Washington Post: Five myths about Mormonsim

[Hsaru]

The #1 thing with polygamy is that Joseph Smith's involvement needs to be taught at a younger age(or needs to be taught in general).

I had multiple lessons about polygamy as a youth and you hear Brigham Young's name dozens of times during the lesson, but Joseph Smith's name is never mentioned in the same breath as polygamy. The first time most people hear about it is from that kooky guy in Elder's Quorum with the long hair that everyone laughs about when he's not around, or on the internet or anti-mormon literature.

[Mormon Red Death]

If they were to add something how about putting some emphasis on the human element. Too often people tend to think that God gave a commandment and then the handbook to accompany that. Now we shouldn't excuse wrongdoing but we should point them out. The prophets are fallible because they are human.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You are right, I meant OT.

Also, you did give the dreaded correlated answer because you totally sidestepped my MILs question. You did it well, though, by acknowledging that you don't really know (saying it can be "tricky" in the event of a death) and then proceeding to expound on the scenario of temple divorce, which was never at issue in the question. You must work for CES.

My true answer to your MIL's question IS, in fact, "I don't know now, and can't possibly know until I understand that frame of reference (that of living in the eternities)".

Also, in this case I do not believe 'correlated' should be a pejorative. I believe my logic holds in this case. Please follow me for a minute.

Assumptions:
a. - the sealing ceremony contains blessings pertinent to man and woman as individuals, as well as to their union as a couple
b. - said blessings are both temporal and eternal in nature
c. - said blessings are sealed upon each individual through their individual obedience to the laws of the Gospel. (That is to say they are not solely reliant upon the faithfulness of the spouse; there is an individual responsibility to remain faithful as a prerequesite to receive the related blessings)
d. - we believe the basic church doctrine regarding the Eternal nature of man and families, Mormon beliefs of the afterlife with regard to the Plan of Salvation and Eternal progression, etc.

Options:
1. allow a man to be sealed to one AND ONLY ONE woman over the course of his life, unless he receives a temple divorce (even when the spouse is deceased)
2. (current) allow each man to be sealed to one living woman at a time, without regard to deceased spouses

Discussion:
#1 - On the surface, this option eliminates question of "kicking the ball down the road (until the afterlife)" as in Option 2. It makes everything neat and tidy, and removes the "polygamy in the temple and in the eternities" claims. However, what of the rights of the deceased spouse? If indeed Assumptions "a" and "b" are correct, then forcing the living man to divorce his deceased wife WILL in fact damage said spouse in the afterlife through no fault of her own. How could that possibly be fair?

With this option if a man is sealed to a woman who later dies, he must obtain a temple divorce as a prerequisite to being sealed to another woman. If he is unwilling to get his original sealing nullified, would it be considered 'fair' to deny the living, second spouse the blessings of the sealing ordinance? Should a temple-worthy woman simply refuse to date a widower, or else permanently forego her own eternal blessings?

This is the situation set up through such a system, and IMO it is untenable.

#2 - Weakness = it does not answer the "who will be Brother So-and-so's actual wife in heaven, his dead first wife or his living second wife?".
Strength = all couples who are worthy members can partake of the blessings of the temple sealing ceremony, without regard to previous life events.

The strength of #2 far outstrips its largely irrelevant weakness.

This pretty much sums it up. To me it comes down to an individual's access to the blessings of the sealing ordinance, which is the most important factor.
This is all I have time to write this morning.

[TripletDaddy]

Thanks for typing all that out. I follow your thinking but strongly disagree with one point....you refer to the benefit of allowing everyone to participate in the blessings of exaltation far outweighing Its "largely irrelevant" weakness.

Spoken like a man, definitely not a woman. My MIL doesn't even want to fathom the thought. My wife thinks it is disgusting and doesn't like talking about it. Women do not find it largely irrelevant. In fact, I would go as far as saying that it is one of if not THe most relevant issue to them. Put plainly, They are uncomfortable with the reality that their husband will be having sex with many women forever and ever. Not sure how you can glibly term that "largely irrelevant."

