A rather sad situation occurred about a year ago that I wanted to discuss. I have changed the names of the individuals involved for the sake of anonymity.
Rachel had been married in the temple to a wonderful return missionary (whom I will call John) just before her 20th birthday. They loved each other very much and we were all deeply saddened when John passed away a few months later. He had been hit by a drunk driver while waiting at a bus stop. They had no children.
Two years later Rachel starting dating again and fell in love with another wonderful return missionary whom I will call Dave. After dating for a while Dave asked Rachel to marry him. Rachel’s Bishop was new and asked me to help with the situation. I decided that this would be a good training opportunity for the new Bishop and agreed to meet with the couple and the Bishop to go over some of the doctrines and eternal consequences in question.
After the normal pleasantries we turned to the manual of instructions (Book 1 for Stake Presidents and Bishops) and read from section 3.6.1 under the heading Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse's Death. Here it clearly states that a living woman may be sealed to only one man. It goes on to state; “A woman whose husband dies can remarry but can not be sealed for time and eternity to another.”
I wanted to make it clear to the couple that John, her first husband would be with her in the next life (and not Dave).
I could see that Dave was getting a little upset so I asked Rachel if we could meet with him alone for a few minutes. When Rachel left the room I shared section 3.6.2 of the manual which says that “if a woman who has been sealed to a former husband remarries, the children of her later marriage are born in the covenant of the first marriage”. I wanted Dave to understand that all their future children will in fact be sealed to John (and Rachel) who will have these children for eternity. Dave would basically be raising children for John the first husband and would enjoy no eternal increase of his own.
Dave asked if he then would remain separate and single in the eternities which is an excellent question and one that I do not have an answer to. We continued reading however in section 3.6.2 where it clarifies that “Members who have concerns about the eternal nature of such relationships can find peace in the knowledge that Heavenly Father is loving and just. He will ensure that eternal family relationships will be fair and right for all who keep their covenants.”
Dave asked me what I thought he should do. Should I marry her, he asked. I knew Dave to be a very capable and intelligent young man with lots of leadership potential in the church.
I explained to him that it is always useful to see what the top leaders of the church do in these situations. I always look to them as an example of what I should do. In many cases an apostle after the death of his wife will remarry. One of the main purposes of the marriage is to increase the apostles’ eternal family and his ability for eternal increase in the next life. This can only be done by marrying a sister who has not previously been sealed/married. I gave him two examples from our current living apostles.
Dallin H Oak’s wife June died in 1998. He then married Kristen Meredith McMain in the year 2000 who had never been previously married. This way Elder Oaks will have two wives and more potential for bearing spirit children in the next life.
We also have the example of Russel M Nelson whose wife Dantzel died unexpectedly in 2005. On April 6, 2006 Elder Nelson married Wendy L. Watson who again had never been married.
I counseled Dave to seriously weigh his options before making a final decision, but that I would not counsel him one way or another. After many weeks of prayer and fasting he decided to not go ahead with the marriage and he broke off the engagement. Less than a month later he met someone and ended up marrying her instead. I understand he and his new bride are doing very well and are expecting their first child.
75 comments:
It's wonderful that you could lay out the teachings of the Lord through the scriptures. Sitting down and reading the CHI together is a great way to feel the spirit and search revelation on matters of importance in our lives. The Lord has prepared the CHI for us in these latter-days. It makes it so much more clear that way than going back to reading the old scriptures like the Book of Mormon or the Bible.
Thank you for being so wise and prepared to help people President Paternoster.
I'm actually surprised that the Church allows us to marry women who have been sealed to another man. It seems dangerously close to adultery. I mean really, a secular (non-temple) marriage doesn't count for anything because it isn't done with authority.
Can you still renew your temple recommend if you are married to someone outside the temple? I heard you can't.
Dear Pres (if that's who you are),
Not cool...not funny. You are a fraud and a liar. I hope your blog dies in the obscurity it so much deserves.
This is so incredibly fucked up. You tear apart people's lives and happiness with your fairy tales and fake authority. You should be ashamed. I am completely disgusted by you and everything you stand for.
It is unfortunate that you didn't take another route with your counsel and direct "Dave" to the example of our dear prophet Joseph Smith. Many times he was sealed to women who were already legally married to other men but not (as DC 132 indicates) recognized in the eyes of the lord.
Many of these men were faithful members of the church and may have even known about the sealing yet were faithful that everything would work out in the end. These women continued to raise children unto Joseph Smith with their first husbands. In fact Brigham Young and many other leaders of the church, after the Joseph's martyrdom, continued to raise children with wives that had been sealed to him. This was seen as an honour not as an act of adultery.
I am truly disappointed that you chose to give counsel of discouragement instead of hope. But then again maybe that wouldn't have fit your need to control others to quite the same level of satisfaction.
