How does the LDS church get away with it?

[_Jason Bourne]

Technically, I DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE - there is no eternal marriage.

Based on Church policy your wife is still sealed to you. From a practical standpoint you would be viewed as not worthy so in heaven the sealing probably would not stick.

My bride would not have to seek a temple cancellation if she were to divorce me because it is void.

This is not correct. If you divorced civvily and she wanted to re-marry in the temple to an active LDS man she must, I repeat must, have a cancellation of her sealing to you. Does not matter that you are not a member. I could type in the policy from the hand book here but I do not want to take the time. you will just have to trust me.

What gives you the idea that I am technically sealed?

You are not. She is to you still., in a technical sense. look, I know the "rules"on this fairly well.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Maxrep,

TD,

A group of four church friends were all gathered socially late one evening. We had a few fringe members there. Polygamy surfaced as a topic. I stated what problems I saw in this type of union, while the two others present couldn't wait for its modern day return. Apparantly they had already spoken with their spouses, and to varying degrees, have pointed out suitable sisters who might do as a plural wifes within their own households - window shopping maybe? - go figure I guess...

My very good friend walks in from the kitchen into this gathering. He is then asked if his wife and he had discussed what it would be like to select a 2nd wife to join their family?

This well spoken buddy of mine quickly replied, "I wouldn't degrade my wife by bringing this topic to her". What a stallion. I hope his wife had her ear with a glass pressed to the wall.

OMG yeah, this guy ROCKS! Seriously! What a dude!

Thanks for sharing this story... it reminds me of my father who loved, honored, and respected my mother so deeply. The very idea of being disloyal, or degrading and demeaning her and their relationship in any way would have repulsed him.

(Yeah, I blame my DNA for my passion). LOL!

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

It truly amazes me that some men simply cannot understand that giving themselves multiple women while holding the power to disallow women the possibility to have multiple men in their lives is absolutely inherently wrong.

Actually, if rumors are true, I hear that Joseph Smith did give some women multiple men. Some speculate that he would have done the same with Emma, but she wanted none of that.

Anyhow, I am also a fan of equal rights for men and women. I would love to have women and men be treated equally when it comes to registering with the military where they can call you up every week when you're 18. I'd love it if men and women were treated equally when it comes to abortion, child support, and alimony. I'd love it if men and women were treated equally when it comes to allegations of abuse. Of course, I'd also love it if men were less abusive. I also wish more women waned to study science, math, and engineering.

[_TAK]

I think better said is the LDS Church does not practice polygamy for people currently living but it does allow for men to be sealed/married to more than one women in the after life. Thus it does believe that there will he heavenly polygamy.

This is an improvement but still not quite accurate. ;-)

The LDS church does allow men to be eternally sealed to multiple women who are alive so long as they are not legally married to more than one.* It does believe men will have multiple wives in heaven (CKHL).

And of course we all know a sealing is an eternal marriage.

~dancer~

*Same rule in the FLDS church.

It should be also be pointed out that the church never renounced plural marriage as a revelation from god and still holds the practice to be a sacred eternal principal.

[_mbeesley]

Hi MB...

The problem with truthdancer's OP, and continued insistence that the Church is being disingenous with its statements about polygamy is that she is using terms rather more loosely than the Church uses them.

Well, I think the church uses various terms to present an untruth.

The church absolutely does believe in, and practice (to some extent) polygyny. To suggest it doesn't is disingenuous in my opinion.

Thank you for your comments TD. Before accusing Church spokespersons of being disingenous, would it not be best to consider the context of their statements, i.e. who the audience was and why the statement was being made?

If a Church member were to declare, in the context of speaking of the general principle of plural marriage, that the Church has nothing to do with polygamy, then such a statement would be not only disingenuous, it would be wrong. However, I doubt that the statements that you believe are disingenuous were made in such a context.

I believe the statements you are referring to were made to distinguish the Church from those sects currently practicing polygamy. They were not made to make a statement about the past or future practice of polygamy. Indeed, they acknowledge the past practice and make no apologies for it. I am aware of no statement where any spokesperson for the Church has made the general statement that it has nothing to do with polygamy. They routinely state that the Church has nothing to do with those currently practicing polygamy. That is accurate.

Your complaint that men may be sealed to two living spouses is beside the point. I do not think that any reasonable person would view such a man as currently practicing polygamy. At most, it suggests the possibilty of a future polygamous relationship. Indeed, if you are at all familiar with temple covenants, you know that the eternal promise of temple covenants is wholly dependent on our faithfulness in mortality. If we are not faithful, the promises of the temple covenants have no force or effect in the hereafter. In other words, the unfaithful man, though he be sealed to 2 or 200 women, will, in the hereafter, be with no one.

So, while you may personally find the concept of plural marriage to be abhorrent, I think you can express those views without the unnecessary and inaccurate accusation that the Church is being disingenuous.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MB,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. :-)

I think the church, through various statements gives the impression that it does not believe in or embrace polygamy, as if it doesn't exist in the LDS church and is a thing of the past.

This impression is not true and to pretend that it is is to mislead others in my opinion.

And while believers may assume a civil divorce breaks a temple sealing, why are women not allowed to get a sealing cancellation until she is about to get sealed to another man? Is she still not sealed for eternity to her X husband? Why can't women be sealed to multiple (living) men if the sealing is not binding? There are LDS men right now who are eternally sealed to multiple temple worthy women.

In terms of the fact that LDS men can indeed be sealed to multiple living women, my point is, there is no difference between how the FLDS are now presenting their practice: not married, not living together, not legal wives, just a former relationship that resulted in a child or two.

Anyway, I realize you do not see a problem with the LDS's presentation of their beliefs. I think they word things carefully to not exactly lie but to present a picture that is not accurate.... as Obama said, "a statement not supported by the facts". ;-)

~dancer~