A Different Kind Of Polygamy Thread

[Calm]

But show me how it is not polygamy. Show me how being married eternally to two women concurrently is not being married to two women concurrently.

It is quite simple. LDS doctrine defines plural marriage as a man having more than one living wife at the same time.

At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time.

Whatever is the relationship that exists at this time between sealed individuals of which one is dead and one is alive and remarried, it is not plural marriage/polygamy by definition.

When one is sealed in the temple, one is not considered remarried if already married. Thus marriage is not interchangeable in terms with sealing, and therefore one can't simply substitute "eternal marriage" (which is the equivalent term for sealing) for "marriage" to suit oneself. Being married in time is not the same as being married in eternity. For example those women who were sealed to JS for eternity were not considered to be committing adultery when they were married for time to other men nor were those other men considered to be proxies for JS. Nor were they considered to be married to two men at the same time.

One cannot point to a relationship that is in abeyance due to the absence of one spouse because of death and claim that it is the identical relationship as two spouses that are living together in marriage in the here and now.

Edited April 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[abdullah786]

I am not claiming anyone is killing people for apostasy, you did. Now you say it is "not practiced" or do you mean "not much practiced"? If not practiced, that means it is not being done now, right? Maybe in the past, but not in the past century or so? It would seem you are suggesting consistent occurrence of some organized effort, a group of believers punishing one who has tried to leave their group as may have happened at the time of the murder suicide of Jonestown or with the Aum Shinriko or do you just mean something along the lines of an honour killing where a family member kills another family member because he has turned his back on the family faith so that it is something more random, unorganized?

I am asking for some evidence beyond what someone might use as scriptural justification. You say there are examples so you should be able to point to them.

Perhaps there is some insane person out there murdering people because he thinks they are apostates...I see that as certainly possible, but I'd really like to see the least shred of evidence that it is being done on the North American continent for purely religious reasons and is something more than just a very rare event practiced by an extreme group, because someone has left the faith...any faith.

These examples, by what Christian faith are they being done? Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentacostals, Anglicans? How often do you think it occurs? How are they done? How are they being hidden from the law? (Remember we are not talking about ethnic or gang wars of Christians killing Jews or Jews Killing Christians or either being killed by or killing Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists, etc or those who refuse to convert to their faith, but only killing those who were once of their faith and have now left if.)

The only example I have heard recently of that was not a fanatical or extreme group was a Christian who because of his age at conversion vs family heritage it is debated whether he actually was Muslim before become Christian and he was put in jail, but there were varying claims as to the cause of his imprisonment, whether it was for his conversion or proselyting or political or something else....and last I heard he had not been executed though it has been several months since I checked.) It is the only one I have heard of. I would think if this was a common or even just an occasional occurrence, there would be lots more commentary on it out there.

add-on: since you asked for examples, I will give a link to wiki that lists some even though it is not my intention to argue that Muslims engage in capital punishment for apostasy, I am only interested in seeing this demonstrated for other current faiths:

http://en.wikipedia....the_recent_past

I have personally heard of one or two claims by individuals (my husband's students) that they have changed their names and gone into hiding because they have converted from Islam and are in fear for their lives. I do not know if their families belonged to radical groups or not. I do not know if those claims are true or not. I have never heard any claims of someone who has gone into hiding because their Christian family will kill them if they find them, though I heard of some being treated as if they were no longer part of the family and being disowned but that is a far cry from being killed; I have heard of Jews who sit shiva for loved ones who convert away from Judaism where it is in essence a funeral, but no execution is taken out, nor have I ever heard it to be a practice since OT times, if then. I have heard of death threats being made by Muslims of those who they view as apostate (such as Salman Rushdie) which I assume are from extreme sects, haven't heard of anything comparable in other faiths though with extremists, it certainly is possible.

It would be helpful in understanding you if you gave a few more details about what you are talking about and at least a couple of examples so we can tell if you are talking about something systematic and 'mainstream' or some sort of murder suicide/extreme cult or family dysfunction or something else.

Honestly I am basically saying the exact same thing. I read someones posts pointing out the death penalty for leaving Islam and I'm saying where does that really happen? Someone else other than myself brought it up. I'm not here to try and convert anyone to my way of thinking but I used to be mormon and I just want to see other peoples points of view and share mine.

But really I am saying the same thing you are.