I am calling total BS on this guy! Stake Pres- please post the name and location of your "stake." I am betting you will not be able to provide it.
Secondly, if God forbid you are really Stake President, you are completely out of line with your blog and postings. I have been in a Stake Presidency (not President) for a couple of years now and am certain that your behavior is out of line.
Again, please post your Stake location.
I am surprised that you are not aware of the web-site familysearch.org. I have never heard the accusation of anti-mormon literature referred to that site before. Perhaps you are just unaware of the wealth of history our church holds. The sealings JS performed were at risk of being slandered by the public and JS, the Lords annointed, did what he felt was necessary for the good of the church. Sometimes God's law is in conflict with the law of the land but God's law must always prevail. If you had to choose who to follow, dear President, would it be God or the government of man?
The two examples you gave of apostles marrying single women were of woman past the child-bearing years. The purpose of life is to come to earth and raise a righteous generation unto the Lord. This young women you met with was in the prime of her child-bearing years and you gave no advice besides one of discouragement to her. You didn't even think to council her to look for other young men in similar situations as herself. I seriously hope that your lack of interest in the importance of building up the kingdom of heaven has not affected her to the point that she never remarries while she is still able to bring spirit children into a home where the gospel is present. God help you on judgement day if you did.
Anonymous,
Our dear Stake President is far too humble to say this, but if you are in fact just a counselor in a Stake Presidency, then President Pasternoster has a bigger calling and closer to being a General Authority then you are, so I think it might be out of line for you to make demands on him--being a higher calling holder. President Pasternoster would never reveal confidences in any way and saying what Stake he represents might do that. Thank you President once again for your discretion in not answering.
as to both you and Angela, have you even heard of Edgar Alan "POE." He once wanted to be a "LAW"yer. To those that have ears and eyes and google--google the capped words above.
And I also noticed in our correlated and officially approved manual on Brigham Young there was a chapter on Eternal Marriage and it only mentions his one wife. I think we must defer to correlated manuals and not some rumors of polygamy. If polygamy really occurred it would have been mentioned in our manuals.
https://www.familysearch.org/s/treeDetails/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftree.familysearch.org%3A8080%2Fwww-af-webservice%2Fperson%2F7762167&hash=HloWXpZgU9zB10k5M56iYku8TUc%253D
NAME YOUR STAKE, you fucking liar. And DON'T CALL ME BROTHER.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/
Anonymous,
I am assuming you are the same “anonymous” from above who is a counselor in the Stake Presidency? I am shocked to see you use such language. Very, very shocked!
I think at one time or another we have all had the wish of Alma
“"O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth”
But surely profanity and ALL CAPS are not the way.
I followed a comment you left on MMB over here, and I have to say that I am very surprised with the way you counseled this man.
My Grandmother-- the Mother of a current General Authority-- was married to two men...After her first husband died leaving her with 4 children, one being 2 weeks old. When my uncle was called to be a GA, the Prophet talked with my Grandmother and Grandfather and praised them... Not accused them of Adultery as you suggested in this post. The Prophet stated that it would be a joyous reunion in heaven for this family... Not an uncomfortable one.
They both had current temple recommends and were faithful, temple attending members (contrary to what you stated in your comment section). Further, she was sealed to BOTH of these men.
I am sure you are a good man, but the content of this blog is bordering on inappropriate.
Dear Stake Pres.,
This is great that you are sharing some of these tough decisions. I'm glad I'm not in your shoes.
I think that in some cases, when called upon by the spirit, that it might help some people who have an issue with this, to note that Joseph Smith married several women who were married to other men at the time.
People who object to polygamy, usually do so because it seems so unfair to women. Why can men have more than one wife, but women can only have one? It seems sexist. But Joseph Smith's marrying of married women demonstrates that perhaps he believed that in the eternities, women would also marry more than one man.
This understanding somewhat takes the sting out of polygamy, and can help people who are struggling with the doctrine understand that Joseph Smith practices polygamy in a much different way than Brigham Young and later polygamists. He practiced it in a way that was more fair and equitable: men with more than one wife, women with more than one husband.
I know it's tempting to dismiss this history as simply some kind of anti-Mormon lie, but the evidence is simply too overwhelming. These marriages have been thoroughly documented and are in the temple records of the church, and have been noted by many faithful LDS historians in books about the prophet, including Patriarch Richard Bushman's inspiring book Rough Stone Rolling.
Instead of ignoring Joseph Smith's marriages to married women, I think we should ask them what they might teach us about Joseph's understanding of plural marriage in the next life.
This could be very helpful to men such the one you were working with, as well as many others.
