Exaltation for single women

[Meadowchik]

Many men are spiritual polygamists by virtue of being sealed to a second wife after the first has passed away.

[manol]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One of the realities that poly and ENM people who are at least semi-successful harp on is that love is infinite and cannot be depleted...

And I agree with them.  Love does not conform to the laws of scarcity; imo it's like love is on a different level, and follows a different set of "laws". 

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

... while time is not infinite and without time to express love the relationship is dormant and in romantic relationships it usually withers.

This is certainly true down here, regardless of the forms our primary relationships take. 

Imo things shift if time is no longer a limiting factor, such that time spent with one person no longer results in less time being available to spend with other people. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by manol

[Kenngo1969]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Even if they are ug-lyyyyy? 

Hey!    I resemble that remark ... literally!

   

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not speaking for anyone who wonders how, possibly, God is going to be able to atone, literally, for all of the unfairnesses and messiness of our relationships (or lack thereof) here.  (However, see Alma 7:11-14.)  As much as I might feel to ask, as Enos did, "Lord, how is it done?" (Enos 1:7), I believe in a God who, in infinite ways, is "mighty to save" (2 Nephi 31:19). 

And, as I've said so many times before, how is it that the Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Loving Lord of the Universe is going to have to say to any of us who are faithful, "I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or, at least, something different, and I know this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.    This is the best I could do"?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

Especially those who have died in battle.

And those who died before age 8, males having a higher death rate when young. (See this has been mentioned already…good)

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

For example, if five living single women were to be sealed to former LDS President
Monson, would they then be his plural wives in the resurrection? 

Are you asking if this practice actually happens as it used to (some living women were sealed to Joseph after his death, iirc; not sure about other prophets) or if it is theoretically possible?

The only sealings I am aware of between a living woman and deceased man are rumors of engaged couples were one dies and the other survives, the living partner petitioning the First Presidency to be sealed.  The decease man would not have another plural wife sealed to him in that case.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Many men are spiritual polygamists by virtue of being sealed to a second wife after the first has passed away.

And many women are as well since women are sealed to all their husbands after they all are deceased.

[manol]

26 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not speaking for anyone who wonders how, possibly, God is going to be able to atone, literally, for all of the unfairnesses and messiness of our relationships (or lack thereof) here.  (However, see Alma 7:11-14.)  As much as I might feel to ask, as Enos did, "Lord, how is it done?" (Enos 1:7), I believe in a God who, in infinite ways, is "mighty to save" (2 Nephi 31:19). 

And, as I've said so many times before, how is it that the Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Loving Lord of the Universe is going to have to say to any of us who are faithful, "I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or, at least, something different, and I know this means that it sucks to be you, but ... sorry.    This is the best I could do"?

I think it will not suck.  I think "the last shall be first."

One of my "hobbies" is near-death experiences, and here's a compilation video that imo paints a somewhat different picture than what our eyes tell us (at least two of the clips are by near-death experiencers with an LDS background):

NDE COMPILATION - Universal knowledge - the feeling of being home and much more... - YouTube

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by manol

[MustardSeed]

57 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hey!    I resemble that remark ... literally!

   

Don’t talk about our friend that way ! 

[Islander]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

Regarding this General Conference talk.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1999/10/what-it-means-to-be-a-daughter-of-god?lang=eng

"The prophets of God have repeatedly assured faithful, unmarried women that they 
can be exalted. Exaltation requires that the candidates receive the ordinances and 
the sealing blessings, which means, of course, that they would be sealed to a 
worthy priesthood bearer in the next life and enjoy all of the blessings of 
marriage".

Is this confirmation that the church still practices a form of polygamy, where single
women can be sealed to a deceased married men (who may have plural wives already)?
For example, if five living single women were to be sealed to former LDS President
Monson, would they then be his plural wives in the resurrection? 

The positions of the church have changed significantly over time when it comes to this issue. It seems to me that what the church says publicly about the subject is linked to the social current.

