Apologetics: Not In Vain

[foster]

Seekingunderstanding, what you point out is a problem. There are no answers. There are only responses, which as illustrated by this thread, have holes. Part of the problem is the Church does not provide "Prophetic answers" to issues people face. The other problem is, in my opinion, that individuals can not accept something without some sort of man made concoction of flawed reasoning. Man made reasoning will inevitably fail. Man,subject to pride, vanity and many other failings, is an unreliable source to look too concerning the things of God. At the end of the day, the only things that matter are what the Spirit has revealed and the choices one makes.

Edited August 29, 2013 by foster

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Seekingunderstanding, what you point out is a problem. There are no answers. There are only responses, which as illustrated by this thread, have holes. Part of the problem is the Church does not provide "Prophetic answers" to issues people face. The other problem is, in my opinion, that individuals can not accept something without some sort of man made concoction of flawed reasoning. Man made reasoning will inevitably fail. Man,subject to pride, vanity and many other failings, is an unreliable source to look too concerning the things of God. At the end of the day, the only things that matter are what the Spirit has revealed and the choices one makes.

I really like your last sentence.  We are all in this world seeking for truth and understanding through a glass darkly.  I think if we seek the spirit and make the best choices we can then God and Christ will take care of the rest.

[BCSpace]

Honest question: What was the point of Joseph Smith having polyandrous relationships, especially if the wives had productive relationships with their previous/current husbands? I don't understand what this was meant to accomplish or why God thought it would be a good idea.

 

I don't think we have that information. But I think willingness to do it on the part of the women makes it largely a moot point.

 

Second honest question: Was this ever acceptable in biblical times? We know that polygamy was at one point, but was polyandrous relationship ever permitted?

 

I'm not seeing any polyandrous relationships yet in the JS case.

[BCSpace]

In fact, the sealings to JS by married women seem to have little if any effect on their lives with their current husbands.

 

So if you found out that you were not going to be with your wife for eternity and would in fact be sealed to another wife for eternity, this would have little if any effect on your life?

 

 

In the sense of their living together and having children, it doesn't seem to be the case which speaks more to the fact that the relationship isn't polyandrous.

 

Interestingly your interpretation is different from rpn who said these were dynastic sealings

 

 

I don't think we differ here.

 

and were a mistaken implementation of the sealing principle.

 

 

I would have no problem if that were doctrine.  In addition, it wouldn't change anything I've said.  It would be good for rpn to give the reference and a quote.

 

[USU78]

Okay. So you are saying that at one time the church believed that they should be sealed to their family and the most righteous person they knew?  Just for the record I am not Mormon, just trying to learn. So, I don't have the reference material you mention. But, I will look it up. Thank you.

 

My G-G-Grandfather, the donor of my Y chromosome, was one such, who was a cop/bodyguard in Nauvoo, a Seventy, and a serial-only polygynist, was sealed not only to his wives and children, but also to BY.  We have correspondence from him to BY (but no responses have emerged) complaining that BY wasn't treating him very well (sending him on mission after mission after mission and then not even coming up to visit him in Brigham City or bothering to write him back).

 

As folks wrestled with Section 132's practical implications, naturally some odd ideas came and went.  For those on the inside, it has become a kind of a joke.  In an '80s-era comedy/cartoon book a not-quite-middle-aged-thickening-and-big-haired woman shows up at the temple with a bunch of paperwork and says to the bemused temple worker:  "Here.  Quick.  Seal me to Elvis!"

[USU78]

I really like your last sentence.  We are all in this world seeking for truth and understanding through a glass darkly.  I think if we seek the spirit and make the best choices we can then God and Christ will take care of the rest.

 

If that ain't one of the best paraphrases of the atonement I've ever heard, I cannot remember.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In the sense of their living together and having children, it doesn't seem to be the case which speaks more to the fact that the relationship isn't polyandrous.

 

 

I don't have any special hang-ups about sexual polyandry. The evidence is strong with most of Joseph Smith's polygamy that it was about more than sex.  The dearth of offspring from otherwise very fertile individuals speaks very strongly to this effect.  

 

 

 

I don't think we differ here.