When I have mentioned it to people who are bothered by polygamy, it helps them respect Joseph Smith more, and realize that the way he practiced polygamy was not sexist, in that women also had more than one husband, so it was more fair. Exactly what the handbook says: "Heavenly Father is loving and just."
Of course, we don't really know why Joseph married married women, and it raises a lot of concerns among members who discover it, so I understand why the church would not want to publish it in the current manuals. But in selective settings, when you feel inspired to bring it up, I think it might be helpful for some people who are struggling with the doctrine of polygamy to know about.
OK, I'm an idiot. But now that I know your game, I still don't want to play it. I don't know if you love or hate the LDS church, but mocking orthodox Mormons does nothing but reinforce hurtful stereotypes that I try to address in serious and thoughtful ways, because I respect and love these people, as small-minded as they may sometimes be.
If you really care about these issues at all, mockery and shameless satire are not in any way productive or helpful. They simply provide a playground for you and your fellow LDS intellectuals to snicker self-righteously at simple-minded believers.
I stand by what I said in my last comment. I believe that the truth about Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages can be a faith-promoting truth in some cases, whereas you use it as a tool to tear down the faith of simple-minded believers who have no means of dealing with an issue that is simply overwhelming for them.
I believe it is possible for a simple-minded Stake President to embrace facts and use them as additional tools in his ministry. A member at that level should theoretically be able to handle such a truth, and I love them and trust them enough to try to help them.
@diogenes, you didn't actually think I was being serious.
President Paternoster is raising some issues that are very real in Mormonism. His purposefully sexist way of posting was just too tempting to contend with.
@Nate, you seem to be a genuinely sincere person but you need to do some more research into polyandry because if you think it was about equality then you are sorely mistaken.
Just to muddy the waters a bit..
A LIVING woman cannot be sealed to more than one man.
However, a DEAD woman can be sealed to all of her husbands, so long as all of them are dead.
(See 2010 Handbook of Instructions #1 section 3.6.1, under the sub-heading of "Sealing of Deceased Members").
I have to break character and say: the funniest part of this very funny blog are all the TBM commenters who, by failing to get it, illustrate how close to reality he is, and thus unwittingly making the Stake Pres.' point. It's genius.
Probative, oh how wrong you are.
Okay, I gotta admit you had me for a while.
Clever (although I thought of doing something like this once).
Love the doofus profile photo! LOL!
I’ll be following your blog -- too good to pass up for now.
More *real* stake presidents should follow this blog.
Shame on you all for posting such filthy language. I can't even feel the spirit now for the rest of the day. I will have to read the scriptures for hours just to get it back, and I don't have time. I have to leave work early to get dinner made, do my Home Teaching and everything else before I setup for the Pack meeting tonight.
Filthy language is second only to murder. Now you have made Pres. Paternoster read that too, and he needs the spirit to do his calling.
Is there any reason you didn't tell the young man in your story that in fact he could be sealed to the widow -- after she and he died? The handbook clearly says we can seal a deceased woman to all the husbands she's had in mortality. Don't know if he would have opted to go through with the marriage or not, but at least it would have been accurate information needed to make an inspired decision. And yes, there are plenty of examples of living women being sealed to more than one husband, well into the 70's and 80's. The practice might have stopped with the 1998 handbook.
Thanks anonymous. This option was discussed but the young man did not think it would work out in the next life that he would end up with her. Based on this and his own soul searching he decided to not proceed.
If we could only find Paternostro in the church directory of leaders your website would be complete!
So basically you told Dave not to marry the wh@re. Does anyone else see how messed up this is? I can't believe their lives were torn apart...
WHY WHY WHY do men have the right to be sealed to more than one women
for eternity? I have been a Mormon
since I was 11 years old. I did nt find out about this till one of my best friends passed away at 46.
Her husband who was also my good friend married 6mos to the day after she passed away. I am horrified that my husband could be seales to another women if I passed! I have not been back to church since this happened. Its just a man thing! Joseph Smith &
Brigham Young just wanted to be with as many wome has they could!