[spartacus]

It is quite simple. LDS doctrine defines plural marriage as a man having more than one living wife at the same time.

Whatever is the relationship that exists at this time between sealed individuals of which one is dead and one is alive and remarried, it is not plural marriage/polygamy by definition.

This seems a bit disingenuous. I suppose then, technically, from the LDS point of view that LDS do not facilitate polygamy of any kind now. But, then, just as I stated the qualification would simply be LDS practice/facilitate "future spiritual polygamy". Now you might try to say that anything could be polygamy with enough qualifiers, but - no. In the end we have the LDS church DOING things that end up with polygamy - in this case a future activated spiritual or exalted person polygamy. It would be different if the LDS church was not doing anything to DIRECTLY lead to this situation in the afterlife. If someone said that by living the gospel of the LDS church then they are "practicing" polygamy because living the gospel happens to put some into a polygamous afterlife, I would think that too much a stretch - indirect. But here, again, we have a "sealing" of a specific type - meant to seal "as husband and wife" for eternity. This is a direct action that leads to a polygamous relationship either now or later.

When one is sealed in the temple, one is not considered remarried if already married. Thus marriage is not interchangeable in terms with sealing, and therefore one can't simply substitute "eternal marriage" (which is the equivalent term for sealing) for "marriage" to suit oneself. Being married in time is not the same as being married in eternity. For example those women who were sealed to JS for eternity were not considered to be committing adultery when they were married for time to other men nor were those other men considered to be proxies for JS. Nor were they considered to be married to two men at the same time.

I don't know about the first part. The specific examples simply state how LDS view their own practices. Which is relevant, sure. But the question is not necessarily whether LDS BELIEVE that they practice polygamy, but whether they do. I know you will think, if not accuse, that I am being presumptuous. But the difference is important and valid. Simply because a group says that they don't kill but simply "facilitate getting to God" doesn't make it any less murder. More happily, simply because a group says that they are only spreading a story, doesn't mean they are not spreading the gospel and thus the Kingdom of God. So we could speak of the question "Do LDS practice polygamy?" not just in terms of LDS pov but simple viewing of the actions themselves. This sort of leveled perspective is what I have been doing.

One cannot point to a relationship that is in abeyance due to the absence of one spouse because of death and claim that it is the identical relationship as two spouses that are living together in marriage in the here and now.

I am not saying that. But I actually think this is not consistent with marriage sealings. As you said, they are for "time and eternity", but this doesn't seem to mean "time and THEN eternity". The descriptions of simple "time and eternity" sealings seem to obviously imply that the people remain just as married after death as they were in life. Or the other way, through the LDS church people can be eternally married now- their marriage in this life can be as eternal now as it will be "then". If this is so, then nothing changes with death - the man is married when he marries again and thus is in a polygamous state. The death state of one of the wives does not make a difference. Obviously this is not the same (physically) as marriage to two women in this life, but it is the same spiritually.

IF LDS marriage sealings are marriages for "life and eternity", then the man remains married whether the woman is alive or not.

IF the man has another woman marriage sealed to him for "life and eternity", then that marriage begins immediately.

THEN, the man is concurrently married to two women (one alive (body and spirit) and one dead (spirit only)).

This is, admittedly, a very specific but no less true form of, polygamy.

There are quotes by men in this situation that can be helpful.

I think the only other possible response for denying this view of LDS actions is to say that the eternal part of the marriage will not go into effect unless the two are found "worthy" after death. That certain actions are required for the relationship to continue in actual practice after both have died backs this view. But this only gets us back to "future spiritual polygamy" or rather "possible future spiritual polygamy", or even better "INTENDED future spiritual polygamy." And where is that intention made? - in the actions of the LDS church. If they did not intend multiple eternal marriages to one male, then they would require an annulment of the original sealing before they sealed again. The intent of anyone getting multiple sealings is to be married for eternity to multiple women. If the LDS church facilitates this consciously, then they "practice" it - that is, polygamy (of this particular sort).

[Benjamin McGuire]

Spartacus writes:

But here, again, we have a "sealing" of a specific type - meant to seal "as husband and wife" for eternity. This is a direct action that leads to a polygamous relationship either now or later.

You do realize though, that the LDS church allows women to be sealed to more than one man - without these expectations you keep suggesting?

Ben M.

[Pahoran]

Spartacus,

I wrote a detailed response to your post, and it got lost. This is a second attempt, hitting the highlights.

