Beliefs Faith Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion

Mormon women fear eternal polygamy, study shows

“In our church, headquartered in Salt Lake City—not the fundamentalist and often violent or bizarre break-off groups such as the one made infamous by Warren Jeffs—but the LDS Church of the Tabernacle Choir, Mitt Romney, and Donny and Marie Osmond—the church that I attend weekly—polygamy is not an artifact in a museum. It is alive and unwell, a Ghost that has a dark life of its own—hiding in the recesses of the Mormon psyche, inflicting profound pain and fear, assuring women that we are still objects, damaging or destroying marriages, bringing chaos to family relationships, leading many to lose faith in our church and in God. In spite of its obvious damage, the Ghost is given an honored place at the family table.” (From The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, 7)

When Carol Lynn Pearson was sixteen years old, she heard her seminary teacher bear his testimony, articulating cherished beliefs that, for him, involved polygamy.

“He told us about being sealed to his beloved first wife, who had died, and his second wife. He bore testimony that he would claim both of those women in heaven as his wives. He also bore testimony that Heavenly Father has many, many wives,” says Pearson.

“That was the very first earthquake in my spiritual life.”

Author Carol Lynn Pearson.

Kimberly Anderson

Author Carol Lynn Pearson.

Pearson knew in her heart that something was wrong. How could plural marriage be correct doctrine? So throughout her adult life, she researched this at length, and recently helped conduct a large snowball survey of more than 8,000 Latter-day Saints about how they feel about polygamy.

Her book, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, draws on this research—and on many personal stories—to demonstrate that the idea of plural marriage being practiced in eternity is hurting women and men in the here and now.

RNS: What did the survey tell you?

Pearson: Only about 15% of people said polygamy was just fine, and that they trusted God and it would all be worked out in heaven. The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.

This may be the most egregious “women’s issue” that is still floating out there with no one addressing it. This can’t continue, because it’s just too damaging.

RNS: How is it damaging?

Pearson: Polygamy is still “alive and unwell” in our psyches even if we’re not aware of it. Everyone sort of knows that D&C 132 is still there, and that Emma Smith was told she would be destroyed if she wouldn’t go along with it. But the very specific ways that polygamy damages people in the Mormon community came out in the responses.

For example, the first story I tell in the book is of a woman who becomes a hypochondriac. She’s a young woman, still in her thirties, but she has constant fear that if she dies young then her husband will take another wife. And this will be her lot in eternity, an eternity that she now fears with all her heart.

Especially it’s a terror to sealed widows. A widow who is sealed to her first husband is considered way out of the pool of attractive women for Mormon men to date. One man actually hung up the phone when a woman told him she was a widow. “You’re no good to me” was his reaction, because in the next life he would have to turn her over to her first husband that she was already sealed to. Also, her children from her first marriage and her children with the second husband would all belong to her first husband in the afterlife. I have many stories from people who have written to the General Authorities, begging to be free of this.

Ghost of Eternal PolygamyRNS: Are other groups of women damaged by this enduring notion of polygamy being practiced in heaven?

Pearson: The chapter on “How do I love thee?” is about the phenomenon of romantic love and how it is violated by polygamy. So many women wrote back that they were holding back a part of their heart from their husbands because of this fear. One wrote, “Knowing that you may have to watch your beloved also love another someday—even by commandment!—makes you hold back, just a little, so that something of you can be left when the blow comes.”

RNS: How do you respond to the idea that “Heavenly Father will work all that out in the afterlife”? I hear that a lot, and don’t find it a very satisfying answer.

Pearson: God wants us to be happy in the afterlife, but surely God also wants us to be happy here. If we see something terrible going on here, it’s not our task to say “Well, that’s too bad, but it’s going to be all for the best in the afterlife.” We are here on earth to make things better.

RNS: There are some sad and powerful stories about this doctrine driving people away.

Pearson: One story was from a bishop. A young woman came in to see him with a question. Her mother had died some years before, and her father had just been sealed to a second wife. Fearfully she asked the bishop, “Are we now a polygamous family forever? I thought our church didn’t practice or believe in polygamy.” The bishop was resentful that he was the one that had to tell her yes, this is the doctrine. She disappeared from a ward family that loved her and never came back.

In another story, a temple president’s wife wrote that the day before she had told an investigator that the blessings of the temple are the same for everyone. She then felt afterward that she had lied, because they’re not. Our sealing practices are not equal at all.

RNS: Do you see any recent change in the church’s position?

Pearson: Some few years ago, there was a little bit of a shift in that a deceased woman could be sealed to all of the men she had been married to in this life, so long as all of them were now dead. The idea is that she will choose which one she wants to be with after death.

RNS: If wishes were horses and you could change the church’s policy on eternal polygamy and temple sealings, what would a more just policy look like?

Pearson: My next to last chapter is very clear about the path I’m laying out. Let’s just say that I believe it’s essential for men and women to be placed on equal ground. Polygamy is indefensible. My position is that it was an error and needs to be corrected.

Link to Kickstarter page:

Support Jana’s Kickstarter campaign for “The Next Mormons” now through July 29.

Click here to be a part of this project. Just over one week left!




About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (Random House/Convergent, 2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church" (Oxford University Press, 2019). She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.


Click here to post a comment

  • If a widowed man remarries and is sealed to his new wife, that’s a clear indication of intent to be an eternal polygamist.
    Shouldn’t any children they have be forced to wait until adulthood to be baptized, and only after having to denounce their parents? Isn’t that what is required of children from polygamous families?

  • I’d love to see the research behind this. Having talked to many, many friends about this very topic, I have to say that 85% negative seems like the result of selection bias. I’m not saying there are not those who are impacted by it, but knowing more about the research would certainly give a better overall picture. My personal experience is that the vast majority of members don’t give this a second thought. Of those who do, most I’ve talked to have no problem with it. In many people’s minds, suggesting that someone is only capable of complete, total, and unfailing love for one person is ridiculous.

  • Wow what a bigoted article and one sided hit piece against multi wife families. To be so bigoted as to bash “eternal polygamy” is downright mentally ill. To portray even some mormon women as “hypochondriacs” fearing death because it would allow their husband to remarry, is to totally manufacture a fear that mormon women just don’t have. Most lds women are fine with their husband remarrying if they were to die, and the “study” this bigoted and misinformed article highlights, has all the credibility of warren jeffs.

