Follow Up - Sealing Approaches and Polygamy

[JLHPROF]

https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind

Ok, I don't agree with many of the conclusions in this essay from the other thread on same sex sealing.  There's a lot in this essay I think is completely wrong.
But there is one section where he traces the development of how Church membership view sealing through three stages.  And it's absolutely fascinating to me so I wanted a thread to discuss it.
I'm picking and choosing the relevant parts because I don't want a second thread on potential same sex sealings.

Quote

While there is considerable overlap between them and no idea is ever fully abandoned, these three approaches follow a roughly chronological order, with kingdom dominating from the 1840s to 1894, lineage dominating from 1894 to about 1955, and family dominating from 1955 to the present.

Approximate dates
Kingdom 1840s-1894
Lineage 1894-1955
Family 1955-today

I find this both fascinating and accurate.  The emphasis on building family kingdoms began in Joseph's day and continued all the way up to the end of the Law of Adoption in the Church.
The emphasis after that was often on lineage and birthright blessings (including race, tribal assignments in patriarchal blessings, family history sealing etc).  Today the emphasis has moved entirely to forever families, particularly the nuclear family in eternity.

So here's my discussion topic/question: Is one of the reasons we have such a hard time understanding the practice of polygamy because we unavoidably view marriage and family through the Family lens and it was practiced in a Kingdom mindset?
When we discuss polygamy and its practice does our presentism limit our ability to understand both the doctrinal and sociological elements of the practice at the time?

Oman continues:

Quote

            For much of the 19th century sealing ordinances centered on what can be called kingdom theology. The focus was on using the sealing power to knit together post-mortal priesthood kingdoms. The basic idea was that exaltation consists of priesthood kingship with the goal of connecting everyone back to God as the divine king through a series of nested kingdoms created by networks of sealing ordinances. This can be seen most clearly in two now abandoned sealing practices: plural marriage and the law of adoption. Contemporary Latter-day Saints tend to assume that 19th-century Mormon polygamists shared with them a vision of eternal nuclear families but simply multiplied families. While some 19th-century polygamists spoke in these terms, it is at best an incomplete account of their theological vision.

 Is this the big hurdle to understanding the 1800s practice of plural marriage?  For those like me who are interested and fascinated with the historical practice from a doctrinal perspective how do we set aside our "vision" of eternal families and better understand their vision.

Quote

One of the main reasons people performed plural marriage sealings was to secure a place in an exalting priesthood network. This can be seen in the common practice of non-conjugal plural marriage sealings. Thus, women were sealed posthumously to Joseph and other dead Church leaders as plural wives. Some women were sealed polygamously to Joseph or Brigham while remaining married to another man. Finally, some women were sealed polygamously without having any substantial earthly connections to their “husbands.” In all of these cases, the sealings were less a matter of forming nuclear families than of becoming part of a royal priesthood network.

In your opinion does the Church still teach or believe the concept of the eternal family kingdom?  Or is it now just the eternal family - ixnay on the kingdom?

Quote

            The law of adoption had a similar function. Instituted in the Nauvoo Temple shortly after Joseph’s martyrdom, this was the practice of sealing non-biologically related adults to Church leaders as adopted sons or daughters. After the abandonment of Nauvoo, no new law of adoption sealings were performed until the dedication of the Saint George Temple in 1877. Thus, while these law of adoption networks operated as important social units during the Exodus, for decades the law of adoption was mainly a theological idea for understanding sealing ordinances. Like plural marriage sealings, these adoptive sealings referenced a family relationship, but their purpose was to extend exalting priesthood networks by providing a way of being sealed into the eternal kingdom of a high priesthood leader.

The switch from family kingdom to a lineage focus after 1894 created a new mindset on sealing.  It became all about family lines, lineage etc.
I think we can say all three mindsets on sealing can be called doctrinal and valid.  What makes the shifts happen?  Why do we change focus if the doctrine remains the same?
 