I MARRIED A WOMEN THAT IS A MORMAN JUST SIX MONTHS & ABOUT 28 DAYS A GO. AND WE ARE ALL READY SEPERATED. ECAUSE SHE's SHETRYING TO PULL THI SAME SECAP OVER ON ME. I AM NOT A MORMAN & NEVER WILL BE. SHE HAS BROUGHT HER YOUNG MEN TO OUR HOME TWICE TO TRY TO CONVERT ME, AND I ASK HER IF SHE WAS FOREVER BOUNDED TO HER LATE HUSBAND & SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS. AND NOW SHE IS TRYING GOING TO COVERT ME TO THERE DOCTRINE SO THAT WE CAN BE REMARRIED IN HER WARD IT'S NOT CALL A CHURCH. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT SINCE HER HIGH PRIST HUSBAND DIED. SHE HAS BEEN GOING BACK TO HER THE CHURCH THAT SHE WAS RAISED IN AND SHE HOLDS A POISTION AT THE LUTHERN CHURCH SHE ATTENS RIGHT NOW. But wants to return to the ward were she and her late husband were going for about ten years. WELL GUESS WHAT I AM DIVEROCING THE CRAZIE WOMAN. IF SHE MY WIFE NOW AND IF I WOULD BE REMARRIED TO HER IN THE WARD THAT SHE IS BELONGS TO ALONG WITH THE LUTHERN CHURCH WERE WE WE'RE MARRIED IN. SHE BELIVEVES THAT SHE WILL STILL BE MARRIED TO HER LATE HUSBAND AND ME ALSO NOW AND IN DEATH AND IN HEAVEN AND THAT SHE'S GOING TO BE A QUEEN IN HEAVEN AND HER EMMINIES WILL BE HER SERVANTS. AND I FOUND OUT AFTER I MARRIED HER THAT SHE'S BEEN MARRIED FOUR TIMES IN HER LIFE BEFORE ME. AND SHE HAS MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO ME AND A MARRIGE COUNSELOR THAT WHEN I'M GONE THERE WILL BE A NUMBER 6 OR 7 OR 8. THIS WOMAN HAS JUST BEEN LOOKING FOR A SUGAR DADDY ALL ALONG AND I HAVE DO SOME BACK GROUND WORK ON HER AND HAVE BEEN NUST ABOUT KNOCK OFF MY FEET WITH THE INFO. THAT I HAVE GATHER ABOUT HER. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE HER THE CHANCE TO GET NUMBER SEVEN OR WHAT EVER. JUST TAKE MY ADVISE PEOPLE; IF YOUR GOING TO MARRY SOME ONE MAKE DAMM SURE THAT YOU KNOW THEIR FAITH THAT THEY BELIEVE IN ! SO I HAVE FILE FOR THE DIVORCE AND GETTING AWAY FROM THE WOMAN AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE MORMAN FAITH IS A CULT. I AM THANKFUL THAT I'VE FOUND THIS OUT NOW THAN LATER ON IN THE MARRIAGE . BUT IT HAS MOST KILLED MY FAITH IN WOMEN ANYMORE. BECAUSE I AM IN LOVE WITH THIS WOMAN BUT NOT TO AN CULT. NO WILL I BECOME A MEMBER OF INE!
Only men would satirise or make light of this very serious topic, and they do so at their peril. God loves his daughters and will not be mocked. Sisters, have faith, and men beware. Not all is as it seems, seen "through a glass, darkly". "The first shall be last and the last shall be first". Peace.
So what happens to the young widow? Is she doomed to a life on earth without a companion bc she has been sealed before and men like the one described by you sees her as a bad prospect?
These are genuine questions. What happens to the young widow?
Sad-- very sad. May God bless and bring peace and comfort to all involved-- especially those so cruelly hurt.
NONE of this is true!!! Whoever is writing this blog is obviously NOT a leader in the church because if he were, he would know that the situation presented here is FALSE!
I was married and sealed in the temple and 6 weeks later my husband died. We had no children. Two years later, I met a wonderful man, and we married for "time" in the temple. THEN... a year and a half later, our LOVING Stake President helped us with the proceedings to cancel the sealing between my deceased husband and I so that I could be sealed to my new husband. This was a serious and sacred process that went all the way to the First Presidency. But the sealing to the first was indeed cancelled and I was able to be sealed to my current husband.
Do NOT believe the false lie of this blog. It is not true. Written satirically or otherwise, it is sheer ignorance and sin to put out there.
Thank you Stephanie. This is the answer to my question I needed to know. Thank you.
Stephanie -
You are evil to your first husband. Now he will be alone in the eternities. How is that for a life? In your selfishness you have robbed him for his wife... Bad.
Pretty heavy topic here. I am currently facing a similar situation as a man in the church. For a few weeks now, I have been dating a widow who was sealed to her late husband.
When I think about being married forever, it does make sense to me. So, now I have angst about moving forward with this wonderful woman because it terrifies me that I will have my heart ripped out in heaven when I lose her back to her first husband (who was a great guy and a better man than me)
Then , as posted above (See 2010 Handbook of Instructions #1 section 3.6.1, under the sub-heading of "Sealing of Deceased Members").I hear that a woman can be sealed to multiple husbands when everyone is dead, just not when we're alive??? This seems like a huge contradiction and I am hoping someone can provide insight.