 

 

I would have no problem if that were doctrine.  In addition, it wouldn't change anything I've said.  It would be good for rpn to give the reference and a quote.

 

I misread you then.  I think the evidence that they were dynastic only sealings is pretty slim (but I too would be happy with that interpretation). It's my understanding that these women were never sealed to their husbands and only sealed to Joseph. In fact it is only a recent development that a woman could be sealed to more than one man (and only after both are dead). This is in direct contrast to the adoption type sealings that President Woodruff stopped. In these sealings men (and only men), were sealed to church leaders in addition to their wives.  

Edited August 29, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If that ain't one of the best paraphrases of the atonement I've ever heard, I cannot remember.

Thank you.

[BCSpace]

I don't have any special hang-ups about sexual polyandry.

 

Neither do I. But the evidence points away from it in this case.  In addition, Brian C Hales argues in his video conversation with John Dehlin that the D&C contains several examples showing that's not allowed.

 

 

I misread you then.  I think the evidence that they were dynastic only sealings is pretty slim (but I too would be happy with that interpretation).

 

If it turns out to be a misunderstanding, then dynastic could be a reasonable explanation as to the thinking behind it.

 

It's my understanding that these women were never sealed to their husbands and only sealed to Joseph.

 

The same is practiced in the Church today.  A woman can be sealed to a man and yet be married for time to another man though obviously the one she's sealed to has to be dead.  Pending what I see in the forthcoming (hopefully) WW quote, perhaps the case can be made that it wasn't a mistake after all but we have merely changed the policy to avoid confusion with and accusations of actual polyandry.

 

In fact it is only a recent development that a woman could be sealed to more than one man (and only after both are dead).

 

Recent as in Latter-days recent?

Edited August 29, 2013 by BCSpace

[Calm]

Seekingunderstanding, what you point out is a problem. There are no answers.....At the end of the day, the only things that matter are what the Spirit has revealed and the choices one makes.

My personal opinion is that God gives no general answers for these very important and troubling questions to the Church in order to drive people to their knees in search of those answers they so desperately need.  If we as a people were more prone to sincerely seek him with all our heart, mind and soul, he would not have to resort to such strong measures....but unfortunately when we are comfortable and at peace, we tend to forget who got us there in the first place....prime example, the brother of Jared who went for 4 years without seeking God after some pretty remarkable conversation with him.

Edited August 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 In fact it is only a recent development that a woman could be sealed to more than one man (and only after both are dead). 

There have been reports of living women receiving permission to be sealed to more than one husband (the first having died).  At this point, this would have to be something sought out by the couple from the top.

 

This is in direct contrast to the adoption type sealings that President Woodruff stopped. In these sealings men (and only men), were sealed to church leaders in addition to their wives.  

 

 

CFR please (that only men were sealed in such a way)

Edited August 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

There have been reports of living women receiving permission to be sealed to more than one husband (the first having died). At this point, this would have to be something sought out by the couple from the top.

CFR please (that only men were sealed in such a way)

On the first, thanks for the addition. On the second I see I might be in error. I've only seen it in reference to men. Wiki agrees(not a real source I know). Fair says women were included. Consider this a retraction unless I can come back with something better.

[Calm]

Consider this a retraction unless I can come back with something better.

Thank you.  I am very curious as to which it was.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This is in direct contrast to the adoption type sealings that President Woodruff stopped. In these sealings men (and only men), were sealed to church leaders in addition to their wives.  

 

 

 

CFR please (that only men were sealed in such a way)

 

So I did my digging and it turns out that I was very wrong.  I read through Jonathon Stapley's and Samual Brown's articles in the journal of Mormon History referenced here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/14/mormonisms-adoption-theology/

 

It turns out that while Joseph established adoption theology in the years leading up to his death, he never participated in the ordinance as he taught it required a temple to complete.  Adoption is in fact the only ordinance that hasn't been performed outside of a temple (i.e. no adoptions or even parent to child sealings were performed in the endowment house or before the Nauvoo temple was established).  Samuel Brown framed Joseph's doctrine as follows:

The blessings framed the fundamental human problem as orphanhood and the solution as adoption into the family of God. 

