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

[bluebell]

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! 

 

I know many that aren't concerned about it though, so it's not a universal issue for latter-day saint women.  I personally don't care if my husband remarries and is sealed to another woman if I died and he felt doing so was appropriate.  It's not something that concerns me.

But I get why it concerns some women.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Sounds familiar

Definitely feels familiar, especially with some of the defensiveness when there is a perceived criticism.  Hopefully it's just the quirks from being a new poster and things will settle down soon.

Edited August 15, 2023 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

On 8/14/2023 at 4:02 AM, Sara H said:

Is he a polygamous, though?

No.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Sara H said:

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. 

 

Not me! I don't believe polygamy came from God. It came from a man that isn't perfect, Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not me! I don't believe polygamy came from God. It came from a man that isn't perfect, Joseph Smith.

There's enough scriptures showing God's chosen prophets were polygamists to show Joseph wasn't the original source.  God had no issue with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc and promised them blessings.  God gave David plural wives through his prophet Nathan.

Frankly I remain convinced that the Savior was a polygamist based on New Testament events.

Joseph didn't invent polygamy among God's people.

[Nevo]

Deidre Nicole Green's "brief theological introduction" to the book of Jacob has some interesting things to say about Jacob's (and the Book of Mormon's) take on polygamy:

Quote

Although God—through Jacob—is unequivocal that sexual and marital relationships between women and men are to be one-to-one, there is a single divine caveat. God may command people to practice plural marriage for the express purpose of raising up seed to God. In the absence of explicit divine command, however, "they shall hearken" unto the commandment to make marriage exclusively a partnership of one wife and one husband. 

To be clear, there is only one tersely stated divine exception given to an otherwise unbending rule of monogamy. While many Latter-day Saints are familiar with this pithy verse that offers exception to God's prohibition against polygamy, many fail to recognize the fact that this exception is situated in the context of an extended jeremiad against plural marriage—or any practice involving plural sexual partners—in which Jacob castigates the Nephite men for their noncompliance with divine law.

Although Jacob allows for a divine imperative to practice polygamy, he never offers a positive example of the practice as a case of divine command, citing only negative ones. His caveat comes amid otherwise outright condemnation, and he gives no indication that this caveat has ever been concretely realized. Along similar lines, every instance of polygamy in the Book of Mormon serves as a negative example, in which plural marriage is condemned. [Here she cites Ether 10:5, 11, and Mosiah 11:2, 4.]

. . . . The practice of having multiple wives can multiply sin and harm an entire society, including the initiator of it, unless carried out in accordance with God's commands. Yet, for Jacob, this seems to remain a strictly hypothetical possibility: he never offers an example, even from the Old Testament, of someone practicing plural marriage correctly.

. . . . [Jacob] declares the Lamanites to be more righteous than the Nephites simply because "they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord which was given unto our father, that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them" (Jacob 3:5). While the Nephites have forgotten the teaching they once knew and so risk their own destruction (see Jacob 2:34 and 3:3), the Lamanites still understand this doctrine and continually live it (3:5). According to Jacob, obedience in this one area is enough to offset their other sins: "now this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore because of their observance in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them but will be merciful unto them, and one day they shall become a blessed people" (verse 6, emphasis added).

The contrast between the Nephites, who are threatened with destruction for practicing polygamy, and the Lamanites, who God promises not to destroy precisely because they keep the commandment to live monogamously, indicates that monogamy and sexual fidelity constitute the fundamental commandment on which the blessings of the promised land are predicated (see D&C 130:20-21). 

— Deidre Nicole Green, Jacob: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: BYU/Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2020), 82-84.

This reminded me a bit of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' eloquent defense of monogamy here: https://youtu.be/fQzt6gGwvJQ?t=326

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Nevo

[Teancum]

On 8/14/2023 at 12:21 PM, bluebell said:

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.

Yes this is another doctrinal shift.

On 8/14/2023 at 12:21 PM, 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.

Well I think there was more to the gospel even when plural marriage was practiced.  But yes initially the focus of the term was plural marriage, then just eternal marriage and now more encompassing as you put it.

[Teancum]

23 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 think you are not correct. If plural marriage in such cases as being discussed is not a thing then why allow a living man with a deceased wife to be sealed to another woman. But not the same for a woman with a deceased husband.  She cannot be sealed unless hre previous sealing is cancelled.   My grandfather was sealed to three women and totally believed he would be with all three in the CK.  Sure you would not call them a polygamist in this life but it seems they likely could or would be in the eternities. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes this is another doctrinal shift.

Definitely.  Our understanding of the doctrine, and how it applies in our lives, does shift and more knowledge is gained.  Thank goodness. 

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

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?

One big happy (or unhappy) eternal family?  😁

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think you are not correct. If plural marriage in such cases as being discussed is not a thing then why allow a living man with a deceased wife to be sealed to another woman. But not the same for a woman with a deceased husband.  She cannot be sealed unless hre previous sealing is cancelled.   My grandfather was sealed to three women and totally believed he would be with all three in the CK.  Sure you would not call them a polygamist in this life but it seems they likely could or would be in the eternities. 