One thing I do know is that I don't know everything and I know that there are some things which the Lord has not revealed yet. When I look at the love of the savior and how he would look at it, I suspect that most of the sadness and fear I hear from some posters (me included) is because we are lowly humans and are possessive about the things we love. Essentially, I suppose I am jealous and feel that I would be destroyed if I wasn't loved by someone who I poured all my heart into.
However, I believe that the Lord is just and righteous and would help my heart overcome my inequities.
My next challenge is finding out how she feels about it and see if I can get over my worry about her holding back her love in this life due to her love and obligation to her late husband.
Any constructive input would be appreciated.
Thank you Dr.Eziza you are a life saver you are the reason why i want to live a thousand years on this earth, Because you brought my lover that was the light of my world back to me just within 48hours. I confess to the whole world that you are great and you are capable of bringing back lost love. Contact Dr.Eziza on ezizaoguntemple@gmail.com or call him on +2348058176289
I think the stake president was absolutely evil to destroy the love between these two people and condemning the young woman to believe she could not have a happy married life in the church again. That is absolute nonsense. This is where unrighteousness dominion is practiced and the love of Christ is tossed out the window. God loves His children and is no respecter of persons. He doesn't withhold blessings from His children who are righteous - male or female. I don't know how this man can sleep at night knowing what he has done. Wow. We truly are children playing in a sandbox fighting over the toys and missing out on loving and being good to each other. I am amazed at how people think they know everything and they know God's mind. We know very very VERY little. This president did something very wrong and he will learn of it when he has his life review and he feels the pain he caused the young girl. He will know the pain and harm he caused to her testimony and he will have to answer for that.
"Paternoster"- in Latin means Our Father. Very sad that people think this is real because it is hurtful and untrue. Lacks credibility is the least i can say...
I can still love my husband even though he has pass on.
This post is false doctrine.
How was she sealed to both men? Was it after she had passed away? Or did she cancel the sealing she had with her first husband?
I love the example of President Gordon B. Hinckley who spoke to the General Assembly of the LDS Church at General Conference in 2012. His address was entitled "Do Not Practice Polygamy" and is available in video and print on lds.org. He stated the LDS Church does not practice polygamy, has nothing whatever to do with it, that those who have were never members of the LDS Church, and that any members found practicing polygamy are excommunicated. It sounds like to me you have some excommunicated GAs.
The only thing left to say about the whole issue is that a Temple Marriage is between one man and one woman. It is *one* spouse and cleave to *none else*. Anything else is whoredom, and that's not what you signed up for. Anything else is a tragedy, a travesty and a nullification, and a contingency not a covenant, whether polyandry, polygamy, or any other revolving door.
You didn't sign up for a revolving door and a fragmented life. You married and committed to ONE person. Temple Marriage is WHOLE, ALL of your life, ALL of your being, and ALL time and eternity, irrevocable and indissoluble. It is NOT a term, a fragment, not roving, and not serial monogamy. It is not pieces, parts, steps, blends, and halves. If you lose a spouse, you are still married and you stay married until you meet again in the celestial kingdom just like you met on earth. You rely on the strength of the Holy Spirit and the Church to support you. You don't jump into a betrayal of the covenant and commitment to your spouse. You don't contemplate whoredoms as your only alternative. GOD FORBID ANYONE SHOULD LOSE A SPOUSE, but reaching for a substitute of convenient whoredom and adultery is not the answer. If you truly love and honor your wife or your husband, you live the rest of your life for that covenant of Temple Marriage. You honor them and that covenant and their memory. You NEVER cop out to the lame excuse, "I didn't want to be alone." You're NOT alone. That's Oscar Meyer B-O-L-O-G-N-Y.
Your companion *will* be with you in spirit. You have the association of the Relief Society. You are married in the Temple to ONE spouse forever, and none else, your first, your one, and your only spouse. You do not have this confusion and rot of who will you belong to if you accept the shredding and tattering and ripping apart and shattering of time and eternity. The answer to that is no. I will be with my spouse even if it is 1000 years until we are together again. 1000 years will pass by in the blink of an eye then, and Christ the Lord Omnipotent, you are not without each other. You tell these adulterators what they need to hear, and it is an emphatic "no, you will NOT adulterate my Temple Marriage. You will not seal me to whoredoms. You can rot and burn in hell first."
The Handbook has never been sustained as Canon Law. It's never been presented to the General Assembly for sustaining vote. It's never seen that light of day, so you can drop your reference to the Handbook as the authoritative word on anything. What a bunch of anonymous, nameless, faceless people wrote in the dark corners of a secret cult is not anything the Church has examined or consented to. "Marry them in monogamy and then abuse them in polygamy" is NOT OUR COVENANT. The Handbook is not the official position of the LDS Church on anything. It's something false authorities and clueless bishops and relief society HACKS pull out of their stinking, wretched, underworld armpits, citing an anonymous source as a perverse contingency play book. It's not your COVENANT. It's not SCRIPTURAL. It's not CANON. It's not CONSISTENT with Christianity or what you AGREED TO.