  • I would really like to know the make-up of the women polled in the survey. In my experience most don’t really think or worry about it much. By the time people have perfected themselves to be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, they will be the kind of people who would not experience any sort of jealousy or selfishness when it comes to their relationships there. All will love each other unconditionally.

  • Carol Lynn states that more than 8,000 people responded to her questionnaire. I was one of the people who did. I found out about it on Facebook and took it online. It posed a bunch of questions on a graded scale about how one felt on various things related to the concept/practice/doctrine of plural marriage and then at the end one could write any thoughts. Of course, the type of person who would have known about the questionnaire and responded would probably lean towards a certain type of crowd. However, the fact that at least 6,800 people did respond with negative emotions should, I believe, at least give pause to anyone LDS. That is a large number of current or former LDS members who are hurt by this doctrine.

    My personal experience has been that every single woman I have ever engaged with on this topic was upset by it to varying degrees.

    I’m not sure the main issue lies in the idea that someone is only capable of complete, total, and unfailing love for one person. I think much of the problem lies in the complex history of how it was practiced and also how only men are allowed to be devoted to more than one person. Women must commit to being devoted to only one man, forever, in this scenario. In a church that claims men and women are equals in the sight of God, how is this equal?

  • “Suggesting that someone is only capable of complete, total, and unfailing love for one person is ridiculous.”

    This is exactly what is being asked of the women of the church. It sounds like you’ve only been discussing this with men.

  • Tim for tools indeed. What a fitting name. How many women have you actually discussed this with? I’ve discussed it with many, many women. And many men. The vast majority is very uncomfortable with polygamy. How about you offer some research sources to counter this?

  • Jealousy? Selfishness? I highly doubt you’d be saying that if you had to share your wife with many brother-husbands. It’s not about that. It’s about feeling belittled and devalued.

  • Why would any woman want to be a Mormon??? Your husband, if he’s a good boy, eventually will become a god of his own planet with more than one wife and will spawn thousands of spirit children. Your job on earth is to be a brood sow to pump out bodies for the spirit children. And of course the mormon god (“Heavenly Father”) has lots and lots of wives – he needs to copulate often to keep the flow of spirit children coming.

    When I asked the question of them, I have had some really red-faced embarrassed Mormons stammer and stutter and say “er . . . . yes, a man can be sealed to more than one wife and then have them both in heaven.” As is the case with so many bizarre practices of this bunch of kooks, I wonder how many of the rank-and-file morg actually know this.

    Mormonism is Scientology plus 175 years.

  • Quit dodging the question. True or false: a mormon male can be sealed to more than one woman, and then have both as wives in mormon heaven.

  • Coming from the outside the LDS teaching on the whole after life and families can be together forever is the most repulsive doctrine I’ve heard of from any church. In a moment I can list half a dozen families who would be shredded by the LDS doctrine. It is hands down the ugliest part of LDS teaching.

  • So you’re saying that exaltation deepens our sense of humility so much that we willingly accept a complete gutting of the relationship we once had with our eternal companion? What we were once taught to strive for, that was the most important relationship besides the one we have with the Savior, no longer has any meaning and is not worthy of protection? My mind is made up, I will not be subjected to this. A God who would do such a thing is not worthy of my worship.

  • I would have said this a bit differently: “To be so bigoted gullible as to bash believe in “eternal polygamy” is downright mentally ill.”

  • I think the real issue is the attitude. Men don’t claim their wives. I’m sealed to 2 women and I wonder if both will claim me. We claim one another. I’ve met far more non-LDS women liking polygamy than LDS women. But I fear that’s due to the “men rule” attitude of too many LDS males.

  • I’ve been a Mormon woman for 54 years, and I find this percentage to be the same among my female friends and relatives. This docreine is wicked, and we all know it.

  • It’s interesting that this male-centric doctrine requires women to become “perfected” enough to not be jealous or hurt but not men. How convenient.

  • What planet do you live on, and how dare you be so dismissive of Mormon women’s pain. Tim, you are definitely a tool.

  • May these women find peace in what the Bible teaches, not what the book of mormon teaches.

    There will be no marriage in heaven. None, that means no men will have multiple wives, as they will have NO wives.

  • The stats on the new data collected by Pearson correlates well with the pew research data which was used in the “Seeking the Promised Land” book where 86% believed that polygamy is morally reprehensible even more morally wrong than abortion.

  • There will be NO marriage in heaven. Jesus Himself tells us that, if the book of mormon teaches contrary to what Jesus Himself said then it would be a LIE

    Men and women will not be given their own little planets to rule over

  • So it’s repulsive to want to be with your wife and kids forever? You want to never see them again?

  • Not saying I’m a fan of polygamy, but they did it in the Bible. The reason for polygamy is because at certain times there weren’t enough men to marry women. In those days, women, not just LDS women, could not provide for themselves.
    Also this is very one sided, unless if you know Mormon doctrine really well, this sounds really bad. Mormons have studied why, so they know. You want to know why they have more than one wife in heaven? Because there are more righteous women than men (sorry, there are a lot of men who are jerks). So you either stay single or practice polygamy. Not saying I agree with it, just stating the reasons.
    Why are people against eternal marriage? You don’t want to ever see your spouse or children ever again? And the partvin the Bible that says no marriage is given in heaven, means no additional marriages. That’s why LDS people get married in the temple. It’s not until death do us part. It’s forever. If we had a chance to get married in the temple in this life, and didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to do so in heaven. There are several verses in the Bible confirming this, so don’t look at just one scripture.
    If you aren’t Mormon? Why do you care? All religions have weird doctrine concerning death if you weren’t part of any religion. I live in a predominantly Buddhist country. I don’t agree with their doctrine at all, but guess what, I respect their religion.
    Not asking you to agree with me. You probably don’t. That’s fine. Just asking that you respect my religion like I respect yours.

  • Tiffany, thanks for the insight. And I appreciate the candid honesty with regards to the leanings of those ‘who would have known about’ the survey. Perhaps a more formal piece of research would provide some additional insight.

