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

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Have you read the Old Testament?

Remember when God killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt.

Yeah, like I said, God’s sense of justice often appears to be screwed up.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

It is evident that you tend to make declarative statements without providing substantiating evidence. In my perspective, when an individual endeavors to engage in a discourse by employing a series of assertions such as "you cannot," "you must," or "it would require" within a concise paragraph, it may be inferred that said individual harbors a certain level of uncertainty regarding their convictions and is attempting to impose their viewpoint upon others. 

 

Throughout his childhood and into his adult years, Jesus was renowned for his propensity to pose numerous questions . 

 

In other words, you have no substantive response. You are evidently oblivious to polyandry and it's practice. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

It is evident that you tend to make declarative statements without providing substantiating evidence. In my perspective, when an individual endeavors to engage in a discourse by employing a series of assertions such as "you cannot," "you must," or "it would require" within a concise paragraph, it may be inferred that said individual harbors a certain level of uncertainty regarding their convictions and is attempting to impose their viewpoint upon others.

Official LDS Church policy changed on this issue way back in 1998. It's in the General Handbook today (38.4.1.7). This reflected a shift in internal policy which is first recorded (that I know of) in 1969. The steps that led to this change (which mostly happened during the David O. McKay administration) are discussed using contemporary documents in The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History. The Church generally prefers for living women to get a cancellation of sealings before getting sealed to a new husband, but I am aware of some exceptions that were made (generally when the first husband died unexpectedly and at a young age). The Church has, since 1998, made a number of policy adjustments to make getting such a cancellation easier for both parties. Part of the original shift to allow women to be sealed to more than one man came out of the earlier policy where women were routinely sealed to men they were not married to when their spouses (if they had them) did not meet the requirements to get sealed (not members of the Church, not ordained to the priesthood, etc.). This happened frequently for women who were sealed posthumously before we started sealing dead people to their spouses (which generally did not occur before 1894). James Martineau, for example, was one of the more prolific performers of temple work for the dead. He sealed himself to more than 100 women posthoumously, including (notably) Joan of Arc.

I think that while we have a lot of assumptions about polygamy, this is one area where we do not have any sort of real understanding of what things will be like in a post-mortal state. Much of our theology (of polygamy) is built around ideas taken from earlier periods of LDS teachings which did not share a lot of the core beliefs and understandings that we teach today.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Stargazer]

On 8/15/2023 at 3:09 PM, Calm said:

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.

As I've mentioned before on this board, before my wife died she asked what I was going to do afterwards. When I told her I would just stay single until I joined her on the other side, she gave me instructions that I was to remarry. Her words at that time were: "I don't think you'd do well as a single man." She then suggested two single sisters in our ward for my consideration, both of whom were not sealed anyone.

Neither were interested, by the way.

 

[Stargazer]

On 8/15/2023 at 4:58 PM, bluebell said:

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).

I've wondered about that being the same people thing. Yes, the same people, but in our mortal condition we are clearly tamped down in all aspects. Father put us here because we are candidates for being like Him. This means that we are so much more than what we see here that we really can't see what we really are. What will we see in ourselves when we are freed from mortality?

Almost everyone here has thorns in the flesh, as Paul put it, that must be dealt with. And some of our thorns are doozies. I have a son who suffers from paranoid personality disorder. He lives in a tent somewhere. Not even in the usual homeless encampment, because everywhere he goes he sees enemies. And his behavior towards others as a result of his PPD creates enemies where none existed before. He may suffer from more than just PPD. But there's no telling, because he always refused to see psychologists. When he dies I assume he will be freed from that condition, and will be judged according to how well he behaved under the limitations he was required to deal with. As far as I know, he is law-abiding and his behavior is moral. So he may be same person when he moves on to eternity, but will no longer be subject to the physical limitations he deals with now.

On the other hand...

One of the missionaries in my mission was a brilliant young man and an outstanding missionary. He had a full-ride scholarship to BYU. He ended up speaking at least three languages fluently, worked for the US government as a translator, and when I reconnected with him a few years later he was a branch president in my stake in Germany. In his time he wrote at least four books, three on topics in international relations and one on Jesus Christ. He died at age 64 while a General Authority Seventy. His wife was subsequently called as the president of one of the church auxiliary organizations, where she currently serves. He was, in short, an intellectual and a spiritual giant -- and physically large as well, because he was well over 6 feet tall. He was also a humble and loving man, and one of the best men I have ever known.

