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

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

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

I don't think so.  Polygamy is generally understood as being married to more than one woman at the same time.

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

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. 

He probably is.

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

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

Whether a marriage is ratified / sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is a matter for the next life.  In this life, this fellow is not reasonably characterized as a polygamist.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Legally, no.

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

The same could be said for questions like "How many children do you have?"  A couple with three living children, but who lost a child to miscarriage, might earnestly believe that they were/are the parents of four children.  But I think very few Latter-day Saints would, in casual / everyday conversation, say as much.  Saying "We have four children" would be a statement of faith and hope, and it may ultimately prove to be true, but this would likely create confusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

 

Thanks for your clarification.

[Malc]

4 hours ago, manol said:

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

Quote

NP - I can be a bit abrasive at times, for sure. I hope that you'll take my replies below in the same non-confrontational spirit 🙃

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? 

Quote

I infer, then, that you believe Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 to be in some way more reliable, or authentic, etc., than the plain reading of D&C 132:64. Is there a solid basis for that? Or did I misread your intent? All that an appeal to Alma/Moroni tells me is that there are apparently contradictory sections in the official scriptures. How can people tell, in general, how to resolve this and similar conflicts?

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.

Quote

Clearly you acquaintance with D&C 132 is much more substantial than mine is or ever was. But (sorry, no offence intended) you are simply stating your opinion, with no official backing - so why should I believe you?

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.

Quote

But it is all canonised. I take that to mean that, even if some of the content was man made, it is of equal weight to the rest. I don't recall any lessons, GC talks, etc., that would suggest that there are parts of D&C 132:64 that we can safely ignore. And while we can imagine possible endings, members currently have no warrant to go beyond what is there.

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). 

Quote

Ahhh - OK - after I wrote my previous response I noticed that you gave "Author" an initial cap, suggesting strongly that you meant a divine author. I agree on the "no distinction".

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. 

Quote

But you seem to assign different values to the parts that you consider to be not of divine origin - that is, according to historicity.

And, as Happy Jack Wagon points out, the God of the OT is very much a God of coercion.

 

 

 

[Sara H]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  Polygamy is generally understood as being married to more than one woman at the same time.

He probably is.

Whether a marriage is ratified / sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is a matter for the next life.  In this life, this fellow is not reasonably characterized as a polygamist.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your intelligent reply. The purpose of this discussion is to see if I can find someone who would claim that we don't know if he's a polygamist because we don't know whether his first wife has approved of the fact that he married and will soon be sealed to another woman. Is there a choice for the first wife if she wishes to take part in a sealing with another woman?  Does Section 132 state that she does not have a choice in the matter?

  

[Sara H]

18 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

You've got to be joking! It's unbelievable that yet another squad member has accused me of starting a controversial thread. How does this discussion even remotely relate to a topic that might be controversial? Every LDS lady I know is a little concerned that if they pass away before their spouse, he'll wed someone else and they'll be trapped in a polygamous union for all of eternity! 

 

I had hoped the topic would change to the first wife's freedom of action rather than the husband having the ultimate decision. 

 

[Sara H]

20 hours 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

So you believe the first wife still has free will and a choice to accept or deny the sealing now that it includes another woman?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

So you believe the first wife still has free will and a choice to accept or deny the sealing now that it includes another woman?

Of course she does.  Agency continues after death.  I think the mistake is assuming that our thoughts and feelings on this issue continue beyond the veil into a (hopefully) Celestial environment.

God says his ways are not our ways.  I would like to hope that as we become more like him, immortal, Celestial, seeing eternity, purified, free from fallen weaknesses, that our ways will change in ways we can't anticipate.  There are very interesting scriptures and prophetic teachings concerning the ways our views and opinions change as we get closer to God.

[JLHPROF]

21 hours 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

This is true, but she only has say over her own eternal choice.  And it's funny how these discussions always (however subtly) make the assumption that her feelings on the matter wouldn't change in her new environment.

Quote

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. 

Also true, but incredibly ironic given our doctrine.  We preach eternal marriage but as soon as one spouse enters eternity we act as though the widowed are single again.  I'd argue that's a very fallen perspective.