💯.  We might not preach polygamy but we certainly condone real life anticipatory practice of it.  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There's enough scriptures showing God's chosen prophets were polygamists to show Joseph wasn't the original source.  God had no issue with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc and promised them blessings. 

Yet OT plural marriage was not the same and what JS rolled out.  Nowhere was it mandated to enter the highest heaven.  By the was it is clear this was a cultural thing and not God commanded.

 

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

God gave David plural wives through his prophet Nathan.

Lovely example. Sort of like cows and  sheep.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Frankly I remain convinced that the Savior was a polygamist based on New Testament events.

Joseph didn't invent polygamy among God's people.

Nah.  multiple wives was a tink among a bunch of cultures historically. It was really popular when women were considered property and had no rights.  And the more powerful the male the more wives and concubines he took.  Today it is often charismatic religious leaders and alpha males that practice polygamy or just cheat on their spouse by having many sexual partners.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes this is another doctrinal shift.

And yet D&C calls baptism a new and everlasting covenant in Sec 22 given in 1830 and Sec 66 given in 1831 calls the fulness of the gospel the everlasting covenant long before plural marriage was commanded in Sec 132 (recorded in 1843), so it is less a doctrinal shift and more a cultural one, if that.

Brigham Young, the one most recognized with plural marriage, taught the Gospel was the new and everlasting covenant in accordance with sec 66

Quote

“All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the Devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, … that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 62–63).

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Definitely.  Our understanding of the doctrine, and how it applies in our lives, does shift and more knowledge is gained.  Thank goodness. 

Wall you may view it as more knowledge. I view it running away from doctrines that are difficult, uncomfortable and embarrassing to the church and its members. And this change waters down something that was once unique to the church.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Wall you may view it as more knowledge. I view it running away from doctrines that are difficult, uncomfortable and embarrassing to the church and its members. And this change waters down something that was once unique to the church.

As Cal pointed out, this doctrine has always been here.  Members and leaders just learn more about how it applies and how to teach it in more accurate ways.  It's a doctrinal shift because how we relate to the doctrine shifts.  But the doctrine has always been there. 

Getting rid of cultural interpretations of doctrine is, in my opinion, still incredibly unique in a religion.  I'd rather do that than stubbornly cling to stuff that's wrong in a belief that it's somehow better optics.

 

[CA Steve]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As Cal pointed out, this doctrine has always been here.  Members and leaders just learn more about how it applies and how to teach it in more accurate ways.  It's a doctrinal shift because how we relate to the doctrine shifts.  But the doctrine has always been there. 

Getting rid of cultural interpretations of doctrine is, in my opinion, still incredibly unique in a religion.  I'd rather do that than stubbornly cling to stuff that's wrong in a belief that it's somehow better optics.

 

I believe that "great apostacy" was driven by those who thought the same thing.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I believe that "great apostasy" was driven by those who thought the same thing.

By those who would rather rather change in the face of new knowledge and understanding, or those who refused to do so because "change is bad"?  (I'm not sure I'm understanding you right).

Edited August 15, 2023 by bluebell

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

I think you are not correct. If plural marriage in such cases as being discussed is not a thing then why allow a living man with a deceased wife to be sealed to another woman.

Well, this sort of comes down to issues of semantics and faith.

A husband and wife have five living children, but they also lost an in utero baby to miscarriage.  They well and truly feel that they will know and have a relationship this child in the Hereafter, but meanwhile how many children do they tell others they have, five or six?  I'm reasonably confident that virtually all Latter-day Saint couples would, regardless of their feelings about a miscarried baby, state that they have five kids.  What happens in the Hereafter is not only a question of faith, but a sacred and highly personal one.

In common parlance, a "polygamist" is someone who is simultaneously married to more than one woman at the same time.  Would a man who, upon remarrying in the temple after losing his first (sealed) wife to cancer, now represent to others that he is a "polygamist"?  I don't think so.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But not the same for a woman with a deceased husband.  She cannot be sealed unless hre previous sealing is cancelled.   

The possibility of being in a polygamous union in the afterlife is not the sort of "polygamy" that is contemplated when used in the here and now.

I think you are using the fallacy of equivocation:

Quote

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

You are using "polygamy" in an "ambiguous way."

My sister's father-in-law remarried a few years ago after his first wife passed.  He is sealed to both, but was never married to both simultaneously in this life.  To then come along and say "Yep, you're a polygamist" is to trade on ambiguity and create confusion.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

My grandfather was sealed to three women

At the same time?

Did he describe himself to others as a "polygamist"?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

and totally believed he would be with all three in the CK.

And a woman with five living children may totally believe that the six child she lost to miscarriage is hers.  And yet in the here and now, she would almost certainly describe herself as a mother of five, not six.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sure you would not call them a polygamist in this life

That was my point when I said "Polygamy is generally understood as being married to more than one woman at the same time."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

but it seems they likely could or would be in the eternities. 