  • Jill,
    I’m a bit confused. So are you advocating for Polyandry? As for who I’ve been discussing this with, you’re making assumptions based on your own feelings. It may be hard for you to believe, but there are many, many Mormon women who are perfectly comfortable with the idea of Polygamy. Most of my conversations have been with couples, and the general feelings have been similar across gender. Everyone seems to agree that, especially in mortality, polygamy presents a number of hard to address complexities. Where do you live, where do you sleep, etc. But the question of open and honest love hasn’t normally been a concern.

    Make no mistake, I’m not tying to say that no one is upset by the doctrine. Nor am I trying to say that their concerns and feelings don’t matter. Even if it’s only a very small percentage that are concerned (which is unlikely) they are still important. All I’m saying is that 85% seems much higher than my personal experience would indicate. And, to be frank, my personal experience is obviously going to suffer from selection bias as well.

  • Rachel,
    I have had the exact opposite experience. I have found that, in public, most members are very dismissive of polygamy. Men joke that ‘I can barely handle one wife’ and Women joke that “I’d love a sister wife to help with the kids and house work”. The entire church has run so far away from polygamy that we don’t hardly discuss it at all, and thus have almost no understanding of how it ever worked.
    However, I’ve found that in discussions with a single couple or small group of close friends, people have a much more nuanced view of things. I’ve met few who would be excited to see polygamy return. But I’ve also never personally had someone express deep misgivings (not saying there aren’t plenty of people who feel that way, I’m sure there are).
    I suspect that we both suffer from the very selection bias I was suggesting is found in this article. I find polygamy fascinating and am not disturbed by it in principle, though I’m not eager to practice it by any means. Unsurprisingly, those I befriend often feel similarly. You, on the other hand, are concerned by it enough to have been pretty quick to see this article and respond to my question. I suspect, without knowing you, that you gravitate toward those who feel similarly to you.

  • Ophanim,
    I think that’s a pretty gross misrepresentation of the facts of the survey. It’s about like saying that 80% (or whatever it is) of women in the church have no interest in having the priesthood. When the question is as simple as “is polygamy morally wrong” you will have a very high number of members say yes. If you actually get nuanced “Do you believe it is morally acceptable for a man who re-marries after his wife’s death to be eternally sealed to both women for all of eternity” you would get a VERY different answer. Would 20% be ok with that? 30%? 80%, I don’t know. But I’m certain it would be higher than 14%.

    Also, PEW didn’t use ‘morally reprehensible’. Nor did they ask if it was ‘more wrong than abortion’. They asked if it was morally wrong and more said it was than said that abortion was wrong. The two are not the same thing.

  • That’s a lot of Mormon folklore with little, if any, fact.
    Yes polygamy was practiced in the Bible. Like Sarah, who threw Abraham’s other wife (Haggar) and her kid (Ishmael) to the curb to starve after she was the one who gave Haggar to Abraham in the first place. Like Jacob, who first became a polygamist only after being tricked into the first marriage, then slept with the servants of his first two wives because they were trying to one-up each other in the baby-making business and considered the servants kids their own. Or David, who despite countless wives and concubines, was still unsatisfied in his lust and slept with another man’s wife and had him killed. The Bible is an extremely poor choice to try and justify polygamy as a good, or even acceptable, thing.
    The presumption Joseph started polygamy because of a shortage of men doesn’t hold up at all when you consider he married women who were *already* married and teenagers as young as 14. He needed to marry a 14-year-old so she didn’t become an old spinster? And the passage in D&C laying out polygamy states a man who “desires” a second wife can marry her. No restriction, not even if your wife objects (because “she will be destroyed” if she does). Definitely no mention of shortages of men being a qualifier.
    And the idea that there will be lots more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom is patronizing to women who are given this excuse for things being unequal, insulting to men in general, and not supported by an ounce of doctrine, scripture, or prophetic decree. It’s just the easiest excuse for apologists of a divisive doctrine.

  • I think what he’s saying, whether you agree or not, is that as a perfected person you would not feel gutted. Your relationship would feel just as full and complete regardless of how many wives your husband has. You are, of course, free to disagree with him, but that doesn’t mean his point is invalid.

  • Tim, be reasonable. The survey was certainly biased, and I don’t think the author suggests otherwise. However, the fact is, a large group of women feel this way. Is it really 87% of ALL mormon women, I doubt it. But even if it is only 1%, they are still real people with real feelings that are hurting.

  • The fundamental misunderstanding of potentially conflicting Mormon doctrine with articles of this nature irritate me. The most fundamental doctrine of Mormonism, before anyone is married, before anyone is a mother or father or son or daughter is that we are a child of God and inherent in that belief is the idea of agency. God will never take that away, ever. Not now, not in the next life. Hell, he even let 1/3 of his children destroy their future rather than take their agency away.

    Now if this is true, he will NEVER force a man or a woman to live polygamy. This would violate their agency. Eternal life and eternal marriage are blessings to those who keep the covenants and commandments associated with those blessings. True, polygamy was asked of our ancestors. It is not asked of us today and results in excommunication. If a wife dies and a husband is married to another and sealed, why would God force her to remain in that relationship when she doesn’t want a polygamous marriage? He won’t. There is no evidence of this in the scripture or anywhere. It is complete speculation.

    God can dissolve that sealing and let her move on alone or some other permutation of dissolving a sealing based on our agency first and his wisdom second. He will never force anyone.

    Why don’t articles like this acknowledge that or at least acknowledge the fundamental belief in agency where God will never force anyone into polygamy.

  • To further my point, there’s no more extreme shortage of men than only having *one on the whole planet*. If polygamy is an eternal fact, if wanting to get as many of God’s children bodies as possible is a reason to institute polygamy, if there really are a lot more faithful females than males…
    why did God only marry Adam and Eve? Why would he tell them to cleave to each other and *none else*? If women are more faithful to God than men, wouldn’t that have played out in the war in heaven? Would there be a lot more women on earth in general? Wouldn’t it have made sense to start things of with one man, but more than one woman?

