- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
…how repulsive would plural marriage really be? Who really would care much if a man OR woman had more than one spouse – or what sexual orientation they were – or even what age they were?
I don’t know Ray. I’m pretty sure my wife would not be happy with multiple spouses in our marriage EVEN if it were all a celibate affair. I think the emotional security of “I’m you’re one and only” goes way beyond the physical part of a relationship.
What a cornucopia of views on this thread! I’m particularly interested in those that think JS was somehow deceived. Might I ask, deceived by whom? I think of Bushman’s description of how revelation was received. Most of the time it was done in public church meetings, and the revelation would be a response to a question. JS did not always describe visions, but mostly felt the “burning within” and the knowledge would then pop into his head. I think that leaves all revelation open not to just deception, but an overall question of the validity of the nature of revelation. In regards to 132: Bushman states that JS dictated the revelation to Hyrum word for word from memory; that was how strongly the message stayed with him. I personally think it was a power issue. If you look at the women JS married, you’ll notice quite a few of them lived and worked in the Smith household. To me, it just plain looks like JS couldn’t stop messing around with the nannies. The revelation gave a prophetic meaning to some sketchy actions, just as his use of the seer stones placed him with Old Testament figures. To me, that is the intent of D&C 132.
So I guess I take the idea of deception a bit further, but that thinking has been a major cause of my struggles with the church.
Orson, Let me try it this way: If your wife died at the age of 30 and left you with four young children, do you think she would want you to live alone for the rest of your life and raise the children by yourself? Do you think she would understand if you fell in love again – and if you wanted to live with both her AND your second wife – if you didn’t want to have to choose only one? Do you think she would “give her permission” for you to marry again in that scenario?
I really do think the mortal application of simultaneous plural (sexual) marriage obscures the principle of communal sealing that MIGHT lie at the heart of the vision that produced such a smorgasboard of application methods in the early church. Peel away the layers and remove the sexual component, and I just don’t find anything repulsive about it. Still hard to fathom, perhaps – but not repulsive at all.
Frankly, I think Joseph was less deceived and more “seeing through that particular glass darkly” – as is the case with our current obsession over monogamous, sexual unions in the hereafter. Of course, that’s my own personal speculation – so I might be spectacularly wrong, as well.
I hear what you’re saying Ray, and I can see how some would agree and say they could imagine being okay with that type of scenario. But for my wife specifically, I don’t think she would be okay with the idea. I would ask her but I know she would rather not think about it if she doesn’t have to. We’ve talked about the idea of polygamy several times, and she comes down unquestionably on the “I don’t want to share you” side. I think I know her well enough to know that doesn’t just mean physically. On the question if she died would she want me to remain alone – I think she would say “no” but in her heart it would be a “for TIME only” type of consent. She may say “I can’t comprehend what our understanding will be in the next life” and use that as an “okay, if it’s supposed to be right” to submit to the idea – but as far as we can comprehend as mortals, I believe her honest answer is a firm NO to any type of polygamy.
Other people clearly may feel differently.
Ray presents a sensible scenario, but what if we switched the roles and the husband died early and left the woman alone with the kids? Does she have the same right to love another? Absolutely, sm. Absolutely, imo. Currently, a woman who is married to more than one man can be sealed to all of her spouses after she dies – and the official explanation is that she and the husbands and the Lord can work it out. I just think there can be more solutions in the working it out than most people accept.
Apostate’s ignorance: What do you mean when you say, “after she dies”? How can a women marry another man without a temporal divorce? Are you saying that women can be sealed to multiple men just as men can to women? I wasn’t aware of this, I was always under the impression that women had to get a temporal divorce in order to marry another man in the temple. Spacious Maze, Current practice in the temple is that if a woman had more than one husband during her life, then she is sealed to all the husbands. The logic is that God will decide who she should be sealed to. So yes, in the case of temple work for ancestors, a woman is sealed to multiple husbands. (I had a temple worker tell me that, so it’s on pretty good authority. For those with access to the full IGI, temple work on the church’s familysearch.org shows the same thing.) However, while she is living, she can only be sealed to one man at a time, so she have the sealing canceled to be sealed to another. I guess this is another thing that bothers me. Polygyny (multiple wives) is more acceptable than polyandry (multiple husbands). If the church practiced polyandry more, it would seem more fair to me.
