Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

[ephedra]

On 3/9/2019 at 12:14 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Hi there!

I wanted to use this thread to just throw in questions that come to my mind or that I've already been thinking about before but didn't want to start a new topic. I'd really appreciate it if some of you are willing to check this thread once in a while to explain some things to me or just tell me your views! 

This way I don't interrupt or disturb ongoing discussions in other threads. A few people on here probably aren't too keen to explain everything to a nonbeliever or wouldn't appreciate it if I bombarded several threads with my comments. So I thought with this thread only those who are fine with dealing with my questions will read them and I don't bother anyone else. 

A good source to go to in the event you have questions especially in regard to church history is the Gospel Topics Essays. They typically are a bit difficult to locate, but I have provided a link for you. Among these essays you will find one which addresses Polygamy and the practice of it in the past. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

I have also included a link to Fairmormon which offers faithful explanations of the polygamy aspect. You will also find answers to the majority of questions about most topics there to include links to scriptures which support the opinions.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy#Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy

 

[Madam_Mim]

Thanks @ephedra ! I'll have a look at those.

2 hours ago, Vort said:

To be clear: I wasn't upset. On rereading what I wrote, it sounds a bit put out, but I didn't feel that way at all. I was just trying to say matter-of-factly (perhaps even bluntly) that these topics require a fair amount of nuance to really grasp. If people are looking for ten-word explanations that actually answer the questions well, they are unlikely to get them. This is especially true for people who come from outside LDS doctrine and culture, and thus don't have the foundation to understand many of these ideas right off the bat. No insult to you was intended.

I have to admit I was a little irritated at first, but I can understand that it might be frustrating to see someone misrepresenting/misunderstanding important parts of your religion. 
I'm aware that this is not the perfect concept to get a good understanding of the church's teachings and I'll never have a fully understanding of what you believe and why you believe it but this is something that interests me, so if I just learn a few new things or think about some different perspectives, that's good enough for me. 
 

[estradling75]

On 3/9/2019 at 12:14 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Why is section 132 still included?

Many others have give some reasons for this...  I'd like to give another...

It contains the Doctrine for Eternal Marriage (aka that marriages do not have to be until death do you part)  Eternal Marriages are still very much a thing in our faith.  Without Section 132 we do not have the doctrine to support such a belief.

Given that it is a full of instructions about marriages it should not a be a surprise that it also included  directions for Plural Marriage (aka Polygamy).

While the polygamist aspect of Eternal Marriage was stopped with the Manifesto (also found in the D&C here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng  the rest of it is still very much practiced.  Thus not only is it historical relevant it is currently relevant to our beliefs. 

 

 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

While the polygamist aspect of Eternal Marriage was stopped with the Manifesto (also found in the D&C here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng  the rest of it is still very much practiced.  Thus not only is it historical relevant it is currently relevant to our beliefs. 

Not entirely true. A close friend of mine lost his wife at a young age (late 30s). He remarried, and his current wife is just as much his eternal spouse as his first wife. In a literal (though not mortal) sense, he is plurally married. So Section 132 applies to him pretty much in toto. And my friend is not alone; this is not an uncommon situation. Our prophet and Church president is in this same situation, as is President Oaks, another member of the First Presidency. So two-thirds of the Church's leading quorum lives with the faith, hope, and assurance that Section 132 represents the mind and will of God, and that neither their beloved first spouses nor their beloved second spouses are forgotten or will be taken from them in the eternities.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Vort

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not entirely true. A close friend of mine lost his wife at a young age (late 30s). He remarried, and his current wife is just as much his eternal spouse as his first wife. In a literal (though not mortal) sense, he is plurally married. So Section 132 applies to him pretty much in toto. And my friend is not alone; this is not an uncommon situation. Our prophet and Church president is in this same situation, as is President Oaks, another member of the First Presidency. So two-thirds of the Church's leading quorum lives with the faith, hope, and assurance that Section 132 represents the mind and will of God, and that neither their beloved first spouses nor their beloved second spouses are forgotten or will be taken from them in the eternities.

That is true of course...  By polygamist aspect I was meaning "while all parties are still alive" polygamy.   Which is were most of the conflict has come from.

Any religion that thinks marriages can last beyond death and also allow remarriage of the still living spouse.. will from the Eternal perspective have to allow for some form of Poly marriage in Heaven.

[Madam_Mim]

I'm glad you mentioned this - that's really strange to me. If you don't believe in eternal marriage or no afterlife at all, remarriage seems reasonable because why should you spend the rest of your life alone if you long for a partner to spend it with. But considering that your marriage lasts for eternity, remarriage seems like cheating. And what are a few lonely years on earth in comparison to eternity? 

