I don’t want to share my husband in Heaven


Hello
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If so, I'd ask:  Is it that you don't want to share your husband at all?  Or is it that you don't like the idea of possibly sharing him with HER?

The answer is a little of both. I’m human, and selfishness to hold MY husband as mine only is natural. And I feel marriage is between one man and one woman as God designed it. But IF I had to share him I would want it to be with someone that also loves him as he should be loved. Unlike his former wife. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Hello said:

The answer is a little of both. I’m human, and selfishness to hold MY husband as mine only is natural. And I feel marriage is between one man and one woman as God designed it. But IF I had to share him I would want it to be with someone that also loves him as he should be loved. Unlike his former wife. 

I think it's clear to all of us that your husband is a very lucky man to have someone in his life who cares about him as much as you do! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hello said:

I’m human, and selfishness to hold MY husband as mine only is natural.

In many ways, I hope you always maintain this human flaw.  And I certainly hope your husband appreciates the wife who is so devoted to him. :) 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:29 AM, Hello said:

So I’m new to the church and plan to be sealed to my husband who is sealed to his ex wife. He is going to apply for a clearance. But it’s my understanding that unless she remarried and asked for a cancellation they will be sealed for eternity also. This bothers me. I understand that the doctrines were created for one marriage but that isn’t always the case. And we are certain his ex does not plan to ask for a cancelation.  Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you. 

 

I will tell you a story from my great grandfather’s journal.  My great grandfather was a strong prominent Latter-day Saint in his community (Brigham City, Utah).  He and my great grandmother were very much in love and very happy with their marriage and family.  It all changed suddenly when Brigham Young commanded him and his wife to accept another wife into their marriage and family.  My great grandfather was greatly disappointed but my great grandmother was furious and angry.   

In her anger she left immediately from home walking alone to Salt Lake City.  According to my great grandfather she encountered several offers to ride in a wagon but she bitterly turned them down – stewing in her anger saying, “no thank you”.  She arrived in Salt Lake City and went straight to the administration building on South Temple next to the “Lion House”.  There she stormed up the stairs to president Brigham Young’s office right by the secretary into Brigham’s office.  The story was that she could be heard screaming at Brigham throughout the entire administration building – then Brigham quietly went and closed his office door.    Here in essence the story ends.  No one has ever said a word about what happened after the office door closed.

My great grandmother returned home and picked out the next wife for my great grandfather.  My great grandmother never complained in all ways showed love to her sister wife – the only response she ever made was something along the line, “I did not understand or appreciate how important this is.”  The only other though I could add is that my great grandfather also stated that he believed that most plural marriages taking place in the church were excuses for adultery and it was his opinion that the church would come under condemnation.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

my great grandfather also stated that he believed that most plural marriages taking place in the church were excuses for adultery and it was his opinion that the church would come under condemnation

I really enjoyed your family story.  I do, however, take issue with this perspective your grandfather had.  My thought is that, even if plural marriages were entered into at times for the wrong reasons, it would not matter so long as the parties involved upheld the covenants applicable to said marriage.  In that case, I see no reason for condemnation of any kind.  Once two people are sealed for time and all eternity, they are in no way committing adultery.  Even if one of them initially had sinned by lusting and 'committing adultery in their heart' their sealing immediately changes the situation to no longer being adulterous affectation.  Likewise, a monogamous marriage could begin with two people lusting after one another and in no way reflect a sin of chastity once the marriage is performed.  Paul even spoke of this when he discussed that it is better for a missionary to get married than to lust and burn.  I think the same applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

I really enjoyed your family story.  I do, however, take issue with this perspective your grandfather had.  My thought is that, even if plural marriages were entered into at times for the wrong reasons, it would not matter so long as the parties involved upheld the covenants applicable to said marriage.  In that case, I see no reason for condemnation of any kind.  Once two people are sealed for time and all eternity, they are in no way committing adultery.  Even if one of them initially had sinned by lusting and 'committing adultery in their heart' their sealing immediately changes the situation to no longer being adulterous affectation.  Likewise, a monogamous marriage could begin with two people lusting after one another and in no way reflect a sin of chastity once the marriage is performed.  Paul even spoke of this when he discussed that it is better for a missionary to get married than to lust and burn.  I think the same applies.

Weren't most (or all) of these plural marriages initiated by the Church (as opposed to individuals) anyways, as was the case with @Traveler's grandfather?  If so, it would be very silly to equate this with adultery.  (No offense to your great grandfather, Traveller).

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, person0 said:

True, but He also might have to inform them that their choice is either to do it, or to forfeit their opportunity for eternal increase, or deny someone else said opportunity.  Unfortunately we don't really know what the actual end game determining factors are going to be.  We simply trust that He will make it right according to how it should be.  But our thoughts about how it should be are limited compared to His knowledge on the subject.

True. My focus was simply agency correlating with my first response to the OP :)

As for me personally agency and accountability (consequences - good or adverse) are intertwined, and when you mention agency (moral agency) accountability for me is always implied.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2018 at 4:00 PM, Hello said:

@person0 perhaps your right. But the thought of sharing my husband with anyone now or for eternity is heartbreaking.