Pahoran, you can tell me I'm wrong (and say something about me "taking it upon myself") all you want but you are going to have to come up with a better EXPLANATION of how I am wrong than what you write here. There's hardly a statement here, let alone an argument, let alone something that actually takes everything I said into consideration. Misrepresenting my argument and leaving out the critical detail of "sealing" is a form of "taking it upon [YOUR]self" that is quite ironic when you are attempting to claim such a fault in me.

Spartacus, this is how actual discussions take place between or among people of different faiths:

1. You speak for what you believe.
   
2. We speak for what we believe.
   

When you(!!!!) presume to tell us(!!!!) what our(!!!!) religion is/does/teaches/practices/means, then you have abandoned any attempt at a good-faith discussion. You do not understand our faith, and therefore your efforts inevitably result in distortion and/or misrepresentation.

I did not misrepresent your argument; I rejected it. Do you understand the difference?

How is it false? Is it false that some men have been sealed "for time and eternity" to their wife, then after her death, and WITHOUT annulling the eternal sealing, married a second woman and been sealed "for time and eternity" to her too? No. This does, in fact, happen. The FACT is that this man is practicing "spiritual polygamy" - in spirit, he IS married to multiple concurrent spouses (or spirit spouses). This is a simple description of the facts.

No, this is not "a simple description of the facts." It is your own opinion, which you are -- rather arrogantly -- imposing upon a faith you do not hold, and in brazen defiance of the vastly better-informed views of those who do hold it.

BTW, who are you quoting when you say "spiritual polygamy"? Evidently no-one but yourself. You have invented that construct for your own purposes, whatever they may be; which means that it has no relevance at all to what we believe and do.

NOW, IF you want to argue over the significance of "spiritual polygamy" as support for a claim that the LDS church teaches/practices "polygamy", then that's your best shot, because that is the only place where I am not making a simple description of the facts. However, my later clarifications, that you responded to individually are the very reasons I think "spiritual polygamy" is not only a type of polygamy, but a very significant type.

Of course it is significant -- to your anti-Mormon agenda; but it has nothing to do with the LDS belief or praxis.

Your attempt at framing the discussion upon your own invented terminology was clever, but it has failed. Sorry.

This is true, but the situation is not simply "remarrying" but being sealed again. I'm not quite sure why you are ignoring this obvious key fact. The whole reason why there is any form of polygamy is because there are two eternal sealings concurrently - that would be eternal polygamous marriage being practiced. The only way you could attempt to deny this is if the "eternal" part was suspended until the deaths of all involved. Only then would the three not be concurrently (spiritually) married. But even then the qualification would simply be the practice of "future spiritual polygamy" instead of just polygamy.

Again, you are attempting to impose your own post hoc rationalisations upon our understanding of our doctrine. That is the very height of arrogance and has absolutely nothing to do with any good faith discussion.

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent marriages. Normally they are such marriages that, viewed separately, would otherwise be legally recognised. There is no jurisdiction that I know of in which a widowed person is not legally free to remarry. There is no legal test that I know of that examines a widowed person's beliefs about family relationships in the afterlife before determining their right to remarry. If you know of such a test, feel free to enlighten us on the subject.

To say that a widowed person who remarries is practicing any form of "polygamy" is simply false.

This does nothing for you except show that you are ingoring my point - which is that the LDS church facilitates "eternal sealings". None of these other churches do this. So you are basically doing the opposite of special pleading.

I'm not "ingoring" your point; I'm not even ignoring it. I'm rejecting it. The Sealing ordinances are not relevant to the question at hand, and your attempt to make them so is special pleading par excellence.

This is just an awesome statement on your part. What a person believes about their afterlife - especially if they believe that it includes having multiple wives - is not at all specious - it is the very issue at hand. That Christians don't have this expectation has nothing to do with whether or not LDS members do. And no, I'm not talking about a "Mormon widower remarr[ying]". I'm talking about a mormon widower who eternally seals to another. That you keep misrepresenting the issue and thus my point and then claim you have put me in my place is... regrettable.

To talk about a Mormon widower "who eternally seals to another" (wrong voice, incidentally) is in fact to talk about that widower remarrying. There is no meaningful distinction.

And the fact that "LDS members do" have an expectation of family relationships continuing after death means that there are indeed Christians who have that expectation, because as all honest, informed people admit, Latter-day Saints are Christians, and this fact has been established beyond reasonable dispute.