I would follow every bit of the Word of Wisdom and live the healthiest life possible just to make sure I'm going to outlive my spouse and avoid an involuntary plural marriage... Just the thought that his second wife suddenly shows up in heaven - awkward. (That's worse than two women wearing the same dress to an event. WAY worse!) 

But on a more serious note: 

Can anyone recommend a link to a text or speech that explains why women can't get sealed to more than one man? I've read some texts on lds.org on marriage and sealings but couldn't find anything helpful. 

 

[Maureen]

38 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

...Can anyone recommend a link to a text or speech that explains why women can't get sealed to more than one man? I've read some texts on lds.org on marriage and sealings but couldn't find anything helpful.

Women cannot be sealed to more than one husband while alive but proxy sealings can be done for deceased women and all husbands they were married to.

https://www.lds.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work/chapter-7-providing-temple-ordinances?lang=eng

M.

[Madam_Mim]

They can't be sealed while they're alive, but when they're dead it's ok? Is there an explanation for that somewhere (and why it's different for women)?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

28 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

They can't be sealed while they're alive, but when they're dead it's ok? Is there an explanation for that somewhere (and why it's different for women)?

 

The Church’s scripture and theology allows for the possibility that in the eternities, a man may be simultaneously sealed to more than one woman (that’s where D&C 132 comes in).  It does not, however, contemplate a scenario in which a woman remains eternally sealed to multiple men.  As a courtesy/partial concession to the feelings of the parties involved, the Church will allow a widowed woman who remarried, to be have a posthumous ritual “sealing” to all of her husbands.  But the theological assumption is that at in the eternities only one of those rituals will be effective—at some point in the resurrection, she’s going to have to choose.

[Guest Mores]

On 3/9/2019 at 1:14 AM, Madam_Mim said:

How serious does the "average" mormon take the D&C? Are there consequences (not from God after you die... I mean in this life) if you don't follow them or are they more like suggestions on how to live your life? 

You might as well ask why so many "Christians" live together before marriage... or never get married at all (opting to live together for life).  Yet they still consider themselves "good Christians".

Then there was that guy who murdered his wife and kids, went to prison, and now wants parole based on the fact that he had "found God".

Edited March 14, 2019 by Mores

[Jane_Doe]

41 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

They can't be sealed while they're alive, but when they're dead it's ok? Is there an explanation for that somewhere (and why it's different for women)?

There's a couple of important things to remember here:

- All persons must be worthy of this sealing: they must FULLY accept Christ, and become changed from this crummy sinner on earth to a COMPLETELY Christ-like exalted person.  All of those sins (like selfishness) that so bridle us in mortality and plague relationships are done away with.  

- Being sealed to somebody does NOT mean anyone is obligated to be with anyone in the eternities.  It is only an option, each person must accept in the eternities.  

- A living woman is here to express her preference as to which man she'd like to be sealed to.  A deceased woman is not, so both sealing are done and then she can choose.

[Madam_Mim]

 

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Church’s scripture and theology allows for the possibility that in the eternities, a man may be simultaneously sealed to more than one woman (that’s where D&C 132 comes in).  It does not, however, contemplate a scenario in which a woman remains eternally sealed to multiple men.  As a courtesy/partial concession to the feelings of the parties involved, the Church will allow a widowed woman who remarried, to be have a posthumous ritual “sealing” to all of her husbands.  But the theological assumption is that at in the eternities only one of those rituals will be effective—at some point in the resurrection, she’s going to have to choose.

That's... fascinating. I knew before that men can be sealed to more women in the eternities but I've never heard of those posthumous sealings for remarried widows. I'll have to read into this a bit more but I have to admit, at first I didn't know how to react to this in another way than "WHAT?!". It just seems so strange when you've never heard about that before. 

 

Another thing that's interesting to me: I know there are these 3 different kingdoms of glory. If a woman makes it to the celestial kingdom but she wants to be with her son, who left the church (or commited sins or whatever and isn't in the c.k.) - is there any chance for her to get to another kingdom to be with her son or is she forced to stay in the celestial kingdom forever? 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Another thing that's interesting to me: I know there are these 3 different kingdoms of glory. If a woman makes it to the celestial kingdom but she wants to be with her son, who left the church (or commited sins or whatever and isn't in the c.k.) - is there any chance for her to get to another kingdom to be with her son or is she forced to stay in the celestial kingdom forever? 

The Plan of Salvation hinges on Free Agency.  Force has no place in it.