Edited September 29, 2022 by JLHPROF

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When we discuss polygamy and its practice does our presentism limit our ability to understand both the doctrinal and sociological elements of the practice at the time?

Yes, this brings to mind one of my favorite quotes from novelist LP Hartley:

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we can say all three mindsets on sealing can be called doctrinal and valid.  What makes the shifts happen?  Why do we change focus if the doctrine remains the same?

I think our focus changes as we more fully understand the doctrine of sealing, the plan of salvation, and blessings that await the faithful. 

Just as no child is fully developed at birth, so to are the revelations of God.  It takes years, decades even, to come to gain understanding of revelation.  Many times further revelation adds clarity and focus to previous revelation.  The church has learned much since it was born/organized, and will continue to learn.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, this brings to mind one of my favorite quotes from novelist LP Hartley:

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

Great quote!
 

Quote

I think our focus changes as we more fully understand the doctrine of sealing, the plan of salvation, and blessings that await the faithful. 

Just as no child is fully developed at birth, so to are the revelations of God.  It takes years, decades even, to come to gain understanding of revelation.  Many times further revelation adds clarity and focus to previous revelation.  The church has learned much since it was born/organized, and will continue to learn.

It's fascinating to me how some people see change as always progressive - moving from the lesser to the greater.   And others see it as a loss - moving from the complete to the reduced.
It probably says more about the beholder than the issue itself.
Why do people assume that our understanding today is "more full" than it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham?
Isn't this an example of the same presentism that prevents full understanding of the things in the past?

Edited September 29, 2022 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind

Ok, I don't agree with many of the conclusions in this essay from the other thread on same sex sealing.  There's a lot in this essay I think is completely wrong.
But there is one section where he traces the development of how Church membership view sealing through three stages.  And it's absolutely fascinating to me so I wanted a thread to discuss it.
I'm picking and choosing the relevant parts because I don't want a second thread on potential same sex sealings.

Approximate dates
Kingdom 1840s-1894
Lineage 1894-1955
Family 1955-today

I find this both fascinating and accurate.  The emphasis on building family kingdoms began in Joseph's day and continued all the way up to the end of the Law of Adoption in the Church.
The emphasis after that was often on lineage and birthright blessings (including race, tribal assignments in patriarchal blessings, family history sealing etc).  Today the emphasis has moved entirely to forever families, particularly the nuclear family in eternity.

So here's my discussion topic/question: Is one of the reasons we have such a hard time understanding the practice of polygamy because we unavoidably view marriage and family through the Family lens and it was practiced in a Kingdom mindset?
When we discuss polygamy and its practice does our presentism limit our ability to understand both the doctrinal and sociological elements of the practice at the time?

Oman continues:

 Is this the big hurdle to understanding the 1800s practice of plural marriage?  For those like me who are interested and fascinated with the historical practice from a doctrinal perspective how do we set aside our "vision" of eternal families and better understand their vision.

In your opinion does the Church still teach or believe the concept of the eternal family kingdom?  Or is it now just the eternal family - ixnay on the kingdom?

The switch from family kingdom to a lineage focus after 1894 created a new mindset on sealing.  It became all about family lines, lineage etc.
I think we can say all three mindsets on sealing can be called doctrinal and valid.  What makes the shifts happen?  Why do we change focus if the doctrine remains the same?
 

I think my brain may be too simple to appreciate the differences between kingdom, lineage and family. I haven't read the article so I probably shouldn't comment. But...well...

In all of these cases sealing isn't meant to be only individual nuclear families. Not even under the family era we are supposedly in now. It is all a way to be a part of God's eternal family with all of the various nuclear families and all of the various lineages creating 1 kingdom of God. In that sense I believe it has always been taught as important to be a part of the eternal network of priesthood holders, and patriarchs, and families. It has always been interconnected.

The focus on 1 issue over the other is likely only the result of the time and culture. In other words, the emphasis on one particular element of the doctrine changes to fit the changing landscape of what the time and culture will accept and be excited about.