[Sara H]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course she does.  Agency continues after death.  I think the mistake is assuming that our thoughts and feelings on this issue continue beyond the veil into a (hopefully) Celestial environment.

God says his ways are not our ways.  I would like to hope that as we become more like him, immortal, Celestial, seeing eternity, purified, free from fallen weaknesses, that our ways will change in ways we can't anticipate.  There are very interesting scriptures and prophetic teachings concerning the ways our views and opinions change as we get closer to God.

Yes, but once all three people have died and are in the heavens, could the first wife disagree with the husband's choice to be sealed to another woman and get the second sealing canceled, since she didn't have a say in the second sealing while the husband was still alive? I think it's very likely that she won't have to accept the binding of the other woman and have the marriage reduced to just a man and a woman, til death do us part earthly union.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Yes, but once all three people have died and are in the heavens, could the first wife disagree with the husband's choice to be sealed to another woman and get the second sealing canceled, since she didn't have a say in the second sealing while the husband was still alive? I think it's very likely that she won't have to accept the binding of the other woman and have the marriage reduced to just a man and a woman, til death do us part earthly union.

She absolutely could not get the second sealing cancelled.  Not at all.  That violates agency in every way.

Edited August 15, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Sara H]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

She absolutely could not get the second sealing cancelled.  Not at all.  That violates agency in every way.

To me. If she doesn't have a choice, it seems like she's being punished for dying before her husband, since there wouldn't be a third person involved if he had died first. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Every LDS lady I know is a little concerned that if they pass away before their spouse, he'll wed someone else and they'll be trapped in a polygamous union for all of eternity! 

I've made every effort to assure my wife that this isn't something she ever needs to worry about.

As I have told her time and time again, should something unfortunate ever happen to her I am firmly committed to seeking out a trophy wife for time only.

 

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Sara H said:

To me. If she doesn't have a choice, it seems like she's being punished for dying before her husband, since there wouldn't be a third person involved if he had died first. 

She still has no right to cancel another couple's eternal sealing and rob them of their agency.  She has the agency to choose to stay in her own marriage, not end someone else's.

[Sara H]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

She still has no right to cancel another couple's eternal sealing and rob them of their agency.  She has the agency to choose to stay in her own marriage, not end someone else's.

I've always thought that if an LDS man marries more than one woman, whether it's two women or 100 women, he may be married to each of them separately, but the eternal sealing means that they are all part of the same eternal family under one eternal sealing. If I hear you right, you're saying that the man is sealed to each woman separately, and has multiple sealings that have nothing to do with the other sealings of the other women? 

So are the women in the relationship sealed to each other in any way?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Sara H said:

I've always thought that if an LDS man marries more than one woman, whether it's two women or 100 women, he may be married to each of them separately, but the eternal sealing means that they are all part of the same eternal family under one eternal sealing. If I hear you right, you're saying that the man is sealed to each woman separately, and has multiple sealings that have nothing to do with the other sealings of the other women? 

So are the women in the relationship sealed to each other in any way?

Both are true.

Each marriage is an individual covenant between each husband and wife. Those covenants can form a multiple eternal family. But the wives are not married or sealed to each other in any way.

No one wife has any more authority over the marriage relationships than any other. Each wife has her agency to choose to stay married or to leave the marriage. No wife has any authority over the marriage of another wife.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

We preach eternal marriage but as soon as one spouse enters eternity we act as though the widowed are single again.  I'd argue that's a very fallen perspective.

Only “act” as far as I have seen, not believe.  I know many who speak of separation in location, not separation in relationship.  I imagine it might be harder to consider a relationship with another after your spouse dies if you continue to view the relationship as intimate and connected as it was before one partner died. Dating would more likely feel like cheating for many if that feeling of close connection was nurtured, rather than looking at the relationship as going through a season of winter, lying dormant until spring and new life arrives for them.

It seems less a fallen perspective and more a survival technique to me.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

The purpose of this discussion is to see if I can find someone who would claim that we don't know if he's a polygamist because we don't know whether his first wife has approved of the fact that he married and will soon be sealed to another woman.

 

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

I had hoped the topic would change to the first wife's freedom of action rather than the husband having the ultimate decision. 