I suppose the way you are trying to represent my argument could resemble special pleeding. But since your representation is completely off - your accusation is moot. There is no special pleading. I'm a dealing with LDS members according to their own practices. Technically, there are no direct teachings of the LDS church on this issue. There is simply the practices being practiced and their definitions and their implications. These are sufficient not for this-life polygamy, but literally define spiritual polygamy.

But "spiritual polygamy" is, as you have admitted, a construct of your own. It therefore doesn't matter how you "literally define" it, it has no relevance to the faith or practice of the Latter-day Saints. And since your argument claims that LDS marriages are "an exemption to a generally accepted rule," and since you fail to demonstrate that the sealing ordinance makes them so, this is exactly special pleading according to the source to which you linked.

How can a man being concurrently eternally sealed to two women not be polygamy. I have already admitted that it is a special type of polygamy. But show me how it is not polygamy. Show me how being married eternally to two women concurrently is not being married to two women concurrently. Hint: You might want to take it easy on baseless pronouncements of falsehood.

It's not polygamy because there are not multiple concurrent marriages to living spouses. Simple, isn't it?

And I'll stop pointing out your false assertions right after you stop making them. Deal?

I look forward to more effective discussion in the future.

The key to more effective discussions is for you to stop trying to control both sides. You speak for your faith tradition (whatever it might be) and we will speak for ours.

Regards,

Pahoran

[spartacus]

Part 1

Spartacus,

I wrote a detailed response to your post, and it got lost. This is a second attempt, hitting the highlights.

I appreciate it.

Spartacus, this is how actual discussions take place between or among people of different faiths:

1. You speak for what you believe.
   
2. We speak for what we believe.
   

What you have described here is not a "discussion" but two presentations. If I just say what I believe and you just say what you believe, then there is no discussion, just initial (and only) announcements.

Maybe you are saying that each of us is the only person allowed to speak about what we believe and that the other is only allowed to ask questions for exposition and clarification. You might even allow the other to point to something that doesn't make sense and ask for a correction or way of handling a difficulty. If so, then I suppose this isn't too bad. However, I haven't discussed what you believe. Not one time have I said "Pahoran believes in polygamy". Rather, I have only discussed what the official LDS church institution has done and taught. If you want to argue over my accuracy, then do so, but what you believe and "the LDS church" are not the same.

When you(!!!!) presume to tell us(!!!!) what our(!!!!) religion is/does/teaches/practices/means, then you have abandoned any attempt at a good-faith discussion. You do not understand our faith, and therefore your efforts inevitably result in distortion and/or misrepresentation.

Perhaps, if I had said "It SEEMS like the LDS church still practices polygamy technically in the following way...", then you wouldn't have gotten into such a huff. I apologize for the slip in explicit humility.

However, being a member of any religion does not make one an expert in it. Ask members of any religious group, including the LDS church, and you are bound to get differing answers on a multitude of major, even basic, topics. So I find it presumptuous of you to claim you know better than I about any topic of LDS simply because you are a member.

In the end, we all only have what we have been taught and what we have learned for ourselves. So, in a detailed description of a discussion of two groups:

1. A says what A believes about A's group/object (been taught/has learned).

2. B says what B believes about B's group/object (been taught/has learned).

3. A says what A believes about the object of the B's beliefs.

4. B gives B's POV on A's beliefs about B's belief object.

5. A gives A's POV on B's POV.

6. Vice-versa for 3-5 as well.

7. Repeat/Mix/Come to understanding of eachother.

We discuss what we know, preferably without pronouncements of what the religion really is or really means. We just discuss what we have come to understand and our POVs on those things and eachother beliefs and POVs.

I did not misrepresent your argument; I rejected it. Do you understand the difference?

The misrepresentation I was referring to was your apparent ignoring of the detail of sealing as husband and wife vs. a simple legal marriage. If you rejected that premise, then you didn't do it explicitly. An implicitly denied premise seems a lot like an ignored premise. When the argument is restated without that premise it seems misrepresented. I looked back at your replies and still didn't see an explicit - "that premise is not correct so your argument is unfounded and rejected by me" - statement.

No, this is not "a simple description of the facts." It is your own opinion, which you are -- rather arrogantly -- imposing upon a faith you do not hold, and in brazen defiance of the vastly better-informed views of those who do hold it.

