Will polygamy be re-instituted after plagues of the last days wipe out a lot of the earth's population?

[pam]

2 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Well we are in the last days, but have been for a while.....

The answer is neither I nor my kids will live to see the second coming, or the institution of polygamy. I've been wrong before and I maybe on this one...

I've always felt that I probably wouldn't but that it would happen in my kids lifetime.  Just my thoughts.

[Guest]

I have 2 uncles that are sealed to multiple women. The first uncle was sealed, then his first wife died of cancer, and he remarried in the temple. He expects both wives in heaven. My other uncle was sealed in the temple, then divorced his wife civilly, but remained sealed to his first wife, remarried and got sealed in the temple to his 2nd wife too. Also, he was originally engaged to another girl but she died in an accident and with the families and church's permission, my uncle was sealed to his fiancé in the temple as the 3rd woman sealed to him.

Something that has to be mentioned too is that women are now able to be sealed to multiple men. If a woman is married to multiple men throughout her life, after she and the parties die she can be sealed to all the men she was married to. It looks like polyandry has it's place in the temple sealing too now.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

I have 2 uncles that are sealed to multiple women. The first uncle was sealed, then his first wife died of cancer, and he remarried in the temple. He expects both wives in heaven. My other uncle was sealed in the temple, then divorced his wife civilly, but remained sealed to his first wife, remarried and got sealed in the temple to his 2nd wife too. Also, he was originally engaged to another girl but she died in an accident and with the families and church's permission, my uncle was sealed to his fiancé in the temple as the 3rd woman sealed to him.

Something that has to be mentioned too is that women are now able to be sealed to multiple men. If a woman is married to multiple men throughout her life, after she and the parties die she can be sealed to all the men she was married to. It looks like polyandry has it's place in the temple sealing too now.

I have a friend who has been married and divorced a few times (he's a great guy, just had some bad luck with women) so I know what you mean. 

[zil]

18 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

Something that has to be mentioned too is that women are now able to be sealed to multiple men. If a woman is married to multiple men throughout her life, after she and the parties die she can be sealed to all the men she was married to.

It's always been understood / taught (among women at least) that this only meant that it would all be straightened out in the next life and she would only remain sealed to one of those men, not both - which is why she had to die first (and men don't) - it seems proxy ordinances are a bit more "conditional to confirmation / acceptance or relative parties later".  (Not that our own ordinances aren't subject to confirmation later, but you know what I mean, I hope.)

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Something that has to be mentioned too is that women are now able to be sealed to multiple men. If a woman is married to multiple men throughout her life, after she and the parties die she can be sealed to all the men she was married to. It looks like polyandry has it's place in the temple sealing too now.

Source please?

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/1/2016 at 3:51 PM, Eowyn said:

Does that mean your wives should get other husbands, too? In the name of fairness.

That is what the "legalize polyamory" movement's goal is, or at least, that's one of their goals. 

 

On 8/1/2016 at 3:20 PM, Eowyn said:

More children in less time.

I have 2 problems with this:

1) Time is supposed to be irrelevant in the Eternities.

2) I am not a breeding cow. My husband wants to be with me because he loves me. 

Time is irrelevant in the eternities, which mortality is arguably part of.  Progress is relevant.

I can't speak for others but I am a breeding cow. When that ceases to work, biotech will assist me.

[NeedleinA]

14 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Something that has to be mentioned too is that women are now able to be sealed to multiple men. If a woman is married to multiple men throughout her life, after she and the parties die she can be sealed to all the men she was married to. It looks like polyandry has it's place in the temple sealing too now.

@Carborendum - This comes from Handbook 1, a source I'm not going to direct quote here. 
"If a woman is married to multiple men throughout her life, after she and the parties die she can be sealed to all the men she was married to" - This is correct.
As far as your comment, "now able", this is misleading or ill-informed since this has been the policy for at least two decades now.

Zarahemla - I'm going to agree with Carb on this, you appear to be overly fixated/concerned/worried about plural marriage. You said you are 21 and unmarried. May I suggest enjoying married life for a little first and see if your concerns and anxiety about the plural marriage don't subside substantially. It is perfectly fine to ask questions, that is healthy, I just am picking up on an over zealous concern and a lot of regurgitated "in your face", cut and paste, shock statements from across the web that you are sharing. 