  • The Utah house easily passed Bill 281, by a 59 – 16 margin, recriminalizing polygamy. The LDS church compassionately excommunicates members for believing and attempting to practice strange barbaric religious freedoms like polygamy. It should also ban polygamy in heaven. When federal officers forced utah to cave in and write that “polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited” the church should have accepted the Lord’s will by also prohibiting the continuation of the eternal polygamy sealings. Not disavowing the eternal polygamy sealing doctrine is what caused big temptations for Richard Lyman who was the last LDS apostle excommunicated for polygamy in 1944.

  • Polygamy is indefensible. My position is that it was an error and needs to be corrected.

    Ms. Pearson and other anti-polygamists seem to be unable to understand that their anti-polygamist doctrine is getting old and tired.

    No matter how much Ms. Pearson and other anti-polygamy nuts hate it, this is the era of marriage equality and the legalization of polygamous marriage is inevitable.

    Mormons had better come to terms with this fact sooner or later because reality has a way of sneaking up on people and biting them in the butt when they least expect it.

  • – It’s really interesting to hear so many opinions that are so definite with such a limited amount of information. The last statement made in the article indicates that Ms. Pearson does not believe that the church is lead by a prophet that receives revelation. That may not be the intent or message but it appears that way. If that is the case I can see why it would bother anybody. I also have no interest in following the tenets of men, especially when they involve something (the afterlife – if you believe in that) that no person who has not been there (not dead yet {Monty Python}) really has any idea of.
    – Listening to most of the strong opinions listed about what might or might not happen after this life it sounds like when I had absolute knowledge of the pilgrims and Plymouth rock when I was in 1st grade. By the time I was in college my knowledge and understanding and opinion now vastly expanded was completely different. Even now I do not really understand that event.
    – The same with what is discussed here. If you believe that the church is lead by revelation from the loving creator of the universe, then, though we don’t understand everything about polygamy, maybe you can live without a complete understanding. (We all don’t understand the manufactured strength required of your cars front axle {upon which the safety of your family and friends rests} to allow you to drive for 400,000+ miles without failing, yet we still drive cars at 70 miles per hour [depending on the state] without thinking about it. )
    – If you do not believe that the LDS church is lead by revelation through a prophet but is one of the many “christian” (and for those anti’s, non-christian), do you really believe that a loving creator, God, would really have you be miserable for the rest of eternity when you have followed the best of your knowledge? Seems like a paradox, which I am confident does not exist. If you love God and your fellow man/woman to the best of your ability, keep doing it. We will learn and understand much more after this life.

  • I was a missionary in the Philippines and we were invited in by the husband and started talking to him about families forever. His wife then came in and started yelling at him and us. Then she started in on him about every failing that she could think of, which included the kids. He looked at us with tired eyes, we nodded, stood up and left. Nah, he wasn’t interested. 😉

  • I read this story and I see a lot of ta-do about nothing. No one truly knows what the afterlife is like. And if the premise of the story is true and marriage and polygamy will be similar, why would anyone think a loving Heavenly Father would force anyone to live in a way the didn’t want to live? And if heaven is truly the perfect place like many people, and people will be perfected there, doesn’t that mean that all of the negative things like feeling less than, or being jealous etc. won’t exist? And finally I say this… so you don’t want to be in a polygamous marriage, either here or in the afterlife, isn’t that something you and your husband should talk about before you’re married? No one is forced to marry in the LDS church. So it’s not like the Church leaders are lining up women to marry off to single men. Geez people if you don’t believe in the LDS church don’t be a member it’s really as simple as that. But honestly I’ve met many, many LDS women in my life and we’ve discussed many issues and not one of them ever told me they “feared” polygamy in the afterlife. Again.. .just a made-up controversy.

  • Who is he speaking to? He is not speaking to a spouse, He is speaking of God being his strength and his portion.

    So, let’s look at the verses before and after that one–whom is the writer speaking of? Certainly not their earthly spouse.

    “Like a dream when one awakes,
    O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms.
    When my soul was embittered,
    when I was pricked in heart
    I was brutish and ignorant;
    I was like a beast toward you
    Nevertheless, I am continually with you;
    you hold my right hand.
    You guide me with your counsel,
    and afterward you will receive me to glory
    Whom have I in heaven but you?
    And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
    My flesh and my heart may fail,
    but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

    For behold, those who are far from you shall perish;
    you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you
    But for me it is good to be near God;
    I have made the Lord GOD my refuge,
    that I may tell of all your works.”

    but let’s also look at what Christ says..

    Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride

    Mat 25:10
    And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.

    Luk 20:34
    And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,

    And we can also look to this verse..which tells us marriage is until DEATH in this world do us part, after death there is no more marriage not in this world nor the next.

    Rom 7:2
    For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.

    or even these verses..

    1Co 7:38-40

    So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

  • So you do not disagree then that regardless of whether a person *feels* it or not, that gutting is still an accurate word for the change? I hope that we will be capable of a wider range of emotions, and able to choose the “higher” ones, but still not ignorant of those emotions that arise from pain.

  • Section 132 vs. 64 says “shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her;” Where is the agency in that? The next verse 65 then says that if she (Emma) turns down polygamy then Joseph has a right to practice it without her consent.

  • There is the quote from William Marks (Stake President of Nauvoo Stake) in 1853 that JS changed his mind on polygamy. Whereas before it was introduced “as a principle of exaltation”, a few months before his death he changed his mind. Marks said he met with joseph in the street of Nauvoo and he said to Marks: “Brother Marks .. . We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? he said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind . . . ” There is also some evidence in the LDS archives from an entry in the Joseph F. Smith journal, Aug. 28,1870 to support this. Although I don’t know how to access this primary source.

  • BC – I think you have misunderstood. I am not trying to wrest the scripture to defend marriage for eternity. The meaning and context is plain that the [you] in vs 25 refers to God who will “hold me by my right hand.” As John Piper has said in regards to his father’s love in reference to the Luke 20 passage, “He will know Ruth and Lavone and will have a love for them that will be, “supreme”. “Love never ends”, 1 Cor 13:8. If you are suggesting that in heaven we all will experience a kind of “relationship amnesia” – you are dead wrong.

  • Carol, bless you. I have been in your camp on this issue for years, and I’m a man. I have stated the last sentence in your interview many times: “My position is that it was an error and needs to be corrected.” It was sure nice to hear that I don’t stand alone. Just read the personal histories of the women who were in polygamy.

