I know this is the policy but a woman on FAIR who shall not be named, (but her name starts with J), claimed to "know" that a woman can be sealed to two men... supposedly it is an exception to the rule allowed by the FP under certain circumstances.
Well I guess the FP can make any exception they deem appropriate. But there is nothing in the Handbook that allows for this.
Of course the assumption is that in heaven she will have only one husband.
Yes. Only men can have more then one spouse in LDS doctrine.
I think a possible scenario goes something like this... a woman is sealed to a man who leaves the church. They divorce. The woman remarries a man who is not a member. After he dies his work is done for him and the couple is vicariously sealed, she to the second husband even though the first husband is still alive and the first sealing not cancelled.
Well in this case it seems that she would get the sealing to the first man that left the Church canceled.
asbestosman wrote:Furthermore, God doesn't ever seem to ask me for my input on matters.
God doesn't exist. He's made up by man. But unfortunately for you, it's not your particular version of him that holds any currency. It's someone else's. In this case, it's an evolved invention handed down originally by Joseph Smith (who got his ideas from a variety of contemporary sources, along with some of his own little twists) which currently belongs squarely to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. They're the only ones who get to make up this God, and not you.
You're stuck believing in a God of man, and you still don't even get to have a say in what this God is like. How's it feel? What's the matter with your own invention of God? Why not branch out on your own and assert your human right to envision God the way you want instead of letting 15 old white guys in SLC usurp the right to define your imagined God for you?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
My daughter and I would be separated by this doctrinal speculation, if it were indeed worthy of credence in the first place. However, one need but ask themselves if God would be the author of a bureaucratic blunder that would dissolve loving family relationships, and you will see that is was merely the result of someone making this stuff up without much foresight.
Sethbag wrote:You're stuck believing in a God of man, and you still don't even get to have a say in what this God is like. How's it feel? What's the matter with your own invention of God? Why not branch out on your own and assert your human right to envision God the way you want instead of letting 15 old white guys in SLC usurp the right to define your imagined God for you?
I'll get my chance to make my own gods soon enough. I just have to wait until after I'm dead.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
charity wrote:And you can find much better answers for such questions on the MA&D board because they actually know the answers.
MADB is a fount of disinformation. I wouldn't consider it any more reliable as a source for answers. For that matter, walking into any local LDS ward and asking straightforward questions can result in a plethora of answers, many of which will be incorrect.
MADB operates primarily as a spin zone.
Frankly, Charity, in a church that has little to no official doctrine, it's pretty hard for anyone to come up with official answers.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
charity wrote:And you can find much better answers for such questions on the MA&D board because they actually know the answers. While there are a few of us active members here, the majority are only here to mock and ridicule the Church. I wouldn't ask that bunch a single question.
Actually, no one can find any answers at all on MAD, because they have no answers. All they have is spin and smoke and mirrors. And it's danged sad. Those guys are smart. A person would think that they could come up with something more logical than the nonsense they generally deliver.
My daughter and I would be separated by this doctrinal speculation, if it were indeed worthy of credence in the first place. However, one need but ask themselves if God would be the author of a bureaucratic blunder that would dissolve loving family relationships, and you will see that is was merely the result of someone making this stuff up without much foresight.
Yeah...
As a child convert, I would have been completely alone in the CKHL (assuming I made it... smile).
Without member or sealed parents, I would not only not be with my parents in heaven but would be without my siblings as well.
The song, "Families can be together forever," didn't quite work out for me. :-(
As an adult looking back at how cruel this teaching is to children in my situation, I find the men who came up with this "policy" completely out of touch with what is good and healthy for families.
I think this whole teaching needs to be rethought.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Charity wrote:And you can find much better answers for such questions on the MA&D board because they actually know the answers.
Is this the ol' "don't go to a Ford dealer to get information on a Chevy" adage? Cause, yeah, the Chevy dealer is certainly going to tell you 100% of the truth, flaws and all of the Chevy, isn't he??
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Jason Bourne wrote:Yes. Only men can have more then one spouse in LDS doctrine.
Heh...Try telling that to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, Marinda Hyde and other polyandry examples. :) Just sayin...
~Active NOM who doesn’t believe much of the dogma or TRADITIONS but maintains membership for cultural, social & SPIRITUAL REASONS, recognizes BOTH good & bad in the Church & [has] determined the Church doesn’t have to be perfect to remain useful. -Served mission in Haiti, holds temple recommend etc
charity wrote:I hope tidejwe, as a fully active member, will not mock sacred things.
While the sealing power itself may be sacred, the man-made policies associated with it are not in my opinion. However, I will try to be more respectful in the future for the sake of some who easily take offense because of their alternate interpretations of holding man's decisions as sacred.
~Active NOM who doesn’t believe much of the dogma or TRADITIONS but maintains membership for cultural, social & SPIRITUAL REASONS, recognizes BOTH good & bad in the Church & [has] determined the Church doesn’t have to be perfect to remain useful. -Served mission in Haiti, holds temple recommend etc