New Essay On Polygamy From Lds.org

[rongo]

Backing up juliann's experience and testimony, I am personally familiar with *three* women who are sealed to two *living* men, without the sealings being cancelled (civil divorce). Though rare, these are sometimes granted by the First Presidency upon application (which involves letters from the bishop and stake president as well). When we say that the President holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys, it means in practice that he can grant exceptions, even in cases where the CHI says something cannot be done. And, I believe that God owns and acknowledges such decisions made by those He grants power to seal and loose in heaven and on earth.

[juliann]

Well, I don't know where you got that church teaching from but Church policy actually states in the Handbook of Instructions vol 1:  3.6.2:

 

It used to say in the CHI that a woman would have to choose one husband.  That has been removed.  That is significant.

 

Isn't that what he said? She can seek a cancelation of the first sealing.

Yeah, it was. 

 

The difference here is that this is done to cover the bases, they don't know who her eternal companion should be.  There is a reason that this same thing is not done for living women with a sealing.  A woman can only be sealed to one man for eternity.  If she died and was married civilly to several men they don't know who she should be sealed to so the option for all is given.  She still only has one husband in the eternities.

Her eternal companion will be her choice (assuming he agrees).  Notice how you are now devaluing sealings to keep this going.  Why are we bothering with proxy sealings if they don't really mean anything?  Or is it just women's sealings that don't count?  That has to be tough on the men who were given to believe they could count on those worthless sealings.  

[JLHPROF]

The church makes exceptions to the rules all the time. 

&

The rules will continue to be changed.

 

So much for following eternal law or eternal principles.  We will just adapt them to make ourselves happier.

 

And seriously, if you have to use Orson Pratt rather than a living prophet for support....

 

Just looking for someone who spoke out on what was church policy for decades.  He just happened to have the first recorded discourse I found on the subject.  But it was still policy.

 

[Stone holm]

It used to say in the CHI that a woman would have to choose one husband.  That has been removed.  That is significant.

 

Yeah, it was. 

 

Her eternal companion will be her choice (assuming he agrees).  Notice how you are now devaluing sealings to keep this going.  Why are we bothering with proxy sealings if they don't really mean anything?  Or is it just women's sealings that don't count?  That has to be tough on the men who were given to believe they could count on those worthless sealings.

I think it is up for grabs who is devaluing sealings, but a living sealing is not conditioned on a unless I change my mind, but proxy sealings are just that proxy sealings which are always and I mean always conditioned upon acceptance by the deceased.

[juliann]

Backing up juliann's experience and testimony, I am personally familiar with *three* women who are sealed to two *living* men, without the sealings being cancelled (civil divorce). Though rare, these are sometimes granted by the First Presidency upon application (which involves letters from the bishop and stake president as well). When we say that the President holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys, it means in practice that he can grant exceptions, even in cases where the CHI says something cannot be done. And, I believe that God owns and acknowledges such decisions made by those He grants power to seal and loose in heaven and on earth.

Thanks, Rongo.  I know this because of another bishop who was part of that process.  And we have had at least two people on the board over the years say that a relative or friend had an exception. 

 

Even one exception to the rule means that even living women can be sealed to two men and they are not being told they have to "choose".   There is no place for dogmatic statements to the contrary and old quotes that have nothing to do with current practice.  And who knows how it will all work out.  But it isn't just a man's world anymore.  The church does place equal value on a woman's wants and needs.

[Calm]

The difference here is that this is done to cover the bases, they don't know who her eternal companion should be. There is a reason that this same thing is not done for living women with a sealing. A woman can only be sealed to one man for eternity. If she died and was married civilly to several men they don't know who she should be sealed to so the option for all is given. She still only has one husband in the eternities.

It is the same even if she was sealed while living to one man.

PS: I am not saying she doesn't only have one husband.