 

Another observation from Samuel Brown I thought was good:

Smith never practiced the precise rituals his followers implemented after his death.These rituals, as Jonathan Stapley eloquently demonstrates in his companion paper, were an attempt to come to terms with Smith's complex legacies and the diverse rites that supported the adoption theology during his life. The adoption theology and ritual during Joseph Smith's life were primarily concerned with the role of a special power and authority called priesthood in the establishment of relationships among believers and between believers and Christ. These relationships were believed to assure, even to define, both salvation and personal identity

 

Stapley's article indicates that in Nauvoo: "Many adoptees in Nauvoo were married couples or children-in-law of the adoptive parents. Both men and women, single and married,were adopted."

 

I think where I got confused is by some of Brigham Young's later rhetoric: (from Stapley page 82)

 

As the availability of the Endowment House approached, Brigham Young began to discuss temple rituals in earnest. It is evident

that his views on adoption had expanded. While adoptions in Nauvoo were regularly performed before people were sealed inmarriage,

by 1856 Young placed adoption at the liturgical apex of Mormonism: “We will seal men to men by the keys of the Holy Priesthood. This is the highest ordinance. It is the last ordinance of the kingdom of God on the earth and above all the endowments that can be given you. It is a finall sealing an Eternal Principle and when once made cannot be broaken by the Devel.”76

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Somehow the last part of my post got cut off

 

Brigham Young on page 88:

 

 

“When we come to other sealing ordinances, ordinances pertaining to the holy Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from father Adam until now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our forefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a Temple. But we can seal women to men, but not men to men, without a Temple. When the ordinances are carried out in the Temples that will be erected, men will be sealed to their fathers, and those who have slept clear up to father Adam.

 

 

Finally Brigham Young on page 91:

 

 

Our Father we have assembled in this upper room wherein we anticipate performing the ordinances of Sealing woman to man, children to their parents and man to his fellow man, that the bond may reach unto heaven thy dwelling place. And when we attain to that happy state and rise with the just in the Morning of the first resurrection, that we may legally claim the relationship of husbands and wives, parents and children, and be crowned Sons and daughters of god and joint heirs with Jesus Christ our elder brother.

 

 

Despite the "man to man" rhetoric, as near as I can tell, woman and men continued to be adopted to couples until Wilfred Woodruff's revelation.  Hopefully this satisfies the CFR.

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

Thanks.

[cdowis]

 It's my understanding that these women were never sealed to their husbands and only sealed to Joseph. In fact it is only a recent development that a woman could be sealed to more than one man (and only after both are dead).

 

To clarify ==>>

 

This refers to a procedural change for vicarious sealings, where the deceased woman  had been married multiple times.  A woman will only have one husband in the afterlife, so this is a change in procedure, not in doctrine.

[rongo]

 

There have been reports of living women receiving permission to be sealed to more than one husband (the first having died).  At this point, this would have to be something sought out by the couple from the top.

 

 

I am also aware of men being sealed to more than one *living* woman (three, to be exact). He was civilly divorced from the first two, but their sealings remained intact and weren't cancelled prior to another sealing (which requires FP approval). I know this because I was involved as their bishop when the man sought a sealing to his third wife, a wonderful convert (first marriage for her). It was approved, but the other two ex-wives were extremely inactive and hostile to the Church. Their sealings (generally) won't be cancelled until and unless they are facing another sealing of their own.

 

The fact is that the President of the Church, holding and exercising all keys, can and does authorize all sorts of things, even things that the handbooks say cannot be done. Not often, and on a case-by-case basis, but there are all sorts of complicated arrangements in our messy mortal lives.

[Calm]

 

The fact is that the President of the Church, holding and exercising all keys, can and does authorize all sorts of things, even things that the handbooks say cannot be done. Not often, and on a case-by-case basis, but there are all sorts of complicated arrangements in our messy mortal lives.

Yep, that is why they pay him the big bucks because he has to deal with the very complicated exceptions.  I am just grateful that we have a leadership who care more about the people they serve and not the rules and policies that are in place to help they serve.