Kind of sounds like we're due for a new stage. I wonder what that might look like. Or maybe it's already begun and that's why we are seeing so much turmoil in the church as families try to reconcile the teachings of eternal families with the realities of all of the people left out of that paradigm. Maybe the new paradigm/stage is more about inclusion of ALL of God's children instead of the idea of the select few. Maybe it's a broadening of God's kingdom to welcome in those who have been previously rejected.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Great quote!
 

It's fascinating to me how some people see change as always progressive - moving from the lesser to the greater.   And others see it as a loss - moving from the complete to the reduced.
It probably says more about the beholder than the issue itself.
Why do people assume that our understanding today is "more full" than it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham?
Isn't this an example of the same presentism that prevents full understanding of the things in the past?

In the church I think this is a direct result of the brethren's teachings.

After all, if we have less truth and less fullness after 190 years it doesn't say much for the quality or effectiveness of the church and its leaders.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think my brain may be too simple to appreciate the differences between kingdom, lineage and family. I haven't read the article so I probably shouldn't comment. But...well...

In all of these cases sealing isn't meant to be only individual nuclear families. Not even under the family era we are supposedly in now. It is all a way to be a part of God's eternal family with all of the various nuclear families and all of the various lineages creating 1 kingdom of God. In that sense I believe it has always been taught as important to be a part of the eternal network of priesthood holders, and patriarchs, and families. It has always been interconnected.

But is that still how the Church and its membership views sealing?

Quote

The focus on 1 issue over the other is likely only the result of the time and culture. In other words, the emphasis on one particular element of the doctrine changes to fit the changing landscape of what the time and culture will accept and be excited about.

Kind of sounds like we're due for a new stage. I wonder what that might look like. Or maybe it's already begun and that's why we are seeing so much turmoil in the church as families try to reconcile the teachings of eternal families with the realities of all of the people left out of that paradigm. Maybe the new paradigm/stage is more about inclusion of ALL of God's children instead of the idea of the select few. Maybe it's a broadening of God's kingdom to welcome in those who have been previously rejected.

I agree that time and culture have affected how we view sealing.  And I do think that time and culture are poised to push a new change in how we view marriage and family.  The question being whether it will remain valid in God's kingdom.  We can only change so much before things are no longer a correct fit.

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In the church I think this is a direct result of the brethren's teachings.

After all, if we have less truth and less fullness after 190 years it doesn't say much for the quality or effectiveness of the church and its leaders.

It doesn't say much for Joseph and Brigham either if they got so much revelation incorrect that it's taken 190 years to figure out even basic truths.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's fascinating to me how some people see change as always progressive - moving from the lesser to the greater.   And others see it as a loss - moving from the complete to the reduced.
It probably says more about the beholder than the issue itself.
Why do people assume that our understanding today is "more full" than it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham?
Isn't this an example of the same presentism that prevents full understanding of the things in the past?

Change doesn't automatically have to be one way, but if we are trying to follow the Spirit I think we're taking more steps forward than back.

I would hope that God's intention is for the church is for it to learn and grow.  Do you think that he revealed all to Joseph and Brigham and then said that that was enough?  We seem to hold to the belief that doctrine is revealed line upon line.  It would also seem true that doctrine is understood line upon line, and when God sees that what he has revealed is understood I believe He is willing to reveal more.

As for presentism preventing us from understanding the things of the past, I believe that, fortunately, I won't be judged by what was understood in the past.  Just by what I understand today.  We have prophets today who are fully capable and authorized by God to speak for Him and teach us what we are expected to know today.

 

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why do people assume that our understanding today is "more full" than it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham?
Isn't this an example of the same presentism that prevents full understanding of the things in the past?

When the church introduced plural marriage in the 19th century it was, based on the views of the society it was introduced into, considered abhorrent.  Thus to say that today we don't like it because of our own presentism seems to me to be a poor argument. That said, maybe those who practiced it viewed it differently but based on my studies of it I personally don't think there was some noble kingdom building to it all.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When the church introduced plural marriage in the 19th century it was, based on the views of the society it was introduced into, considered abhorrent.  Thus to say that today we don't like it because of our own presentism seems to me to be a poor argument.

