Is There Polygamy In Heaven?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I always heard a woman couldn't be sealed to more than one man. When did that change?

[Calm]

Awhile back (at least a decade, I think longer) for a woman who is dead and whose husbands are dead, but if we assume sealings are the same for the living and the dead in eternal significance, then one should be able to apply the same standard as to expectations all around.

 

For the living, there have been shared (and I know from one friend with personal involvement as a bishop in the request) that exceptions are being made now for women who are widows so they don't feel like they have to choose between living and dead husbands, turning their back on a loved one either way in essence.  One has to get special permission from the First Presidency and nothing official has been written about it yet, I believe, so people are only hearing about it by word of mouth unless they've asked for permission themselves.

[webbles]

I always heard a woman couldn't be sealed to more than one man. When did that change?

According to familysearch.org, my great-great-something-grandmother was sealed to her second husband in 1893 after she died.  So sealing woman to multiple husbands has been going on for a long time.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I ask because my uncle was sealed to his first wife, she died, then he got sealed to a 2nd wife. Will he be with both women in heaven? And will Joseph Smith and Brigham Young be with all the women they were sealed to? Will we get sealed to more people in heaven?

Knowing the history of polygamy going back thousands of years, and once again from 1833 to 1890...the answer could only be yes. Keep in mind, God lists only three names that are linked with his, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...all polygamist. In fact when we accept Christ we become the "seed of Abraham" (see Galatians 3: 24-29 .) The evidence and facts led to no other conclusion...but for few compared to the millions of monogamist.

[Calm]

Isaac was not a polygynist. His only wife was Rebekah.

[JLHPROF]

Isaac was not a polygynist. His only wife was Rebekah.

 

God seems to disagree because he said:

 

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

 

Maybe God knows something about Isaac's marriages that we don't.

[Coreyb]

God seems to disagree because he said:

 

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

 

Maybe God knows something about Isaac's marriages that we don't.

true, we know very little of Isaac's adult life. It is certainly plausible that he practiced polygamy but we know nothing about it

[BlueDreams]

 

 

Maybe God knows something about Isaac's marriages that we don't.

 

Or it could be, with the context, simply saying that Isaac did whatever the Lord asked of him and received only what the Lord gave him, like Abraham and Jacob....But he could also be polygamous. I just find it odd that the scriptures wouldn't mention any of his other wives beyond Rebekah....or even a hint of other wives/concubines (like naming off other children other than Jacob and Esau), when the other less pertinent generations are mentioned in the same chapter (Gen 25). 

 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

Hmm... .. I wonder if Emma and Eliza would get along there?

 

I wonder if Lewis and Joseph will get along there.

[JLHPROF]

I wonder if Lewis and Joseph will get along there.

 

Shouldn't be an issue.  There was no eternal sealing to Lewis.  Emma will be married to Joseph and Lewis won't be in the picture.

[Calm]

Unless a Bidamon relative comes long and decides that Emma should be sealed to all of her husbands as is being done as pretty standard practice now.

Or perhaps in the Millennium when we must get information somehow from the other side in order to complete the work (given the lack of records for a good percentage of humanity), Emma will ask for a second sealing herself if it hasn't been done yet.

Edited April 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Isaac was not a polygynist. His only wife was Rebekah.

I thought so as well but D&C states otherwise???if memory serves. Either way, I would not be affected I am a one woman man, here, there and everywhere.

[JLHPROF]

I thought so as well but D&C states otherwise???if memory serves. Either way, I would not be affected I am a one woman man, here, there and everywhere.

 

Well, thank goodness we no longer have Brigham teaching that there are no monogamists in the Celestial Kingdom -

[changed]

... I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon,

Abraham is the one to look to in order to understand why polygammy is needed...

Is there anyone here who understands the symbolism behind "the law of Sarah"?  Hint: most people understand the symbolism of who Abraham and Isaac represent....

 

Edited April 4, 2014 by changed

[JLHPROF]

 

... I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon,

Abraham is the one to look to in order to understand why polygammy is needed...

Is there anyone here who understands the symbolism behind "the law of Sarah"?  Hint: most people understand the symbolism of who Abraham and Isaac represent....