[NorthwestUteFan]

Two more quick examples:

#1 - a good friend was married and had 3 small kids. Around their 10th wedding anniversary they went on an anniversary trip to an island nation, where they were involved in an horrific motorcycle accident. A truck crossed over the line on a twisty mountain road, and his wife died instantly. He later was remarried and sealed in the temple. He has now been married to his second wife for ~20 years.

Which wife is his 'true' wife now that he has been married to wife #2 for nearly twice as long as to #1? Should he be forced to choose? Should he seek an annulment of his sealing to his first wife simply because...?

#2 - After my grandmother passed away 11 years ago, my grandfather remarried a woman who lost her husband in the late 1960s. (ironically she lived in the same ward in Atlanta and was in a Relief Society presidency with my grandmother back in the mid 1950s). Grandpa was married to Grandma for 52+ years and his current wife, who had been married for ~14 years when her husband passed away, remained a single widow until marrying Grandpa. The wife of course had no desire to seek a temple annulment from her long deceased husband, and Grandpa didn't care to press the issue because he felt he had no reason to interfere with the blessings of her deceased husband.

These are two entirely different scenarios of course, but all of the parties involved, whether living or deceased, maintain their eternal blessings.

[pellegrino]

Two more quick examples:

#1 - a good friend was married and had 3 small kids. Around their 10th wedding anniversary they went on an anniversary trip to an island nation, where they were involved in an horrific motorcycle accident. A truck crossed over the line on a twisty mountain road, and his wife died instantly. He later was remarried and sealed in the temple. He has now been married to his second wife for ~20 years.

Which wife is his 'true' wife now that he has been married to wife #2 for nearly twice as long as to #1? Should he be forced to choose? Should he seek an annulment of his sealing to his first wife simply because...?

#2 - After my grandmother passed away 11 years ago, my grandfather remarried a woman who lost her husband in the late 1960s. (ironically she lived in the same ward in Atlanta and was in a Relief Society presidency with my grandmother back in the mid 1950s). Grandpa was married to Grandma for 52+ years and his current wife, who had been married for ~14 years when her husband passed away, remained a single widow until marrying Grandpa. The wife of course had no desire to seek a temple annulment from her long deceased husband, and Grandpa didn't care to press the issue because he felt he had no reason to interfere with the blessings of her deceased husband.

These are two entirely different scenarios of course, but all of the parties involved, whether living or deceased, maintain their eternal blessings.

this is where the sealing ceremony needs to be taught not only as creating an eternal family, but completing and sealing up the Human family to God. That was how JS envisioned it. That's really the only logical outcome of the ordinance. But for that to work they have to allow women to be sealed to multiple men too.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Thanks for typing all that out. I follow your thinking but strongly disagree with one point....you refer to the benefit of allowing everyone to participate in the blessings of exaltation far outweighing Its "largely irrelevant" weakness.

Spoken like a man, definitely not a woman. My MIL doesn't even want to fathom the thought. My wife thinks it is disgusting and doesn't like talking about it. Women do not find it largely irrelevant. In fact, I would go as far as saying that it is one of if not THe most relevant issue to them. Put plainly, They are uncomfortable with the reality that their husband will be having sex with many women forever and ever. Not sure how you can glibly term that "largely irrelevant."

OK, 'irrelevant' is not a good word (at all) in this case. Perhaps 'rare' would be better, as I was thinking in terms of a church-wide policy. To the individuals directly involved, it is hugely relevant. To the vast majority of church members who are NOT in the same situation, it is somewhat minor.

You are correct that I was writing from the perspective of a man. Biologically I do not believe that we were designed to be monogamous, so it is easier for us to get past the 'ick' factor.

However, this brings up another point. Your MIL and your wife realize that your FIL DID in fact have sex with that woman when he was married to her (before her death)? Has your wife not come to terms with his own emotional attachment to her, that he would still have feeling for her if she somehow was made alive again? FWIW my dad and his siblings still have a hard time with the fact that Grandpa is remarried and is having 'relations' with a woman other than their mother, and they have been married for 11 years now.

My hope is that when viewed through the lens of a perfect knowledge and Eternal perspective, it will make more sense.

