- Jack on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “I agree with Nibley–that marriage is different in the afterlife than it is in mortality. It is certainly similar typologically–but different in ways that only exalted beings can experience.” Oct 29, 16:24
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Stephen, a quick Google search suggests that the policy of sealing a deceased woman to all of the men to whom she was married in life indicates the First Presidency issued a policy letter in December 1988 to that effect and that the Handbook was updated in 1989 to implement it and that there were further updates in 1991. I’ll caveat all of this by saying I haven’t been able to pull up the source documents themselves so I can’t verify those statements. If anyone else can get to them to verify or debunk the above, I’d be grateful.” Oct 29, 13:28
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “I’m feeling very famous today. I’ll try not to let it go to my head. I think what makes polygamy such an important topic for so many is how it touches our daily lives. I spend more time with my wife than any other person. My marriage is the single largest influence on my day-to-day life. The idea of fundamentally changing that would up-end my life more than just about anything else I can think of. Messing with our personal lives on that level, whether in this life or the next, is a *big thing*. Polygamy is a deeply personal practice that is hard to keep emotional distance from. Polygamy also has a lot of details available to us. Many of us have ancestors who were in plural marriages. We’ve read their journals. We’ve heard stories, both good and bad. We know the specifics. And then we have standard narratives that are so very vague. If polygamy was to be practiced “for a short time”, why 60(ish) years? (People were living in plural marriages well into the 1900s.) Why not one guy with two wives, check the box and move on? Why did some church leaders have dozens of wives? With huge age gaps? (The questions could go on and on and on . . . .)” Oct 29, 12:36
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “On the subject of John Taylor and Brigham Young, I think Jonathan Stapley has found some good evidence to show that at least Young went back and forth on whether polygamy was really necessary for exaltation or not in Holiness to the Lord. For example: February 12, 1870, Salt Lake City, Utah President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife, with many wives, and with no wife at all. June 18, 1870, Paris, Idaho President David P. Kimball asked a question with regard to the glory to be obtained by those having one or more wives President [Brigham] Young explained it by a parable of measures of various capacities and said that all were not equal in their capacities for glory but all would receive Celestial glory if they held out faithful to the end whether they had but one wife or many. June 10, 1871, Paris, Idaho President [Charles] Rich concluded by saying a man who had one wife sealed to him by the Priesthood was in the same covenant and entitled to the same promises and the same conditions as he who had more. Both are on a level concerning promises and satisfaction. All endowments and sealings are on condition that those who receive them continue in the Covenant. Any person depending on promises alone for his salvation will be greatly mistaken. July 15, 1871, Paris, Idaho President [Brigham] Young answered … a man can obtain as full a salvation with one wife as with more but it will not be so great. His work will be slow, but it would be better for us to enquire about the duties of today than about things we do not understand. These are, admittedly, not as clear or common as the public statements that it was required for exaltation, but they do show a lack of consistent conviction about the point.” Oct 29, 12:14
- 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