  • First of all, no one is named in this verse, Emma or otherwise. Second, if your interpretation is accurate, then she would have been destroyed which she wasn’t. She, or anyone else for that matter doesn’t have to choose JS or anyone else in the eternities. Just because you interprete these verses that way, doesn’t negate clear and documented doctrine of free agency.

    Twisting things to your POV fails to justify how you claim God will force anyone to be in a polygamous marriage when they don’t want to in the next life.

  • Not suggesting that, but they won’t be ‘married’ or even considered husband and wife in heaven.

  • Agency to choose is a principal doctrine of mormonism – true. However, what of the eternal consequences of those choices? Perspectives, interpretations, views on the plan of salvation have changed over many years. Brigham Young was very clear, that the rules are set, and if a man in the church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one. He will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up.” Brigham then says that his wife will be given to another, and that he “will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever.” Same for a woman, if a “woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity.” Can you see how maddening, unjust, barbaric and disheartening it was for Emma to discover the Fanny Alger relationship? When Joseph married secretly other women without her consent she didn’t even have the opportunity to exercise her agency and say No! If you take Joseph who married 34 women, and Emma who lit fire to the 132 revelation – how do you bring that couple into harmony for all eternity? You can see why she was seriously considering the 132:51 divorce “offer”. That tension still remains and it continues haunting the hearts and minds of many.

  • Really? Brigham? Do you know how many times he tried to get his opinions canonized in the D&C? There is a reason there is only 1 section from him. It is clear that you don’t understand that so I will explain. It was because so many of his contemporaries disagreed with him that his efforts to connonized his thoughts were not sustained. This, what you have quoted, was his opinion, just as what you or I have written are our individual opinions.

    Are we all not entitled to them?

    Additionally, it is always excruciatingly difficult to look at others trials from the outside knowing that there is nothing you can do to change things. Each of us have our own tests and trials. Just as you don’t understand mine and I don’t understand yours, neither of us can look back with the lens of 21’s century thought and judge JS or Emma with a significant degree of fairness or righteousness. Won’t God be the best judge for that situation?

    You have yet to explain how, other than quoting BY personal opinion, God will force polygamy on anyone who doesn’t want it. Where is the connonized, authoritive scripture? If personal opinion is all you have, then why not concede that personal agency trumps everything?

  • OK got it thank Yahweh. Certainly happy I don’t have to quote Brigham anymore or McConkie or any other prophets and apostles that spoke in the past on the topic of polygamy at general conference or wrote about polygamy restarting during the millennium. Going along with the line about brigham and canonization we can agree that if your contemporaries i.e. Emma did not agree or sustain section 132 we can throw it out as it was only Joseph’s “opinion” right? This 2 or 3 visits with the angel with a drawn sword thing forcing him to marry fanny alger and get on with polygamy was just figurative, metaphorical – his own vision of the mind. So let’s restart the canonization engine and throw out 132, and bring back the 1844 section 109? Agreed? Also let’s throw out and disavow these 1894 post canonized OD1 manifesto speculations by Wilford Woodruff, George Q Cannon, and Lorenzo Snow about concubinage being practiced in some future day by the church.

  • D&C 132:52 “And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph…”

    D&C 132:54 ” And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.”
    So according to D&C 132:
    – God told Emma to receive (accept) Joseph’s other wives
    – God told Emma she was for Joseph and no one else (ie. she had to stay with Joseph)
    – God said if she didn’t obey this, she would be destroyed
    It’s plain as day. You have to completely twist these words into nonsense to act like Emma wasn’t being forced into a polygamous relationship. You say if this interpretation was true, Emma would have been destroyed. Why? She hated it, true. She preached against it while Joseph was lying to her and acted like he wasn’t practicing it. After she found out the truth, she was angry as hell and threw women out of her home (there’s a Biblical precedent for that). But she also was faithful to Joseph, and begrudgingly allowed what she knew about, despite hating it.
    You say the Prophet Brigham Young’s understanding of a doctrine as *supremely important* as the rules of eternal marriage was only opinion. I actually agree. I would only add that the Prophet Joseph Smith’s understanding of eternal marriage was only opinion, despite it being part of the D&C. To believe otherwise is to believe God forces women to choose between their husbands having sex with other women or being destroyed. And I certainly don’t believe that.

  • When Jesus spoke of the “people of this age” Luke 20 that they will be “as the angels in heaven” you mean that we will all become unisex or gender ambiguous? or according to your view will we all become male, because all angels are male? Gender has no meaning in heaven according to Galatians 3:28.

  • Carol – if I understand correctly the reason the brides have the wedding ring on the right hand is because they are declaring their freedom and independence that they are not owned by anyone? Right?

  • No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that, perhaps, there is not actually any gutting happening. Perhaps you only feel gutted because of an imperfect mortal understanding of the marriage relationship. I’m not saying that IS the case, I’m saying it could be the case. Unless, of course, you’ve already reached such a high plain of perfection that your current views are unquestionably correct. Is it not possible, just maybe, that you are simply wrong, and in eternity you will be perfectly ok with all of this because you will see it through different eyes?

    Just as an example. You mention “A God who would do such a thing is not worthy of my worship.” Reading the Old Testament used to make me feel that way. Here is my God ordering the mass murder of men, women, children, and animals. Kill every living thing. And for what? For being in the land that I have promised you. I found myself thinking, “Such a God is not worthy of my worship”. With time, however, I came to realize that God does not view death with the same disdain and fear that I do. To him, the death of these people is little different than their birth. They are moving from one experience to another. That one little insight changed the way I viewed the Old Testament. I realized that, perhaps, I just didn’t understand God’s motivations. And that, if I had his view, I would think and feel very, very differently.

    Just a little food for thought.

  • We do not abhor murder because of disdain and fear. We feel so strongly because we have such great respect for human life. If God doesn’t respect people enough to value their lives and all of their potential mortal experiences, at least not more than he values a piece of land… well then my previous statement applies to this too. I’m done with Mormonism because of this argument, and all of the hurt and evil that it supports.

  • You’re certain God cared more about the land than the people on it? I believe that God loves all of us perfectly, and thus I have total confidence that he made the best possible decision. Why was it the best possible decision? I have no idea, but that’s the point I’m trying to make. Sometimes God’s decisions don’t make much sense to me, but that has everything to do with MY imperfection, not His.

