Polygamy in Heaven

To me and my rather logical mind, it just does not make sense. The more I dig into it the less any of it makes sense.

I do get frustrated with the answer of, “Oh, it will all work out in the end, so don’t trouble your mind over these things!” If it will all work out in the end then let’s not get anybody sealed until we are on the other side of the veil and have full knowledge. To me it makes no sense.

The more I have dug into this the more I have reached one basic question, “Why didn’t God set his plan up where every couple that wanted to be together forever could be that way?”

So God setup a system where for a infinitesimal number of his children (those in the LDS church) have a very high priority task in this life to get married in the temple (for a while it was required to marry several wives to max your heaven), but for anybody else we will take care of it later and have a bit of a “seal them all together and let God sort it out” attitude? Seems really inefficient and other than having some LDS folks feel really great that they know for sure they are going to be together in the life after, it gives no comfort to everyone else.

It doesn’t make sense to me that if a wife dies, the husband can be sealed to multiple women but if a woman’s husband dies, the temple won’t seal her to anyone else so she has to get a civil wedding if she wants to get married again. I’ve heard this but not sure how accurate it is. If it’s accurate though, it makes me kind of mad.

This is absolutely true, and you don’t have to be a woman to make you mad! 😡

If it gives you any comfort, even though the 2nd marriage is for time only, chances are very good that someone doing family history (searching for green arrows) will reserve and perform the sealing ordinance after both parties have died.

Seems really inefficient

tangent:

LookingHard – I agree with everything you wrote and am not trying to pick a fight. I wanted to make the narrow comment that few doctrines of the Gospel promote efficiency. Little about ordinances and the plan of salvation is efficient and I rarely apply word to church. It seems we could create a much cleaner probationary state by sitting our spirits down in a “universal body simulator” and have us play a 100 year long video game pretending to have a body. That way we all have the same test, our screw ups don’t really impact other spirits, and we learn the same stuff without the messiness of bodies, polygamy, and sex (because it’s all simulated and using the same game logic).

back to the thread:

Polygamy in heaven is clearly a double standard. I know a few men who are proud of their celestial plural wives and who look forward to having more than one woman for eternity.

[Admin Note]: Not to derail this thread, but this is a topic that has gotten rehashed quite a few times here – and there are three takeaways from every.single.time.we.discuss.it:

1) Nobody likes it, and everyone has MAJOR issues with the idea.

2) I generally point out that there are real, good, loving people who have loved more than one spouse and can’t fathom being separated from any of them in the next life. (Frankly, that is about the only “defense” I have for it, conceptually, on an individual basis.)

3) It nearly always gets heated and emotional – and, often, we have to lock the thread.

This is the third recent post about polygamy, generally. That also happens regularly. One thread begets another which begets another . . . (There is a rich irony in that, for anyone who gets my sense of humor.)

If this thread can be an exception, it will remain open; if it spirals as most on this topic do, it will be locked.

Good point Joni. And Ray- you are right on these threads spiraling down the same path probably with different people commenting. That in itself says something that it is consistent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we (as a church) really disavow the practice and doctrine of polygamy, why do we still…?

Just to be clear, the Church hasn’t disavowed either the practice or the doctrine of polygamy.

The church can’t say much about after-life polygamy that comforts the confused and concerned if it’s not even willing to definitively rule it out in this life. And defending Mormon polygamy kind of sucks all the oxygen out of the room; there’s not much left for talking sensibly about millions of men AND women having had multiple spouses and what that could mean for the hereafter.

To my mind, “polygamy in heaven” questions and temple sealing policies aren’t just doctrinal loose ends to wrap up and administrative tweaks yet to be made. They are the inconvenient truths (as in, present LDS reality) screaming, “Look at Section 132!”

I suppose the questions can be approached from the other end, and eventually the weight of present practice would strangle most of the offensiveness out of 132. But it’ll be a long, slow death. (And it’s already been quite costly in terms of members lost.) Why not, if we really believe in ongoing restoration and revelation, address it more comprehensively beginning now?

President Hinckley said, “I think it is not doctrinal.” Was he speaking as a prophet, or was that just his opinion?

On the surface it sounds like an opinion, “I think it is not doctrinal” vs. “It is not doctrinal.” Here’s the full quote:

I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Mike Wallace was leading the discussion in this direction but GBH’s answers during that portion of the interview focused on how eradicating polygamy was a civil matter and how the people that practice polygamy are not affiliated with the church in any way. He kept going back to that, it’s not us, it’s a civil matter, it’s behind us.

Or is it not doctrinal now because it is against the law?

Possibly. It could be that one doctrine supersedes another for a time. Like the law of consecration vs. the law of tithing. I think there’s a general consensus that we live the law of tithing now but the expectation is that we will be living the law of consecration in heaven. People might view polygamy vs. sustaining the law similarly. As often pointed out, why have these policies if there is no belief in polygamy in heaven:

Sealing of Living Members after a Divorce

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorces, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance” below).

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and later divorced, the man must receive a sealing clearance from the First Presidency before another woman may be sealed to him (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance” below). A sealing clearance is necessary even if (1) the previous sealing has been canceled or (2) the divorced wife is now deceased.

Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband.

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she dies (see the previous heading for the policy in cases of divorce).

And would we (the Church) still be living it if it was legal?

The what if game is hard to play. I’m sure the church would have practiced polygamy for much longer than it did but:

1) Would that practice have survived into the 21st century?

2) Would the church ever have experienced an explosion in membership due to convert baptisms (1960 – 1990)?