- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I can’t argue with your response Latter-Day skeptic. I think you are correct – it was an apologetic response, and a poor one at that. I don’t know the facts behind the whole polygamy chapter, but I do feel it is a black eye on the church and I don’t feel good about it. it makes me sick. That being said, I guess the question that I have is – Now what? What do we do with the information and the feelings that this ugly chapter of the church gives us? Is it a deal breaker? Is it enough to make me throw my hands up and walk away? I think it is important to remember that every religion on this planet have their own ugly chapters — I mean just think of the Catholic church and how many atrocities were committed all in the name of God for the last 2000 years. I think you will find some ugly scars everywhere, in EVERY religion and government body, regardless of how well intentioned the folks running the organization may have been. Think of the United States of America — I think we have the best form of government and law on the planet (that’s a debate for another day and another forum) – yet we certainly have some real ugly chapters in our history (slavery, women rights, etc). Does that mean we all should pack up and move to Canada? (How do you like that sucker punch Candiangirl?
😈 )I guess polygamy is just a little more painful to me because it is MY RELIGION, and yes, the culture of the church certainly doesn’t come out and really talk about all the ghosts in the closet, for good reason obviously, which make it appear as though they purposely lie and deceive their followers. I don’t think this is true — I just see it as “why should they?” “What possible good will it do?” It will only hurt faithful TBM members testimonies, and it will probably not do anything to really make me ( a nonfaithful member) feel better about it either.
Can I remain in the LDS church even though I really have issues with the polygamy chapter and might feel as though those who were in charge at the time abused their power and caused a terrible amount of physical, emotional and spiritual harm to 100’s women 180 years ago? Can I “buffet” myself past this portion of the church, so I don’t have to give up all the good things that I get from my association of being LDS? Questions we all must ask ourselves.
Quote:I dont understand, but there is also parts of history in general I dont like or dont understand (especially being british – we were barbarians centuries ago – still are in some regards!!!
😆 but I dont run to another country!). I have decided that the basic principles of the Church/lifestyle I agree with and want to live – it does have its good points also which for me anyway far outweigh the bad.Yep, you posted this while I was writing my response. I think we see the issue and the options we have very similarly.
i was debating staying away from this thread all together, the topic can be triggering for me. many people refer to polygamy as an “ugly past”, “old scar” or say “that was then, this is now”. what did pres hinckley call it? a “blip”? but its really not in the past and isn’t a scar, or some kind of healed wound. its STILL in our canonized doctrine. i know of lots of members who truly believe polygamy is the celestial order of things, and all marriages in the CK must be polygamous marriages. they believe that it was ended only so that utah could join the Union, but that in heaven polygamy is the standard order of things. this is one of the most painful parts of mormonism for me. i would have no problem with it if it truly were chalked up to the mistakes of past leaders, like the inquisition or slavery, or any other abomination. if the modern day leadership would just say “this isn’t God’s way, BY was wrong, lets take DC 132 out of our scripture” then we can call it an old wound, and ugly blot on our history, and truly move on. but its still in our official doctrine, and as long as it is, it pains me to belong to the LDS church. i mean, if they can officially dis-avow Adam-God theory, and all sorts of other things why do this insist on leaving this in? i’m not sure i’m even making any sense, i get all worked up and just start rambling i think….. but i also wanted to say i was pleased with the tone of this conversation, just another reason why i’m glad to be part of this community!
GBSmith wrote:It’s hard to participate in a discussion on this subject without descending into a MormonMatters type debate. I guess for me the best thing is to say that that was then and now is now and let it go at that.
IIRC (and I am willing to stand corrected) Dallin Oaks and Russell M. Nelson are each sealed for eternity to more than one wife. Elder Nelson was originally sealed to his first wife, Dantzel White, who died in 2005; he married Wendy Watson a little more than one year later, and I believe he is sealed to both for “time and eternity.” Dallin Oaks was originally sealed to his first wife June, who died in 1998; in June of 2000 he married Kristen McCain, and is sealed to both. There may be other instances of this practice in recent times, but these are the two I happen to have information at hand for. It may be that their second marriages were only sealed for time, not eternity, but as I indicated I am willing to be corrected on that score.
On an unrelated note, I also find it intriguing that a man can be married to a woman for many decades and then when she dies, he gets remarried only a year or two later. I don’t think this is all that common outside of the church, afaik.
I’m not judging whether any of this is right or wrong.
Quote:On an unrelated note, I also find it intriguing that a man can be married to a woman for many decades and then when she dies, he gets remarried only a year or two later. I don’t think this is all that common outside of the church, afaik.
It happens all the time outside the Church – and it happens without her dying outside the Church through divorce more than it happens when she dies inside the Church.
Just a little perspective.
Old-Timer wrote:It happens all the time outside the Church – and it happens without her dying outside the Church through divorce more than it happens when she dies inside the Church.
I’m more interested in the “sealing for time
and eternity” to multiple wives today, when the first one has died. Quote:I’m more interested in the “sealing for time and eternity” to multiple wives today, when the first one has died.
Serious question: Why? (I’m not “challenging” with that question. I really do want to know why you are more interested in it.)
Fwiw, women also are sealed posthumously to all the men to whom they were married in mortality.