Brigham Young once said: "It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives... The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them". (Journal of Discourses 11:268-269)

In years past, the teaching was that women HAD to enter into celestial marriage to be exalted. Over time, with the advent and prospect of single womanhood for life, the teaching has changed. It is impossible to determine, from the standpoint of the teachings, what is the actual belief held by the church on the matter.

 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

And those who died before age 8, males having a higher death rate when young. (See this has been mentioned already…good)

...because of course men are naturally more righteous than women.

(Looking for cover!)

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

the teaching was that women HAD to enter into celestial marriage to be exalted.

The teaching still is women and men have to enter into celestial marriage to be exalted, either when living or dead.  How the dead sealings will come to be is unknown, but it makes sense to me pretty much the same way as now, only much more effective dating with the better communication techniques and less masking that will be going on in the afterlife.

 

3 hours ago, Islander said:

It is impossible to determine, from the standpoint of the teachings, what is the actual belief held by the church on the matter.

Nope, pretty easy actually:

Quote

He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

We must be baptized.

We must receive the laying on of hands to be confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Brethren must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and magnify their callings in the priesthood.

We must receive the temple endowment.

We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Edited March 28, 2023 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Don’t talk about our friend that way ! 

I see offense was taken where it was not given (at least not intended to be).  I was, as my comment made perfectly clear, speaking only of myself.  If you have a beef with anything Brother Bukowski posted, I suggest you take that up with him.

[Calm]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

...because of course men are naturally more righteous than women.

(Looking for cover!)

As likely as women being more righteous, but don’t get the reasoning here…unless you are referring to the idea that only the good die young?

Shall we all break into song now?

 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, the church still practices polygamy.   President Nelson, for example, is sealed to two women currently. 

So you're saying (per what you wrote below about the problem with polygamy still besetting the church) that his second wife, Wendy, shouldn't be sealed to him? And that she should be sealed to some other man later, one she may never have known in life?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

When the spouse of a church authority passes away, they are often re-married and sealed in an eternal polygamist relationship.

I'm curious as to how you know this. Any examples?

Actually, I think you're making it up. I was acquainted with a general authority who passed away a few years ago. Are you telling me that he was sealed to some additional women post mortem? Or that he will be, after his widow passes away? Is there a list of excess women that the church keeps somewhere for this purpose?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Even though there are countless widowed women who need companionship, they never choose the widows to marry. 

Never? You've done a study of this topic, I presume. I'm interested in your statistical results.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

They seek out and find the  never-marrieds.  Granted, these women deserve and need companionship too, but statistically widows outnumber widowers 3:1.  The widows of the church needlessly suffer and are too often overlooked because of this doctrine of eternal polygamy.  They are sealed to their first partner and it would require them to break that sealing in order to be sealed to another man. 

I'm married to a widow who was previously sealed. I have no intention of pressuring her to have her previous sealing cancelled so I can snap her up eternally. I know some other widowers also married to women previously sealed to another, who likewise never asked to break up the prior sealing.

You speak of "The widows of the church" as if you were their advocate, or had special knowledge and concern. Do you believe that the leadership of the church does not care about them, so you have to make up for their dereliction of duty?

There was once a young sister who posted in the Social Hall, her being a young widow. While she wanted/needed to remarry to help her raise her young family, and for the companionship, the few LDS men in her age range who were unmarried were not interested because she had previously been sealed to her first husband, and those men she might have been interested in would prefer to marry a woman who was not sealed already. In this case it was not a matter of plural marriage, but a matter of eternal marriage -- and so the argument could be made that eternal marriage itself was the culprit in her unfortunate situation. So, do away with that, too?

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 The widowers don't have the same problem.  They can be sealed to how ever many women they want. 