[Traveler]

There seems to be something that is not understood very well about covenants.  It is necessary to covenant with G-d to have "eternal life".  As I have read through what is being posted it would seem that covenants with G-d are not understood so well.  Part of my personal covenants is to do whatever I am asked to do.  I was directed to marry but I have not been directed to marry a second wife.  I find that living up to the directions I have received through my covenants requires my full attention and I see no reason to speculate about things I may someday or sometime be asked to do.  If this seems a little condescending then I am sorry for those so oriented but I believe that those concerned about things that might someday be; are only so because they are not aware of or invested as they should concerning their current circumstance.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

It would seem that duplicates occur whenever I try to post and there is a delay, error or other interruption. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Traveler

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

@Carborendum - This comes from Handbook 1, a source I'm not going to direct quote here. 
"If a woman is married to multiple men throughout her life, after she and the parties die she can be sealed to all the men she was married to" - This is correct.
As far as your comment, "now able", this is misleading or ill-informed since this has been the policy for at least two decades now.

I agree it is misleading. I also take exception to the "polyandry" aspect of it as well.  The sealing ordinances are done primarily for a woman who had mulitiple "for time only" marriages and was thus not sealed to any man.  In such a circumstance, the sealing is done for all the marriages to ensure that the physical ordinance work is completed. and Eternity will determine which one is valid.

This is not polyandry.

[NeedleinA]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Eternity will determine which one is valid.

This is not polyandry.

I agree with this too. 

[NeedleinA]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It would seem that duplicates occur whenever I try to post and there is a delay, error or other interruption. 

When I see this occurring, the "delay", I have noticed that if I hit refresh on my browser it will not post duplicate. I always copy the text of my post, just in case prior to refreshing. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I agree it is misleading. I also take exception to the "polyandry" aspect of it as well.  The sealing ordinances are done primarily for a woman who had mulitiple "for time only" marriages and was thus not sealed to any man.  In such a circumstance, the sealing is done for all the marriages to ensure that the physical ordinance work is completed. and Eternity will determine which one is valid.

This is not polyandry.

Are you saying the woman has to choose 1 of the husbands she was sealed to in the eternities? Where's your source that only one of her sealings is valid? Doesn't that lesson the importance of the sealing ceremony then if some of them are not valid?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I agree it is misleading. I also take exception to the "polyandry" aspect of it as well.  The sealing ordinances are done primarily for a woman who had mulitiple "for time only" marriages and was thus not sealed to any man.  In such a circumstance, the sealing is done for all the marriages to ensure that the physical ordinance work is completed. and Eternity will determine which one is valid.

This is not polyandry.

Are you saying the woman has to choose 1 of the husbands she was sealed to in the eternities? Where's your source that only one of her sealings is valid? Doesn't that lesson the importance of the sealing ceremony then if some of them are not valid?

[Just_A_Guy]

Zarahemla, two pages ago you presented D&C 132 as doctrinal support for the idea that neither Emma Smith nor any other woman of the church, could have multiple husbands.  Why are you now acting as though the absence of eternal polyandry is a new idea?

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Zarahemla, two pages ago you presented D&C 132 as doctrinal support for the idea that neither Emma Smith nor any other woman of the church, could have multiple husbands.  Why are you now acting as though the absence of eternal polyandry is a new idea?

I read new information I found on women being sealed to all their husbands after death. And aren't sealings a binding ordinance in heaven? I just want to know where it came from that they have to choose 1 husband out of all they were sealed to.

[Just_A_Guy]

22 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

And aren't sealings a binding ordinance in heaven?

The ordinances themselves are conditional on the fulfillment of the other provisions of the laws pertaining to those ordinances.

For example, let's look at proxy baptisms.  Does Adolf Hitler get to claim his exaltation, just because some over-zealous Mormons have had him baptized by proxy for umpteen times?  Clearly, no.  The fact that the ordinance work is done might make some of the living feel better, and it eliminates one hurdle to Hitler's exaltation--but there may be many, many more; and it could well be that Hitler will never get exaltation in spite of his temple work having been done.

