That's silly.

We do believe that women are to follow the righteous counsel of their husbands. It would be an odd and confusing situation if a woman were to try to harken to the counsel of two different husbands, would it not?

[thesometimesaint]

kamenraider:

Women are to harken unto the counsel of their husbands only to the extent that their husbands harken unto the Lord.

No woman is required to follow her husband down to Hell.

[kamenraider]

I don't care how many -

Of course you don't.

I want some equal consideration of any quotes from any modern prophets and apostles that might stand in contrast. In other words, evidence that you've considered all the words in front of you.

So in addition to mining quotes to support my position, you want me to mine a few for you too?

You don't see a fundamental difference? Really? Let's set this out plainly - I've partaken of all the ordinances of salvation offered to me thus far, including sealing to my wife. Rejected nothing. I die tomorrow. What's my remedy for falling short (according to your paradigm), or am I doomed to fall short of the highest degree of the CK?

I suppose your remedy would be proxy ordinances.

Please be clear now - are the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as presently constituted, in error for excommunicating members of the Church who attempt to live a polygamous life?

Technically the First Presidency and Twelve don't do any excommunicating but leave that up to ward and stake disciplinary councils. I don't think they would be in error at all for doing so in a case where a person tried to live it without proper authority, originating from the Prophet. I think that some people have actually been disciplined who DID live it by proper authority though. Some of those cases are mentioned in the book Solemn Covenant by B. Carmon Hardy.

[kamenraider]

kamenraider:

Women are to harken unto the counsel of their husbands only to the extent that their husbands harken unto the Lord.

No woman is required to follow her husband down to Hell.

That's right. That's why I used the words "righteous counsel."

[ttribe]

Of course you don't.

So in addition to mining quotes to support my position, you want me to mine a few for you too?

Now you're just being petty.

I suppose your remedy would be proxy ordinances.

What's your remedy then? Do you intend to live the principle in this life?

Technically the First Presidency and Twelve don't do any excommunicating but leave that up to ward and stake disciplinary councils. I don't think they would be in error at all for doing so in a case where a person tried to live it without proper authority, originating from the Prophet. I think that some people have actually been disciplined who DID live it by proper authority though. Some of those cases are mentioned in the book Solemn Covenant by B. Carmon Hardy.

That's a dodge. The mandate comes from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the hear and now. Again I will ask - do you believe they are in error by requiring Stake Presidents and Bishops to excommunicate members of the Church who seek to live polygamy now?

[thesometimesaint]

kamenraider:

It is good to see we agree on somethings.

[Calm]

Men function in the role of kings and priests to God, not to their wives.

Matthew 6:24

No (wo)man can serve two masters: for either (s)he will hate the one, and love the other; or else (s)he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

With this logic, you've demonstrated that no one can both serve God the Father and God the Son, but will only function as kings and priests to one of them.