I am saying since sealings for men as well as women are perceived as being able to be canceled for no reason save there is a woman involved, since every sealing involves a woman, they must be all equally vulnerable if any are vulnerable.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Thanks, Rongo.  I know this because of another bishop who was part of that process.  And we have had at least two people on the board over the years say that a relative or friend had an exception. 

 

Even one exception to the rule means that even living women can be sealed to two men and they are not being told they have to "choose".   There is no place for dogmatic statements to the contrary and old quotes that have nothing to do with current practice.  And who knows how it will all work out.  But it isn't just a man's world anymore.  The church does place equal value on a woman's wants and needs.

Interesting, well you have made a strong argument for polyandry, now about polygamy not being doctrinal?

[Calm]

I think it is up for grabs who is devaluing sealings, but a living sealing is not conditioned on a unless I change my mind, but proxy sealings are just that proxy sealings which are always and I mean always conditioned upon acceptance by the deceased.

So why do they allow deceased women who have been sealed while living to be sealed to all their husbands?

[Stone holm]

So why do they allow deceased women who have been sealed while living to be sealed to all their husbands?

Beats me, I think we best get on the phone and make sure Pres Monson gets that straightened out and perhaps acknowledges that we need a Matriarchal Order to match the Patriarchal Order as well. He could do that at the same time he extends the Priesthood to the Sisters. What do you think? Or perhaps we should wing it past Correlation first, not sure of the protocol here.

[juliann]

Interesting, well you have made a strong argument for polyandry, now about polygamy not being doctrinal?

Really, ultimately all it means to me is that we don't understand sealings at all...or what eternal marriage will be.  But in the meantime, women are not treated as unfeeling pawns to be handed out to men.  It puts everyone on common ground.  IMO, the damage that is being done now is the people who will just not stop preaching it.  It is incredibly cruel to women who fear it or are repelled by the possibility.  It certainly isn't helping conversion rates. 

 

I just don't see how anyone can call it doctrine when it has been so clearly and officially stated that monogamy is the natural order....not to mention that the church now condemns it in the strongest language.  That seems a little odd to do to doctrine.  I think it served a needed social and binding purpose for the church but at great cost that people were willing to pay. 

 

The determining concept of network theory is, as J. Clyde Mitchell explains, that “the variations in behavior of people in any one role relationship may be traced to the effects of the behavior of other people, to whom they are likened in one, two or more steps, in some other quite different relations.”  Structures of relationships—who is linked to whom and how, and which persons are linked to each other through third parties—are held to be more decisive than issues of motivation or belief in explaining behavior.  Thus researchers such as Rodney Stark have argued, with good evidence, that in some contemporary religious groups, interpersonal ties are far more effective than ideology both in recruitment to the group and in maintenance of commitment.

 

Network analysts, measuring the density of a network (i.e., “the number of links that actually exist expressed as a proportion of the maximum number of links that could possibly exist”), claim that dense networks, in which many persons are connected with each other, make probably that an individual’s actions are a strongly conditioned by relationships with others in the network as by the ideas that constitute the alleged matter at hand—in the case of the Origenist controversy, by points of theology.  Asking whether individuals in a network are linked with each other in one role or in many, network analysts argue that the greater the multiplexity of ties, the stronger the likelihood that a person’s action in any particular situation is conditioned by his or her links with others in the networks.  Thus in the Origenist controversy, the sheer multiplicity of ties existing among network members—ties of kinship, friendship, hospitality given and received, literally and financial patronage, religious mentorship, traveling companionship—helps to predispose the theological positions they will adopt. 

 

Elizabeth A. Clark, The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. ),  18.

 

[juliann]

Beats me, I think we best get on the phone and make sure Pres Monson gets that straightened out and perhaps acknowledges that we need a Matriarchal Order to match the Patriarchal Order as well. He could do that at the same time he extends the Priesthood to the Sisters. What do you think? Or perhaps we should wing it past Correlation first, not sure of the protocol here.