If the description is not factual, then point out which is incorrect. Is it:

1- that LDS men get married/sealed to their wives "for time and eternity"? (Or any part of that statement)

2- that LDS men who have done 1 and whose wife dies can and do get married/sealed to a 2nd wife "for time and eternity"? (Or any part of that statment)

3- that 2 is done (at least sometimes) without annulling the first marriage/sealing?

Which of the above (which comprise the entire statment that you quoted me listing as the "facts") are false and how? Or, if they all are, then please say so and how?

BTW, who are you quoting when you say "spiritual polygamy"? Evidently no-one but yourself. You have invented that construct for your own purposes, whatever they may be; which means that it has no relevance at all to what we believe and do.

No one. I am using quotes as an indication that I am making up a term for something that I do not know what the official term is or if such term exists. It's a lay convention, but common. That I am using a term I made up to sum up or describe the summation/argument of the "facts" does not take away from the summation or argument's validity.

Of course it is significant -- to your anti-Mormon agenda; but it has nothing to do with the LDS belief or praxis.

Just above you, rather civilly, referred to my "own purposes, whatever they may be", but now you declare my "anti-Mormon agenda". A couple of things on that:

- I'm pretty sure many LDS find the eternal nature of their marital relationship quite significant, which is all I was referring to. IF my facts/premises and logic are correct, then I was simply saying that the conclusion is not made any less significant because eternal relationships are quite signficant. It seems like you are just writing me off, not just that, but trying to write me off as "anti" here. Seems a bit much.

- I find it interesting that you not only went into name-calling/poisoning the well, but that you went straight to "anti-Mormon". Tell me - what is "anti-Mormon" about polygamy or saying that the LDS church practices a form of polygamy in a limited way?

The best I can see is that you could view my statements as saying that the LDS church lies when it says it doesn't practice polygamy. But I don't take the LDS church as doing such. I think they are strictly referring to the common definition or form of polygamy - the legal/illegal one. If you are assuming that I am questioning the honesty of the LDS church, you should say so. Or else, it looks like you assume any statement about the LDS practicing polygamy (whether now or in the past) is somehow inherently "anti" which might give the impression that you hold polygamy as some type of stain on the LDS church. None of my statements have indicated that polygamy is wrong, let alone this particular type. So YOU brought that assumption from YOURSELF...

Your attempt at framing the discussion upon your own invented terminology was clever, but it has failed. Sorry.

Saying you don't like my term for the summation of the issue or argument does nothing against the validity of my argument. So it doesn't afford much to gloat about.

Again, you are attempting to impose your own post hoc rationalisations upon our understanding of our doctrine. That is the very height of arrogance and has absolutely nothing to do with any good faith discussion.

I'm not doing anything to YOUR understanding of anything. I have never said anything about your understanding. I'm not sure if your equivalence of your knowledge/understanding of your church and the church itself is a mistaken or pompous. I could say "It is your own opinion, which you are -- rather arrogantly -- imposing upon a faith you hold [but do not define or lead authoritatively]".

I am simply taking into account actions facilitated by the LDS church (marriage sealings) and comparing them to my understanding of their individual signficance (once sealed either sealed now or later) and presenting a line of logic that seems valid (their concurrence) and points to a conclusion which was the opposite (special form of polygamy still practiced) of pcarthew's statement (denial of (all forms?) polygamy).

Please, make no mistake, your understanding of your religion is not the religion itself. I am discussing the observable facts of the religion - actions and teachings - and arguing that they lead to a particular conclusion. That is all.

[spartacus]

Part 2

Polygamy exists when a person has multiple concurrent marriages. Normally they are such marriages that, viewed separately, would otherwise be legally recognised. There is no jurisdiction that I know of in which a widowed person is not legally free to remarry. There is no legal test that I know of that examines a widowed person's beliefs about family relationships in the afterlife before determining their right to remarry. If you know of such a test, feel free to enlighten us on the subject.

This seems to verify my guess about where you are coming from. Certainly, here, you are speaking from a government legal perspective, in which case you are 100% correct. But I am not speaking of a government's view of marriage sealings to multiple women, I am speaking of the spiritual reality of the summation of LDS actions and beliefs (as I understand them).

To say that a widowed person who remarries is practicing any form of "polygamy" is simply false.

Legally speaking, yes. But if the person remarries with the understanding that they will be (either immediately or only post-death/exaltation) married to two women concurrently, then that seems to speak for itself. The question is, is this the case?

