Is A LDS Man Considered A Polygamist Once Sealed To More Than One Woman?

[Sara H]

Until last month, when I attended the wedding of one of my close friends who was getting married for the second time, his first wife died two years ago, I really didn't give this much attention. He adores his first wife and undoubtedly adores his second spouse just as much. Is he a polygamous, though? He is seaIed to his first wife. I would tend to go toward the conclusion that the answer is yes because of doctrine and math. 

 

The wedding ceremony was wonderful. They will be sealed in a few months, once her son returns from being deployed overseas. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Sara H

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Is he a polygamous, though?

Legally, no.

Spiritually, yes, but only if we assume the Mormons are right.

 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Legally, no.

Spiritually, yes, but only if we assume the Mormons are right.

 

I assume his first wife is dead?  Unless he is a fundamentalist…than he is in this life, but not the next as his sealings were not done with the proper authority.

He may be only if his first and second wife end up agreeing to it in the eternities. Since we currently don’t know the opinion of his first wife or the second though it would seem likely she’s consented (since she married a man with a sealing in place), I think it premature to say it’s definite.

I would say he is potentially polygamous rather than declare him to be. After all he isn’t exalted yet and neither are his wives. I wouldn’t count it until both marriages are confirmed by the Spirit and the three of them make it to exaltation since we are talking sealings and not legal marriages (legally you can’t have more than one) and marriage sealings are in effect for exalted beings only post life. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Calm

[Sara H]

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Legally, no.

Spiritually, yes, but only if we assume the Mormons are right.

 

Eternally?

[MustardSeed]

38 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Eternally?

If both are sealed then obviously yes.  Isn’t this clearly understood?  I mean there are also things that preclude any single OR multiple sealing from taking but you know that. 
I don’t understand how a member of a church since the 60s isn’t clear on this matter? 

[bluebell]

I don’t really know if we consider them polygamist, simply because we don’t believe the wife has no say in the matter just because she’s dead and so we don’t really know what the structure of their relationship will be eternally.

But it is our doctrine, that if all on board are OK with it, then yes in the afterlife I guess he would be considered a polygamist. But obviously, in this life, we would not consider them one because we don’t consider people whose spouses have died to still be married.

We consider them a widow or a widower. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t really know if we consider them polygamist, simply because we don’t believe the wife has no say in the matter just because she’s dead and so we don’t really know what the structure of their relationship will be eternally.

But it is our doctrine, that if all on board are OK with it, then yes in the afterlife I guess he would be considered a polygamist. But obviously, in this life, we would not consider them one because we don’t consider people whose spouses have died to still be married.

We consider them a widow or a widower. 

I'm sure I'm just forgetting but is there a doctrinal teaching or scripture that states a wife essentially has veto power over the sealing of her husband to a new wife?

Edited August 14, 2023 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm sure I'm just forgetting but is there a doctrinal teaching or scripture that states a wife essentially has veto power over the sealing of her husband to a new wife?

There is our doctrine of agency, and we repeatedly teach that no one is ever forced into any part of the gospel against their will.  As such, she wouldn't have veto power over the choices of her husband but she would her agency to choose to be in a polygamist marriage or not.

[Malc]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm sure I'm just forgetting but is there a doctrinal teaching or scripture that states a wife essentially has veto power over the sealing of her husband to a new wife?

D&C 132:61 "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; ..." - implies that the first wife has an effective "veto".

But D&C 132:64 "And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; ..." suggests that if she chooses to exercise that veto, she will be killed - either physically, or spiritually.

[Sara H]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Isn’t this clearly understood?  

No, not at all. That's why I started the thread. 

[manol]

14 minutes ago, Malc said:

But D&C 132:64 "And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; ..." suggests that if she chooses to exercise that veto, she will be killed - either physically, or spiritually.