  • I sat in the temple at my son’s wedding and was told by the Temple President who performed the sealing that the order of calling forward after this life was the man would call for his wife, then he would call for his sons and they would call forth their wives. that my daughters would be called forth by their husbands after they were called forth by their fathers. No where in that ceremony did it address what happens to this divorced wife (me). If my ex hated me so much in this life he sure as hell isn’t going to be calling me forward. And at the time of my divorce I was told by my Bishop that the children were sealed to their father. But that isn’t even in line with what the Temple President said. He said my daughters would be going with their husband’s family. I felt betrayed by a church that I left my family to join only to realize there was no truth or even consistancy with eternal family teachings. My ex’s wife hs been referred to as the eternal mother of my children. I laid my life on the line 8 times to bring childen into this world and stayed at home to raise them. Where is my reward in Heaven. So many conflicting teachings And this is the only church I have ever attended that told me I had to pay them back for helping my son complete his mission when I had sacraficed, paid tithing and worked so many years in the church or which by the way turned its back on me not once but everytime I reached out for help during a hellish divorce from a horrible man that nearly broke me. I decided to ask God, reallly ask him if the Mormon church was his church. Guess what the answer was.
    I left 6 years ago and am closer to God now than I was killing myself trying to live by the Mormon doctrines. Once last comment when I was working at the state hospital in Provo most of our patients were Mormon women who couldn’t live with the pressure placed upon them by the church. so very sad

  • Haha. Yahweh. That’s pretty clever there. I see what you did there.

    I do appreciate the compliment. Usually critics of the church resort to personal attacks as they can’t put together a persuasive argument to support their narrative.

    Yes, we can both agree that anything NOT canonized is clearly the opinion of the speaker, but your attempt to rewrite historical cannon just doesn’t cut it. It takes more that a few dissenting voices to change that ie Emma.

    Please check your 21’st century privilege at the door. How any of us in this day and age feel any right to judge those people is the definition of hubris. You and I were not there. We don’t know all the details. We don’t know the nuance of what they went through. Neither of us buried many of our children due to the circumstances as Joseph and Emma did. Neither of us felt the tears and crushing heartbreak she did at his death. Neither of us felt her loneliness the rest of her life and neither of us were there as she reportedly whispered “Joseph” on her death bed. SHE LOVED HIM TO THE END!

    She LOVED him in spite of what happened to both of them. She SACRIFICED for him because of that love and when we so easily pass judgment with our “modern wisdom”, we cheapen her sacrifice. Don’t do that to her. She suffered enough.

    Finally, you tried very hard to change the subject, but you still fail to explain how anyone will be forced to accept a polygamous marriage and subjugate their agency, male or female. If JS was a prophet, and if your interpretation is correct, Emma would have been destroyed. She wasn’t. If JS wasn’t a prophet, there is no polygamy in the next life anyway and all your arguments are in vain. If this is the case, then why are you troubled?

    Bottom line, agency still trumps everything. No one will be forced into a polygamous relationship in the eternities that they do not want. Try again if you must.

  • No, we won’t be all males in heaven nor will we be unisex, nor gender ambiguous, we will be made perfect in a resurrected body, we will be eternal beings like the angels are. The Church body is the Bride of Christ…both male and female members of the body are all the bride.

    Many men actually struggle with this, that they are ‘the bride’ because here on earth women are the brides and men are the bridegrooms.

    Our marriages are supposed to represent the relationship between Christ and His Church.

    Ephesians 5:22-32 shows us Marriage is Like Christ and the Church

    Here is a good article on how Marriage is like Christ and the church..

  • I am not actually following your logic here. Basically you are saying Emma didn’t follow what these verses said, but she clearly wasn’t destroyed?

    Either she accepted polygamy or she didn’t. I don’t think anyone would argue that she accepted it. I certainly don’t. It seems you are arguing that she didn’t accept it. So if she didn’t follow these commandments she would be destroyed, … according to your argument, but she wasn’t destroyed … so, either your interpretation is not accurate or there is another explanation.

    I’m not a big fan of everything BY said and am glad that his contemporaries blocked his efforts to canonize many of his opinions and “Supremely important” are your words. I do not have them anywhere in my arguments.

    My basic argument is still, that agency, to include Emma’s, TRUMP EVERYTHING. God will force no one to live in a polygamous relationship in the eternities that they don’t want. This includes Emma or anyone else for that matter.

  • It is clear from your story that lots of peoples opinions influenced you. They differed. I can see how that really affected you. I don’t know you, your story or your circumstance, but it sounds incredibly hard. I wish you the best in where your path leads you.

    God will never force you to do something you don’t want to do and in-spite of what a bishop of TP said. I truly believe that people (including church leaders) can’t see your heart. Only God can and I trust that he will do all he can to bless us no matter what choices we make in life. If there are eternal families and we all qualify for them, then I hope you will be happy with yours.

    God bless.

  • No. They are not living in an illegal marriage. Polygamy was banned by the Manifesto only as it pertained to the laws of the land. All marriages had to conform to those laws. A violation of this results in excommunication. Children of such illegal marriages may not be baptized until they are 18.

  • Neither Marks nor anyone else was the Stake President of the Nauvoo Stake in 1853. Your quotation is highly suspect.

  • The Manifesto never said any such thing. The doctrine of plural marriage was never changed. The practice of it was altered to conform with the laws of the land.

  • When you compare the Mormon doctrine about polygamy in the afterlife with what Jesus said about marriage, you discover that polygamy is error. Matthew 22:30, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
    The teachings of Mormonism are consistently contrary to the Word of God, whether it is their teaching about Jesus, the things of God, or the Gospel.

  • A question posed on Facebook is not a study. The agenda of this hit piece and the publication that printed it could not be more clear.

  • The creator doesn’t care who you are married to. You aren’t going to be popping out spirit babies for eternity and the OPINIONS of some stuffy old white dudes can do nothing to change that. Rejoice, for in death we all become flour in his great noodly appendages! Ramen.

  • Perhaps Mormons might want to simply read the Bible on the subject:
    Matthew 22:29,30 KJV Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

  • You are right! The great Noodle would never force anyone to live without agency and never judge people for living their best with the knowledge they have. Do your best and you too will be greeted by the beer volcano and strippers! Ramen.