 

 

[JLHPROF]

And let's not forget one of my great great grands who will be there with the two husbands she is sealed to….

 

Sorry Cal.  While I am sure the sealing was performed with validity and correctly, I don't believe there is eternal polyandry AND eternal polygyny.  It would result in utter chaos since we could all be married to each other, one big marriage with no actual family order.

 

I do believe the doctrine that a decease woman can be sealed to all those husbands she had in this life, but I believe it is because of uncertainty and she will have to choose a single eternal companion from among them.  It's not that the sealings are invalid, it's that they are kind of "just in case" sealings.

 

I know you disagree, but even if the Church has performed these polyandrous sealings, I have yet to hear them teach that these women will have multiple husbands.  I just don't think the eternal order allows for it.

[Calm]

Sorry Cal.  While I am sure the sealing was performed with validity and correctly, I don't believe there is eternal polyandry AND eternal polygyny.  It would result in utter chaos since we could all be married to each other, one big marriage with no actual family order.

 

I do believe the doctrine that a decease woman can be sealed to all those husbands she had in this life, but I believe it is because of uncertainty and she will have to choose a single eternal companion from among them.  It's not that the sealings are invalid, it's that they are kind of "just in case" sealings.

 

I know you disagree, but even if the Church has performed these polyandrous sealings, I have yet to hear them teach that these women will have multiple husbands.  I just don't think the eternal order allows for it.

Well, that is your opinion.  However, it is based on what you see as orderly which may be very different than what infinite eternal beings see as orderly.

 

It completely ignores the reality of the sealing ordinance though imo.

 

Again if a sealing for a woman isn't automatically valid, then I don't see how there is any way we can assume that a man's sealing is automatically valid (given righteousness) given that they are the identical sealing.  And if you are invalidating a woman's sealing, you are at the same time invalidating a man's sealing.

 

I am not claiming there is polyandry in the next life.  I am just pointing out that given how the sealing is set up, it is just as likely to occur as polygyny.

Edited April 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

I hope not. I only want to be married to one man. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

[juliann]

Sorry Cal.  While I am sure the sealing was performed with validity and correctly, I don't believe there is eternal polyandry AND eternal polygyny.  It would result in utter chaos since we could all be married to each other, one big marriage with no actual family order.

 

I do believe the doctrine that a decease woman can be sealed to all those husbands she had in this life, but I believe it is because of uncertainty and she will have to choose a single eternal companion from among them.  It's not that the sealings are invalid, it's that they are kind of "just in case" sealings.

 

I know you disagree, but even if the Church has performed these polyandrous sealings, I have yet to hear them teach that these women will have multiple husbands.  I just don't think the eternal order allows for it.

So sealings are utterly meaningless pieces of paper.  Got it.  But even that isn't as bad as claiming God can't control heaven. Unfortunately, it is just as likely that male sealings wouldn't be honored if it got too much for him and Mother in Heaven to handle. Unless you are claiming they really do have favorites.

[JLHPROF]

So sealings are utterly meaningless pieces of paper.  Got it.  But even that isn't as bad as claiming God can't control heaven. Unfortunately, it is just as likely that male sealings wouldn't be honored if it got too much for him and Mother in Heaven to handle. Unless you are claiming they really do have favorites.

 

Yes, I know you disagree with me too.  But feelings aside, I will stand by established teachings until we are actually told otherwise.

Mormonism has taught almost since the principle of eternal marriage was established in this dispensation that a man could be sealed to more than one eternal companion.  It has never taught that a woman could except in the case of uncertainty as to who would be her chosen eternal companion.

Until there is a official teaching from the Church otherwise, I will stick with the doctrine that polygyny can be eternal but polyandry can't.

Edited April 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

Yes, I know you disagree with me too.  But feelings aside, I will stand by established teachings until we are actually told otherwise.

Mormonism has taught almost since the principle of eternal marriage was established in this dispensation that a man could be sealed to more than one eternal companion.  It has never taught that a woman could except in the case of uncertainty as to who would be her chosen eternal companion.