Yes, it was.  But my discussion isn't about the right vs wrong of polygamy.  It's about whether our ability to understand the whys and hows of their practice is hindered by our current idea of what marriage or sealing should look like.
We may not like it for instance but marriage was a less romantic and more business transaction in those days.  Not exclusively of course, but marriages were frequently undertaken for practical or economic reasons.
That bugs us today big time.  But if we can't see the relationship as they saw it how can we pretend to understand it at all?

Quote

That said, maybe those who practiced it viewed it differently but based on my studies of it I personally don't think there was some noble kingdom building to it all.

I think there is ample evidence to support this idea in both doctrinal teaching and personal testimony records of the time.

[The Nehor]

So what is the next approach going to be?

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you think that he revealed all to Joseph and Brigham and then said that that was enough?  We seem to hold to the belief that doctrine is revealed line upon line.  It would also seem true that doctrine is understood line upon line, and when God sees that what he has revealed is understood I believe He is willing to reveal more.

Again the question of MORE vs DIFFERENT.  Doctrine may be revealed line upon line, but there's a difference between saying we've learned more and we've learned different.
Is eternal marriage about building an eternal kingdom and connecting it to God?  It was certainly taught that way.
Does our doctrinal belief now provide us MORE understanding or DIFFERENT understanding?  Are we saying we have more information or that Joseph and Brigham got it wrong?

Quote

As for presentism preventing us from understanding the things of the past, I believe that,

Yet we continue to view the way plural marriage was practiced and lived as if we have more understanding and have progressed to a better view of eternal marriage and sealing.
I've become of the opinion that despite endless internet threads and countless papers and books we really don't understand the practice of polygamy as those in the 1800s did, let alone as Abraham, Jacob or Moses did.
I'm not sure we're even capable of really understanding it with our current mindsets.  We just think too differently.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So what is the next approach going to be?

Depends entirely on who or what allows it to change.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But is that still how the Church and its membership views sealing?

I agree that time and culture have affected how we view sealing.  And I do think that time and culture are poised to push a new change in how we view marriage and family.  The question being whether it will remain valid in God's kingdom.  We can only change so much before things are no longer a correct fit.

It doesn't say much for Joseph and Brigham either if they got so much revelation incorrect that it's taken 190 years to figure out even basic truths.

Yes- I think most members still understand sealing in that way. Even though members understand it in the broad sense I think the vast majority only care about the more narrow, nuclear family angle of it. So one has to wonder, do people care more about the nuclear family element of sealing because of what the church teaches or does the church teach it based on what people care about?

I think "family" has changed significantly in the past 40 years with the increase in single parent households, mixed race, SS, multiple divorces and all the other "Non-traditional" families that were held up as the ideal. Many people don't fit that ideal and rightly wonder, "well, what about me and my family? How do we fit into God's plan of happiness?" The church has answers for some, but not all. 

I know an amazing single lady who has adopted a number of children over the past few years. She's never been married. No real prospects. The old teaching of "things will be worked out in eternity" starts to feel pretty shallow as a faithful person goes through life unsealed to her family.

I disagree about your Joseph/Brigham statement. The entire idea of restoration and the concept of continuing revelation lead one to expect progress, not regression. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I've become of the opinion that despite endless internet threads and countless papers and books we really don't understand the practice of polygamy as those in the 1800s did, let alone as Abraham, Jacob or Moses did.

Really, the only person we can understand is ourselves.  My understanding of you is limited by my ability to correctly understand what you're writing.  Which I'm sure isn't fully correct.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So what is the next approach going to be?

I fully expect it to be centered around greater inclusion and accommodation of people/families that don't fit the ideal. Much of that is already happening but I think (definitely hope) that those on the fringes are recognized as part of God's family and welcomed in their diversity for what they have to offer, not only based on whether or not they can become the ideal.

