Not another polygamy thread! (sigh)

[bytor2112]

I am not doubting that plural marriage happened. I am just trying to find some information regarding the current practices of sealings.

If plural marriages were sealed for time and eternity....then there will be plural marriages in the Celestial worlds.

My wife attended Time out for Women earlier this summer. One of the speakers was Wendy L. Watson.....now Wendy L. Nelson....Elder Nelson's new wife. According to my wife, some of the ladies did not know that plural marriages or sealings to more than one woman occured. This was clearly explained to them by a BYU Professor that was also speaking. He explained that since Elder Nelson's firt wife had passed that he was able to be sealed to his new wife.....

I am curious to know why you doubt or don't believe this is true. It is pretty logical ......if God allowed plural marriages and sealings then he obviously intends for them to continue in the eternal realms.

[Moksha]

However, men can still marry/be sealed to, two or more women at a time.

Elphaba

Is this dependent upon the preceding wife being dead, or can this be performed while the first wife is still living?

[bytor2112]

Is this dependent upon the preceding wife being dead, or can this be performed while the first wife is still living?

Pretty sure the preceding wife must be deceased........

[funkymonkey]

I am curious to know why you doubt or don't believe this is true. It is pretty logical ......if God allowed plural marriages and sealings then he obviously intends for them to continue in the eternal realms.

Please review my edited post.

While I don't think that I should need to explain why I don't feel comfortable with something that isn't relayed to be my a general authority... (to separate doctrine from tradition or "lore")

I understand that polygamy will exist in heaven but I don't think everyone will be required to live it. Just like through the history of the world, many people believed in the practice, few people actually lived it.

It doesn't seem "logical" to me because of the "abolishment of polygamy". I am uncomfortable with a man getting sealed to another woman after their wife is deceased because the first wife can't exactly give consent to spending their eternity in polygamy. I have no problem with people remarrying civilly...which I think is way more common.

I'm not really comfortable with this discussion because this is getting into way tiny particulars and to me it is speculative and not doctrine; and there are a lot of people that read these threads that could take this as doctrine or truth.

There is probably a reason that written information isn't found, and I have a feeling that the truth is individual and can't really be found by talking to someone on a public forum about it...probably is one of those things to contemplate privately, or at the temple.

[NateHowe]

Thanks, funkymonkey. It's not our job to speculate where God hasn't seen fit to reveal.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

I have read so many of these polygamy arguments and I find them absolutely maddening. Am I the only one around here who really doesn't care about polygamy--past, present, or future? According to the scriptures, polygamy was ordained of God in the past at various times and places. Ok, that's simple enough. I don't have a problem with that--logically, emotionally, or otherwise. If it was commanded it was obviously for a good reason. I may not know the mind of God but I know enough not to doubt it.

Polygamy is NOT currently ordained by God. That's simple enough, as well. So we don't practice it now. We don't know all the reasons for that and that's ok. We don't know the answers to a lot of things, but we keep on trucking along with the knowledge we do have. This isn't any different. If it WERE commanded right now we would practice it or we would leave the church, just like any other difficult commandment. Just like the Word of Wisdom or chastity or tithing, it would be easier for some and more difficult for others. Some would endure no matter what and some wouldn't. That's just the simple fact of it. Consecration will likely be just as trying.

In truth, it's been pointed out that polygamy IS practiced today if you consider the ability of men to be sealed to more than one wife, even if he can't be legally married to them at the same time. So we're saying, "Yeah, it's ok if I have to share him in the next life as long as I get him to myself here." I just don't understand the logic in that. Did I just fracture my jealous bone, or something? I say, "If the Lord commands it then buy the house next door so you don't have to drive across town all the time. (And cause I don't want any input into how to decorate this house!)"

We're told polygamy will be ordained of God again some time in the future. Ok, that's also pretty straight forward. So we will have to deal with it again whether we like it or not. So I say let's just get used to the idea of it and stop freaking out about it. The practice has been a condition of humanity throughout history and, apparently, has been a condition of eternal beings throughout eternity. From what I gather about the peace and joy to be had in eternity, I'm guessing we will all come to find that this principle isn't as bad as most of us seem to think it is.

I've actually had the concept of eternal polygamy, that is being sealed to more than one woman, explained quite well to me.......by a girl my age.

The conversation went something like this:

Me: I've always wondered why a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but a woman can't be sealed to more than one man.

Her: Alright, let me explain it to you.

Me: You mean you understand it?

Her: I think so, but again, this is just the gospel according to me, so I may be completely wrong on this note.

But lets say you and I got married....hypothetically of course.

Me: Of course.......

Her: And what is said by some church leaders become's true, that many more woman than men will be worthy to enter into the highest kingdom. And to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom you must sealed to an eternal mate. And as we near the gates we notice Sarah (made up name of a good friend), who by chance wasn't able to marry, and she can't get to the highest level.