 

2 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

 

That's... fascinating. I knew before that men can be sealed to more women in the eternities but I've never heard of those posthumous sealings for remarried widows. I'll have to read into this a bit more but I have to admit, at first I didn't know how to react to this in another way than "WHAT?!". It just seems so strange when you've never heard about that before. 

That's why there's a certain process to learning about Gospel truths.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.  Taking potshots at it like a dartboard only leads to confusion.  

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

 

Another thing that's interesting to me: I know there are these 3 different kingdoms of glory. If a woman makes it to the celestial kingdom but she wants to be with her son, who left the church (or commited sins or whatever and isn't in the c.k.) - is there any chance for her to get to another kingdom to be with her son or is she forced to stay in the celestial kingdom forever? 

I think the prevailing view in the Church perceives the “kingdoms of glory” as physical places; and the popular notion is that folks in higher kingdoms can “go visiting” those in lower, but not vice versa.  

My own view is perhaps less orthodox.  I see the “kingdoms of glory” as describing primarily what, not where, a resurrected person is.  It’s like the difference between a doctor versus a nurse versus a CNA—yeah, there are things a doctor can do and places she can go that distinguish her from the other two classes; but there’s no inherent barrier preventing members of all three groups from hanging out together whenever they want to.  Yes, theologically there are specific teachings about this earth eventually being cleansed and glorified and perfected, after which it will be a “home” for the Celestial; so those who do not attain the celestial kingdom will necessarily reside elsewhere.  But then again, I spend a good part of each day outside of my “residence”.  I don’t conceptualize people’s being “in” different kingdoms of glory, as necessitating their perpetual physical separation for all eternity.  

[Vort]

On 3/13/2019 at 9:04 AM, Madam_Mim said:

But considering that your marriage lasts for eternity, remarriage seems like cheating.

Read Section 132.

On 3/13/2019 at 9:04 AM, Madam_Mim said:

I would follow every bit of the Word of Wisdom and live the healthiest life possible just to make sure I'm going to outlive my spouse and avoid an involuntary plural marriage... Just the thought that his second wife suddenly shows up in heaven - awkward. (That's worse than two women wearing the same dress to an event. WAY worse!) 

I realize you're joking, but to respond seriously: This is a limited, mortal view of things. God does not view things in this way, nor will those who receive all that the Father has.

On 3/13/2019 at 9:04 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Can anyone recommend a link to a text or speech that explains why women can't get sealed to more than one man? I've read some texts on lds.org on marriage and sealings but couldn't find anything helpful. 

Read Section 132.

(For an outdated, irrelevant section of the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132 sure does come in useful...)

[unixknight]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 12:04 PM, Madam_Mim said:

I would follow every bit of the Word of Wisdom and live the healthiest life possible just to make sure I'm going to outlive my spouse and avoid an involuntary plural marriage... Just the thought that his second wife suddenly shows up in heaven - awkward. (That's worse than two women wearing the same dress to an event. WAY worse!) 

I love this.  This is exactly the sort of thing my wife would say!  😁

[Jane_Doe]

36 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

That's... fascinating. I knew before that men can be sealed to more women in the eternities but I've never heard of those posthumous sealings for remarried widows. I'll have to read into this a bit more but I have to admit, at first I didn't know how to react to this in another way than "WHAT?!". It just seems so strange when you've never heard about that before. 

Honestly, there's a LOT about the eternities that will just seem super strange to us nowadays.  Like can you imagine running and racing your great grandma, and loosing because she ran faster than you?  I can only picture my great grandma as a little old lady who couldn't leave her rocking chair.  I can't picture one of my sisters without her anger issues.  I can't picture one of my aunt actually wanting to be there and help anyone but herself.  Heck, I can't even picture the idea of being able to name all my first cousins, let alone second+ and hanging out with them and having them be,,,,well anything but the psychos I know them as today.   

Honestly... I can't even picture myself being fully Christ-like.  I can't picture myself not battling with pride.  Knowing perfectly when to stay and when to leave.  To be completely free of past mental trauma.... I just can't picture that.

36 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Another thing that's interesting to me: I know there are these 3 different kingdoms of glory. If a woman makes it to the celestial kingdom but she wants to be with her son, who left the church (or commited sins or whatever and isn't in the c.k.) - is there any chance for her to get to another kingdom to be with her son or is she forced to stay in the celestial kingdom forever? 

There's no force involved anywhere here.

I'll echo a previous poster, in saying that I don't see the different kingdoms being different *places* at all, but more different states of being.  Being that fully Christ-like person that is totally there for your family, and embodies God's goodness.  Versus being a person who doesn't fully accept Christ and retains some of that selfishness.  Yes, a person who embodies more of God's glory will be their to minister and care for those who do not (such is stated in D&C), there isn't that wall of physical separation.  But honestly I do see some level of emotional separation, just because the matter of where your heart is. 

