Washington Post: Five myths about Mormonsim

[Joe Public]

I will take a first cut at what a proposed correlated lesson plan on Polygamy might look like in the manual...

1. Provide names and dates of marriages, or at least confirm the numbers of spouses for prominent practitioners...ie, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.
2. Provide a greater understanding of how polygamy was practiced in the NT....who practiced it? under what circumstances? Lay a foundation for the restoration of the same principle thousands of years later.
3. Some cultural references to other groups that have practiced polygamy and how there are similarities/differences
4. Read through Sec 132 and the Manifesto
5. Discuss our modern day practice of polygamy via sealings of multiple wives to one man and we why believe this to be in harmony with both the Manifesto and Sec 132. This is a paradox that must be addressed as we clearly practice something that we simultaneously claim to not practice.
6. Explain to members the question that everyone has but nobody seems to answer plainly..."all you women out there that are married to a guy that has been sealed to someone else....YES, when you are in Heaven you are going to share your husband with another woman. Or more." If this is what we believe and this is what we practice in our temples, then clarify to people now. My own MIL is in this situation. Her husband is sealed to his deceased wife and to my MIL. When the topic of polygamy comes up, she nervously says that "it will all work out." But she flatly refuses to acknowledge that she will be in a polygamous situation. Clearly our members as a whole do not understand what the heck is going on yet they are agreeing to participate in these ordinances without understand the eternal impact, if any. This needs to be explained plainly and clearly. Since we are talking about correlated material, it would not be speculation since the Church would be responsible for putting the lesson together.

There are other points, I am sure, that would not require the Church to speculate....avoiding topics of conjecture such as "why did Joseph ask women to marry him when they were already married to someone else?" That, we don't know, so leave it out of the lesson. But, "to whom will I be married in the afterlife?"...well, that one we should be able to answer. And so we should answer it.

I assume this isn't one of the hand-outs:

[TheAzzuri]

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?

I was under the impression that there had been a recent change to this policy. Has anyone heard anything similar or is that just rumor?

[NorthwestUteFan]

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...

I fear I didn't sufficiently make my point. The way it was explained to my brother and his wife, the 1st presidency does not want to break the temple sealing until a 'replacement' sealing is near at hand. They want to minimize the amount of time a person must go without those blessings.

Not all divorces are caused by infidelity or sin, either, but that is subject for a different thread.

[happyone]

I fear I didn't sufficiently make my point. The way it was explained to my brother and his wife, the 1st presidency does not want to break the temple sealing until a 'replacement' sealing is near at hand. They want to minimize the amount of time a person must go without those blessings.
...

That is how it was explained to my wife and I. We got her cancelation the day before we got married.

[NorthwestUteFan]

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?

I was under the impression that there had been a recent change to this policy. Has anyone heard anything similar or is that just rumor?

I sincerely hope there is a change. This subject has to come up fairly often. If they are simply going to punt on the issue for men being sealed to a living spouse plus one or more deceased spouses because they don't want to break blessings for those already deceased, then why not do the same for women? Forcing a woman to get a cancellation from her deceased husband so she can get sealed to the second husband is to force her to relive a traumatic experience AND fear that she will cause harm to her previous husband by removing his own temple sealing blessings.

The way it would work now, the 1st presidency would have to cancel the sealing between her and her first husband, but also that between the deceased husband and all of his kids. Then the new husband would have to adopt the children in order to be sealed to them. This is not an easy place to be.

This is why I go back to the 'individual blessings' point of view regarding temple sealings.

That is how it was explained to my wife and I. We got her cancelation the day before we got married.

My bro had already purchased airline tickets for 30+ people, plus hotel and rental car reservations, tuxedos rented, etc, so he was on pins and needles until the cancellation was finalized the week before we left. In the end everything worked out.

[Sullyute]

I fear I didn't sufficiently make my point. The way it was explained to my brother and his wife, the 1st presidency does not want to break the temple sealing until a 'replacement' sealing is near at hand. They want to minimize the amount of time a person must go without those blessings.