Widowers have never had the same problem. It's not just a question of sealing, because even without the question of sealing, from time immemorial widowers would always prefer to seek out the never married. If they could find them. One of my male ancestors married three times. His first wife died in childbirth. He remarried, to a never-married woman. When she died, he remarried, again to a never-married woman. He had children with all of them. No doubt there were plenty of widows available, but he picked young, never-married women. His last wife was much younger than he. Why didn't his last wife, who was much younger than him, pick someone more her own age? I can't say, but perhaps his state of prosperity had something to do with it.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

This places young widows in an impossible position of breaking the sealing to their first husband who died young in order to be eligible and an attractive candidate for an LDS man who desires to be sealed to the person they are going to live the rest of their lives with.  Young widows are not on the market eternally, but only temporally.   It is a tragic mess.  The practice of polygamy still causes suffering to this day.

As I am trying to tell you, the problem is not the practice of polygamy. The problem is human nature. As a general rule, men prefer to raise their own children, and not some other man's. Of course, plenty of men are willing to raise another man's children if it means he can also beget some of his own. But he will not necessarily seek out a widow or a divorcee. This has nothing to do with polygamy. 

My own late wife actually picked out a never-married woman for me to marry after she died. I didn't follow her suggestion, but another man I know had the exact same thing happen to him: his dying wife suggested a never-married woman half his age for him to marry. He ultimately did marry her. And had four children with her, to add to the five he had with his first wife. 

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Not to mention the issue of children.  If someone does decide to marry a widow without being sealed to her, then the children they have together cannot be sealed to that couple.  The children are sealed to her first husband whom they have never met and is not even their biological father.  

And what difference does that make? Plenty of children are raised by their non-biological step-fathers, having never even met their biological father, completely irrespective of who they are sealed to, if either of them. And what if they did meet their bio-father, and loved him in mortality? Should they tell their step-father to pound sand, or should they disavow their bio-father?

If eternal marriage itself and the sealing of children are valid concepts, then it goes without saying that a woman can only be sealed to a single man, and a child can only be sealed to a single couple. To call this a tragedy is to advocate that the sealing be divided between potentially multiple fathers. Is this the kind of order that should exist in God's Kingdom?

If a child is worthy of eternal parentage due to his/her righteousness, but his/her parents are not worthy of being eternal parents, the child won't be sealed to them by the Holy Spirit of Promise, regardless of what happened in the temple in life. If neither of my parents are worthy, then despite my effort to be sealed to them in the temple (they were non-members), that sealing will ultimately be invalid. It must necessarily follow that the child will find him/herself inserted into a patriarchal chain with parents who were never biologically his/hers. When you get right down to it, biology doesn't really matter. Your DNA does not follow you in the resurrection; DNA is mortal, but your spirit is immortal.

My late wife was sealed to her first husband and they had seven children. He self-destructed in the gospel due to abandoning his marriage vows, and was excommunicated. When I married her, she requested a sealing cancellation, and got it. She was then no longer sealed to him. What about his kids with her? He lost them, in the same way that King David lost every single one of his wives in eternity.

DC 132:39 - David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

According to what we understand about being born in the covenant, David will have lost his children, not just his wives, in eternity. My late wife's children were likewise cut loose from him, not just him from her. Who gets them? I don't know, but it certainly won't be their biological father. Though like I said above, biology is not of the essence in these things. Righteousness is of the essence, however, as is order.

My late wife's sealing cancellation was signed by President Kimball. In the letter she received from the office of the first presidency, her children with her ex-husband were mentioned. The letter said that the cancellation did not affect their rights to eternal parentage -- that if they were worthy, they would have the right to eternal parentage, regardless of what happened to their earthly parents. In other words, their biological father's sin did not sever their right to a place in the patriarchal chain. But did not guarantee that he would be their father in eternity.

You seem to be mired in mortal thinking. Thinking that the conditions of mortality must necessarily be the conditions of eternity, and that your attitudes and thinking will be the same there as they are here. Do you really want the imperfections of mortal life to follow you into immortality, and eternal life? 

If polygamy/plural marriage is not an eternal principle, then plenty of women will end up being sealed to men they never knew on earth, and plenty of men, likewise. And the children they each and severally had will end up likewise. What happens to your concern over children being sealed to men they never met in that case?