The protocol to follow is compassion towards those who are suffering because too many Mormons will not let go of polygamy.    

[Stone holm]

Really, ultimately all it means to me is that we don't understand sealings at all...or what eternal marriage will be.  But in the meantime, women are not treated as unfeeling pawns to be handed out to men.  It puts everyone on common ground.  IMO, the damage that is being done now is the people who will just not stop preaching it.  It is incredibly cruel to women who fear it or are repelled by the possibility.  It certainly isn't helping conversion rates. 

 

I just don't see how anyone can call it doctrine when it has been so clearly and officially stated that monogamy is the natural order....not to mention that the church now condemns it in the strongest language.  That seems a little odd to do to doctrine.  I think it served a needed social and binding purpose for the church but at great cost that people were willing to pay.

Yeah, the whole pawn argument doesn't really cut it with me, I gave up on that after making a few comments bout the poll which said a majority of Mormon women didn't want the Priesthood. I also don't remember courting as being much like a chess game and didn't notice any guys who treated their hoped fors like pawns instead of queens being real successful.

[JLHPROF]

The protocol to follow is compassion towards those who are suffering because too many Mormons will not let go of polygamy.    

 

I am truly sorry if there are people suffering due to the principle of polygamy.  But they will have to come to some sort of catharsis with the subject since the majority of the prophets and apostles from all dispensations will be there with their wives (plural) when the winding up scene and the next life come upon us.  It will no longer be a "relic" of the past but a very real part of our present.

[Stone holm]

The protocol to follow is compassion towards those who are suffering because too many Mormons will not let go of polygamy.

But your arguments suggest we should be embracing polyandry, not letting go of polygamy. There is no compassion involved with letting go of polygamy, just a denial that in some cases it works. You are suggesting we throw it overboard because in some cases it proves problematic. Yet monogamy has its own set of problems, in case you haven't notice the divorce rate.

[juliann]

I am truly sorry if there are people suffering due to the principle of polygamy.  But they will have to come to some sort of catharsis with the subject since the majority of the prophets and apostles from all dispensations will be there with their wives (plural) when the winding up scene and the next life come upon us.  It will no longer be a "relic" of the past but a very real part of our present.

Why do you continue to leave out women?  They will also be their with their husbands.  See above.   (I also think it is interesting that you assume all those wives are going to consent to the new one in their marriages...but hey, it's all about men, right?)

[Stone holm]

Why do you continue to leave out women?  They will also be their with their husbands.  See above.   (I also think it is interesting that you assume all those wives are going to consent to the new one in their marriages...but hey, it's all about men, right?)

Well it won't be as soon as we start sustaining prophetesses

[juliann]

I think positions have been well explained.  I'm not interested in endless and repetitive arguing just for the sake of arguing. 

[Calm]

But your arguments suggest we should be embracing polyandry, not letting go of polygamy. There is no compassion involved with letting go of polygamy, just a denial that in some cases it works. You are suggesting we throw it overboard because in some cases it proves problematic. Yet monogamy has its own set of problems, in case you haven't notice the divorce rate.

We have seen the harm done by people trying to fill in the gaps on the ban to make it reasonable and to fit their own expectations and desires. Undoubtedly many felt they were being compassionate in helping others understand while being unaware of the implications of their claims and how it would impact generations.

The Church has decided the better route is to strip the ban of all the man made baggage and be satisfied with "we don't know" thus allowing people to work it out for themselves without imposing on others their needs and desires or speculations. One doesn't have to let go of anything in admitting we don't know what the eternities will be like, we have been promised we will be there with all our righteous family, not just some of them...if more reassurance is needed, that should be sought from God who does know what eternal families look like and how they function.

Seems to me the Church is moving to the same standard, approach with sealings. They have removed speculative reasonings about unequal sealings from the official manuals and they are now moving closer and closer to having identical sealing protocol for men and women, first for deceased women for a number of years, and now by making more and more exceptions to the living restriction.

