Exaltation for single women

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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.

That depends. Excommunication can be removed and all blessings restored in this life, so why not the next?

Plus it is taught even if a couple is divorced, the sealing between each parent and child is intact. The child parent sealing does not go with the more devout parent.  I believe in cases where one parent leaves the Church, the Church does not teach the child parent sealing is no longer intact.  It leaves it up to God, like many other things…pretty much everything actually when you get down to the details.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2015/08/to-the-point/if-my-parents-were-sealed-in-the-temple-and-then-got-divorced-which-one-am-i-sealed-to?lang=eng

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

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.

There are many young widows with young children with their whole lives ahead of them.  These widows usually desire further companionship, they usually need financial support as it is insanely difficult to raise children as a single mother, and those children would benefit by having a good father/role model.  

Edited March 27, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, sheilauk said:

Maybe the USA is different.

It might be. Single mothers are more likely to be poverty level lives (1/3) , so there may be incentive to being married just for that reason. 

I got the impression our culture pushes them to remarry as well.  I don’t know though if this is a valid impression.

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Not that I think church leaders are following the Law of Moses...

It seems that you actually do think that.  Hence the post.

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I rather doubt it...

Yet, you brought it up.

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Nah. 

There you go again denying the ridiculousness of the idea, yet I can't help but sense the sarcasm in your "nah".

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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

I was referring to how once dead, women and men are all treated the same. All are sealed to all spouses. 

However, there are also quite a few exceptions of young widows being sealed to a second husband without a cancellation, though this needs FP approval. I know of someone who was a bishop requesting the exception in one case and who knew personally another plus several others who knew the woman getting the second sealing.  

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was referring to how once dead, women and men are all treated the same. All are sealed to all spouses. 

However, there are also quite a few exceptions of young widows being sealed to a second husband without a cancellation, though this needs FP approval. I know of someone who was a bishop requesting the exception in one case and who knew personally another plus several others who knew the woman getting the second sealing.  

I have not heard of this happening with living widows being sealed a second time to a new living husband.   Why one would be approved and another is not is beyond me.  Doesn't seem fair. 

It makes no sense why we have to wait until death to do this for women, but not for men.   It just creates unnecessary suffering. 

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

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

I don't know that there would be a problem. I assume that God will make everything the way it should be. I assume that we in our mortal condition may not understand what will be correct and true in the eternities. This is the point of what I was trying to tell Pogi. He cannot rely upon his imperfect understanding and emotional connections to judge what God will decide in eternity.

You are absolutely correct about how we will be in adult relationships with each other. That is the adult way to understand it, not the imperfect and emotional requirement that we must absolutely sealed to our biological parents. My father rejected the gospel in life; he wanted nothing to do with it. According to my understanding of the plan of salvation, by rejecting it in life, he may have forfeited the possibility of exaltation even if he inherits salvation through repentance. Can there be a parental sealing between a man in the Terrestrial Kingdom and an exalted man in the Celestial? Assuming I am worthy of such, which seems unlikely to me? But regardless (and despite the fact that he asked me not to do it), I stood in his place for baptism, endowment, and sealing, both to me and to my mother. Whether these ordinances will be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is out of my hands; but I do what I am asked to do, which is all I can do for him.

You're entitled to an opinion that polyandry will exist in the eternities, but there doesn't seem to be any scriptural support for it. Our current practice is that women are sealed by proxy to all the men they were married to in life. Is this because they will be sealed to all of them in the eternities? I highly doubt it. Plenty of people who may ultimately reject Christ are baptized in the temple by proxy. This is because we are not in the know as to their ultimate condition, nor what their ultimate choices will be. We likewise endow them by proxy, irrespective of whether their endowment will eventually be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. We do this because that's what the Lord wants us to do, since we do not have the authority to judge one way or another. It's out of our hands. 

So, whether a child is put into the patriarchal chain in one place versus another is not important. It is important that the child is placed where the child is supposed to be placed, and that it will be the right place. And that's in God's hands.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

 

Yeah, something like that.

Well you know me; I actually think women are far more spiritual than men.

We are doing initiatories tomorrow and I will return and report.

It's cool having this stuff memorized. 

If anyone has the time, become a temple worker!  It's great!

Edited March 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have not heard of this happening with living widows being sealed a second time to a new living husband.   Why one would be approved and another is not is beyond me.  Doesn't seem fair. 

It makes no sense why we have to wait until death to do this for women, but not for men.   It just creates unnecessary suffering. 