"Will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?"
I have to disagree that the practice of polygamy, or any other class of whoredoms, whether polyandry, concubinery, fornication, or adultery, was accepted in Joseph's time or should be in ours. It is impossible to conclude it was accepted in Joseph's time, since Emma herself did not consent, and the Christian Church did not admit such practices to Christianity then or now.
We do not accept any claim that anything is of "god" or ordained of god if it does not square with what is accepted Christian tradition and Christian conscience. The answer to all manner of whoredoms is no, and what comes part-and-parcel with polygamy can be described in no other way. Polygamy and polyandry and concubinery are whoredoms. They are adultery. Each is a defilement and violation and invasion. Each is without respect and without boundaries. They are most often practices of a fertility cult whose justification for violation of Temple Marriage, characterized by consent, is an invasive and malignant enslavement to breeding or commitment of their members to a vicious, self-indulgent pleasure and selfish agenda at the expense of the rights and privileges of others, a demand and an invasion bordering on the nihilistic.
The introduction of either systematic or indiscriminate murder as a practice abhorent and unadmitted to Christianity would be no different than the presentation of polygamy to a Temple Marriage or a Christian Covenant Marriage. The wrongful giving of life, under wrongful circumstances, is next to murder in seriousness according to the teachings of the Church. Murder is the wrongful taking of life. The violation of a Temple marriage by forced or coerced polygamy, or any forced or coerced arrangement, is the rape of a life, a rapacious taking of what has not been given by consent, and is not the right of the taker. It is wrong because it places those so forced, and those born of its circumstances into defilement, illegitimacy, and perversion. It is a robbing of their birth right. It is not admitted to Christianity. It is not accepted.
How long has her husband been cold in the grave before she hits the Church up for splits with the new guy? Wow, how soon they forget Temple Covenants for time and eternity. Did she love her husband at all, or is he just a dead carcass to trample over in the race to the next guy? Is he weeping in heaven or what?
The suggestion to railroad defilement over Temple Marriage today is an echo of whoredoms of the past. The whoring mindset is if you can't obtain what you want immediately through honest, righteous means by consent of all parties, just lie, cheat, hide, steal, connive, find posthumous loop holes, and invade whoever is closest like an opportunistic infection and a viral strain. Call out the Levi rate, or glorify consolation rape through successions of persons. No thanks, that's not our covenant. If Temple Marriage is for all time and eternity and beyond the grave, this spouse did not consent to his wife bringing in spares, backups and extras in the celestial kingdom. No way is that an honor to him while he is waiting in the celestial kindgom for his wife. What is the proposition, to have her defiled and violate their covenants by succession with another returned missionary? He has no Temple Marriage then. Anyone who married her in the travesty has none either.
Dude, you can not split time and eternity. It's an improper use of priesthood authority.
You can't say "Do what Joseph Smith did," with regard to polygamy because there is no convincing evidence that he did it, and the same section being quoted to support polygamy contains Emma Smith's rejection and refusal of anything to do with polygamy. There is no consent.
You can not say, "Do what Joseph Smith did," even if he had done it. If he had proceeded without consent what would he be except a spiritual if not literal rapist of a Christian woman and her Temple Marriage. He would then be excommunicated.
Neither Emma nor her parents consented, according to Church History Volumes II-II, and Joseph did not practice polygamy in life. He did not practice it by virtue of others having "stealing ordinances" performed after he died.
All the "stealing ordinances" people point to as evidence of polygamous practices were dated after his death, some of them as examined by historians were to people he never knew or met, all of which suggest they were done posthumously without his knowledge.
And even if Emma and Joseph had both been so unduly influenced as to give their consent while in a Christian Church, the Christian Church did not then and does not now consent to spiritual or literal rape.
They would have to leave and give up the name of Christ and cease calling themselves Christian. They would have departed radically. I do not see any convincing evidence that they did anything of the kind. I see some occultic influence trying to masquerade as Christianity without any justification for the attempt. That's the problem with monkey-see-monkey do solutions based on one a la carte verse selected out of context. They're never appropriate to the facts and circumstances at hand. You could just as well open the Bible to the passage that says, "And Judas went out and hanged himself," and then recommend everyone go out and do the same. Should everyone who committed a sin go out and hang themselves as Judas did? Is that your universal proscription because you looked at a single verse in the Bible where someone did? Aren't there any better ones?
How about starting with something outside a fallen domain? We don't need advocacy for a sinful solution to a problem that ought not even to exist in the context of a Temple Marriage. The greatest reason for not proceeding as you wrongly recommend is that the parties themselves did not consent when they entered into their own Temple Marriage covenants in the Christian Church. Your solution does not uphold that choice. It defiles it, perverts it, and fails it entirely.