There things that make me question the authenticity of every word included in Section 132.  This passage is one of them.  I believe that I have come to know the presumptive Author of Section 132 well enough to doubt that these are His words. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by manol

[Malc]

5 minutes ago, manol said:

There things that make me question the authenticity of every word included in Section 132.  This passage is one of them.  I believe that I have come to know the presumptive Author of Section 132 well enough to doubt that these are His words. 

Could you expand a bit on your thoughts, please?

What do you suspect of being inauthentic, and why?

Why do you doubt the authorship? I assume that you mean that you believe that Joseph Smith did not write parts of 132, and/or did not endorse them after they were written by someone else (Hyrum?), perhaps at his request.

[blackstrap]

All these ordinances contain the word "if " or " unless " either written or implied. 

[manol]

1 hour ago, Malc said:

Could you expand a bit on your thoughts, please?

Yes, and thanks for asking in a non-confrontational way.

1 hour ago, Malc said:

What do you suspect of being inauthentic, and why?

Take the passage you quoted, "And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; ...", and run an Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test on it:

Is that passage delicious to your soul?  Do those words fill you with the Pure Love of Christ?  Do they invite and entice you to love God?  Sit with those words for days, months, even years if necessary.  I have.  Does that passage bear good fruit, or not? 

I accept a high percentage of Section 132 as coming from God, but I think some man-made ideas found their way into the text.  This based on what I think is my God-given ability to differentiate between light and darkness. 

For context, I have lived with two different polygamist groups.  There was a span of several years wherein I would have said that most of my core religious beliefs came from Section 132.  So my acquaintance with Section 132 is arguably a bit more than casual.  As you can see from this post and my preceding one, I no longer consider Section 132 to be effectively infallible.

Perhaps the most intriguing passage of Section 132 is in the closing verse:  "And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present."  In other words, unless and until that promised subsequent revelation is unveiled, the teachings introduced in Section 132 arguably remain incomplete.

 

1 hour ago, Malc said:

Why do you doubt the authorship? I assume that you mean that you believe that Joseph Smith did not write parts of 132, and/or did not endorse them after they were written by someone else (Hyrum?), perhaps at his request.

Imo the presumptive Author of Section 132 is either Christ or God (and I'm not sure that making a distinction between the two is necessary here).  In my opinion (and experience) God is not a God of coercion, nor is Christ a Christ of intimidation and compulsion, at least not when They are teaching on a high level (see Section 19:6-12). 

I'm more interested in the content of Section 132 than in the historicity of which (not infallible) human actually wrote or dictated the words. 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by manol

[Pyreaux]

Theologically, yes. Ultimately, unsure. I think Brigham assumed there are just going to be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom, but if that is not the case, and it's near even, then they'll likely to get sealed to another single man.

[Tacenda]

There's this forum discussion about it, don't know if it helps. I like their format, it's much like this one. https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/61402-plural-sealings-in-todays-world/

[MustardSeed]

54 minutes ago, Sara H said:

No, not at all. That's why I started the thread. 

That surprises me. What part have you not been taught?  That sealings are for eternity? That the Everlasting Covenant is about polygamy?  That polygamy and Mormonism go hand in hand since the beginning? That when wives die husbands can go get sealed again?  
 

Im suspicious that this thread is an attempt to stir controversy.  I don’t have a problem with stirring controversy at all as long as someone is direct about it.  But a “gee whiz I’ve been part of this church for 60 years and I had no idea that we believe or teach that polygamy is part of the plan” sounds more like “I’m bored and this will be fun.” 
 

My suspicions are born from the other threads that also look like back door attempts to get people riled.  If I’m wrong, so be it.  If I’m not, then trust that a front door conversation will be welcome. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

He may be only if his first and second wife end up agreeing to it in the eternities. Since we currently don’t know the opinion of his first wife or the second though it would seem likely she’s consented (since she married a man with a sealing in place), I think it premature to say it’s definite.

I would say he is potentially polygamous rather than declare him to be. After all he isn’t exalted yet and neither are his wives. I wouldn’t count it until both marriages are confirmed by the Spirit and the three of them make it to exaltation since we are talking sealings and not legal marriages (legally you can’t have more than one) and marriage sealings are in effect for exalted beings only post life. 