I'm not "ingoring" your point; I'm not even ignoring it. I'm rejecting it. The Sealing ordinances are not relevant to the question at hand, and your attempt to make them so is special pleading par excellence.

Like I said silent rejection appears to be the same as ignoring to outside observers. Thanks for the clue.

The question at hand is whether the LDS church practices polygamy today. While I am arguing for a special form of polygamy, the sealing ordinances (between husband and wife) are completely relevant to that special form. If you don't think the special form is accurate, then please argue so - preferably without talking about "presumption" and "telling us what we believe" etc, etc. If you don't think the special form is signficant enough to be called "polygamy" then please say so, and answer the qualifications that I used to argue for its significance.

Quite charming by the way - your editing.

To talk about a Mormon widower "who eternally seals to another" (wrong voice, incidentally) is in fact to talk about that widower remarrying. There is no meaningful distinction.

How is there no meaningful distinction? I am really curious about this. Since there are two different verbal phrases "eternally seals to another" and "remarrying", there seems like there is an implied (meaningful) distinction, or else why would "eternally seals to another" be used to describe something that is not simply referred to as "remarrying"?

And the fact that "LDS members do" have an expectation of family relationships continuing after death means that there are indeed Christians who have that expectation, because as all honest, informed people admit, Latter-day Saints are Christians, and this fact has been established beyond reasonable dispute.

I have no idea what this is about. It looks like you are bringing in a completely irrelevant assertion (LDS are Christians). In fact, you seem to be agreeing with me that family relationships continue (probably with sealing) and thus can agree with me that IF a man seals to two women, then he can expect that "family relationship continuing" in the afterlife. That I call this a form of polygamy, and you don't seems obvious. If that is where you stand, then, ok.

But "spiritual polygamy" is, as you have admitted, a construct of your own. It therefore doesn't matter how you "literally define" it, it has no relevance to the faith or practice of the Latter-day Saints. And since your argument claims that LDS marriages are "an exemption to a generally accepted rule," and since you fail to demonstrate that the sealing ordinance makes them so, this is exactly special pleading according to the source to which you linked.

Is anyone else having trouble understanding all this?

Again, my term is meant to describe the actions/beliefs implications. That it is not an "official" term does not take away from the validity of my proposed implications. Insofar as it is used to describe LDS practice, it (or rather what it represents) is relevant. Try to be a little charitable and actually discuss the material instead of dogging on a simple terminological device.

It's not polygamy because there are not multiple concurrent marriages to living spouses. Simple, isn't it?

This would be simple if I agreed that spouses have to be alive to be eligible for polygamy. Your framing of my issue (that is mine and pcarthew's) does lead to this conclusion. But I (explicitly) reject your limitation to THIS life. Simply because a spouse is dead from this life does not make them go out of existence. If the sealing is effective, it is effective across or beyond death. Thus whether it is concurrent marriages of "living" spouses or "after-living" spouses makes a small but ineffective difference.

Maybe this will help. I am not splitting the living world from the after-life world. I am not splitting the government legal world from the religious law world. If two spirits - bodied or not - are sealed as man and wife, then they are man and wife ULTIMATELY speaking, not legally, but for all true meaningfulness they are. If two female spirits - bodied or not - are sealed concurrently to one man, then they are (not legally but ultimately) polygamous. You seem to be arguing from a legal-only or this-life-only frame of reference. I am not.

And I'll stop pointing out your false assertions right after you stop making them. Deal?

As soon as you prove yourself to be a truly authoritative representative for the LDS church (and not just a lay member however FAMILIAR with the religion you think you are [remember you just have what you have learned and I just have what I have learned]) then it seems like you can only say you disagree with my assertions. To claim them objectively false seems above your domain - unless you can prove a higher domain.

The key to more effective discussions is for you to stop trying to control both sides. You speak for your faith tradition (whatever it might be) and we will speak for ours.

Again, I think we would have been in a better situation if I had used the word "seems". For that error, I apologize. But, you don't speak for you faith tradition, you speak for your understanding of it - unless you are a general authority or higher? I don't speak for my faith tradition, either - simply my understanding of it.

Also, the key is for you to stop trying to claim exclusive knowledge of "your" faith tradition and simply show where and HOW I am incorrect in my observations of your church's actions and teachings.