Allowing posthumous polyandrous sealings makes us, the living, feel better about our ancestors; and it gives our deceased matriarchs the opportunity to have a sealing with the husband of their choice.  It does not guarantee that a woman will ultimately have more than one husband in the eternities; and as you pointed out--D&C 132 seems to indicate to the contrary.  If there is a divine decree against polyandry, the mere fact of a woman's having been sealed to multiple partners will not supersede that decree.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

And aren't sealings a binding ordinance in heaven?

 

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

Doesn't that lesson the importance of the sealing ceremony

Keep in mind that the ordinances we're discussing are essentially promises that if you do what is required, you will have the corresponding blessings in eternity.  They aren't 100% guaranteed under all conditions, no matter what you do.  If you live worthy, then the sealing is "confirmed" or "ratified" or whatever the proper term is.  Prior to that, it's an unfulfilled contract.  And, in case you've never notice, the church tends to err on the side of too many ordinances (e.g. "these two names might be the same person, but we're not entirely sure, so we'll do ordinances for both names just to be sure everyone gets their work done").

@Just_A_Guy beat me to it, but I'll just go ahead and "Submit Reply" anyway...

[LeSellers]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Does Adolf Hitler get to claim his exaltation, just because some over-zealous Mormons have had him baptized by proxy for umpteen times?  Clearly, no.  The fact that the ordinance work is done might make some of the living feel better, and it eliminates one hurdle to Hitler's exaltation--but there may be many, many more; and it could well be that Hitler will never get exaltation in spite of his temple work having been done.

His total depravity, or seeming depravity, being the most obvious one.

There will come a time in any man's life when what he has made of himself just very well might eliminate the possibility of repentance. Satan cannot repent, it's no longer part of his nature. I believe Hitler is in the same boat, and that he laid the keel and hoisted the mainsail himself.

Lehi

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

I read new information I found on women being sealed to all their husbands after death. And aren't sealings a binding ordinance in heaven? I just want to know where it came from that they have to choose 1 husband out of all they were sealed to.

So, you just barely read new information (that isn't all that new) and now you're an expert enough to declare that the common wisdom (and common practice) on a topic is false.  Yup, no inflated ego.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, you just barely read new information (that isn't all that new) and now you're an expert enough to declare that the common wisdom (and common practice) on a topic is false.  Yup, no inflated ego.

Do you disagree that women are sealed to multiple men or not? Thats my main point. Find someone else to be an online jerk to with your rudeness I've noticed to posters from you since I joined this board.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

Do you disagree that women are sealed to multiple men or not? Thats my main point.

Yes, I disagree.

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

Find someone else to be an online jerk to with your rudeness I've noticed to posters from you since I joined this board.

So, when you show an inflated ego by doing exaclty what you did, and all I did was call you on it, that is rude.  But to declare that you know what is "fair" ( or the doctrine behind a fairly old practice) better than God or the Prophet or the systems of the Church... is... what...doing God a favor?

If you carefully look at my posts, all I've done is point out how inconsistent and hypocritical you've been in your posts.  If you don't want to take a hard look at that, maybe you're just not being intellectually honest with yourself.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I disagree.

So, when you show an inflated ego by doing exaclty what you did, and all I did was call you on it, that is rude.  But to declare that you know what is "fair" ( or the doctrine behind a fairly old practice) better than God or the Prophet or the systems of the Church... is... what...doing God a favor?

If you carefully look at my posts, all I've done is point out how inconsistent and hypocritical you've been in your posts.  If you don't want to take a hard look at that, maybe you're just not being intellectually honest with yourself.

If you've paid attention to my posts you would have seen that I'm night and day different on the issue. I've said that. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I disagree.

 

You're dead wrong. Women after they die can be sealed in the temple to all the men they were married to in mortality. Do you deny it happens? It's in the church handbook.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

You're dead wrong. Women after they die can be sealed in the temple to all the men they were married to in mortality. Do you deny it happens? It's in the church handbook.

Like I said, whatever makes you sleep at night.  Oh, yeah, the anti-psychotics.  Whatever.