[The Nehor]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I fully expect it to be centered around greater inclusion and accommodation of people/families that don't fit the ideal. Much of that is already happening but I think (definitely hope) that those on the fringes are recognized as part of God's family and welcomed in their diversity for what they have to offer, not only based on whether or not they can become the ideal.

*Closing eyes and crossing all eight fingers while wishing* “Bisexual polycules. Bisexual polycules.”

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I fully expect it to be centered around greater inclusion and accommodation of people/families that don't fit the ideal. Much of that is already happening but I think (definitely hope) that those on the fringes are recognized as part of God's family and welcomed in their diversity for what they have to offer, not only based on whether or not they can become the ideal.

 

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

*Closing eyes and crossing all eight fingers while wishing* “Bisexual polycules. Bisexual polycules.”

Remember we aren't just talking of our views of family or marriage (save that for the other thread 😉).

We're focusing on how we view the purpose and goal of sealing and how that specifically changed over time.

How would these alternative families fit into a kingdom view?  A lineage view?  Etc.  Do they fulfill the doctrinal purposes connected with sealing doctrines?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind

Ok, I don't agree with many of the conclusions in this essay from the other thread on same sex sealing.  There's a lot in this essay I think is completely wrong.
But there is one section where he traces the development of how Church membership view sealing through three stages.  And it's absolutely fascinating to me so I wanted a thread to discuss it.
I'm picking and choosing the relevant parts because I don't want a second thread on potential same sex sealings.

Approximate dates
Kingdom 1840s-1894
Lineage 1894-1955
Family 1955-today

I find this both fascinating and accurate.  The emphasis on building family kingdoms began in Joseph's day and continued all the way up to the end of the Law of Adoption in the Church.
The emphasis after that was often on lineage and birthright blessings (including race, tribal assignments in patriarchal blessings, family history sealing etc).  Today the emphasis has moved entirely to forever families, particularly the nuclear family in eternity.

So here's my discussion topic/question: Is one of the reasons we have such a hard time understanding the practice of polygamy because we unavoidably view marriage and family through the Family lens and it was practiced in a Kingdom mindset?
When we discuss polygamy and its practice does our presentism limit our ability to understand both the doctrinal and sociological elements of the practice at the time?

Oman continues:

 Is this the big hurdle to understanding the 1800s practice of plural marriage?  For those like me who are interested and fascinated with the historical practice from a doctrinal perspective how do we set aside our "vision" of eternal families and better understand their vision.

In your opinion does the Church still teach or believe the concept of the eternal family kingdom?  Or is it now just the eternal family - ixnay on the kingdom?

The switch from family kingdom to a lineage focus after 1894 created a new mindset on sealing.  It became all about family lines, lineage etc.
I think we can say all three mindsets on sealing can be called doctrinal and valid.  What makes the shifts happen?  Why do we change focus if the doctrine remains the same?
 

From Helaman 10, the sealing power ensures the performance of God’s will upon the earth. This power acts among people and upon the elements, including natural and physical laws which generate and promote human life (mortal and eternal), according to the wickedness or righteousness of the people and their relative cursing or blessing.

There are many reasons and lenses to misunderstand polygamy, and you touched upon a couple. They seem to be the same forces that result in shifts in focus. But a legitimate shift might be found in the underlying principle of Alma 12: 9-11 and 29:8 (text copied below): nothing wrong with saints being invited to feel different parts of the elephant until the fathers and the children can share with each other the fruit of what their hearts have been able to attain.

It seems to me that the three concepts (and Saints gets into this) have melded in effect if not practice, by the sealing power as follows: The Church of the Firstborn (that which is bound in heaven) is comprised of relationships sealed by both lineage, family and couples (which must be performed on earth) creating multigenerational “households” within Adam’s “household.” The only conjugal relationships are husband and wife, but at the same time, every individual has both conjugating (husband and wife) and non-conjugating (all the others) relationships. This structure generates and promotes human life on earth (in various degrees of departure from heaven’s lens and approach) and in heaven (the perfected lens and approach). As long as people experience the actual fruit of the tree of life, it doesn’t matter how limited their understanding may be as they press forward in faith, as it will always expand (Alma 32).