  • Went to high school with Polly Andry and her sister, Julie Andry. Julie was a singer, and Polly became a lawyer.

  • women can be sealed to more than one man – after her husband dies she can be sealed to her next spouse – if she is dead she can be sealed to all of her husbands – my mother is sealed to all three of the men she married on earth – it works both ways –

  • If your wife is sealed to her parents, does this mean you’re sealed to your mother-in-law? For Eternity?

  • The Manifesto is a blanket policy, not restricted to laws of the land. Polygamists who live where it is legal and want to join the Church have to give it up. That’s a hard thing to ask someone, to divorce all but one of his wives, especially with children involved.

  • This article is a thinly veiled attempt at doing 2 things: First, highlighting a little known and barely understood doctrine of Mormonism and presenting it in a way that some will find distasteful in an attempt to discredit the church and its teachings and promote an individual authors ideas and book. Second, an attempt to foster the false narrative that there is widespread discontent in the Mormon Church; particularly among women.

    On the first point, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said “Another potential destroyer of spiritual roots—accelerated by current technology but not unique to it—is the keyhole view of the gospel or the Church. This limited view focuses on a particular doctrine or practice or perceived deficiency in a leader and ignores the grand panorama of the gospel plan and the personal and communal fruits of its harvest. President Gordon B. Hinckley gave a vivid description of one aspect of this keyhole view. He told a BYU audience about political commentators “aflame with indignation” at a then-recent news event. “With studied art they poured out the sour vinegar of invective and anger. … Surely,” he concluded, “this is the age and place of the gifted pickle sucker.” In contrast, to be securely rooted in the gospel, we must be moderate and measured in criticism and seek always for the broader view of the majestic work of God.”

    Elder Russel M. Nelson Said “Dissecting doctrine in a controversial way in order to draw attention to oneself is not pleasing to the Lord. He declared: “Bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me. And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them. (D&C 10:62–63.)”

    On the second point, there are certainly those, both men and women alike, who feel uneasy about certain points of LDS doctrine for a variety of different reasons, but the vast majority of them view the “broader view of the majestic work of God” and are not caught up on details that we do not really understand and in the grand scheme of things are not that important at this moment. The people that see the broader view work through issues with prayer and faith until they receive a testimony or a response to their questions or even the understanding that we will not have an answer on a specific point until after we die and that is okay. We need to recognize that we don’t know everything and to try to force God into the little boxes that we create based upon our own experiences and today’s world does nothing to help us progress.

    What members of the church have to remember is that God loves all of his children and wishes to bless us more than we can know. God is also perfectly fair and in the end everything will work out: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” (Revelation 21:4). Viewing this aspect of the gospel in the light of those two facts should not give anyone heartburn.

  • From the interview: “God wants us to be happy in the afterlife, but surely God also wants us to be happy here. If we see something terrible going on here, it’s not our task to say “Well, that’s too bad, but it’s going to be all for the best in the afterlife.” We are here on earth to make things better.”

    I’m choking on the gross over-simplification of this statement. There *are* times (occasionally) when we *do* need to trust God and His plan for us – including allowing for a postponement of a particular understanding in this life. I know from personal experience that, when we simply cannot come to terms with something – be it doctrine, personal trauma, etc. – there is great power and comfort in letting faith compensate for understanding. Ms. Pearson claims that God wants to be happy in this life, and I agree – however if we insist on divinely-assisted comprehension of all things in this life, I simply don’t see how we can ever be satisfied, or happy.

    As for polygamy, there is simply no doctrinal basis upon which to believe that anyone will be forced into plural marriage in the hereafter. The idea is preposterous, and divisive. I’m aware of the craziness (for lack of a better word) that existed in the early church around this idea, but that’s not the point. The early church had a lot of weird stuff going on, frankly, and the one thing we lack in all that is context.

    We need to focus on our own salvation, and standing before God. If the ghost of polygamy exists in our lives, then let it. Let it exist and work around it. If our faith in this religion has this as its only qualifier, then we should count ourselves lucky.

  • An excellent point – I’ve heard this topic discussed any number of times in settings where there was *no* pressure to agree with standard LDS perceptions. Gotta say, 85% is very high based on my experience. The large majority of LDS women I’ve heard discuss this idea, educated and independent-thinking to a person, aren’t too worried about it.

    The men I know actually seem more uncomfortable with the idea and its implications. I will say this: I’ve been around lots of Mormon men, many of whom were far from the Ensign ideal; I’ve never heard an LDS man express a desire for a polygamous marriage. Not once.

  • We are only looking at a 9year time span from when the quote was recorded and the event transpired. There is a similar gap in time from Joseph’s 16th year to his first recording of the account of the vision. It would make more sense to attack his possible Strangite or RLDS bias.

  • I see you purposely left off the part that makes LDS teaching so repulsive, the shredding of families. Second husbands whose children will be part of some other man’s “forever family” because his wife is still sealed to first hubby. And the list of the mess goes on and on.
    The LDS church is the ONLY church that teaches families will be segregated in heaven and that widows who remarry will have to choose between husbands in the next life, discarding one of them. The whole thing is a mess and the LDS response is “it will all work out” making the whole teaching ugly and pointless.

  • I can’t tell if you are trying to be funny and just trolling, or if you’re serious. You say verse 64 doesn’t mention Emma, when other verses that give the same warning (“she shall be destroyed”) clearly do. You say the doctrine of eternal marriage being *supremely important* are not your words. So what? I didn’t put it in quotes; I used asterisks for emphasis. We are talking about the crowning priesthood ordinance, and warning’s from (supposedly) God that the choice is obedience or destruction. Are you saying that isn’t supremely important? Or do you just think you are clever in your arguments.

    Also, one can easily argue Emma obeyed this commandment. She hated polygamy – but she was not commanded to love it. She preached against polygamy – but that was when Joseph lied, acting like he wasn’t practicing it. She threw women out of the house – but from my understanding it was when Joseph married them in secret and Emma found out from someone else, or it was implied as being for eternity only but she found out Joseph was having sex with the other women. Emma hating polygamy and getting angry when she was lied to is not the same as Emma disobeying the commandment to allow Joseph to be polygamous and still stay faithful to him.