If the exceptions continue to grow, soon it will simply be a matter of choice for the woman to decide to submit a request just as it is now for the man (assuming worthiness). Bishops and stake presidents will have heard of it being done and will lose reluctance to attempt it themselves.

With the growing numbers, it will likely raise questions as to what this means for the eternities and we can appeal to Elder Oaks', I believe, comment along the lines of to 'we are not sure how it will work out, but we can be at peace knowing it will be with the Lord at the helm'

Just to be super duper clear because a few here seem to still be missing the point and running off into the opposite direction clear out of sight....

It is not about embracing polyandry or denying polygyny. It is about altering our explanations to be in line with current direction from the top leadership. It is about listening and reading and actually paying attention to what is happening in the here and now, including the decisions by top church leadership that is consistently drawing the gap between sealing practices closed so that only one remains as a standard, but with ever growing exceptions being made for that standard.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

And the unequal sealing standard has created a second class of women...women already sealed are seen as inferior marriage companions since they already belong to someone else and one's own biological children won't have the right to call you father inthe eternities. Many temple worthy men won't date or marry women solely for that reason. Makes sense...who doesn't want what other Saints are promised if they live a worthy life with their families? Who wouldn't want to cherish the idea that this just isn't for this life, but forever.

I would not be surprised if this contributed to the divorce rate in LDS second marriages for women where they don't get a cancelation due to their children or something else. Why work as hard if it all ends at death? Why not simply go find someone else I want to be with now...without having to give up so much for so little in return?

The Priesthood ban fed into and promoted an already existing caste system. Unfortunately the sealing system has created one of its own, much like the 'virgin brides are more valuable' concept that has floated around the world for centuries. It is bizarre in this day and age something like this exists.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 but a living sealing is not conditioned on a unless I change my mind

Sure it is.  The existence of divorce and cancelations are evidence of such.

 

If a couple changes their mind about how they feel about each other and get divorced, they can ask to have the sealing canceled.  Most often it is the woman who requests the cancelation because she is not allowed living to have two sealings at once except as an exception (an exception that appears to be growing into less of an exception), but I have heard of a man asking for one as the woman had committed adultery and other nastiness so he did not have any desire to continue with her in the eternities.

 

Does anyone believe that a man who has a sealing in place with a exwife whose wife abused and mocked him, cheated on him, devalued him to his children and left him for another man...if for some reason she is not excommunicated and thus does not lose her blessings or even if she is and later repents....does anyone here believe this man must play the loyal husband to the woman he ended up hating for the way she treated him?  No choice in the sealing because it was made between two living individuals and not by proxy?

 

I have a relative whose wife came up to him after 15 or so years of marriage and told him 'I only married you because you were going to be a doctor but it turns out that is not what I want now and I definitely don't want you either.'  She wasn't excommunicated as there was no adultery, it was a no fault divorce.  I can well imagine he looking at the rest of his life without her at his side, working hard trying to be a good man, raising his children to the best of his ability, helping others and all over being a wonderful person...and finding another woman who wanted the same things he wants and being willing to work toward them no matter what, marrying her and having more children by her and making a family that they both want and need and worked toward eternity for.  So I get the feeling that if his first wife pops up on judgment day already to assume her duties as 'first' wife whatever those may be, he just may turn to her and say 'you know, this just didn't turn out to be what I wanted, so thanks for being willing to step back in, but perhaps someone else would work better for you.  And I don't see God saying "Sorry my boy, in the end you've all lived up to your covenants so even if she left you in mortality on your own and worked out her covenant not hand in hand with you, but with someone else, the moment the both of you made that covenant across the altar you are bound together in heaven no matter what save a rejection of the Atonement"....no don't see it even with perfect beings with perfect forgiveness.  Maybe it will happen, maybe not, but there must still be choice operating.