If you had hoped that the discussion would go one way, why don't you come out and say so from the beginning.  This is what bothers me about your topics so far.  If you want to discuss whether the first wife has a choice in the matter, why not start it that way instead of hoping that someone will go that way?

 

As for whether the first wife has any choice in the matter, I see it similar to whether the first husband has any choice in the matter.  We seal women to all their husbands.  So a woman can be sealed to 100s of husbands just like a man can be sealed to 100s of wives.  Since our polygamy is actually polygyny (one man, multiple woman), how will the polyandrous sealings be handled in the after life?  Either polyandrous sealings must be in full force in the after life or some of those sealings must be cancelled in some manner.  And if they can be cancelled in some manner, than why not the polygynous sealings?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

And it's funny how these discussions always (however subtly) make the assumption that her feelings on the matter wouldn't change in her new environment.

Funny , I never get the impression that everyone makes that assumption.  I know I don’t and it appears you don’t, for example.  I have heard others wonder how they would feel while still others certain they would accept it or certain they wouldn’t, so some certainly make that assumption.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I've made every effort to assure my wife that this isn't something she ever needs to worry about.

As I have told her time and time again, should something unfortunate ever happen to her I am firmly committed to seeking out a trophy wife for time only.

 

Myself and several other LDS women I know have told their husbands he really needs to get remarried if he can find someone he loves and who loves him.  I told him this from the first year of our marriage.  My husband would be so lonely as a single man, especially if he didn’t want to impose on the kids and saw living with them doing so.  These other women worry about their husbands in the same way.  Some people need close companionship full time and our culture isn’t great providing this in any way save marriage, imo.

However, my husband just rolls his eyes.  I think it is more that he sees no need to worry about the unknown future, but I’ve made it clear how I felt because I didn’t want shame or guilt to taint any years without me anymore than I want him to be lonely or depressed or spending his retirement years in front of the TV.

And if he loves her and she loves him, why should it only be for time only because I got there first?  They should go ahead and get sealed so they can have the same blessings we did and will.  I have total confidence that perfected beings as hopefully we three (I hope he only loses one wife at most, because he grieves hard) will be will be able to arrive at a solution that leaves us all joyful since our brains and hearts will be working so much better and God will be available for advice as well or someone very capable he has appointed.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No one wife has any more authority over the marriage relationships than any other.

So any first wife status talked about among early church members was a temporary condition of mortality rather than doctrine in your view? (I have just seen stuff in journals and some hearsay accounts.). Just curious about your opinion.  I figure when all are exalted there would be no need for such status because all partake of the oneness of God, so either it was a necessary evil (I call it evil because it tends to create a caste system) for mortality or just something picked up from the greater culture.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

So you believe the first wife still has free will and a choice to accept or deny the sealing now that it includes another woman?

For herself, yes.  I believe she has the free will to remove herself from her sealing with her husband (with the new wife), if she doesn't want to be in a polygamist marriage.  I don't believe she can void her husband's sealing to the other woman though.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by bluebell

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course she does.  Agency continues after death.  I think the mistake is assuming that our thoughts and feelings on this issue continue beyond the veil into a (hopefully) Celestial environment.

God says his ways are not our ways.  I would like to hope that as we become more like him, immortal, Celestial, seeing eternity, purified, free from fallen weaknesses, that our ways will change in ways we can't anticipate.  There are very interesting scriptures and prophetic teachings concerning the ways our views and opinions change as we get closer to God.

Isn't there also a quote by JS about how we will essentially be the same people after death that we are in this life?  It would be interesting to understand how both that quote and your post work in a situation such as the one in the OP (because I think your post is accurate as well).

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We preach eternal marriage but as soon as one spouse enters eternity we act as though the widowed are single again.  I'd argue that's a very fallen perspective.

That's only a "fallen perspective" for men though.  Because doctrinally, we would never encourage or endorse a woman remarrying after her husband has died if we saw her as still married as a widow.  It would be a sin.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

squad member

Sounds familiar

 

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Every LDS lady I know is a little concerned that if they pass away before their spouse, he'll wed someone else and they'll be trapped in a polygamous union for all of eternity! 

Seems to be the very definition of a controversial topic.  Which is just fine.  Don’t be hesitant to lead with what you actually want to discuss.