I agree - this is a more accurate summation.

The point that I was focused on making was that, the only way it's even possible to consider someone like this a polygamist (even in a theological sense) is if we assume the LDS faith is correct.

If the church is wrong and all marital bonds are severed at death, then there's no way he could ever be considered a polygamist in any sense of the word - legal or otherwise - regardless of what he personally believes. The only way to get to that potentiality, even in a spiritual sense, is to posit the truthfulness of the church and then a few other things after that as you previously discussed.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Amulek

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That the Everlasting Covenant is about polygamy?  

I think it used to be more alluded to (and maybe even taught outright back in the days when plural marriage was still happening) that the new and everlasting covenant was specifically about polygamy but for the last few decades they've been really pushing the recognition that the new and everlasting covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ and contains all the covenants that are a part of the gospel (baptism, sealing, etc.).  Someone can never be involved in polygamy and yet still be in the new and everlasting covenant.

I'm so happy that the focus on plural marriage has been toned down and that it's now (according to our current doctrine) a part of the gospel but not the main part of the gospel.

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm so happy that the focus on plural marriage has been toned down and that it's now (according to our current doctrine) a part of the gospel but not the main part of the gospel.

This is really interesting to me. Why are you happy that the focus on plural marriage has been toned down?  And how can marriage as revealed by God not be the main part of the gospel?  Isn't that the core reason for rejecting gay marriage?  Seems pretty central to me.

[blackstrap]

1 hour ago, manol said:

God is not a God of coercion,

Read the OT lately?

[manol]

7 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Read the OT lately?

Excellent question!

Imo some parts of the Old Testament flunk the Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test. 

To answer your question, it has been a while since I actively studied the Old Testament.  Imo overall it's "signal to noise ratio" is not very high.  Imo the Gospels have the highest signal-to-noise ratio of the scriptures we have access to. 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is really interesting to me. Why are you happy that the focus on plural marriage has been toned down?  And how can marriage as revealed by God not be the main part of the gospel?  Isn't that the core reason for rejecting gay marriage?  Seems pretty central to me.

I'm happy because I think the focus was on the wrong thing (though it makes sense to me why it would have been a focus since for a long time we defined ourselves by plural marriage, due to the opposition we faced because of it).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not polygamy, and having the focus be polygamy confused that.  Marriage (of which monogamy is the rule and polygamy the exception) is revealed by God but it is one part of the covenant, not the whole covenant.  Baptism is also part of that covenant, for example.  Everything that "provides for man's salvation, immortality, and eternal life" is contained in the new and everlasting covenant.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, Malc said:

D&C 132:61 "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; ..." - implies that the first wife has an effective "veto".

But D&C 132:64 "And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; ..." suggests that if she chooses to exercise that veto, she will be killed - either physically, or spiritually.

@bluebell   

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is our doctrine of agency, and we repeatedly teach that no one is ever forced into any part of the gospel against their will.  As such, she wouldn't have veto power over the choices of her husband but she would her agency to choose to be in a polygamist marriage or not.

Agency, yes. Severe consequences for rejecting...yes. Seems pretty rough. 

But I agree with you that it's a good thing the church has "toned down" the polygamy stuff. I'd be in favor of them toning it down even more  

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

@bluebell   

 

Agency, yes. Severe consequences for rejecting...yes. Seems pretty rough. 

But I agree with you that it's a good thing the church has "toned down" the polygamy stuff. I'd be in favor of them toning it down even more  

Those verses in 132 are hard, I agree.  On the one hand, rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ (if polygamy was a commanded part of it) will always result in severe consequences from a certain perspective.  But from other perspectives, even those consequences are still pretty great when it's all said and done (again, if the telestial kingdom is what it's been described as).

But destruction doesn't seem to fit in anywhere with any other teachings about rejecting any part of Christ.  

I really wish the church would address those verses, but I don't think they ever have.  It's one of those 'elephants in the room' during SS that drive me crazy.