- Stephen Fleming on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Anna, it’s not too shocking that men and woman talk about this differently. dlc, thanks for the clarification. I was counting 8 paragraphs rather than going to .8. That is certainly an interesting chart which I think brings up some more questions. I’m curious how long that’s been in place (sorry if that is well known!).” Oct 29, 10:59
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “stephen, re “cougar….i dont see….”: it literally does Sealing of Deceased Persons Deceased Women. A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. The following table shows when these sealings may take place.” Oct 29, 10:53
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Kendall, funny but the private conversation that I have had, mostly with women, the feeling is very strongly that monogamy is the order of heaven and polygamy was a mistake almost exactly like the ban on blacks having the priesthood was a mistake. And while one was kind of because that was the common feeling among the population, the other is like it in that most men lust after more than just their first wife. So, one was common among the general population and the other was just common among the male population.” Oct 29, 10:49
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “RLD, I do think women (and other members) are aware of the unfairness of men being able to be “resealed” if their wife dies, but women are not, and thus I’m in favor of the change also. Cougar, thanks for the reference. It says, “If a husband and wife have been sealed and the husband dies, the woman may not be sealed to another man unless she receives a cancellation of the first sealing.” So I don’t see where it says, “once she dies, she’ll be sealed to every man to whom she was married anyway.” In terms of “something’s gotta give,” I do think we have a polygamy problem and I do think that issues with it do add to concerns and people leaving. Concerned Mormons do have other concerns, but I’d say that polygamy is up there. I’m not implying that women being allowed to have multiple sealings will “fix” everything, but my sense is that it would be an improvement. It does come across as awkward to read just a couple of paragraphs below the one you cited, “Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may be sealed to another woman if she is not already sealed to another man.” Yeah, not fair. Kendall, yes, good point. I’d say that the summary I gave is more along the lines of a more “official” position from church leaders. The kind of position we want to state when we’re aware that outsiders are listening. But yes, my sense is that to lots of members there is something more official about polygamy than we state in those more official statements. And no doubt a lot of women find that concerning.” Oct 29, 09:50
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Stephen, Regarding the standard narrative: Many conversations I’ve had with other church members about polygamy—always in private, and usually men—have led me to think that most Saints who reflect on the subject from a believing, supplicating position think that polygamy is the order of heaven, not the norm. It’s hard for mere mortals to accept. God commands it infrequently because it’s not natural to the fallen man, and we have to be cagey about it because it’s casting pearls before swine. (Which, to be fair, is a point about life itself: If we knew all that God knew, would we still do it?)” Oct 29, 09:05
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Stephen, to your question, no, I don’t think that allowing a living woman to be sealed to multiple men (i.e., a dead husband and a living husband) really solves anything from an LDS theological standpoint given that, once she dies, she’ll be sealed to every man to whom she was married anyway (see General Handbook para. 38.4.1.8), but it might make living men and women feel like they are on more equal footing which would be a good thing. Also, I’m on board with Dave W’s statement. The Church really isn’t willing to throw previous presidents of the Church under the bus completely and repudiate its polygamy teaching nor will it come out and say that polygamy is an eternal principle (President Oaks’ and President Nelson’s multiple sealings not withstanding) leaving it with this “muddy middle way.” And yet, this middle way seems to have worked tolerably well. People might complain about polygamy, and it might even be one of many reasons a person might leave the Church, but, at least in my experience, polygamy has rarely been the sole reason for someone’s departure. Do we reach a point in the Church where “something’s gotta give?” Maybe, but the end of polygamy itself provides a useful lesson about how the Church operates. Big muscle movements in the Church rarely happen unless outside (and sometimes inside) pressure reach a point that Church leaders feel they have no choice but to make the change (and even that requires a lot of politicking and even funerals amongst the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve).” Oct 29, 08:44
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: ““Would allowing women to be sealed to other husbands if previous ones die help alleviate many of our ongoing polygamy problems?” I think the fundamental objection many members have to polygamy is that they believe polygamous marriages are inherently less happy than monogamous marriages. That’s especially true for women: when they say “I don’t want to share my husband” that’s because they believe they’ll be more happy with a husband that’s 100% committed to them. That belief is based on what we’re taught about marriage in the Church, what we observe in the world around us, and on the historical record of polygamy. I don’t think very many of those women will be mollified by being told “You can have multiple husbands too!” Maybe if the prime concern were having someone to be with when their husband is with another wife. It has the potential to shift some men’s attitudes, as they consider the prospect of their wife (or wives) not being 100% committed to them. Maybe it’s all different with celestial people in a celestial world. Maybe. Can God make two people his top priority? Does the question imply a scarcity that does not exist in the Celestial Kingdom? It does have the advantage of allowing us preserve all the (happy) marriages we form in this life. That’s a good thing, but I’m not sure it’s the most important thing. I’m in favor of it as a policy change, but mostly following the principle of “seal them all, let God sort it out.”” Oct 29, 07:12
- on That time when President Oaks told you voting Democrat was okay: “Hey all, Do any of you know of the talk, (if it’s real and not AI), where President Dallin Oaks made comments about – not passing laws or voting for candidates or political parties to not pass laws about something that we find immoral or wrong? That the way is not to pass laws for all of society to have to abide by? I saw a video clip and It seems like maybe it was 10 to 20 years ago. He certainly wasn’t in his 90s like he is now. It struck me as strange, but it was just a short clip (reel) and I’d like to see the full context. Thank you for any suggestions you might have on the talk title and when given.” Oct 28, 23:24
- on Church Education Expansion Under Ernest Wilkinson: “These were major themes of the published journal, which is why it was the focus on this interview. We did one that covered broader topics with him last year, though.” Oct 28, 21:57
- on Latter-day Saint Apologetics Tier List: “Sterling, I’ll see your “Nephite foreign dynasty” theory and raise you a “The book of Alma is largely a sanitized retelling of a Mulekite popular religious and political movement in opposition to the unpopular Nephite foreign dynasty.”” Oct 28, 20:03