When we come to compare my son with the general authority, what do we see? Two beings who were sent to earth in extremely different circumstances. By the very fact of their being sent here to earth, both were judged by Father to be capable of exaltation (otherwise, why would He send them here?). But while the one was given great intelligence, both intellectual and emotional, the other was given only intellectual intelligence, while denied the ability to fully understand his fellow humans (he has a great deal of difficulty recognizing others feelings). At the end of my son's life, will he be judged by the same standard as the general authority's? I should hope not. 

Where much is given, much is expected. And the opposite must also be true. If the one had been given all those gifts and had squandered his time here and ended up just eking by, how would he be judged? It seems to me that, given his gifts, he succeeded "as expected." But my son was given little, and by and by, he too may end up succeeding "as expected," and be in the same league.

 

[Stargazer]

On 8/15/2023 at 8:26 PM, bluebell said:

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

And to some, as our understanding of eternal principles improves, it is counted as proving the church is false. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/16/2023 at 8:09 AM, The Nehor said:

And if we look at the families of Abraham, Jacob, and David we learn that polygamy can work very well.

*reads their stories*

Hey….WAIT A MINUTE!

Marriage in itself seems sometimes to be a crapshoot. My first marriage was the worst 4 years of my life. My current wife's first marriage was the worst 18 months of her life (she tells me). Between us, in a game of oneupmanship as to who had the worst time of it, I win.  

My current marriage is the best of all three. But in the end I will have to hand her back to her eternal husband. Oh, well.

[Stargazer]

On 8/16/2023 at 5:36 PM, bluebell said:

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.

That was right on, sister!

I love the Dr. Sears quote. I'd never heard of him before. Just checked, and he is an Interpreter Foundation author, and an assistant professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.

His argument in your quoted passage is very similar to the argument which I have used with people who use the "science" in Genesis to disparage the Bible and/or theism. God didn't teach Moses modern cosmology and the physics of solar system creation; He gave him a simplified model of creation that catered to Moses's understanding. We know more now, but the old model still has its uses.

 

[Stargazer]

On 8/18/2023 at 6:04 AM, cinepro said:

I firmly believe that when I die, I will receive a heavenly reward roughly equivalent to $1 billion.

Am I a "billionaire"?

If inflation keeps up, that billion may turn out to be pocket change, though.

[Teancum]

On 8/17/2023 at 8:37 PM, JLHPROF said:

Yes, that's historical fact.  It's just not the only fact at play in its withdrawal.

Well it seems tome the only real reason the Church gave it up is because they were forced to. Do you really think they would have if the federal government were quite alright with plural marriage?  Seems to me the US government was more mighty than the Mormon God.

[The Nehor]

On 8/19/2023 at 7:08 PM, Stargazer said:

Marriage in itself seems sometimes to be a crapshoot. My first marriage was the worst 4 years of my life. My current wife's first marriage was the worst 18 months of her life (she tells me). Between us, in a game of oneupmanship as to who had the worst time of it, I win.  

My current marriage is the best of all three. But in the end I will have to hand her back to her eternal husband. Oh, well.

My two engagements both went bad. My best relationships so far in life were polyamorous.

Marriage is probably never going to happen.

[The Nehor]

On 8/16/2023 at 11:36 AM, bluebell said:

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.

 

Or the more fun version:

[Tacenda]

On 8/19/2023 at 6:08 PM, Stargazer said:

Marriage in itself seems sometimes to be a crapshoot. My first marriage was the worst 4 years of my life. My current wife's first marriage was the worst 18 months of her life (she tells me). Between us, in a game of oneupmanship as to who had the worst time of it, I win.  

My current marriage is the best of all three. But in the end I will have to hand her back to her eternal husband. Oh, well.

That would be hell then.

[cherryTreez]

On 8/15/2023 at 5:07 AM, 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. 

 

I have asked my husband that if I die to not be sealed to another woman.  Go find a widow that is already to sealed to someone else.  

I know many woman who feel the same way. I also know several widows that men won't date because they can't be sealed to them.  

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I have asked my husband that if I die to not be sealed to another woman.  Go find a widow that is already to sealed to someone else.  

I know many woman who feel the same way. I also know several widows that men won't date because they can't be sealed to them.  

My wife asked the same of me.  I promised. 

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I also know several widows that men won't date because they can't be sealed to them.  

Ironically that wasn't an issue in the polygamy period.