Alma 12:9 …It is given unto many to ^aknow the ^bmysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart ^conly according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

Alma 29:8 For behold, the Lord doth ^agrant unto ^ball nations, of their own nation and ^ctongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he ^dseeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Remember we aren't just talking of our views of family or marriage (save that for the other thread 😉).

We're focusing on how we view the purpose and goal of sealing and how that specifically changed over time.

How would these alternative families fit into a kingdom view?  A lineage view?  Etc.  Do they fulfill the doctrinal purposes connected with sealing doctrines?

It would solve any gender ratio disparities in the next life, solve the problem of who you end up with when you had two spouses in your life and love and want to be with both, and it welds more people together with the sealing power into kingdoms and lineages.

Not seeing the downside here.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why do people assume that our understanding today is "more full" than it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham?
Isn't this an example of the same presentism that prevents full understanding of the things in the past?

I think part of the reason that so many assume that is because that is how our theology has been presented to us for decades (and maybe longer). 

We are a church that loves to focus on how God teaches us "Line upon Line, precept upon precept".   We are also very fond of the whole "Milk before meat" idea.  If we believe all that, then believing that our understanding of the gospel today is "higher up the ladder" than it was in decades gone by, is reasonable.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think part of the reason that so many assume that is because that is how our theology has been presented to us for decades (and maybe longer). 

We are a church that loves to focus on how God teaches us "Line upon Line, precept upon precept". 

And it's a true principle whenever we add more light and knowledge about the eternities.

Quote

 We are also very fond of the whole "Milk before meat" idea.  If we believe all that, then believing that our understanding of the gospel today is "higher up the ladder" than it was in decades gone by, is reasonable.

Reasonable but not in evidence to my view.  I am convinced they had more light in knowledge during the the mid 1800s than remains in the Church today.

But hey, we're more popular now.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I am convinced they had more light in knowledge during the the mid 1800s than remains in the Church today.

 

What specifically has you convinced, other than that it has been changed?

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Great quote!
 

It's fascinating to me how some people see change as always progressive - moving from the lesser to the greater.   And others see it as a loss - moving from the complete to the reduced.
It probably says more about the beholder than the issue itself.
Why do people assume that our understanding today is "more full" than it was in the days of Joseph and Brigham?
Isn't this an example of the same presentism that prevents full understanding of the things in the past?

Change constantly is occurring and sometimes change is good, and sometimes bad.   We should not always assume that we are gaining more understanding with time.  The apostasy of the New Testament church is evidence of that.   As time passed, more error was mixed with the original truth that eventually the truth was basically dead.  Both the Lord and the Devil are constantly engaged in seeing the change occurs.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The old teaching of "things will be worked out in eternity" starts to feel pretty shallow as a faithful person goes through life unsealed to her family

Why?  Even those families sealed in this life are frequently not with questions of how it will work out.  Adopted children, for example….if their biological parents become exalted along with their adoptive sealed parents, why couldn’t the children be sealed to their bio parents as well, especially if the bio parents had not given up their bio children for selfish reasons or were abusive parents, but had died or were not able to care for them for some reason, but still dearly loved their children and saw them as part of them as other parents who raised their children did.  Or if the sealed husband dies and the wife remarries and reproduces and raises children with her second husband who she is not sealed to while living…yet is sealed to after death.

IMO, “things will be worked out in eternity” applies to every last family and individual that has existed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know an amazing single lady who has adopted a number of children over the past few years. She's never been married. No real prospects. The old teaching of "things will be worked out in eternity" starts to feel pretty shallow as a faithful person goes through life unsealed to her family.

Nonsense. I'm a single male who's never married. No real prospects. I have complete faith that things will be worked out in eternity.

In the meantime, the blessings of the Restored Gospel are so reliably, consistently, and predictably wonderful and abundant in the here and now that I seldom even think about the future.