[MustardSeed]

49 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I see offense was taken where it was not given (at least not intended to be).  I was, as my comment made perfectly clear, speaking only of myself.  If you have a beef with anything Brother Bukowski posted, I suggest you take that up with him.

Pssst… I was talking about YOU🤗

[Rain]

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you asking if this practice actually happens as it used to (some living women were sealed to Joseph after his death, iirc; not sure about other prophets) or if it is theoretically possible?

The only sealings I am aware of between a living woman and deceased man are rumors of engaged couples were one dies and the other survives, the living partner petitioning the First Presidency to be sealed.

I have a friend who was sealed to her husband after he died and she had his work done. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 The decease man would not have another plural wife sealed to him in that case.

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I see offense was taken where it was not given (at least not intended to be).  I was, as my comment made perfectly clear, speaking only of myself.  If you have a beef with anything Brother Bukowski posted, I suggest you take that up with him.

YOU are our friend. We don't want you to talk about yourself that way. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Rain

[sheilauk]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

Regarding this General Conference talk.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1999/10/what-it-means-to-be-a-daughter-of-god?lang=eng

"The prophets of God have repeatedly assured faithful, unmarried women that they 
can be exalted. Exaltation requires that the candidates receive the ordinances and 
the sealing blessings, which means, of course, that they would be sealed to a 
worthy priesthood bearer in the next life and enjoy all of the blessings of 
marriage".

Is this confirmation that the church still practices a form of polygamy, where single
women can be sealed to a deceased married men (who may have plural wives already)?
For example, if five living single women were to be sealed to former LDS President
Monson, would they then be his plural wives in the resurrection? 

No, it means men and women who die in this life unmarried will have the opportunity during the Millenium to find a partner, be sealed and be exalted after the Judgement.  Why do you assume the worthy priesthood bearer will be an already married man and not one of the many men who died single?  I’m single.  I don’t expect to be sealed to anyone deceased during my lifetime and I don’t expect to be married/sealed to anyone after my death.  If I’m still single when I die, I expect to get the chance to be married & sealed when I’m resurrected during the millennium!  And that prospective husband is probably more likely to be single than for it to be a polygamous marriage.

[sheilauk]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

 The widows of the church needlessly suffer and are too often overlooked because of this doctrine of eternal polygamy.  They are sealed to their first partner and it would require them to break that sealing in order to be sealed to another man.   The widowers don't have the same problem.  They can be sealed to how ever many women they want.  This places young widows in an impossible position of breaking the sealing to their first husband who died young in order to be eligible and an attractive candidate for an LDS man who desires to be sealed to the person they are going to live the rest of their lives with.  Young widows are not on the market eternally, but only temporally.   It is a tragic mess.  The practice of polygamy still causes suffering to this day.  

FWIW, anecdotally, almost all the widows I know, including young ones, consider themselves still married and don’t go looking for another partner, even temporally. Their companionship comes from their children and their friends. I’m not convinced there are many “suffering” in that way.  Maybe the USA is different.  The women I know who are “suffering” are older, never married or divorced women who are ignored by men in favour of younger women!  I know several older single women who have given up on getting married in this life and who just hope that they will get the chance in the next.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And many women are as well since women are sealed to all their husbands after they all are deceased.

Can you clarify? Are you saying that widows are being sealed a second time-- to someone else to be clear--without a sealing cancellation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Rain said:

have a friend who was sealed to her husband after he died and she had his work done. 

This is SOP and has been forever for married couples, a husband she is legally married to at the time of his death can be sealed in a year’s time with no extra steps needed beside her submission, I believe.  Same with a widower who is not sealed to his late wife (assuming the living spouse has a temple recommend).  If she is already sealed to another husband, that may need to be canceled unless she gets FP approval.  I hadn’t heard about that case, if that is your friend, that is interesting.

