Can women be sealed to more than one man in the temple?

[_harmony]

Why do we always assume the sealing is between husband and wife? Sons are sealed to their mothers; daughters to their fathers. Unimportant and disregarded, yes... but still... sealings.

[_lulu]

Why do we always assume the sealing is between husband and wife? Sons are sealed to their mothers; daughters to their fathers. Unimportant and disregarded, yes... but still... sealings.

Members of the Council of 50 sealed to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

[_Dantana]

To me the nonsense is beyond bearing. God wants people sealed to each other because they will raise families together in the hereafter. J. Smith, B. Young and the boys were all about getting their harems assembled and sealed to them, yet the vast majority of humans will never have the chance in the mortal to do this. They must assemble the harems in the spirit realm and either have unlicensed wives, or hope someone does their proxy sealings for them down here. But how? Speculative proxy sealings perhaps?

Oh wait, I remember, the millennium. Where God sets up shop in Missouri and supplies the names... and one can see from temple to temple around the world and crocksy work going on round the clock for 1000 years. Such a clever plan. Such a clever God.

[_MsJack]

Finally, a little polyandry.

I can't prove it, but I don't think the purpose of this policy is polyandry. I think it's to allow the deceased woman to choose which spouse she wants to be with for eternity.

So no, no polyandry. Men have the capacity to be with any and all of the women they loved in life; women have to choose one man.

If she is not getting married but still wants a sealing cancellation because say her ex husband was scum, it will not be granted. Only if she is getting sealed again in the temple will a prior sealing be cancelled.

In general this is true, but a woman can seek approval from the First Presidency to get a sealing cancellation without a new sealing lined up.

I have a friend who was sealed to an abusive Mormon man and got divorced. She remarried a Catholic man who has made her very happy, but he has shown no interest in joining the church. She didn't want the children she's going to have with husband #2 to be considered sealed to her scumbag first husband, so she petitioned the FP for a sealing cancellation (I proofread the petition for her) and it was granted.

100% certain about this.

[_Zelder]

I was under the distinct impression that they could not but came across a post on a blog claiming that this in fact does happen. Specifically that women can be sealed to more than one man following the death of all parties involved.

Anyone heard of anything like this happening? Under what circumstances would it be allowed? Anyone know if the CHI has anything to say about this?

Thanks.

This is absolutely true. However, this was not always the case. The change is fairly recent, it occurred in about 1997. You might also be interested in the fact that about 1/3 of Joseph Smiths 30+ wives were already married to other living men. Section 132 subtly states that women in the covenant can be with another man if she has some kind of holy anointing (verse 41).

Verse 66 states that more would be revealed on the subject. I think ultimately Smith intended to establish polygynandrous/group marriage relations where both men and women have the option for multiple spouses if they desire.

[_Tarski]

Dead women, yes.

Living women, no.

And of course, with equality in the Church...

Dean men, yes
Living men, yes

It is almost as if they know that how things are in death doesn't matter. Dead is dead after all.

[_badseed]

OK. That clears it up a bit. I think I pretty much knew that the bottom line was that in eternity men can be sealed to multiple women while women can only be sealed to one man.

The proxy sealings done by those here on earth seem like a waste of time. Why not wait til the millenium when pure revelation can be given to those on earth about who needs to be hitched to whom—and thereby avoid all of this guess (temple) work.

Oh well guess, I'm missing something.

[_lulu]

Finally, a little polyandry.

I can't prove it, but I don't think the purpose of this policy is polyandry. I think it's to allow the deceased woman to choose which spouse she wants to be with for eternity.

So no, no polyandry. Men have the capacity to be with any and all of the women they loved in life; women have to choose one man.

Don't look a gift horse in the month. Take it and run with it. Women don't get that many openings in this church.

[_BrianHales]

Regarding full polyandry, Brigham Young was asked in 1852, “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?” And then answered, “This is not known to the law" (JD 1:361). Six years later Orson Pratt instructed: “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law" (JD 18:55-56) Pratt further explained: “Can a woman have more than one husband at the same time? No: Such a principle was never sanctioned by scripture.” (“Celestial Marriage,” THE SEER, 1:4 [April 1853] 60.) D&C 132: 41-42, 61-63 could be interpreted to condemn sexual polyandry regardless of the setting. And despite the Fawn Brodie version of Joseph Smith's polygamy that has been perpetuated by numerous writers in the recent decades, evidence supporting the position that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry is weak and problematic. Contradictory evidence is strong. Of course, it is impossible to prove something did not happen but proponents have their work cut out for them in producing some evidence to support it.

[_Drifting]

Regarding full polyandry, Brigham Young was asked in 1852, “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?” And then answered, “This is not known to the law" (JD 1:361). Six years later Orson Pratt instructed: “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law" (JD 18:55-56) Pratt further explained: “Can a woman have more than one husband at the same time? No: Such a principle was never sanctioned by scripture.” (“Celestial Marriage,” THE SEER, 1:4 [April 1853] 60.) D&C 132: 41-42, 61-63 could be interpreted to condemn sexual polyandry regardless of the setting. And despite the Fawn Brodie version of Joseph Smith's polygamy that has been perpetuated by numerous writers in the recent decades, evidence supporting the position that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry is weak and problematic. Contradictory evidence is strong. Of course, it is impossible to prove something did not happen but proponents have their work cut out for them in producing some evidence to support it.

Except, if Joseph didn't play "hide the sword of Laban" with his polyandrous wives then he was clearly in breach of the explicit commandment given in D&C 132 to multiply and replenish the earth. Of course if he was utilising the stick of Joseph then he was also breaking the commandment about only using virgins as the receptacles for his seed. Hmmm...regardless of what is provable...heads he loses....tails he loses...

There is no way of escaping the fact that Joseph breached the commandment in D&C 132 one way or the other.