Robert....I would definitely tell you to get sealed to her.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

One must also keep in mind that a lot of Joseph Smith's sealings to young woman were not a meant to be sealings in the marriage sense, but to create a dynastic link between himself and several of his most faithful, loyal families, in the same way I'm sealed to my mother, yet not married to her.

[Guest ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practiced plural marriage once upon a time.......as you know. Today a man may be sealed to more than one woman. For example if my wife predeceases me, I can be sealed to another in this life.

Those early Saints, members and Prophets and Apostles who practiced plural marriage and were sealed to these women and had children with them will be united with them as families in the eternal worlds. Else why would they have been sealed to them to begin with..........??

As for the JS thing being creepy.......no comment.

The Holy Spirit testifies of truth....... I can't deny what I have experienced.

Hello again bytor,

Thanks for sharing your perspective with me. :)

For what it's worth, the concept, practice or teaching ( not sure the appropriat word to use, sorry) of LDS sealing is a very interesting as well as a very appetizing one.:) ( In my Catholic humble opinion )

Thanks again for sharing :)

God bless,

Carl

[MarginOfError]

( In my Catholic humble opinion )

Since when do you have any humility in your Catholicism?

[Guest ceeboo]

One must also keep in mind that a lot of Joseph Smith's sealings to young woman were not a meant to be sealings in the marriage sense, but to create a dynastic link between himself and several of his most faithful, loyal families, in the same way I'm sealed to my mother, yet not married to her.

Hi YoungMormonRoyalist,

Forgive me I am not disputing this but I can not connect the dots here.????????????

Are you suggesting that JS did not have " marital relationships "with these young women and that his relationship was similar to you and your mom???

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

Since when do you have any humility in your Catholicism?

Hi MOE,

Good to see you participate in something other then " questions only " :)

I can not speak for all Catholics but I personaly recieved my Catholic humility last tuesday around 325 PM.

Peace,

Carl

[MarginOfError]

I can not speak for all Catholics but I personaly recieved my Catholic humility last tuesday around 325 PM.

Congratulations on having received such a prestigious honor!

[bytor2112]

Please review my edited post.

While I don't think that I should need to explain why I don't feel comfortable with something that isn't relayed to be my a general authority... (to separate doctrine from tradition or "lore")

I understand that polygamy will exist in heaven but I don't think everyone will be required to live it. Just like through the history of the world, many people believed in the practice, few people actually lived it.

It doesn't seem "logical" to me because of the "abolishment of polygamy". I am uncomfortable with a man getting sealed to another woman after their wife is deceased because the first wife can't exactly give consent to spending their eternity in polygamy. I have no problem with people remarrying civilly...which I think is way more common.

I'm not really comfortable with this discussion because this is getting into way tiny particulars and to me it is speculative and not doctrine; and there are a lot of people that read these threads that could take this as doctrine or truth.

There is probably a reason that written information isn't found, and I have a feeling that the truth is individual and can't really be found by talking to someone on a public forum about it...probably is one of those things to contemplate privately, or at the temple.

Funkeymonkey,

I wasn't trying to be condescending with my question......if I came off that way, please accept my apology.:) I know that this is a sensitive subject. My comments are my personal opinions based on my understanding of things and not intended to be viewed as an official church position or doctrine.

In the book, Doctrines of Salvation, volume II, written by President Joseph Fielding Smith, he briefly writes about this subject and mentions specifically that he will be with his wives that he has been sealed to. In Mormon Doctrine, written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, under plural marriage he writes, "Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the second coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." Check out Isaiah Chapter 4, it mentions this as well. Now these are not official church declarations, but they are the opinions and views of men who were sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Elder McConkie also writes that plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.

I know that Elder Oaks, Elder Perry and Elder Nelson have all remarried in the Temple. Elder Nelson remarried in 2006 and President Joseph Fielding Smith was married in the Temple at least three times. I do think it is probably more common to remarry for time only. That being said, plural marriages were only abandoned because of the law enacted by Congress banning plural marriage. President Woodruff said he saw in vision the calamities that would befall the church if the church did not discontinue the practice. My view is that it was a holy and sacred practice ordained by God and would probably still exist today but for the US laws forbidding it and in my opinion it will be practiced again in the eternal worlds.... perhaps not by everyone and probably depending on one's personal choices and preferences and doubtless with the permission of the first wife...again just my opinions.

Edited August 14, 2008 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Hello again bytor,

Thanks for sharing your perspective with me. :)

For what it's worth, the concept, practice or teaching ( not sure the appropriat word to use, sorry) of LDS sealing is a very interesting as well as a very appetizing one.:) ( In my Catholic humble opinion )

Thanks again for sharing :)

God bless,

Carl

Ceeboo,

Ordinances performed in Temples like sealings unite families together for eternity...if they remain worthy and keep the saced covenants that are made. It is such an awesome blessing. I can't imagine not being with my wife and children in eternity and not sure if I would want to be there without them.

[Traveler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vort

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Being sealed for eternity but not being married for mortal life. This happened from time to time and should not have happened.

Upon what do you base this judgment?

