liz3564 wrote:Yes, TD, I do think that there will be cases in the hereafter where women have two husbands in the case where the husband dies and she remarries. It is not stated in any type of doctrine, but I think that much of the doctrine we are left with today is based on culture, which is still, frankly more patriarchal.
Current LDS policy would suggest that a woman can only have one husband in the hereafter, whereas a man can could have more than one wife. This principle allows for a living man (either widowed or civilly divorced) previously sealed to a first wife to be sealed for time and eternity to a second wife; in contrast, a living woman (either widowed or civilly divorced) can only be sealed to one husband. One troubling result of this rule is that a woman who has been sealed to a first husband, but later remarries a second husband (to whom she is not allowed to be sealed, unless the first sealing is cancelled), will, with any chidren born to that second union, go to the first husband in the hereafter.
I know. I don't agree with this doctrine at all. My feeling is that there are incredible holes in our understanding of what type of relationships will actually exist in the next life.
An interesting side note, is that there is a "loop hole", if you will, that does exist as far as temple sealings are concerned. If a woman dies, and has been married more than once, she can be sealed by proxy to both husbands. Presumably, it is so she can "make a decision as to which husband she wants to be sealed to in the next life", but who are we to say?
Look at how the endowment and annointing rituals have evolved over the last ten years. More changes could definitely occur.
liz3564 wrote:An interesting side note, is that there is a "loop hole", if you will, that does exist as far as temple sealings are concerned. If a woman dies, and has been married more than once, she can be sealed by proxy to both husbands. Presumably, it is so she can "make a decision as to which husband she wants to be sealed to in the next life", but who are we to say?
True, but if the deceased woman was sealed to any of those husbands while she was alive, then all husbands must be dead before the deceased woman can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
liz3564 wrote:An interesting side note, is that there is a "loop hole", if you will, that does exist as far as temple sealings are concerned. If a woman dies, and has been married more than once, she can be sealed by proxy to both husbands. Presumably, it is so she can "make a decision as to which husband she wants to be sealed to in the next life", but who are we to say?
True, but if the deceased woman was sealed to any of those husbands while she was alive, then all husbands must be dead before the deceased woman can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.
True. All I'm saying is that it's a place to start, if you will. It wouldn't surprise me if some sort of "revelation" or "change" occurred where this policy was loosened, and women were allowed to be sealed to more than one spouse.
liz3564 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if some sort of "revelation" or "change" occurred where this policy was loosened, and women were allowed to be sealed to more than one spouse.
I don't expect to see that change, because it would undermine the very principle behind plural marriage. I think it's more likely we'll see a change in policy that does not allow a living man to be sealed to a second living wife under any circumstance.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
liz3564 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if some sort of "revelation" or "change" occurred where this policy was loosened, and women were allowed to be sealed to more than one spouse.
I don't expect to see that change, because it would undermine the very principle behind plural marriage. I think it's more likely we'll see a change in policy that does not allow a living man to be sealed to a second living wife under any circumstance.
In some ways, Mormonism is like the weather: if you don't like it, just wait a while, and it will change. And I think that's a good thing.
liz3564 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if some sort of "revelation" or "change" occurred where this policy was loosened, and women were allowed to be sealed to more than one spouse.
I don't expect to see that change, because it would undermine the very principle behind plural marriage. I think it's more likely we'll see a change in policy that does not allow a living man to be sealed to a second living wife under any circumstance.
But wouldn't that undermine the principle of plural marriage just as much?
liz3564 wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if some sort of "revelation" or "change" occurred where this policy was loosened, and women were allowed to be sealed to more than one spouse.
I don't expect to see that change, because it would undermine the very principle behind plural marriage. I think it's more likely we'll see a change in policy that does not allow a living man to be sealed to a second living wife under any circumstance.
In some ways, Mormonism is like the weather: if you don't like it, just wait a while, and it will change. And I think that's a good thing.
LOL! No fair, Runtu! You almost made me laugh out loud at work. ;)
See? You get the idea. There's hope for you as a Mormon yet! LOL
Runtu wrote:Not likely, as if they changed the things necessary for me to go back, it wouldn't a Mormon church at all anymore. ;-)
Do you think that they'll never change D&C 132? I often wonder if removing it and then reverting back to the original Book of Commandments declaration wouldn't be better.
Maybe that would be just too much to ask.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
Runtu wrote:Not likely, as if they changed the things necessary for me to go back, it wouldn't a Mormon church at all anymore. ;-)
Do you think that they'll never change D&C 132? I often wonder if removing it and then reverting back to the original Book of Commandments declaration wouldn't be better.
Maybe that would be just too much to ask.
What would the explanation be, though? In order for that to happen, the current prophet would have to admit that D&C 132 wasn't really revelation from God.
It's interesting to speculate on what the explanation would be if that happened. Was Joseph Smith really just uninspired in making those claims? Was section 132 simply made up by Brigham Young to further incorporate polygamy as some of the RLDS folks claim?