I must say that I like many of Ray’s comments about eternal sealings. However, it seems to be a different interpretation, or at least an extension of D&C 132 that I just don’t see from the text. Perhaps Joseph got the sealing part right, and posthumous sealings are ok, but I just don’t think D&C 132 supports Ray’s positions, and it certainly doesn’t appear that Joseph, Brigham or other church leaders considered D&C 132 in Ray’s interpretation. As I said, I like Ray’s take on it, however.
Yep, my opinion is pure speculation. 😮 mormonheretic wrote:
However, while she is living, she can only be sealed to one man at a time, so she have the sealing canceled to be sealed to another.It is definately true that you seal a woman to all the men she was married to when you are doing work for the dead, assuming God will work things out. I had never thought about or heard about someone going to seal two spouses together who were married only for time due to it being the woman’s second wedding. I guess I can see it from a “cover your butt” perspective of the church when there is a civil divorce, it would be all too easy for someone to have a temple marriage, get a civil divorce, and have another temple marriage and believe the sealing power was stronger than the civil divorce, and effectively practice polygamy while also officially following the law of the land. But on that note, can a man get sealed to a new person in the life without a canceled sealing if his first temple marriage ended in divorce and his first wife is still alive? If so, that goes against my “cover your butt” theory as men could actually do what I suggested, but it discriminates against women.
However, in the case of when the marriage ended due to death of a spouse, if the new couple is just going to get sealed after they die, they might as well be able to get sealed to each other in this life, imo. Particularly since many such couples are married in the temple, but just not sealed. It doesn’t make much sense to me.
As far as my wife’s take on my remarriage if she dies young, I am allowed to get remarried as long as it is solely for providing DS a mother and does not involve a physical relationship. She must also be hideously ugly. I’m sure we must also only be married for time only, no sealing, even if its allowed for me by the church to get sealed. But she would be much happier if I could work to raise DS by myself.
MisterCurie wrote:She must also be hideously ugly.
Yup, you got it!
😆 I feel that perhaps the original intent of D&C 132 (as we currently have it recorded) was to discredit Emma and establish a “scriptural” basis for the polygamists. It may also have been serving the purpose of putting forth an organized way to authorize it. Joseph Smith was in violation of several of the rules in D&C 132. (he married already married women, non-virgins, didn’t ask Emma each time)
I’ve also read that one of the early leaders claimed that more was added later to the “revelation.”
MIsterCurie, I know that if a man divorces, then it requires First Presidency approval for him to be sealed to someone else. I’m not sure of all the procedures, but I do think the brethren have tried to close the loophole you illustrated to make it more fair.
mormonheretic wrote:MIsterCurie,
I know that if a man divorces, then it requires First Presidency approval for him to be sealed to someone else. I’m not sure of all the procedures, but I do think the brethren have tried to close the loophole you illustrated to make it more fair.
I’m pretty sure the first wife must consent, or they need to cancel the original sealing.
I don’t think consent of a previous spouse is required to cancel a previous sealing–man or woman. I recall hearing from a bishop that they do discuss the divorce with a previous spouse, but that spouse cannot stop a sealing from taking place. The reason the previous spouse is consulted is to see if there are any issues regarding child support, sexual abuse, or other issues that would affect temple worthiness of the spouse trying to be sealed to a new partner. Imagine if a previous spouse who hated you wielded the power to prevent you from ever being sealed again. Surely this would be an abuse of power, which is why the church doesn’t seek permission from a previous spouse to cancel a sealing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.