Regards,

Pahoran

Again, I don't know how to take your "regards" after the "anti" name-calling.

Last note - that you call me an "anti-Mormon" could be taken as presumptuous on your part. Beyond whether I am, in fact, "anti" anything, there is the issue of the use "Mormon" in the epithet. I haven't said anything about "Mormons" in these posts, only about the LDS church and some of its members. For you to claim that my statements about the LDS church is equivalent to all "Mormons" is either an invalid extension or a presumption that ONLY LDS members are "Mormons". Considering all the types of Mormons, I hope you are not going with the latter.

Sincerely - May God Bless you, in Jesus the Christ's Name

spartacus

[Pahoran]

Spartacus,

I'm certain I've come across you somewhere else. If it wasn't CARM, was it Catholic Answers?

This seems to verify my guess about where you are coming from. Certainly, here, you are speaking from a government legal perspective, in which case you are 100% correct. But I am not speaking of a government's view of marriage sealings to multiple women, I am speaking of the spiritual reality of the summation of LDS actions and beliefs (as I understand them).

And therein lies the presumption. If you choose to "understand" a belief or practice in a way that believers/practitioners do not, then your understanding is irrelevant at best, and polemical at worst. You're not talking about a "spiritual reality" at all, but an invented category you have tried to tailor to fit us -- only we don't want it.

The question at hand is whether the LDS church practices polygamy today.

To which question the only honest answer is, "No."

While I am arguing for a special form of polygamy, the sealing ordinances (between husband and wife) are completely relevant to that special form. If you don't think the special form is accurate, then please argue so - preferably without talking about "presumption" and "telling us what we believe" etc, etc. If you don't think the special form is signficant enough to be called "polygamy" then please say so, and answer the qualifications that I used to argue for its significance.

Let's see.

You want to control the terms in which you(!!!) will permit me(!!!) to discuss my(!!!) faith with you.

Must.not.say.anything.about.presumption....

Spartacus, it's like this: in absolutely any other religious context, a widower remarrying would be seen, entirely without comment, for what it is: namely, monogamy. Your bluster about "eternal sealing" merely attempts to obfuscate the fact that you are treating Mormon widowers remarrying as something radically different than other Christians remarrying. Which, of course, is false.

How is there no meaningful distinction? I am really curious about this. Since there are two different verbal phrases "eternally seals to another" and "remarrying", there seems like there is an implied (meaningful) distinction, or else why would "eternally seals to another" be used to describe something that is not simply referred to as "remarrying"?

To start with, we don't use the expression "eternally seals to another" or anything like it. You appear to make up your own vocabulary to go along with your own constructs in order to hang this one on us. When Brother Brown and Sister Smith, both previously widowed (the names have been changed here, but they are real people) got married late last year, they said they were getting married. They didn't say "Brother Brown will eternally seal to Sister Smith" or anything like it. And they should know the right terminology: the former Sister Smith is a Temple Ordinance Worker and was for several years a Family History Consultant in our ward (she moved away when she remarried) and Brother Brown is a sealer in the Temple I attend. They described the event to their friends as "getting married in the Temple."

We may talk about them "being eternally sealed to each other" when we explain why someone chooses to be married in a Temple instead of someplace more soppily sentimental like a rose garden, but that kind of explanatory phraseology has nothing to do with what the event is called.

I have no idea what this is about. It looks like you are bringing in a completely irrelevant assertion (LDS are Christians). In fact, you seem to be agreeing with me that family relationships continue (probably with sealing) and thus can agree with me that IF a man seals to two women, then he can expect that "family relationship continuing" in the afterlife. That I call this a form of polygamy, and you don't seems obvious. If that is where you stand, then, ok.

I brought this in because you tried to slip under the radar your own assumption that Latter-day Saints are not Christians.

Is anyone else having trouble understanding all this?

Again, my term is meant to describe the actions/beliefs implications. That it is not an "official" term does not take away from the validity of my proposed implications. Insofar as it is used to describe LDS practice, it (or rather what it represents) is relevant. Try to be a little charitable and actually discuss the material instead of dogging on a simple terminological device.

I'm sorry that you are having trouble understanding what is really a very straightforward concept.

Our beliefs and practices mean what we understand them to mean and nothing else. If you have to invent your own concepts and vocabulary terms in order to hang something on us that we don't accept, then your terminology is clearly irrelevant, and raises uncomfortable questions about your bona fides in this discussion.