[Sara H]

On 8/25/2023 at 6:26 PM, cherryTreez said:

I have asked my husband that if I die to not be sealed to another woman.  Go find a widow that is already to sealed to someone else.

I share your sentiments exactly! I have committed my entire life to being there for my husband and our children, and I do not want him to have a relationship with anyone else. If the brethren can ask our gay members to live a life of celibacy, then my husband can keep his thing in his pants until he passes away. If he does marry, paradise won't be nearly as enjoyable as he imagines it will be. It seems highly hypocritical to me to live a mortal life preaching and attempting to convince non-members that we don't practice polygamy while at the same time allowing men to get sealed to more than one woman at a time. I find this to be extremely inconsistent. Simple mathematics demonstrates that we still engage in the practice of polygam of some sort. Nonetheless, the polygamy we practice now is something that the federal government is unable to regulate. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

Simple mathematics demonstrates that we still engage in the practice of polygam of some sort.

It doesn't require it though. That's part of the issue. Simple mathematics suggests that polygamy cannot exist in the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Stargazer]

On 8/23/2023 at 1:25 PM, Tacenda said:

That would be hell then.

No, I fully expect that as a resurrected being I will be completely free of jealousy and irrationality.

[Stargazer]

On 8/25/2023 at 11:26 PM, cherryTreez said:

I have asked my husband that if I die to not be sealed to another woman.  Go find a widow that is already to sealed to someone else.  

I know many woman who feel the same way. I also know several widows that men won't date because they can't be sealed to them.  

Both my late eternal wife, and my current wife who is sealed to her deceased husband were/are of opposite feeling to you. Both accepted/accept the probability that they might have sister wives in eternity. Both were/are willing to accept that the Lord may at some point resume the practice of plural marriage in mortality.

Not everyone is of the same opinion.

[Stargazer]

On 9/1/2023 at 11:43 AM, Sara H said:

I have committed my entire life to being there for my husband and our children, and I do not want him to have a relationship with anyone else. If the brethren can ask our gay members to live a life of celibacy, then my husband can keep his thing in his pants until he passes away.

And of course you endorse the principle of a woman whose husband passes away while they are in midst of raising their children, not to remarry at all, and thus maintain some kind of notional "purity" and the concomitant single motherhood.

As for the thing in his pants, his wife has a thing in her pants as well. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, right?

And is that all marriage is to you? Things in pants? Seems like a particularly narrow view to me. But you're entitled to your opinion.

When my wife was on her deathbed she asked me what I was going to do after she was gone. I told her that I figured I would stay single until my time came to join her. She disagreed. She said "I don't think you'd do well as a bachelor. I expect you to remarry!" I told her that I would consider it, but in my own mind I was of a different opinion. I felt that of course I'd be fine as a bachelor. Some time after she passed away, I decided to give her expectation of me some lip service, at least. I joined an LDS-related dating site with the plan to maybe develop some pen-pals, but to be able to honestly report to her when I finally joined her in the Afterwards that I had tried but failed. To this end, I made sure to only communicate with women who lived very far away from me. To reduce the chance of actually meeting them.

It didn't work, and I ended up finding a delightful widow who lived 4,000 miles away. We've been married for 7 years now. Her husband had also urged her to find a life partner after he was gone. And within a week or so of having joined the same dating website I was with, she found me. 

As for that last concern of yours, gay members can be asked to live a life of celibacy because that mode of sexual expression is contrary to God's law. If you want to complain, see the Management.

On 9/1/2023 at 11:43 AM, Sara H said:

If he does marry, paradise won't be nearly as enjoyable as he imagines it will be.

Why? Because in that instance you're going to not let him forget it? 😄 For daring to remarry?

On 9/1/2023 at 11:43 AM, Sara H said:

It seems highly hypocritical to me to live a mortal life preaching and attempting to convince non-members that we don't practice polygamy while at the same time allowing men to get sealed to more than one woman at a time. I find this to be extremely inconsistent. Simple mathematics demonstrates that we still engage in the practice of polygam of some sort. Nonetheless, the polygamy we practice now is something that the federal government is unable to regulate. 

How is it hypocritical? If we do not practice plural marriage in mortality, then there's no hypocrisy at all. What happens after death isn't even a question. Our fellow Christians only care about marriage in mortality -- "until death do you part," as they contractually put it. Once one partner dies, the other is free to remarry. Since they don't believe the marriage vows survive death, nobody will be married in the hereafter, they believe. Even if some of them "feel" otherwise, their own marriage contract denies it.