 

Every day we have a choice to accept or reject our eternal relationship...to keep working toward it or to blow it off.  A living sealing has as much choice involved, perhaps even more because we know for sure it is an ongoing living choice that changes day to day...though hopefully within loving parameters and not outside them...while a proxy sealing may just need to make a choice of acceptance once, they having already lived through the day to day in mortality and now are able to make 'once and for all decisions'.

 

How is this not conditioned on the changing of at least one of the couple's (perhaps the woman's) mind?

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Beats me, I think we best get on the phone and make sure Pres Monson gets that straightened out and perhaps acknowledges that we need a Matriarchal Order to match the Patriarchal Order as well. He could do that at the same time he extends the Priesthood to the Sisters. What do you think? Or perhaps we should wing it past Correlation first, not sure of the protocol here.

This is exactly why Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. And LDS don't believe Him.

[bluebell]

This is exactly why Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. And LDS don't believe Him.

No it's not. And where does Jesus say no one is married in heaven?

[Calm]

This is exactly why Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. And LDS don't believe Him.

Somehow I doubt the all knowing, all loving, all powerful God is going to get into a panic over what to do with all the mess of mortality and just throw his hands up and yell "that's it! We are dumping the whole family love thing...even if it was the best part of what I gave them in mortality! Even if it was what drove them to attempt great sacrifices of charity, even their love for their families is what drove them to change the world for the better, even if it was the sorrow at losing that love that brought them on their knees to me for blessings and revelation, even if it was the first of the commandments i gave them and never removed it from the dawn of man to the second coming of the Son of Man, they just made it too complicated for even me to figure out!! Next time around I will make them like worms so they reproduce asexually and keep things neat and tidy and none of the troublesome love stuff in sight".

When life gets messy around around your home, Tacenda, is your solution to tell your kids they are no longer yours or your husband he is a single man again? Or do you resolve the problem and move on? If you can create order out of chaos, surely God who created the infinitely complex universe out of the infinitely complex primordial chaos will be able to create the perfect family unit where love, happiness and peace will flourish. Do you not believe that with God all things are possible? If so, then follow the counsel of the scriptures and "be still and know I am God".

PS: and if you are going to go all doom and gloom over someone's comment at least choose one that is remotely connected to the reality of what is being discussed and is not some comment that seems drawn from a random conversation based on have a few words in common.

Edited December 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

This is exactly why Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. And LDS don't believe Him.

I have never understood this criticism (and in your case, concern). He did not say (which is what people represent Him as saying), that "there is no marriage in heaven." He said "in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Who was He talking about? Critics/concerned people insist that He meant "no people at all, ever, worlds without end." He was talking directly to and about the Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, but this can also be applied to the larger group of those "know neither the scriptures, nor the power of God." 

 

That is squarely Mormon doctrine. People today who don't understand the scriptures or know the power of God will not be able to "marry or be given in marriage" in the hereafter, either. They won't enter into and keep the necessary temple covenants. 

Edited December 20, 2013 by rongo

[Tacenda]

I have never understood this criticism (and in your case, concern). He did not say (which is what people represent Him as saying), that "there is no marriage in heaven." He said "in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage." Who was He talking about? Critics/concerned people insist that He meant "no people at all, ever, worlds without end." He was talking directly to and about the Sadducees, who deny the resurrection, but this can also be applied to the larger group of those "know neither the scriptures, nor the power of God."

That is squarely Mormon doctrine. People today who don't understand the scriptures or know the power of God will not be able to "marry or be given in marriage" in the hereafter, either. They won't enter into and keep the necessary temple covenants.

You left out the part of being angels, and IMO, still being with loved ones.

 

ETA:  In Mormon theology there is marriage in heaven, if they are Gods.  Ok, I'll agree.  Sorry for my butting in.  I was tired of the messiness in the topic at hand, therefore my need for a worn out comment, that we've been over before.   

Edited December 20, 2013 by Tacenda