If she was divorced or had remarried, the sealing to other than her last legal husband  has to get special approval or just wait till she’s dead when they seal all her husbands to her if I understand the current procedures correctly. Been awhile since I was actively doing family history. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

concepts, then it goes without saying that a woman can only be sealed to a single man,

Why?  Everyone will know who the father is of each child, there will be no legal inheritance issues, children will not be property as they once were viewed (and are still by some), but all will be in adult relationships with each other.  This logic that a woman can only be sealed to one man is a fine example of “mortal thinking”, is it not?  

What would be the problem with a woman being sealed to multiple men when we now would know who the parents are for each child just as we would for every case of a man being married to multiple women. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So you're saying (per what you wrote below about the problem with polygamy still besetting the church) that his second wife, Wendy, shouldn't be sealed to him? And that she should be sealed to some other man later, one she may never have known in life?

I'm curious as to how you know this. Any examples?

Actually, I think you're making it up. I was acquainted with a general authority who passed away a few years ago. Are you telling me that he was sealed to some additional women post mortem? Or that he will be, after his widow passes away? Is there a list of excess women that the church keeps somewhere for this purpose?

Never? You've done a study of this topic, I presume. I'm interested in your statistical results.

I'm married to a widow who was previously sealed. I have no intention of pressuring her to have her previous sealing cancelled so I can snap her up eternally. I know some other widowers also married to women previously sealed to another, who likewise never asked to break up the prior sealing.

You speak of "The widows of the church" as if you were their advocate, or had special knowledge and concern. Do you believe that the leadership of the church does not care about them, so you have to make up for their dereliction of duty?

There was once a young sister who posted in the Social Hall, her being a young widow. While she wanted/needed to remarry to help her raise her young family, and for the companionship, the few LDS men in her age range who were unmarried were not interested because she had previously been sealed to her first husband, and those men she might have been interested in would prefer to marry a woman who was not sealed already. In this case it was not a matter of plural marriage, but a matter of eternal marriage -- and so the argument could be made that eternal marriage itself was the culprit in her unfortunate situation. So, do away with that, too?

Widowers have never had the same problem. It's not just a question of sealing, because even without the question of sealing, from time immemorial widowers would always prefer to seek out the never married. If they could find them. One of my male ancestors married three times. His first wife died in childbirth. He remarried, to a never-married woman. When she died, he remarried, again to a never-married woman. He had children with all of them. No doubt there were plenty of widows available, but he picked young, never-married women. His last wife was much younger than he. Why didn't his last wife, who was much younger than him, pick someone more her own age? I can't say, but perhaps his state of prosperity had something to do with it.

As I am trying to tell you, the problem is not the practice of polygamy. The problem is human nature. As a general rule, men prefer to raise their own children, and not some other man's. Of course, plenty of men are willing to raise another man's children if it means he can also beget some of his own. But he will not necessarily seek out a widow or a divorcee. This has nothing to do with polygamy. 

My own late wife actually picked out a never-married woman for me to marry after she died. I didn't follow her suggestion, but another man I know had the exact same thing happen to him: his dying wife suggested a never-married woman half his age for him to marry. He ultimately did marry her. And had four children with her, to add to the five he had with his first wife. 

And what difference does that make? Plenty of children are raised by their non-biological step-fathers, having never even met their biological father, completely irrespective of who they are sealed to, if either of them. And what if they did meet their bio-father, and loved him in mortality? Should they tell their step-father to pound sand, or should they disavow their bio-father?

If eternal marriage itself and the sealing of children are valid concepts, then it goes without saying that a woman can only be sealed to a single man, and a child can only be sealed to a single couple. To call this a tragedy is to advocate that the sealing be divided between potentially multiple fathers. Is this the kind of order that should exist in God's Kingdom?

If a child is worthy of eternal parentage due to his/her righteousness, but his/her parents are not worthy of being eternal parents, the child won't be sealed to them by the Holy Spirit of Promise, regardless of what happened in the temple in life. If neither of my parents are worthy, then despite my effort to be sealed to them in the temple (they were non-members), that sealing will ultimately be invalid. It must necessarily follow that the child will find him/herself inserted into a patriarchal chain with parents who were never biologically his/hers. When you get right down to it, biology doesn't really matter. Your DNA does not follow you in the resurrection; DNA is mortal, but your spirit is immortal.