The D&C is considered an apocryphal writing, which are those writings containing dubious sources, or pseudo graphica where the identities of the authors in some sections appear to be questionable at best. Recalling that Joseph was acting as scribe, and involved with the occult, what influence or entity may have been in control of his faculties is highly questionable, particularly as he was attempting to delve into Egyptian texts on his own without any assistance or guidance from Christian authority, but as a naive, fourteen-year-old boy who should have had the tutelage of the Christian Church in the matter to assist him in avoiding grave errors, corrupt renderings, and dangerous life-threatening influences. It is well known that many occultic traditions entail sorcery, possession, mind control, and other undesirable influences.
The same issues are seen arising with biblical texts where the identities of the gods are in question because commands such as thou shalt not kill are contradicted in other sections where the command of a character appealing to an unknown, unidentified god is to murder an innocent child. Where the most basic Ten Commandments and Christ's commandment to love god and neighbor as self are accepted Christian commandments, these false gods and their doctrines can not be accepted.
False gods, and false doctrines are warned against in Saint Matthew 7:15. The word of warning is to beware and to reject them, just as one would if someone produced a foreign fragment of text tomorrow claiming it was from "god" and the text stated everyone should kill and eat their own children on Fridays. Does a Christian god do such a thing? The answer of course is no.
All the characteristics and attributes of the good, the right, and the just have been outlined for millennia through textual considerations, and from the beginning of time by and through the Christian conscience, or by the Light of Christ.
The question of whether polygamy or any other form of what are referred to as whoredoms can or ought to be admitted to Christianity has been asked and answered for over 2000 years by the Christian Church, for over 125 years by the LDS Church, and the answer is an absolute no.
No means no, and no amount of loop-holing, sneaking, cheating, lying, deception, invasion, or attempted subversion of LDS Christian Temple Marriage will change the answer.
It is a gross misrepresentation to say that an attempt to defile Emma and Joseph's Temple Marriage in their time constitutes any basis for the misstatement that it was ever accepted by the Christian LDS Church or should constitute a precedent for defiling LDS Temple Marriages today.
The question has been asked and answered in the same vein by the secular authority in the United States of America where such practices are prohibited by anti-child rape, anti-child marriage, anti-bigamy, anti-human trafficking, anti-pornography, anti-prostitution and other statutes formed under the banner of a Christian nation whose motto is "In God We Trust" and whose pledge of allegiance is to be "one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." As the statutes of a country founded under god, and free from such practices reflect, the answer is the same. The answer is no.
The irony of knowingly or ignorantly attempting to violate someone else's Temple Marriage covenants with an eye to status in this or "the next life" is that in this or the next life, anyone righteously desiring a Temple Marriage with his or her own spouse, not someone else's, is perfectly able to obtain one on their own worthiness and faithfulness.
Holy Father in Heaven and Christ the Lord Omnipotent. Any matter of human exigency thereafter has already been answered in the context of a Temple Marriage presuming proper authority omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
The only answer to the question of what becomes of the young widow who has a Temple Marriage is her husband does not die. Widowhood and Temple Marriage is an oxymoron. These people are not your case law.
Geeze, they can split time and eternity but they can't keep the husband alive?
Poly- what? That sounds like it came from Jack the Ripper not Christ. Was it the feel good anesthetic followed by the blade? This won't hurt a bit. It will just destroy your Temple marriage.
You puke, tell me you didn't say yes to biting the big sub-way sandwich and having someone else take her home from the dance if her husband's allowed to sin or die. You just nullified Temple marriage you idiot. Uphold, you brain dead geezer. Here are your instructions: a) prevent b) intervene c) translate d) resurrect only as a last resort e) never inculcate the practice of poly-anything.
She wasn't married 'till death do you part. She has a Temple marriage. They're still married. Who and what are you following ?
What? Her husband is dead and she has to polyg-rig? What kind of profane is that? Are they going to change John 3:16 to "Whosoever believeth in me shall have everlasting strife?" And Matthew 7:7 to "Ask and we shall deceive?" And Matthew 21:22 to "And in all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall be bereaved?"
If her husaband's gone to the other side, why is the only suggestion under heaven a polyg-rig with you people from South America or Latin America, or Hell-in-America, or wherever the hell it is this polyg-rig obsession you people have came from? Submit them for translation ordinances. Put a big T on the record.