No argument here. My guess is it hasn’t changed to keep up with technology simply because of tradition (even though widowhood might make it clear who the father is given a big enough gap, that would be the exception; there is for also some reason a greater eewww factor for a woman having multiple husbands than the reverse on my experience, it is more often phrases in the past as from the man’s experience/POV as in men sharing a woman vs a man having a different experience with different women).  Some people have such a hard time getting their head around a woman sealed/married to multiple men while it is SOP for a man to be sealed/married to multiple women. What is the difference in need?

Does a man need more wives while a woman can’t handle more than one husband (even if sharing the husband with other women).

It made sense when women and children were little more than property and men wanted ‘clear title’ to their wives and inheritance followed bloodlines more than personal preference or equal division among children, etc. Now when even in mortality, we can track biological parenthood as well as legal parenthood and men can no longer essentially own their wives, it becomes a matter of faith, imo, in tradition. It’s done that way because it has always been done that way. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

there doesn't seem to be any scriptural support for it.

There wasn’t scriptural support for everyone engaging in temple marriage until there was. 

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

That depends. Excommunication can be removed and all blessings restored in this life, so why not the next?

Because it appears that some things are irreversible? Does my sealing to my deceased wife get ripped out of my hands because her ex-husband somehow repents sufficiently in the Spirit World? Is this something I have to worry about?

DC 132 was quite explicit that David lost his exaltation, and did not suggest he could recover it. It didn't say that he lost his salvation, though, and so presumably even David the murderer could repent sufficiently to avoid the Telestial Kingdom. But his wives and concubines were given to another, and the certainty of the wording doesn't seem to admit of a quibble.

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Plus it is taught even if a couple is divorced, the sealing between each parent and child is intact. The child parent sealing does not go with the more devout parent.  I believe in cases where one parent leaves the Church, the Church does not teach the child parent sealing is no longer intact.  It leaves it up to God, like many other things…pretty much everything actually when you get down to the details.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2015/08/to-the-point/if-my-parents-were-sealed-in-the-temple-and-then-got-divorced-which-one-am-i-sealed-to?lang=eng

As I indicated from what I read in President Kimball's letter to my wife, the sins of the parents do not affect the right of a child to eternal parentage. He did not say that their children's sealing to both of them remained intact, as the New Era Q&A answer stated.

I would not count that New Era Q&A answer as absolutely true. It appears to be worded so as to be comforting; it's out of the hands of the child, so what use is there in an admission that we don't really know. That he's still sealed to two people who want nothing to do with each other? How's that supposed to work? How would it be true if, say, both parents sinned badly enough to be resurrected into the Telestial Kingdom, or worse, sons of perdition? What if both parents had been horrible abusers of a child they were sealed to? The kid's still stuck with them?

Well, I don't know enough to say with certainly what happens in all cases, maybe not any. But my feeling is that parent-child sealings are just as subject to the validation of the Holy Spirit of Promise as husband-wife sealings are.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Does my sealing to my deceased wife get ripped out of my hands because her ex-husband somehow repents sufficiently in the Spirit World? Is this something I have to worry about?

What does your sealing with her that you both chose have to do with her children’s sealing to their father if they both desire that sealing to be intact?

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

DC 132 was quite explicit that David lost his exaltation, and did not suggest he could recover it

Unless her ex husband murdered someone in cold blood, does that scripture even apply to his case?  Excommunicated members are rebaptized all the time and all blessings are reinstated. 
 

Some have appealed to the FP for rebaptism by proxy and reinstatement of blessings to happen after an excommunicated family member passes away and it has been reported approved. Why would they do this is they didn’t believe in some cases even dead excommunicated members might be forgiven and be able to receive all their promises that they still deserve and relationships that others want to have with them. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There wasn’t scriptural support for everyone engaging in temple marriage until there was. 

Not a word in the Old Testament about baptism, either, and we had to wait until the 19th century to learn that Adam was baptized by an angel. Doesn't mean that everything needs scriptural support to be true -- which I suppose supports the possibility of eternal polyandry. But that's an argument from silence.

But the Plan of Salvation is not Burger King. You can't necessarily have it your way. I suppose this works both ways, but not only is there no support for polyandry in the scriptures, it does seem to be explicitly condemned, under the provisions for the sin of adultery. Which is condemned, while plural marriage is explicitly permitted.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Because it appears that some things are irreversible? Does my sealing to my deceased wife get ripped out of my hands because her ex-husband somehow repents sufficiently in the Spirit World? Is this something I have to worry about?