As soon as you prove yourself to be a truly authoritative representative for the LDS church (and not just a lay member however FAMILIAR with the religion you think you are [remember you just have what you have learned and I just have what I have learned]) then it seems like you can only say you disagree with my assertions. To claim them objectively false seems above your domain - unless you can prove a higher domain.

The arrogance of your demand that I "prove" something about myself to you is breathtaking. If by "truly authoritative representative" you mean something like a General Authority, it's not going to happen. All you will ever see here are regular people who happen to be Latter-day Saints. Our view may not be "authoritative," but it is authentic. I suggest you go with that; it's the best you're going to get. Which means that if you want to find a place where you can get away with making up your own religious terminology and hanging it on us, you will need to look elsewhere.

Because, you see, exactly 100% of all people genuinely engaged in good-faith dialogue with those who hold different beliefs, will always follow Kirster Stendahl's rules for such dialogue. And the first of those rules is "Let the other define herself," othewise expressed as, "If you’re going to ask the question, what do others believe, in their various faiths, ask them."

And the more I see you resolutely determined to invent your own concepts and tell us(!!!) that our(!!!) faith somehow entails, the less I believe you have any interest in discussing our religion with us. At all.

Last note - that you call me an "anti-Mormon" could be taken as presumptuous on your part. Beyond whether I am, in fact, "anti" anything, there is the issue of the use "Mormon" in the epithet. I haven't said anything about "Mormons" in these posts, only about the LDS church and some of its members. For you to claim that my statements about the LDS church is equivalent to all "Mormons" is either an invalid extension or a presumption that ONLY LDS members are "Mormons". Considering all the types of Mormons, I hope you are not going with the latter.

Yes, that's a well-known chestnut. I half expected to see the glib old "I love Mormons, I just hate Mormonism."

Anti = opposed to.

Mormon = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That's what it means.

Apostates, by virtue of their apostasy, are not Mormons. It doesn't matter whether they apostatised in the direction of Warren Jeffs or Martha Beck, they are no longer Latter-day Saints, and that's all there is about that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[spartacus]

Pahoran,

Again, I'm not telling you your beliefs or even discussing your personal beliefs. You have given me an idea of what your beliefs are - so we have succeeded in that part of interfaith dialogue. This entire time I have been discussing the actions of the LDS church institution, its teachings, and their implications as relates to a comment made here about the practice of polygamy - nothing to do with you or your understanding except that you associate with that institution. I can only speak from my own understanding, obviously. I have done this. You have spoken from your understanding. You think I am overstepping; I think you are overstepping.

In the end, whatever your personal beliefs, it is what it is...

The official LDS Church Handbook of Instruction says:

Living Women — A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. . . .

Living Men — If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed. (Church Handbook of Instruction, p.72)

　

After being widowed, Apostle Dallen Oaks remarried in the temple and believes he will be married eternally to both women. In 2002 he commented on his second sealing:

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married [in the LDS temple] Kristen McMain, the eternal companion who now stands at my side. (Dallin Oaks, "Timing," speech delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, January 29, 2002)

　

Harold B. Lee, the eleventh president of the church, also remarried after his wife 's death and was sealed to another woman and was looking forward to a polygamous relationship in heaven. He, in fact, wrote a poem in which he reflected that his second wife, Joan, would join his first wife, Fern, as his eternal wives:

My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern

That three might be, more fitted for eternity.

"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee"

(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church, remarried twice after the death of his first wife, and in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked: "...my wives will be mine in eternity."

In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory ("Mormon" Doctrine Plain and Simple, or Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Charles W. Penrose, p.66, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT).

Have a Good Day,

spartacus

note - quotes gathered by and non-quote material by[ UTLM]

Thank you for providing your source but we do not allow links to sites containing temple content.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Minos

[Calm]

And the official definition of plural marriage as is given by the LDS Church (as I posted earlier on this thread) is:

[P]lural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time.

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage?lang=eng

Therefore the LDS Church does not practive any form of polygamy or plural marriage at this time, no matter what is done in the eternities....since that has nothing to do with how plural marriage/polygamy is defined.

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[Benjamin McGuire]

Spartacus, let me quote a bit from the CHI that you didn't: "A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her lifetime." You seem to be avoiding this issue. Perhaps because it introduces some ambiguity to your interpretation?

Ben M.