Until there is a official teaching from the Church otherwise, I will stick with the doctrine that polygyny can be eternal but polyandry can't.

Not true. This dispensation started with polyandry. One can play games and insist that it wasn't "real" polyandry but the fact remains women were married to more than one man in real life. And I seriously doubt there are any that aren't sealed to both men by now, so if that was originally omitted, it has been corrected.

 

The restriction in the CHI that a woman must choose one husband has been removed and the church is currently sealing live women to more than one husband.   I'd say that is pretty darn official.

[JLHPROF]

Not true. This dispensation started with polyandry. One can play games and insist that it wasn't "real" polyandry but the fact remains women were married to more than one man in real life. And I seriously doubt there are any that aren't sealed to both men by now, so if that was originally omitted, it has been corrected.

 

The restriction in the CHI that a woman must choose one husband has been removed and the church is currently sealing live women to more than one husband.   I'd say that is pretty darn official.

 

Not a single item you mention features a single doctrinal teaching.  No prophet, apostle, or any GA has ever said that there will be eternal polyandry.  The closest have been those who refuse to take a position for some reason.  Every teaching ever recorded in Mormonism that connects polygamy with eternal marriage refers to polygyny.  The doctrine of eternal polyandry has never been taught.

The fact that some women have received polyandrous sealings is not a doctrinal statement.  Unlike eternal polygyny which has a canonized revelation there has never been anything taught authorizing eternal polyandry.

And in my opinion, there's a good reason for that.

[Calm]

Yes, I know you disagree with me too.  But feelings aside, I will stand by established teachings until we are actually told otherwise.

And we will stand by the ordinance and what it says.

[juliann]

I remain extremely puzzled why any man would insist on making this an issue, to be honest.  Insisting on male privilege at the females' expense is bad enough...but assigning complete strangers to marriages they may want no part of is exceptionally distasteful.  This is an extremely telling quote, Heber C. Kimball obviously feels there is a need to address the personal revelation women are experiencing. There had to be a significant amount of women having this revelation for him to counter it. Most interesting is he does not dispute their revelation, he simply says how it will be. Just as I trust the polygamous wives revelations to enter polygamy, I trust their revelation that it was not going to be forever.  
 

 

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away. Some sisters have had revelations that when this time passes away and they go through the veil every woman will have a husband to herself. I wish more of our young men would take to themselves wives of the daughters of Zion and not wait for us old men to take them all; go-ahead upon the right principle young gentlemen and God bless you forever and ever and make you fruitful, that we may fill the mountains and then the earth with righteous inhabitants.
( "Remarks by Heber C. Kimball, directly after the sermon by President B. Young, printed in no. 34: Bowery, Oct. 6, 1855," Deseret News Vol. V, No. 35 (7 November 1855): 274)

 

 

 

 

 

And when even Elder Oaks says the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements....why do others not follow his example of refusing to do so himself?

 

http://newsroom.lds....pbs-documentary  (dead link)
 

HW:There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that?
DHO [Dallin Oaks]: If I talked about that I'd be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn't say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they've ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don't think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don't believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don't make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they're right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, What will life be in the next life, when you're married to more than one wife for eternity? I have to say I don't know. But I know that I've made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that's anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don't know.

 

You will note that he does not say men, he says people throughout until he gets to his personal situation. Women are people. Again, why do so many feel that they have more knowledge and right to speak for the church than Elder Oaks does?  (And also note this interview was on LDS.org for some time and is probably still on PBS)

[juliann]

Not a single item you mention features a single doctrinal teaching.  No prophet, apostle, or any GA has ever said that there will be eternal polyandry.  The closest have been those who refuse to take a position for some reason.  Every teaching ever recorded in Mormonism that connects polygamy with eternal marriage refers to polygyny.  The doctrine of eternal polyandry has never been taught.

The fact that some women have received polyandrous sealings is not a doctrinal statement.  Unlike eternal polygyny which has a canonized revelation there has never been anything taught authorizing eternal polyandry.

And in my opinion, there's a good reason for that.

Now a sealing is not doctrinal?  Again, what the heck is the point of sealings if they aren't worth the paper they are printed on... and aren't "doctrine" to begin with?