What of the dying man who faces leaving behind a young wife he is sealed to?  Apparently having their wife “ripped out of their hands”is genuinely something they have to worry about.

As long as you don’t have to worry about things though….

That would just be “mired in mortal thinking”, right? Silly mortals who worry about such things! 

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What does your sealing with her that you both chose have to do with her children’s sealing to their father if they both desire that sealing to be intact?

Wasn't talking about their children's sealings. If her ex-husband repents sufficiently, why can't she be ripped from me and given back to him? Along with their daughter, whom he sexually abused? 

The problem with assuming permanent and unalterable parent-child sealings (in line with the New Era Q&A answer) is that you're going to have to deal with monstrous situations. I'm saying that some sealings are to persons unworthy of those sealings, which simply cannot in justice maintained eternally. If that New Era Q&A answer is true, then Lori Daybell gets to keep her children in eternity. 

Have I sufficiently explicated the problem?

 

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're entitled to an opinion that polyandry will exist in the eternities, but there doesn't seem to be any scriptural support for it. Our current practice is that women are sealed by proxy to all the men they were married to in life. Is this because they will be sealed to all of them in the eternities? I highly doubt it.

Huh?

The whole point of "SEALING" is that it is forever.  We don't say " til Xyz do we part"

Have you never heard the words of the sealing ceremony?  Is that not scripture?

Trust me, it says that.

Time and eternity.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Because it appears that some things are irreversible? Does my sealing to my deceased wife get ripped out of my hands because her ex-husband somehow repents sufficiently in the Spirit World? Is this something I have to worry about?

DC 132 was quite explicit that David lost his exaltation, and did not suggest he could recover it. It didn't say that he lost his salvation, though, and so presumably even David the murderer could repent sufficiently to avoid the Telestial Kingdom. But his wives and concubines were given to another, and the certainty of the wording doesn't seem to admit of a quibble.

As I indicated from what I read in President Kimball's letter to my wife, the sins of the parents do not affect the right of a child to eternal parentage. He did not say that their children's sealing to both of them remained intact, as the New Era Q&A answer stated.

I would not count that New Era Q&A answer as absolutely true. It appears to be worded so as to be comforting; it's out of the hands of the child, so what use is there in an admission that we don't really know. That he's still sealed to two people who want nothing to do with each other? How's that supposed to work? How would it be true if, say, both parents sinned badly enough to be resurrected into the Telestial Kingdom, or worse, sons of perdition? What if both parents had been horrible abusers of a child they were sealed to? The kid's still stuck with them?

Well, I don't know enough to say with certainly what happens in all cases, maybe not any. But my feeling is that parent-child sealings are just as subject to the validation of the Holy Spirit of Promise as husband-wife sealings are.

So we know everything, more than God does, because it says something in a book that implies inconsistencies written by  human being choosing the words, and we pull out the microscope on every letter by a man, and God, neener neener is bound by them?

Word of wisdom.

No cigars.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

why can't she be ripped from me and given back to him?

Quote

Does my sealing to my deceased wife get ripped out of my hands

 

Because she is a living (including after death) human being who can make her own choice.  She is not your possession to hold on to whether she wants to be there or not nor a commodity God passes around to be ripped out of your hands like a book or a favorite photo and given to another to possess.  She will choose to remain or go. 
 

The very phrasing of your comment points to why this is so messed up.  If there was ever “mortal thinking”, this is it. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Wasn't talking about their children's sealings. If her ex-husband repents sufficiently, why can't she be ripped from me and given back to him? Along with their daughter, whom he sexually abused? 

The problem with assuming permanent and unalterable parent-child sealings (in line with the New Era Q&A answer) is that you're going to have to deal with monstrous situations. I'm saying that some sealings are to persons unworthy of those sealings, which simply cannot in justice maintained eternally. If that New Era Q&A answer is true, then Lori Daybell gets to keep her children in eternity. 

Have I sufficiently explicated the problem?

 

And I have explicitly been talking about those who repented and were given exaltation status by God (therefore not murderers).  Rules out the monsters. 
 

I see no need to argue a different argument than the one I am making. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Calm

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

What of the dying man who faces leaving behind a young wife he is sealed to?  Apparently having their wife “ripped out of their hands”is genuinely something they have to worry about.