Understanding of covenants.

So you believe your understanding of covenants to be greater than Joseph Smith's? Interesting.

I disagree.

I believe my understanding of the marriage covenant is greater than someone that may think a marriage (sealing) to Joseph Smith Jr. that excludes and ignores Emma, will be eternally binding.

The Traveler

[Vort]

I believe my understanding of the marriage covenant is greater than someone that may think a marriage (sealing) to Joseph Smith Jr. that excludes and ignores Emma, will be eternally binding.

So you're specifically talking about those who had themselves sealed as spouses or children to Joseph Smith, etc.? In that case, I tend to agree with you. I think it's possible they knew something I don't know, but I suspect that the opposite is more likely -- that they were working from a mental model of what it means to be sealed to someone (as spouse or as parent/child) that was less complete than the mental model that we have today.

[mike_uk]

Maybe someone can advise what the heck is going on here.

How did Joseph marry Fanny Alger in April 1833 (the 19 year old nanny/housekeeper) when the sealing keys were not even restored yet? As we know those keys were supposedly restored by Elijah in 1836.

[rameumptom]

The keys to eternal marriage were officially restored in 1836. Joseph was commanded to enter into a plural marriage for time, not eternity, with Fanny Alger.

[HiJolly]

The keys to eternal marriage were officially restored in 1836. Joseph was commanded to enter into a plural marriage for time, not eternity, with Fanny Alger.

Last week I sat through an amazing presentation on Joseph Smith's DNA where the speaker had taken 48 (I think it was) samples from various descendants and done a lot of analysis.

He found that Fannie's son Orrison Smith was not Joseph's son. Fanny Alger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HiJolly

[mike_uk]

The keys to eternal marriage were officially restored in 1836. Joseph was commanded to enter into a plural marriage for time, not eternity, with Fanny Alger.

So he just married her civily then? What purpose if it wasnt for eternity? Im not bitching I just dont understand the significance and why he did it.

[funkymonkey]

I Just read this article...

"Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics)."

Just thinking in writing here...

Even though this specific story is interesting...it's still got a TON of holes and unknowns in it.

To make a personal conclusion from this particular very vague story would be like going to a scene of a car accident after the cars are towed away and all that is left is the broken glass on the street...and making a conclusion as to who's fault it was by looking at where the glass is currently lying.

Edited August 14, 2008 by funkymonkey
grammar

[funkymonkey]

Hi Mike.

The article I just read also said this... (not sure if this helps answer any questions)...

"There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case."

[candyprpl]

I've been reading these posts since the beginning with PC starting question. And now after all these pages of posts, my head hurts! I'm quite dazed and confused. My sisters joined the Church some 40 years before I did and the same arguments were present then. Whenever I told someone that my sisters were mormon I would get questions, "Are they the first wife?" etc. I found it nauseating to be trueful. Because I knew very little about the Church I would just respond that plural marriage is not practiced and besides that's not what the Church is about anyway.

The day I was baptized, it was a Sunday morning and the 1st counselor of the RS gave me a ride home (our Ward's services didn't start for another 2 hrs). I was getting ready to get out of the car when I asked her, what to say when someone talks about that part of the history. She basically told me what I already knew -- that it was practiced once but not now. I told her that I personally didn't have a problem with it -- and I still don't. I have to admit that sense joining this site and reading the different threads on this subject that it has got me wondering and has kind of disturbed me. My testimony of JS has always been the weakest part of my testimony. BUT, the bottom line for me and the answer I get when I pray about any of these disturbing thoughts is to trust our all-knowing Heavenly Father. God, who knows the beginning from the end, also knows all that is between. In this life we are being prepared to live with him again. We are being given experiences that will help us in the eternity part of our life. When I was little I could ask my Dad or Mom a question and they would explain it and I would ask why so many times that they would finally have to say, because I said so. I was too young to understand what my parents knew and understood. God, as my Father in Heaven definitely knows all and I am too young to know it all now. I trust in his omniscience. The sealings in Heaven will be perfect, because God is perfect. We will all be happy and joyful however it is. We won't have contentions about what is morally right or wrong because it will be moral. It may sound strange to me now, but again, I do not know what God knows. I do know that he is perfect and we are to strive toward that same perfection.

This statement was heartfelt and not out of anger at what has already been said -- please understand that.

[mike_uk]

I Just read this article...

"Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events.

Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics)."

Just thinking in writing here...

Even though this specific story is interesting...it's still got a TON of holes and unknowns in it.

To make a personal conclusion from this particular very vague story would be like going to a scene of a car accident after the cars are towed away and all that is left is the broken glass on the street...and making a conclusion as to who's fault it was by looking at where the glass is currently lying.

Im not making a song and dance about it. I just find what info we do have available very interesting.

Edited August 14, 2008 by mike_uk

[mike_uk]

Hi Mike.

The article I just read also said this... (not sure if this helps answer any questions)...

"There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case."

Interesting. Id like to know more of that evidence.