That was my point when I said "{w}hether a marriage is ratified / sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is a matter for the next life."

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, this sort of comes down to issues of semantics and faith.

A husband and wife have five living children, but they also lost an in utero baby to miscarriage.  They well and truly feel that they will know and have a relationship this child in the Hereafter, but meanwhile how many children do they tell others they have, five or six?  I'm reasonably confident that virtually all Latter-day Saint couples would, regardless of their feelings about a miscarried baby, state that they have five kids.  What happens in the Hereafter is not only a question of faith, but a sacred and highly personal one.

In common parlance, a "polygamist" is someone who is simultaneously married to more than one woman at the same time.  Would a man who, upon remarrying in the temple after losing his first (sealed) wife to cancer, now represent to others that he is a "polygamist"?  I don't think so.

The possibility of being in a polygamous union in the afterlife is not the sort of "polygamy" that is contemplated when used in the here and now.

I think you are using the fallacy of equivocation:

You are using "polygamy" in an "ambiguous way."

My sister's father-in-law remarried a few years ago after his first wife passed.  He is sealed to both, but was never married to both simultaneously in this life.  To then come along and say "Yep, you're a polygamist" is to trade on ambiguity and create confusion.

At the same time?

Did he describe himself to others as a "polygamist"?

And a woman with five living children may totally believe that the six child she lost to miscarriage is hers.  And yet in the here and now, she would almost certainly describe herself as a mother of five, not six.

That was my point when I said "Polygamy is generally understood as being married to more than one woman at the same time."

That was my point when I said "{w}hether a marriage is ratified / sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is a matter for the next life."

Thanks,

-Smac

I can appreciate all of this and it makes sense.  In real time though the latent belief forces a truth that some women have to live with, which is that widows cannot experience a sealing to a new love. I remember here a few years ago, somebody talking about how they are in their 20s, a widow, and unable to get anybody to date them in the church, because they would not be able to be sealed in the temple. 
So while we can say that for many things, we don’t really deal with the feelings that come up with the idea of polygamy or deceased children. However, in some ways that are  not talked about often, our polygamy beliefs have real life impact. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There's enough scriptures showing God's chosen prophets were polygamists to show Joseph wasn't the original source.  God had no issue with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc and promised them blessings.  God gave David plural wives through his prophet Nathan.

Frankly I remain convinced that the Savior was a polygamist based on New Testament events.

Joseph didn't invent polygamy among God's people.

Please provide one scripture that wholly shows God commanded polygamy. Besides the LDS scripture canon, just the Bible.  Since that is where Joseph read and assumed he needed to restore it, which doesn't make any sense, and Jesus tore through that baloney, IMO. Nevermind, just read over this and let me know if you agree or disagree. https://exponentii.org/blog/god-didt-command-polygamy-so-lets-stop-saying-that/

Edited August 15, 2023 by Tacenda

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can appreciate all of this and it makes sense.  In real time though the latent belief forces a truth that some women have to live with, which is that widows cannot experience a sealing to a new love.

I acknowledge that.  There are all sorts of scenarios that require us to, for the time being, "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), with the understanding that the Lord will sort all this out in the end.

46 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I remember here a few years ago, somebody talking about how they are in their 20s, a widow, and unable to get anybody to date them in the church, because they would not be able to be sealed in the temple. 

I have a number of friends and acquaintances who have no present hope of getting married in this life, or of having children.  Or having health.  And so on.  Truly difficult circumstances, these.  

46 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

So while we can say that for many things, we don’t really deal with the feelings that come up with the idea of polygamy or deceased children.

I'm not sure I understand.  What do you propose we (as individuals, and/or collectively as "the Church," and/or the Brethren) do to "deal with the feelings" in this context?

46 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

However, in some ways that are not talked about often, our polygamy beliefs have real life impact. 

If the individual chooses that, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Give me brother husbands or give me death!

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Please provide one scripture that wholly shows God commanded polygamy. Besides the LDS scripture canon, just the Bible.  Since that is where Joseph read and assumed he needed to restore it, which doesn't make any sense, and Jesus tore through that baloney, IMO. Nevermind, just read over this and let me know if you agree or disagree. https://exponentii.org/blog/god-didt-command-polygamy-so-lets-stop-saying-that/

Why isn’t the undeniable fact that ‘holy men of God’ practiced plural marriage in righteousness enough to persuade you there isn’t anything inherently wrong with plural marriage in God’s eyes? There are plenty of things God approves that men disapprove.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why isn’t the undeniable fact that ‘holy men of God’ practiced plural marriage in righteousness enough to persuade you there isn’t anything inherently wrong with plural marriage in God’s eyes? There are plenty of things God approves that men disapprove.

Do you believe God approves of slavery?  Since holy men of God had slaves.  Serious question, not a gotcha.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand.  What do you propose we (as individuals, and/or collectively as "the Church," and/or the Brethren) do to "deal with the feelings" in this context?

I was acknowledging the truth in your observation.  Mine was poorly written. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by MustardSeed