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

[Sara H]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Knowest thou not that eternities ago thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in His presence, and with thy mother, one of the queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirits in the spirit world, among the Gods?" President John Taylor

Where I'm starting to get confused is that the way you're describing eternity is pretty much exactly how many of the so-called polygamous sects of "Mormonism" teach about eternity. I haven't seen any distinction between your view of heaven and theirs, but I must admit that I know very little about how they view heaven other than what I've heard third person or in documentaries. If I understand what you are saying, we may have given up on polygamy while we were on earth to protect the name and standing of the church while we were on earth because we were being pressured by the government, but once we are beyond our mortal experience and in the heavens, polygamy will be the name of the game and practicd much like the other LDS sects also described. Am I understanding what you are saying correctly? Back to the way it was before the government stepped in and disrupted our plans for the living polygamy here on earth and in the heavens? This indicates that the other LDS factions are just as legitimate as we are and that they may also be practicing the priesthood in the right way. Unless I'm overlooking anything obvious here. 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Sara H

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

However, we do not know. Since we are looking at it from a mortal point of view, we do not have any insight into what takes place after a sealed woman has passed away and been elevated to the next level. We are aware of the limitations and constraints that polygamy imposes on women on this planet; nevertheless, how can we be sure that an exalted woman does not have the same amount of influence in the heavens as her husband? 

You answered your last question at the very beginning of the post, with your first statement.

Logically, if we do not know, then, we can’t be sure. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Seems he would be spiritually regardless, because that's the spiritual perspective he has adopted.

I suppose that's a matter of perspective. To adopt some modern parlance, I think we would probably be more safe in saying that he identifies as a polygamist in some sense (if, in fact, that's how he sees it currently and not just as a possible future state of affairs) rather than saying he is a polygamist.

There's a difference, at least in my mind, between (1) saying he is a polygamist and (2) saying he believes he is a polygamist. Just because somebody believes something - doesn't make it so.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Amulek

[Sara H]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You answered your last question at the very beginning of the post, with your first statement.

Logically, if we do not know, then, we can’t be sure. 

I like how JLHPROF thinks, I'm asking for an opinion. Are you OK with that?

Edited August 16, 2023 by Sara H

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I like how JLHPROF thinks, I'm asking for an opinion. Are you OK with that?

What about my post is causing you to respond so defensively? 

I took into account your statement of fact ("we do not know"), and then answered your question ("how can we be sure?").  If we do not know something, then logically, we can't be sure.  I sincerely didn't see any other way to answer it, given the perimeters you created.

[Sara H]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What about my post is causing you to respond so defensively? 

I took into account your statement of fact ("we do not know"), and then answered your question ("how can we be sure?").  If we do not know something, then logically, we can't be sure.  I sincerely didn't see any other way to answer it, given the perimeters you created.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your post, but I have spent the past few days defending my position and beliefs along with defending my threads. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Sara H

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So I guess prophets and apostles get a lot wrong and /or miss a lot.

Definitely!  I know you think that's a bad thing, or some proof of how the church is full of baloney, but for me, it's makes the most sense.

I mean, 1) consider the full (eternal) scope of the gospel, 2) consider how God teaches us "line upon line", and 3) then add in how God's "ways are not our ways" and of course there's always going to be course corrections and better understandings edging out good understandings (which will then eventually be edged out by best understandings somewhere down the road). If it didn't work that way, that would be a sign that something was off.

Spiritual understanding has to be built on previous spiritual understanding.  Sure, sometimes the previous understanding will be technically wrong in the long run, but that's not a problem as long as it keeps us moving in the right direction.

I love the story shared by Dr. Joshua Sears about how just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it was wrong for us to learn it.

 

Some teachings and doctrinal understandings might be the equivalent to Bohr models.  Ultimately wrong (and something to move away from as we get into the "nuclear physics" of the gospel) but still purposefully taught or allowed by God because of their usefulness in our spiritual progression.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So I guess prophets and apostles get a lot wrong and /or miss a lot.