There are several easy fixes for this:

1: Let men and women get sealed to more than one person and just let it get worked out in the next life.

2: The FP could approve the sealing cancellation right away, then when the couple comes to temple the sealer (who holds the sealing and unsealing keys) could perform the proper unsealing ordinance then immediately seal the new couple.

Either option would pratically or literally eliminate any "unsealed" time while releaving the newly love-struck couple from potential weeks, months, or years of anguished waiting.

As a side note, is there an actually ordiance that the FP performs to cancel a sealing or do they just stamp the paper and the sealing is gone?

[LA Ute]

There are several easy fixes for this:

1: Let men and women get sealed to more than one person and just let it get worked out in the next life.

2: The FP could approve the sealing cancellation right away, then when the couple comes to temple the sealer (who holds the sealing and unsealing keys) could perform the proper unsealing ordinance then immediately seal the new couple.

Either option would pratically or literally eliminate any "unsealed" time while releaving the newly love-struck couple from potential weeks, months, or years of anguished waiting.

As a side note, is there an actually ordiance that the FP performs to cancel a sealing or do they just stamp the paper and the sealing is gone?

In the one I watched unfold it was all paperwork.

[TripletDaddy]

I fear I didn't sufficiently make my point. The way it was explained to my brother and his wife, the 1st presidency does not want to break the temple sealing until a 'replacement' sealing is near at hand. They want to minimize the amount of time a person must go without those blessings.

Not all divorces are caused by infidelity or sin, either, but that is subject for a different thread.

You have referenced "blessings" several times in this thread, esp in reference to specific point in time. In other words, one minute you have these blessings, the next you don't. Could you please clarify? What blessings?

[Pheidippides]

I'll be honest: I don't think I would be married in the temple if I were to be married again (assuming I was a widower). I'd think about it carefully. I'm not the sort of guy who is likely to be getting married to an uber-ortho anyway.

[CardiacCoug]

You have referenced "blessings" several times in this thread, esp in reference to specific point in time. In other words, one minute you have these blessings, the next you don't. Could you please clarify? What blessings?

I think he's saying that Heavenly Father gives bonus points toward the Celestial Kingdom just for still being technically sealed to anybody, even someone from whom you were bitterly divorced.

These technicalities (like still being formally sealed to any random person) make a HUGE difference in eternal assignments to our perfect, omnipotent, and all-loving Father in Heaven. It's very important in God's eyes that we keep that sealing intact as long as possible.

[Northwestcoug]

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...

It gets creepier. The one person I know who went through this had to list all "serious" sins she had committed on her cancellation form. The wording stated even sins that had been resolved with a bishop still need to be listed. She was incredulous, but went through with it anyways. She felt she didn't have a choice.

[Paperback Writer]

I'll be honest: I don't think I would be married in the temple if I were to be married again (assuming I was a widower). I'd think about it carefully. I'm not the sort of guy who is likely to be getting married to an uber-ortho anyway.

I was thinking about that as well. Which made me think...if I was a widower and my kids had all reached adulthood, would I marry again within the LDS faith? I'm not so sure I would.

[Surfah]

I was thinking about that as well. Which made me think...if I was a widower and my kids had all reached adulthood, would I marry again within the LDS faith? I'm not so sure I would.

Who knows what would happen if I were ever placed in that predicament and God willing both me and Gidget live to be old and die in our sleep together. But I do joke with Gidget that I married for love, so the next time I am marrying for money.

[LA Ute]

My wife says it's fine with her if I remarry after her passing, as long as her portrait hangs above the marital bed.

[Sullyute]

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?

I just checked the CHOI and you are correct.

Deceased Women. A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life.

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.

I was under the impression that there had been a recent change to this policy. Has anyone heard anything similar or is that just rumor?

According to the CHOI a woman can only be sealed to one man during her lifetime. So in the situation stated above the kids will have to seal her to the second husband after her death.

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

I don't understand the discrimination between living and dead women, but that is how it stands.