Maybe the whole idea of thinking that an individual can be "shared" (even though it is your husband) is where the issue really stems from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Weren't most (or all) of these plural marriages initiated by the Church (as opposed to individuals) anyways, as was the case with @Traveler's grandfather?  If so, it would be very silly to equate this with adultery.  (No offense to your great grandfather, Traveller).

 

Not necessarily, another ancestor of mine left a wife and several children to serve a mission in Europe.   A few years later, he returned from his mission with another wife that his previous wife and children had no knowledge of.  He settled in Idaho with his new wife and never even went to visit his previous wife and children but remained active in the church?

There are other stories in my great grandfather’s journal.  What I found interesting is his prophetic reference to the Church coming under condemnation.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Not necessarily, another ancestor of mine left a wife and several children to serve a mission in Europe.   A few years later, he returned from his mission with another wife that his previous wife and children had no knowledge of.  He settled in Idaho with his new wife and never even went to visit his previous wife and children but remained active in the church?

There are other stories in my great grandfather’s journal.  What I found interesting is his prophetic reference to the Church coming under condemnation.

 

The Traveler

OK, that is kind of slimy.  Was your ancestor even married in the temple to this new wife, seeing how he came back with her from Europe?

(No offense to you for my critique of your ancestors - one of my ancestors was apparently Prince John, the bad guy on Robin Hood and a horrible leader in real life).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Traveler said:

He settled in Idaho with his new wife and never even went to visit his previous wife and children

That is difficult to believe if those are all the details, however, if true, it is terrible, and I would expect that individual to potentially be under condemnation of some sort, but not the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Suzie said:

Maybe the whole idea of thinking that an individual can be "shared" (even though it is your husband) is where the issue really stems from.

Let's explore this a bit.  I'm afraid I'll be initiating a threadjack.  But, hey, that's what I do.

On one level I agree with you.  I don't know if it is appropriate to think of humans as objects that can be divided up between others.  But let me relate an article I read a while back that talks about a very similar type of comment.

Quote

My daughter came to me and asked,"Mom, do I belong to you?"

I was puzzled by such a question out of the blue so I asked her what she meant.

"In class today, my teacher talked about our rights as people.  And she said that no one can belong to another person.  But if I don't belong to you, then where do I belong?"

Obviously she was talking about something like slavery which we certainly don't believe in.  But it made me wonder if the society today takes this idea of individuality too far and forgets that humans feel a need to belong.  And we do belong to families, friends, and other organizations of people who all belong to each other.

So, I turned to her and said,"Sweetie, you do belong to me.  And I belong to you."

--- Paraphrased because I have no idea where I read it, and it has been many years.

Yup, kinda sappy.  But it is true.  We do feel a need to belong to each other.  What else is marriage about?  Isn't "being one" really another way of saying "we belong together"?  The heart belongs to the body, as does the head, arms, legs, and so on.

Now this all sounds well and good when you're talking about an allegory to the body.  But for some reason, in practical application, belonging to one another ends up becoming "sharing time with others."  When I started having children, I had to divide my time between my wife and my kids.  Now that I have many kids who are all very well aware and awake, they want me to spend time with them.  But is difficult spending individual time with all of them.  I've got a lot of kids.  And, yes, they all get "a piece of me."  They do end up sharing at least my time.  And perhaps that is the biggest hurdle in plural marriage.  The man has to split his time between wives.  Some men had separate households for each wife so even the households had to share time with dad.  This is a very difficult thing.  So, I absolutely understand the practicality of such an arrangement being difficult. 

But if we have to share time with a person, isn't that sharing a person?  How is it different?  What would be the defining lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
46 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

OK, that is kind of slimy.  Was your ancestor even married in the temple to this new wife, seeing how he came back with her from Europe?

(No offense to you for my critique of your ancestors - one of my ancestors was apparently Prince John, the bad guy on Robin Hood and a horrible leader in real life).

I have a friend who is related to the first person hanged for committing murder in Massachusetts Bay Colony. What a claim to fame! 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this out after my mom joined the church in the late 1980s.

One of my ancestors was from a very devout Mormon family back in the 1800s.  She apostasized, married a man of questionable moral integrity outside the Church, and took off to Texas, where my family has been ever since.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/03/2018 at 2:32 AM, Hello said:

Perhaps it is hard to empathize if you’ve never been in my situation and it’s easy to say how we think would act in a situation. And yes maybe it is selfish. The idea of sealing is so very new to me. And sounds very permanent. Given free agency I have no doubt my husband wants me and only me for his eternal companion. The idea of sealing made it sound as if he didn’t have a choice. I have no doubt that God will make things right in Heaven and what he ordains will be. But I also believe He has given me the knowledge and the love for my husband to do all things possible here on earth to bring us closer together and closer to Him. And He knows my heart, my weakness and my strengths and my husband is all three.  So yes the idea of having him sealed to someone who doesn’t love him or appreciate him is hard for me to bare. I feel God has spoken in my heart to find out more about this process and His plan for myself and my husband. 