Definitely.  They are, after all, human and mortal. (Lol, responded before seeing bluebell’s post…which says so well part of what I think about this issue, but not in the mood to detail, so very grateful I don’t have to feel bad I didn’t because there it all is!  )

Edited August 16, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You might want to check your early Church history on divorce in polygamy.

I'm well aware that Brigham Young was very liberal about allowing divorces to those in plural marriages. I also know that unless that plural wife had someone else to marry or a family that could support them to go back to that divorce wasn't much of an option. To those it helped great. To those it couldn't.....

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

That would be the ideal, but redefining relationships happens all the time with other aspects of a marriage, including unilaterally deciding on leaving the marriage or just having affairs, refusing to have children or becomes pregnant contrary to the agreed upon conditions of their marriage or even intentionally sabotages birth control, one partner becomes more or less religious and starts requiring or refusing to do things based on their new beliefs, a partner decides they will choose to follow a different attraction than their partner is, or decides to redefine their own gender which alters the relationship.

We do not have the freedom to control the relationship because we cannot control how the other in the marriage will experience life nor the choices they make…unless one is abusive. 

I know, which is why the option of divorce is important.

In the polyamory community if someone in a relationship decides they want to "be poly" the general hard advice is that you are in essence breaking up with the other person. You can offer them a new relationship on different terms but you are in many ways starting over. Many skip this step and burn down their relationship in a process of slow torture.

In our version of plural marriage the first wife sort of has a right of refusal but since it comes with a divine threat if you choose the "wrong way" it is a not much of a choice. It is like a lot of other choices like serving a mission. Sure, you can refuse but you are going up against a lot of pressure if you and your family are at all devout.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually it was the first wife's idea.  Sarah told him to marry Hagar.

And then Sarah told Abraham to boot Hagar and her son out and they nearly died of exposure.

I doubt Hagar would believe the whole "all wives are equal" thing at that point.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I'm well aware that Brigham Young was very liberal about allowing divorces to those in plural marriages. I also know that unless that plural wife had someone else to marry or a family that could support them to go back to that divorce wasn't much of an option. To those it helped great. To those it couldn't.....

I think that was true for monogamous marriages back then as well though.  The one plus for polygamy and divorce is that often the woman was already taking care of herself and the kids on her own, and often was already "employed" in some way bringing in money (because of the nature of polygamy and the men not always being able to support all their wives themselves).

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And then Sarah told Abraham to boot Hagar and her son out and they nearly died of exposure.

I doubt Hagar would believe the whole "all wives are equal" thing at that point.

Hagar was never considered a wife in that arrangement to begin with, and she knew that she was no equal to her mistress Sarah. 

(It's definitely a messed up event).  

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Definitely!  I know you think that's a bad thing, or some proof of how the church is full of baloney,

I just go with what historically the prophets and apostles have taught about what they say and do. As well as what the scriptures teach on these things. There is a concept of consistency and some key things being unchangeable.  For example the attributes and nature of the Godhead.  This is an items that has changed and modified in LDS doctrine quite significantly. I think this is problematic.  There are many other examples.  Is it a bad thing?  It might not be if the leaders would let u know how things are being modified and changes and why rather than just having things morph and then acting like something has always been the case.

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

but for me, it's makes the most sense.

 

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I mean, 1) consider the full (eternal) scope of the gospel, 2) consider how God teaches us "line upon line", and 3) then add in how God's "ways are not our ways" and of course there's always going to be course corrections and better understandings edging out good understandings (which will then eventually be edged out by best understandings somewhere down the road). If it didn't work that way, that would be a sign that something was off.

Spiritual understanding has to be built on previous spiritual understanding.  Sure, sometimes the previous understanding will be technically wrong in the long run, but that's not a problem as long as it keeps us moving in the right direction.

I love the story shared by Dr. Joshua Sears about how just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it was wrong for us to learn it.