True, T is for Translation. You would think they could translate her or something wouldn't you? Why the escort through the polyg-rig is all they can think of as possible or expedient I don't know. Didn't Christ ask the Apostles if they wanted to tarry in this world or be with Him and grant them according to their righteous desires? Some were translated. They didn't die. Didn't he appear to them before his Ascension and promise to return? Don't the holy and righteous angels visit the earth and ascend and descend from heaven? High Priests walk across that metaphysical street all the time. Ask Him or one of them to walk her across to her husband. She has a Temple recommend doesn't she?
Just follow Christ. He went that-a-way, and it wasn't through a polyg-rig now was it? Christ was unmarried and celibate and he didn't need polyg-rigging to get to heaven did he? Christ is in the highest degree of glory isn't he, unmarried, without children?
Didn't this husband and wife ask Father in Heaven and Christ for a Temple marriage? Didn't they receive it? So why would they think they need to violate the very thing they asked Him for to get what they asked Him for? It sounds like they're trying to tempt the Lord their God, doesn't it, and using the pity me into a polyg-rig ploy?
It wasn't a till death do you part marriage. What, do they have amnesia? Wake up and smell the John 3:16. Talk about strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Their actions say, "I'll take a whoring route before I'll rely on Christ to take me to my husband with honor, grace, and purity." Some people cannot see heaven for the hell realms.
Absolutely, why not prepare her for translation and place her at her husband's side? They can carry on in a perfect world. Good point. Have their marriage and family in a perfect, everlastingly sinless, domain. Everyone wants an incorruptible and undefiled Temple marriage.
I'll say. Translation is a whole lot better than to go a-whorifying them both and getting in that there extraordinary defile and gross sacrilege of a polyg-rig.Translation is sure better than dragging some sad-sac-sacrificial substitute across the altar and then telling him to get lost while you take his children, and give him a slap-in-the-face for being there as the spare tire on the breakdown-mobile-of-life in a filthy fallen world full of sin and death. "Touch not the evil gift nor the unclean thing."
I agree. Saying no to polyg-rig is the best thing to do to honor the Temple marriage.
I have a Temple marriage not a temple marage. I have a Temple covenant. Our Temple marriage does not admit other spouses in time or eternity. No one else was at the altar when we were married. No one else will be there after. It was with one man who I chose above all others. He is sealed to no one else. Neither am I. I covenanted with no one else. Neither did he. He has no commitments to anyone else. Neither do I. We have perfect moral fidelity and faithfulness to each other. He is my first and only husband. I am his first and only wife. No matter what happens that is our covenant. It is recorded in all the Temples for all time and eternity. That is the choice we made to have a Temple marriage. It cannot be changed by anyone else. Not even God will change it. That's a covenant.
polyg-rig. 1) noun/ parasitic theology 2) noun/ pious fraud 3) noun/ false doctrine of heretical origin to which we are not subject. 4) noun/ the degree of glory no one wants who wants a real Temple marriage. 5) noun/ the degree of glory no one wants who has a real Temple marriage. 6) noun/ see Termite and Rover marriage 7) verb/ to link multiple wives to one husband or several husbands to one wife in pieces-parts and slice-and-dice marriage 8) noun/see serial revolving-door marriage 9) see obsolete farm-tardness 10) noun/ see you-ruined-my-life-marriage 11) verb/ the attempt to apply the hybrid doctrines of cattle herd studs and chattel slavery as a model of human and godly marriage 12) noun/ opposite of the whole enchilada marriage 13) noun/ the we-didn't-want-to-but-they-forced-us-into-it-and-now-we-aa-have-to-go-to-be-excommunicated-and-go-to-jail marriage
This is a horrible experience you've blogged. To deter any worthy man from marrying a worthy woman over ordinances you admit we can't fully understand is truly horrid. No wonder the prophet takes widows under his wings, with leaders like this, they are doomed to a lifetime of poverty and loneliness. Shame on you. I think you needed prayer more than the young man you counseled.
Did not Joseph marry Mary knowing full well that Jesus Christ was not his son?
While I respect the right of Dave to seek his own revelation and for you as a counselor to recieve revelation I see your approach on behalf of Dave to be selfish and one sided.
The gospel encourages us to carry each others crosses out of love.
Fairy tales and fake authority. Those are two of the main ingredients in the foundation of the Mormon church (and just about every other religion, for that matter).
Sadly, satire is often overlooked...
Hmmmm, I’ve been sadly mistaken all these years...I thought the purpose of life was to be happy. For example, I derive much happiness from reading biting satire. Sadly, though, many (maybe even most) people are just too goddamned dense to recognize satire. Sigh.
It’s s moot point, since temple sealings are useless. As is everything else that goes on in a temple. Except lunch — the cafeteria food is awesome.
Probably the same thing that happens to those horrid, despicable gays — doomed to wander the planet, leading a life of lonely, soul-wrenching celibacy. Much like the Incredible Hulk.
Post a Comment