You are not selfish, its something about the church that I don't agree with.   A woman can't be sealed to two different men, but a man can be sealed to more than one women.  But polygamy is no longer a doctrine?  Seems like something that needs to be addressed to me, I don't think you should have to share your husband in heaven, no matter what the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

You are not selfish, its something about the church that I don't agree with.   A woman can't be sealed to two different men, but a man can be sealed to more than one women.  But polygamy is no longer a doctrine?  Seems like something that needs to be addressed to me, I don't think you should have to share your husband in heaven, no matter what the circumstances.

First off, polygamy is no longer a *practice*.  As a *doctrine* it remains very much “on the books”, from a Mormon standpoint.

Second off—which of Abraham’s marriages would you dissolve to force-fit him into an eternally-monogamous paradigm?  I mean, even assuming Hagar hasn’t gotten over that being-sent-off-into-the-desert thing and voluntarily withdraws; you’ve still got Sarah and Kerurah.  How many mothers in Israel would you banish to eternal solitude in order to make yourself feel better about the way heaven operates?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

which of Abraham’s marriages would you dissolve to force-fit him into an eternally-monogamous paradigm?  I mean, even assuming Hagar hasn’t gotten over that being-sent-off-into-the-desert thing and voluntarily withdraws; you’ve still got Sarah and Kerurah.  How many mothers in Israel would you banish to eternal solitude in order to make yourself feel better about the way heaven operates?

Good point.  I had often thought that one reason why men had more than one wife in heaven was that there would simply be more women who make it than men.  This was often believed because of so many more examples of evil men in the world than evil women.

But part of me is thinking that the new paradigm is where women are becoming more wicked than the men.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

First off, polygamy is no longer a *practice*.  As a *doctrine* it remains very much “on the books”, from a Mormon standpoint.

Second off—which of Abraham’s marriages would you dissolve to force-fit him into an eternally-monogamous paradigm?  I mean, even assuming Hagar hasn’t gotten over that being-sent-off-into-the-desert thing and voluntarily withdraws; you’ve still got Sarah and Kerurah.  How many mothers in Israel would you banish to eternal solitude in order to make yourself feel better about the way heaven operates?

If that's truely the way heaven operates then I don't want anything to do with it.

And we are not talking about ancient times we are talking about now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the revulsion to sharing a husband culture-based?

I ask because it is likely that the culture in heaven will be different, if not quite different, than what exists in our little corner on earth.

If it isn't culture-based, then what exactly is the basis of the revulsion?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

[1]. If that's truely the way heaven operates then I don't want anything to do with it.

[2]. And we are not talking about ancient times we are talking about now.

1). You prefer a heaven that dissolves ALL marriages over a heaven that dissolved merely *some* of them?

2).  In point of fact we aren’t talking about now; we are talking about a future as far removed from us as we are from Abraham.

And even granting your point arguendo, I wasn’t aware that people who lived in ancient times were somehow less human, less valuable to God, or any less subject to love or hate, joy or sorrow, harshness or tenderness, generosity or jealousy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1). You prefer a heaven that dissolves ALL marriages over a heaven that dissolved merely *some* of them?

2).  In point of fact we aren’t talking about now; we are talking about a future as far removed from us as we are from Abraham.

And even granting your point arguendo, I wasn’t aware that people who lived in ancient times were somehow less human, less valuable to God, or any less subject to love or hate, joy or sorrow, harshness or tenderness, generosity or jealousy. 

People living in ancient times are no less human than we are.  But they did also have slavery and public death penalties, women could be traded by their fathers in marriage for livestock.  The world is a very different place now with very different moral values so I don't really see this as a valid argument.

In 1890 God supposedly told the LDS church to stop practicing polygamy.  I wasn't aware that stop meant 'oh but in heaven its still cool' Stop means Stop

And doesn't this give the fundamentalist groups more credibility than the mainstream LDS?  They didn't stop this 'heavenly practice' because of political penalties.  

To be perfectly clear I don't have a problem with polygamy between 3 or more consenting adults.  I do however, have a problem with polygamy with penalties.  And thats what this is, a spiritual penalty.  The LDS church is saying you can't get to the highest level of heaven where God is unless you accept the fact that you may (as a woman) have to live polygamy in heaven.  Thats spiritual blackmail, women are going to agree to do something against their moral conscience to avoid a penalty.  That's not consent.

I think the LDS church is wrong on this one, polygamy is either ok or its not ok. Its also going to cost a lot of memberships too.  This is not something the missionaries tell you in your lessons, this is not something you generally learn before baptism, this is something that comes and bites you in the butt when its too late.  Not me, no way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Is the revulsion to sharing a husband culture-based?

I ask because it is likely that the culture in heaven will be different, if not quite different, than what exists in our little corner on earth.

If it isn't culture-based, then what exactly is the basis of the revulsion?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

Not culture based at all.  It goes to the deepest most spiritual beliefs of my heart and soul.  I have prayed long and hard on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share