My late wife was sealed to her first husband and they had seven children. He self-destructed in the gospel due to abandoning his marriage vows, and was excommunicated. When I married her, she requested a sealing cancellation, and got it. She was then no longer sealed to him. What about his kids with her? He lost them, in the same way that King David lost every single one of his wives in eternity.

DC 132:39 - David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

According to what we understand about being born in the covenant, David will have lost his children, not just his wives, in eternity. My late wife's children were likewise cut loose from him, not just him from her. Who gets them? I don't know, but it certainly won't be their biological father. Though like I said above, biology is not of the essence in these things. Righteousness is of the essence, however, as is order.

My late wife's sealing cancellation was signed by President Kimball. In the letter she received from the office of the first presidency, her children with her ex-husband were mentioned. The letter said that the cancellation did not affect their rights to eternal parentage -- that if they were worthy, they would have the right to eternal parentage, regardless of what happened to their earthly parents. In other words, their biological father's sin did not sever their right to a place in the patriarchal chain. But did not guarantee that he would be their father in eternity.

You seem to be mired in mortal thinking. Thinking that the conditions of mortality must necessarily be the conditions of eternity, and that your attitudes and thinking will be the same there as they are here. Do you really want the imperfections of mortal life to follow you into immortality, and eternal life? 

If polygamy/plural marriage is not an eternal principle, then plenty of women will end up being sealed to men they never knew on earth, and plenty of men, likewise. And the children they each and severally had will end up likewise. What happens to your concern over children being sealed to men they never met in that case?

I suggest a good reading of The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy.  No I am not making stuff up.   It's not a good way to start dialogue with combative accusations.  You pretty much lost me there. 

Quote

And what difference does that make?

You can't be serious.  I'm sorry, but I don't think you are interested in good faith and genuine dialogue with that response.  That is pitifully dismissive of the lived experience and traumatic struggles that many have because of this doctrine. 

If the answer to all of these problems is to condescend upon those who are troubled by them with "you seem to be mired in mortal thinking", I think that is telling of how little there is in response to these problems.  The problem is that we sell the appeal of eternal families, but when confronted with a non-traditional family we downplay that relationship in the eternities with, "well, we don't know how things are really going to be in the next life so don't worry about it!  Don't be so mired in mortal thinking/relationships".   "It will all get figured out in the eternities" does not go far to appease the anxieties of being separated from your biological father that you love more than anything, who raised you, and who is deeply a part of you, then to be eternally sealed to some other guy you don't know.  But what difference does it make, right?  Same with the father - "what difference does it make" that you are not going to be eternally sealed to your biological children that you love more than life itself?  Forget about it!    Also, the idea that a sealing can be broken without the consent of the husband that has passed away seems dreadfully disrespectful.   There are no good answers.

If all the mess that we don't have mortal answers to in this life is going to be figured out in the next life, then why don't we just allow women to be sealed to more than one man?  Isn't that what the sealing is more about anyway?  It is not just about human relationships but is about unifying everyone together into one great whole along with all truth and with God.   That is what the at-one-ment is all about, isn't it?  Wasn't the the purpose of the restoration to circumscribe all truth into one great whole via the sealing power of the priesthood?   That makes WAY more sense to me. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by pogi

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Even though there are countless widowed women who need companionship, they never choose the widows to marry.

This needed a separate response.

Not that I think church leaders are following the Law of Moses, but in that law, explicated in both Leviticus and Ezekiel, leaders are not to marry widows (unless they are widows of deceased leaders), but only "virgins."

Leviticus 21:10, 13,14 - And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; ... And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

Ezekiel 44:15, 22 - But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God ... Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.

Is this why President Nelson married a never-married woman? I have no idea. I rather doubt it, but if the Lord thought it important enough to implement in the past, perhaps He has subtly and only implicitly directed the leaders of his church to follow this rule? 

Nah.