[Madam_Mim]

Are you used to getting asked a lot of questions whenever you talk to someone who's not a member of the church?

 

On 3/14/2019 at 7:46 PM, Vort said:

Read Section 132.

I've read it again - this time in German, just to make sure I don't miss anything. I still couldn't find anything that explains why this is exclusive to men. 

But now that I've read it again, I noticed something else I don't understand: Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already married to members of the church. Why were those women allowed to do that? And is there any explanation given from Joseph Smith why that's justified and not against Section 132?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Madam_Mim

[Vort]

Just now, Madam_Mim said:

But now that I've read it again, I noticed something else I don't understand: Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already married to members of the church.

You noticed that reading Section 132? Amazing. Which part, exactly? Because I've read Section 132 numerous times over a period of almost 50 years, and I have never noticed that it says anything about Joseph Smith being sealed to already-married women.

[Guest Mores]

1 minute ago, Madam_Mim said:

Are you used to getting asked a lot of questions whenever you talk to someone who's not a member of the church?

Not really.

1 minute ago, Madam_Mim said:

I've read it again - this time in German, just to make sure I don't miss anything. I still couldn't find anything that explains why this is exclusive for men. 

But now that I've read it again, I noticed something else I don't understand: Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already married to members of the church. Why were those women allowed to do that? And is there any explanation given from Joseph Smith why that's justified and not against Section 132?

Do you not know how babies are made?

[Madam_Mim]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

You noticed that reading Section 132? Amazing. Which part, exactly? Because I've read Section 132 numerous times over a period of almost 50 years, and I have never noticed that it says anything about Joseph Smith being sealed to already-married women.

No, I knew about Joseph Smith being sealed to more women before, but I didn't notice that this doesn't match with Section 132. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

No, I knew about Joseph Smith being sealed to more women before, but I didn't notice that this doesn't match with Section 132. 

Which part do you think "doesn't match with Section 132"?

[Madam_Mim]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Which part do you think "doesn't match with Section 132"?

I guess these parts would be a problem?

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

 

 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

I guess these parts would be a problem?

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

That seems reasonable.

The problem here (I believe) is making a distinction between marriage and sealing. This distinction is not particularly well-made in the revelation or elsewhere, and in the modern Church is mostly irrelevant, but it seems clearly to exist.

My understanding is that Joseph Smith engaged in three types of "marriage" relationships:

• Traditional, non-eternally sealed marriages, for time only (i.e for this mortal life): This would include Joseph's original marriage to Emma (before they were sealed). It may also have included other marital relationships, such as with Fanny Alger.
• Eternally sealed marriages, both for time and for eternity: This would include Joseph's marriage to Emma after they were sealed, and probably other marriages, too, e.g. with Eliza Snow. As far as I know, Joseph contracted such marriages only with women who were unmarried, divorced, or separated from their husbands in a way that would have been considered effectively "divorced".
• Eternal sealings, for eternity but not for time (i.e. not for this mortal life): This would include any sealing Joseph participated in with a woman who was not also married to him for time. I believe that the "marriages" Joseph contracted with already-married women all fall into this category; Joseph and the woman to whom we was sealed did not live as man and wife, but she was to be Joseph's wife in the hereafter.

I am no historian, nor am I an expert in these matters. The above represents my own understanding of Joseph's marital and sealing relationships with various women. I know of no convincing evidence that Joseph ever lived in a marital (sexual) relationship with another man's wife, which seems to be the subtext of your question. Forgive me if I have misunderstood.

[NeuroTypical]

I figure the distinction is a bit more important than folks sometimes realize.  An individual can partake of three types sealings: sealed to parent, sealed to child, sealed to spouse.  I've read accounts that in the early years of the church when temples and sealings were becoming a thing, there were other types happening, that didn't last long.  Unrelated men getting sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, that sort of thing.  

So yeah, we often hear about Joseph's marriages, but we're not exactly sure if the word applies as we understand it.  Joseph was sealed.  Probably married to some?  Were the sealings/marriages consumated?  Maybe?  Lots of question marks there. 

DNA researcher Dr. Ugo Perego has done a lot of research trying to identify offspring of Joseph's polygamous sealings.  Sometimes DNA science can't tell us anything, but sometimes it can provide conclusive evidence one way or the other.  And Dr. Perego has been able to prove multiple children did NOT come from Joseph.  He has yet tested a viable candidate and found a biological relationship.  (Last time he was in the news was 2016, I think.)

Edited March 19, 2019 by NeuroTypical