[Jackrabbit]

90% of those attending ex-Mormon conferences are introverted, per Bob McCue. If your kid is introverted, he/she stands a higher chance of going apostate. McCue hypothesizes that it's due to the fact that introverts are not as dependent upon community as extroverts, and hence leave more easily.

[Pelado]

INTJ here.

ESTJ. Guess I'm safe from apostasy.

[Green Lantern]

But for that to work they have to allow women to be sealed to multiple men too.

Doesn't the church have a technicality that allows that to happen from time to time? I was of the understanding that when performing temple ordinances for a deceased woman who was married to more than one man during her lifetime, the practice is to seal her posthumously to all of her husbands, thus creating a post-mortal case of polyandry.

Does anyone know if this is, in fact, the case?

[jay santos]

90% of those attending ex-Mormon conferences are introverted, per Bob McCue. If your kid is introverted, he/she stands a higher chance of going apostate. McCue hypothesizes that it's due to the fact that introverts are not as dependent upon community as extroverts, and hence leave more easily.

Be careful inferring personality correlations to anything internet related. I've seen this before in a couple forums. They do a Myers-Briggs poll and everyone's NT's. And people start saying isn't that interesting people interested in BYU sports, Star Wars movies, golf, furry animal fetishes, whatever you fill in the blank, are 80% INT's. Then someone pipes up and says 80% of everyone that spends significant on any internet forum is INT.

So if the study correlates to involvement in an internet forum, I would discuss the results.

[SeattleUte]

3D's approach won't work because an honest and frank discussion will devolve to recognizing that our ancestors were a bunch of creepy hillbilly outliers who did reprehensible things outside the light of civilization, but were tough as iron and very shrewd and clever in their own way. Maybe this is the lesson.

[Sullyute]

My SIL (finally) was able to get the 1st presidency to grant her temple divorce the week before she was to marry my brother, although her official divorce was finalized years earlier.

I know that we have a whole thread on this issue, but stories like this where people have to wait years and spell out every sin and travesity that their spouse ever did just so they can be sealed to someone they love is insane. I understand the sacred nature of the sealing and the desire to not diminish it, but honestly, doesn't the first presidency have something better to do with their time than read graphic tales of erotic trysts of marital infidelity? Not to be offensive but it borders on creepy.

Now back to your polygamy talk...

[Sullyute]

3D's approach won't work because an honest and frank discussion will devolve to recognizing that our ancestors were a bunch of creepy hillbilly outliers who did reprehensible things outside the light of civilization, but were tough as iron and very shrewd and clever in their own way. Maybe this is the lesson.

A guess a backhanded compliment is better than none at all....

[Joe Public]

Two more quick examples:

#1 - a good friend was married and had 3 small kids. Around their 10th wedding anniversary they went on an anniversary trip to an island nation, where they were involved in an horrific motorcycle accident. A truck crossed over the line on a twisty mountain road, and his wife died instantly. He later was remarried and sealed in the temple. He has now been married to his second wife for ~20 years.

Which wife is his 'true' wife now that he has been married to wife #2 for nearly twice as long as to #1? Should he be forced to choose? Should he seek an annulment of his sealing to his first wife simply because...?

#2 - After my grandmother passed away 11 years ago, my grandfather remarried a woman who lost her husband in the late 1960s. (ironically she lived in the same ward in Atlanta and was in a Relief Society presidency with my grandmother back in the mid 1950s). Grandpa was married to Grandma for 52+ years and his current wife, who had been married for ~14 years when her husband passed away, remained a single widow until marrying Grandpa. The wife of course had no desire to seek a temple annulment from her long deceased husband, and Grandpa didn't care to press the issue because he felt he had no reason to interfere with the blessings of her deceased husband.

These are two entirely different scenarios of course, but all of the parties involved, whether living or deceased, maintain their eternal blessings.

I have a friend who is a child of a scenario very simiar to your #1, except it's the mother who survived. When she and the second spouse were married, they could only be sealed for time only because the mother was already eternally sealed to the first husband. The children are all sealed to the first husband, but they love, were raised by, and know only the second husband.

Is your position that she should not be forced to choose, either? If not, on what do you base the differentiation?