 

Some teachings and doctrinal understandings might be the equivalent to Bohr models.  Ultimately wrong (and something to move away from as we get into the "nuclear physics" of the gospel) but still purposefully taught or allowed by God because of their usefulness in our spiritual progression.

If it works for you great.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that was true for monogamous marriages back then as well though.  The one plus for polygamy and divorce is that often the woman was already taking care of herself and the kids on her own, and often was already "employed" in some way bringing in money (because of the nature of polygamy and the men not always being able to support all their wives themselves).

 

I am not sure functionally being a single mom who happens to be married is that big of a benefit.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure functionally being a single mom who happens to be married is that big of a benefit.

Agreed when it comes to a marriage.  In terms of divorce it's probably one though, and that's what we were discussing.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I just go with what historically the prophets and apostles have taught about what they say and do. As well as what the scriptures teach on these things. There is a concept of consistency and some key things being unchangeable.  For example the attributes and nature of the Godhead.  This is an items that has changed and modified in LDS doctrine quite significantly. I think this is problematic.  There are many other examples.  Is it a bad thing?  It might not be if the leaders would let u know how things are being modified and changes and why rather than just having things morph and then acting like something has always been the case.

 

 

 

If it works for you great.

I agree with you in that I think it would be helpful if our leaders were more able and willing to recognize and discuss changes and missteps rather than just pretend they don't exist.  I think it's a holdover philosophy from a different era and that it hurts more than it helps.  

And I'm glad that you have found something that works for you as well.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hagar was never considered a wife in that arrangement to begin with, and she knew that she was no equal to her mistress Sarah. 

(It's definitely a messed up event).  

I know. You get the same thing with Leah and Rachel and their two servants. It is a mess. I do find it ironic that Jacob ignored the “don’t pick the son of your favorite wife or any other son over the actual firstborn” law being ignored. I know the law came later but it makes me giggle that a law specifically given to a group of people is in explicit contrast to the actions of three out of the three founders.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed when it comes to a marriage.  In terms of divorce it's probably one though, and that's what we were discussing.

Pretty dark take but also accurate.

[CV75]

On 8/14/2023 at 7:02 AM, 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. 

 

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

I go with "No" because of doctrine and math. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty dark take but also accurate.

Most of dealing with polygamy was so hard and a real trial.  Might as well acknowledge the silver lining.   

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I know. You get the same thing with Leah and Rachel and their two servants. It is a mess. I do find it ironic that Jacob ignored the “don’t pick the son of your favorite wife or any other son over the actual firstborn” law being ignored. I know the law came later but it makes me giggle that a law specifically given to a group of people is in explicit contrast to the actions of three out of the three founders.

I thought Reuben lost the birthright because he slept with one of Jacob's other wives?  Or I'm I getting that confused with a different story?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I know. You get the same thing with Leah and Rachel and their two servants. It is a mess. I do find it ironic that Jacob ignored the “don’t pick the son of your favorite wife or any other son over the actual firstborn” law being ignored. I know the law came later but it makes me giggle that a law specifically given to a group of people is in explicit contrast to the actions of three out of the three founders.

Well, you know Jacob was completely justified by the bad behaviour of the eldest son. He obviously demonstrated he was not capable or worthy of carrying out the firstborn’s responsibilities in an appropriate way. (Or so the story goes…written by the victors and all)

Edited August 17, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought Reuben lost the birthright because he slept with one of Jacob's other wives?  Or I'm I getting that confused with a different story?

That was the justification given, he slept with Bilhah. There is debate whether the law was made in response to this (no exception is given in the law) or if the law came first as there is similar language used in the story as the law. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Calm

[Peacefully]

This thread is so interesting because my husband is sealed to his first wife ( they divorced) and me. I’ve never once thought of him as a polygamist. He is definitely not a fan of his first wife but he figures we all get along in heaven. I take the position that God will work it out and we will all be happy:) 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Peacefully