Yep. He can certainly worry, but I don't think he needs to worry excessively. If he has enough faith, he knows that, as taught by President Howard W. Hunter:

“No blessing, including that of eternal marriage and an eternal family, will be denied to any worthy individual. While it may take somewhat longer—perhaps even beyond this mortal life—for some to achieve this blessing, it will not be denied”

If your wife chooses another after you die, well, there's nothing to worry about if you were faithful to your covenants. But of course we're going to worry -- mortality is a crapshow sometimes, and there's a lot to worry about. But don't get so mired in worry that we fail to see eternal implications.

I remember when my wife was on her deathbed. For months, my entire existence was mired in her condition and what was inevitably going to happen. It was hard, very hard, to see past that. And I was numb for some time afterwards. Now I see that not only does life go on, but amazing vistas have opened up for continued service here, and when my time comes there will be even greater opportunities for service there, and this time we will be serving together. 

Ad astra per ardua.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

As long as you don’t have to worry about things though….

I worry about whether I will be found worthy for all the blessings I desire to have. I worry about disappointing my Father. I'm working on being successful in all that He has given me to do. And I worry I won't be. 

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

That would just be “mired in mortal thinking”, right? Silly mortals who worry about such things! 

Of course we're worried about things we don't understand. I know a man (since deceased) who was sealed in the temple to a woman who divorced him, demanded excommunication, and took their children with her. He later married a woman who was already sealed to a deceased man and that sealing was never cancelled. He told me that he wasn't worried about his being alone in eternity, despite his wife having gone off the deep end, because the Lord had made it clear through His servants the prophets that no blessings would be withheld from those who were faithful.  

I know another man who is experiencing a similar situation - a wife who couldn't abide a celestial marriage. And he has been unable to find a celestial wife to replace her so far. Will he succeed in finding one? I don't know, but if he remains faithful and does his best to keep his covenants, I don't doubt that he will not be denied the blessings he qualifies for.

Sure we are mired in mortal thinking. We're mortals in mortality! But can we not look past our mortality and see that Eternity need not look like our mortal conditions, and indeed, won't look much like it at all? Check out my sig. It says it.

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

The whole point of "SEALING" is that it is forever.  We don't say " til Xyz do we part"

Have you never heard the words of the sealing ceremony?  Is that not scripture?

Trust me, it says that.

Time and eternity.

Yes, yes, and yes. But the words of the sealing ceremony are conditional upon faithfulness to the covenant. Had you not heard that before? I assume you've been endowed. Do you remember the words spoken during the initiatory ordinance? The promise is conditioned upon your faithfulness.

DC 82:10 - I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

And again, from Guide to the Scriptures:

   The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit of Promise (Acts 2:33). He confirms as acceptable to God the righteous acts, ordinances, and covenants of men. The Holy Spirit of Promise witnesses to the Father that the saving ordinances have been performed properly and that the covenants associated with them have been kept.
   They who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise receive all that the Father has, D&C 76:51–60 (Eph. 1:13–14).
   All covenants and performances must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to have force after this life, D&C 132:7, 18–19, 26.

[Calm]

No one is arguing that people not worthy of being sealed will stayed sealed eternally to anyone.

[Stargazer]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So we know everything, more than God does, because it says something in a book that implies inconsistencies written by  human being choosing the words, and we pull out the microscope on every letter by a man, and God, neener neener is bound by them?

Word of wisdom.

No cigars.

Is there order in the Cosmos? Last time I looked DC 132 was not worded by human beings choosing the words. David lost his exaltation, and his wives and concubines. And he's not getting them back. If you're implying that President Kimball's letter to my wife contained his unreliable musings that I should disregard in favor of someone else's musings in the New Era, go ahead and do so. But as far as I am aware, the Q&A section of the New Era is not canon.

It could be quite comforting to people in circumstances of great doubt to be told that their sealing is certain, and there's nothing to worry about. And it doesn't hurt to be comforted that everything will be all right! Because it will be. But DC 82:10 says that all covenants and promises are conditioned upon faithfulness. And absent that faithfulness, there is no promise if the covenant is broken. But in the end, all things will fall out as the Lord wills, and we will all look and agree that He did all things in righteousness.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

The promise is conditioned upon your faithfulness.

Oh my gosh. You spilled the beans.

Not for women. I have been avoiding that for years. "Whit" is an interesting word.

Do you think this is enforced by some huge AI machine robot that is prohibited from changing the algorithms in special cases, if needed?

I don't.

Even stupid humans have supreme courts to handle that stuff.  God doesn't care about what some guy wrote in a book trying his best to cover every POSSIBLE circumstance- at least MY God doesn't.