My own take: If a man really truly loves a wife, and she dies, then he really truly loves a second wife (and even if that same thing happens three or four times) . . . other than considering the possibility of the man being a mass murderer
😆 , why would we insist that he only be sealed to his first wife? Wy make him “choose” in this life? Why not allow him to be sealed to all of them and find out what happens in the eternities when we get there?Why not allow the same thing for a woman in the same situation? If she is sealed to her first husband, and if he dies three weeks later, and if she re-marries and has children and lives with another man for 60 years . . . why insist that she either remain sealed to her first husband or get a temple divorce and be sealed to her second husband? Why not alow her to be sealed to both of them and let it be worked out by God / after death?
If we take “sexual activity” out of the picture in the post-mortal existence, what’s the issue with multiple sealings – of a man to more than one woman or to a woman with more than one man? Since I believe in a “council of the gods” arrangement, I personally have no problem with “plural sealing”.
The temple sealing is not a real issue for me, as I just don’t think god limits himself to our standards i.e. requires a slip of paper from the temple stating that one has been sealed/baptized by the LDS church/priesthood — as an ultimate requirement for salvation. I guess if this is one’s belief – which certainly is taught in the LDS church, than I could see it being problematic. My understanding is that men were allowed to be sealed to all their wives from different marriages, but once a female is sealed to a man, they can no longer get sealed to another one. True or false? I ask the question, because my 33 year old widowed sister just went through the temple and got sealed to her deceased Baptist husband. MANY MANY of my TBM family members were UPSET (believe it or not) because now they claim she cannot be sealed to another man on this earth, and she wasted her chance, since her Baptist husband understood the LDS church and doctrine and wholly had the chance to accept it, and DID NOT, so he will not get another chance in the next life.
🙄 Which also mean my sister is toast because she choose to be sealed to him and won’t have another chance in this lifetime.🙄 My point —- or my question for clarification is…As of today, can a female be sealed to more than one husband?A woman can be sealed to all of her husbands posthumously. I wish it could happen while she is living, and there’s no reason that policy couldn’t change (since it’s just a policy), but right now it is done after she dies. It happens a lot – and is the “standard” practice on record. Your family’s attitude is common and unfortunate, cwald.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:I’m more interested in the “sealing for time and eternity” to multiple wives today, when the first one has died.
Serious question: Why? (I’m not “challenging” with that question. I really do want to know why you are more interested in it.)
If a spouse dies and the survivor gets remarried it’s a new marriage, in the secular world, no polygamy is involved. Sealing for “eternity” seems to imply (if I read it right) eternity, with all spouses who were ever in that marriage at some point being reunited on the other side. Some have suggested here that it’s more of a safety measure, and that they can all figure it out on the other side and decide who gets to remain a couple and who gets released to find some other relationship, but I don’t see this as an orthodox interpretation of sealing “for eternity.” As I see it, the obvious interpretation is that the deceased individuals can decide to remain in a polygamous union if they see fit, somewhere in the eternities, but this point has not been acknowledged on this thread (afaik.)
Quote:My own take: If a man really truly loves a wife, and she dies, then he really truly loves a second wife (and even if that same thing happens three or four times) . . . other than considering the possibility of the man being a mass murderer
😆 , why would we insist that he only be sealed to his first wife? Why make him “choose” in this life? Why not allow him to be sealed to all of them and find out what happens in the eternities when we get there?Sure, I don’t have a problem with any arrangement that anyone wants to enter into using their free agency. But as I wrote above, and I will rephrase now as a matter of uncertainty or ambiguity on my part, I have never interpreted the sealing for eternity ordinance as serving only as a “better safe than sorry, find out what happens on the other side” thing, but as implying actual sealing for eternity. Because, I guess, the word eternity is in there. It also makes you wonder about the first deceased spouse, sealed for eternity, and how that person might feel looking down and watching his/her spouse getting sealed for eternity to another spouse here just so that that person (the surviving spouse) can “find out what happens” later on.
Quote:As I see it, the obvious interpretation is that the deceased individuals can decide to remain in a polygamous union if they see fit, somewhere in the eternities, but this point has not been acknowledged on this thread (afaik.)
That is implied strongly, if not stated directly.
I think the acknowledgment in this thread is that most of us don’t claim to know what will happen after death when people are sealed to more than one person – but it happens all the time to both men and women. I personally can’t see any other way to do it if we really believe in agency and some concept of sealing.
So, short answer:
We have had multiple examples of differing sealing practices, so I have no idea how it all works in the afterlife – other than a deep, emotional and spiritual belief that my wife and I won’t be separated if we truly become one. About other implications, I’m just not sure – so I’m fine with “seal everyone to everyone to whom they want to be sealed, and let’s see what the actual arrangement is in the next phase of existence.”
Old-Timer wrote:so I’m fine with “seal everyone to everyone to whom they want to be sealed, and let’s see what the actual arrangement is in the next phase of existence.”
Joseph did sort of go that direction at times, with the dynastic sealings even of men to other men (not marriage, but more like father-son or priesthood chain of command relationship).
Seal ’em all, and let God sort ’em out. Arrrrgh *Pirate Face*
Ultimately, the whole concept speaks to the deep feelings we have of wanting to be with all the people we love, forever and ever. It is a form of happiness.
Brian Johnston wrote:Joseph did sort of go that direction at times, with the dynastic sealings even of men to other men (not marriage, but more like father-son or priesthood chain of command relationship).
Law of Adoption, I think they called it … haven’t read up on this in a while though so my mind is foggy on the details.
Quote:Ultimately, the whole concept speaks to the deep feelings we have of wanting to be with all the people we love, forever and ever. It is a form of happiness.
Well put!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.