    But then again, what was her choice? (A) obey, or (B) be destroyed.
    I notice you scorn my logic and say both me and Ophanim are reading the scriptures wrong. What’s your interpretation then? You haven’t given an alternative explanation of those specific verses.

  • You better go back to seminary. “Within the highest degree, the celestial kingdom, there are three further divisions, and those in the highest of these celestial divisions would become gods and goddesses through a process called “exaltation” or “eternal progression”. The doctrine of eternal progression was succinctly summarized by LDS Church leader Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”[

  • In Mormonism, the concept of divinity centers around an idea of “exaltation” and “eternal progression”: mortals themselves may become gods and goddesses in the afterlife, be rulers of their own heavenly kingdoms, have spirit children, and increase in power and glory forever. Mormons understand that there are many gods and goddesses in the cosmos, including a Heavenly Mother.

  • While Mormons busily multiply post hoc explanations for founder Joseph Smith’s behavior, Occam’s Razor steers us directly to the obvious, namely, that Smith was a sexual predator. He used his prophet-fish status in his tiny Mormon-pool to manipulate women into acquiescence. For the horrors of polygamy, read Carolyn Jessop’s book, “Escape.” For the ridiculousness of it, read Joanne Hanks’ “It’s Not About the Sex My A**.” Smith’s original, alleged “revelation” where God commands polygamy is found in Section 132 of the Mormon scripture book Doctrine and Covenants.

  • Please visit the nearest Catholic Church to talk to a priest. The doctrine is non-contradictory and expresses a love far beyond the understandings and teachings of Mormanism. Men and women in heaven will not be married to each other. There will no longer be a need for marriage, because we will be united with God.

  • The way you wrote it made it sound as if he was saying it AS the stake president of the Nauvoo Stake. That is what I was challenging.

  • Haha! Pay attention everyone. This is an excellent example of the definition of trolling. They are even funny at it! Well done.

  • Perhaps you need to read the document. It does not ban plural marriage. It bans illegal marriage. And where the Church is established and organized it is illegal. The issue of it being legal in some areas outside of the US came up breifly with Mexico in the earlt 1900s. However, the policy was based on US law since that was where the Church was incorporated and that was the government threatening to destroy the Church. That policy remains. As long as plural marriage is illegal in the US it will never be allowed in the Church.

    In addition, the number of places where it is actually legal AND allows the Church to proselytize is maybe two small countries with an extremely small Church presence.

  • Do you think he was sincere and JS really told him that? I am interested in how to find the Joseph F. Smith journal entry.

  • I am a male; I am happily married to my first and only spouse, but I see a lot more positive in temple sealings than the overall fear or contempt of the above article. I will be sealed to my spouse and lived with God forever. I have a hard time understanding that–eternity. If I die my wife may re-marry, and eventually worthy mates will figure out with whom they end up.
    My parents are temple divorced and re-married well, and I don’t see all the angst. Some people never get temple married, some live with 4-5 partners in this life. I would think that they have more to be worried about.
    I think us LDS are generally happier about the eternities. But again, I may be of the male biased variety and maybe my wife is in the 15%.

  • I think you got close there near the end. It appears she picked (C) hate it, kinda of do it when she chose to. Did she have to? Maybe. Neither of us were there.

    I am starting to see why the idea that using what someone else says (or threatens) is is a powerful excuse to make a decision. I believe that Emma followed the dictate of her own conscience. She clearly didn’t embrace polygamy nor was she destroyed for doing what she did. The truth has to be somewhere in the middle.

    This took real courage on her part. Maybe she believed she would be destroyed by doing so? Either way, she had her agency and exercised it and no destruction came. Was there coercion? I think so based on today’s understanding. Was it a test? There is ample evidence of this. But through all this, she still had her own choice.

    Looking back through a 21’s century privileged lens, it was a crappy choice. Since many of the other women at the time were staunch supporters of polygamy, not all felt as she did. Isn’t it only fair to judge them by their time instead of ours? Or better yet, leave judgement up to God?

    Either way, Emma is a clear and powerful example that her agency came first.

  • Okay, you’re correct. It’s the Second Manifesto that banned it across the Church. I know of someone in an African nation who wanted to join the LDS Church, but was refused because she was married in a polygamous family.

  • Yes the Second Manifesto did indeed enforce that policy church wide. However, that was a policy, nit a revelation. Ir did not alter the doctrine. But the US government was prepared to ban Mormons from even taking the seats in Congress they had won. The Church gad to convine Congress that we were serious.

  • BC, Yes, you have the right answer. Anything that contradicts the teaching of God’s one and only Son, Jesus, our Lord and Savior, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the creator who was in the beginning with God the Father, without whom nothing was created that was created, eternal God himself…

    “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.”

    Those people who follow Jesus Christ and him alone, placing their faith in his saving grace, sans any works, believing that his death on the cross serves as the propitiation for our sins, satisfying God’s wrath toward us, will be like the angels, neither marrying nor giving in marriage in heaven. This solves all the problems that arises for those who deviate from his original plan for marriage, that of one man for one woman and one woman for one man.

    The entire discussion as to why God allowed polygamy, divorce and slavery (not the kind of slavery we did in America) would be a fruitful one but it is not the issue here. God regulated these three social institutions but that did not mean that these were his best or his original intent. But I digress.

    Jesus put to rest this question of marriage in heaven for all Christians for all time. He was not partly right, nor was he right for a portion of time. He said “in heaven,” meaning in the future resurrection, we would be like the angels.

    If you allow anyone to change the words of Jesus, following those who claim to have more authority than him or a higher revelation, you are following wolves dressed in sheepskins.

    I, too, pray that Mormon women who trust in Jesus alone for their salvation will find the peace of God in the truth of his Word, the Bible, and not the word of men, no matter who they are, so called prophets or popes, or anyone else who dares to change the words of Jesus, the Word of God incarnate.

  • For Mormon women who fear toiling in an eternity of polygamy in Mormon heaven while hubby becomes a god, there’s good news: Mormonism is utter nonsense dreamed up by a con-man money-digger who wanted to figure out a way to have lots and lots of sex and so came up with a way to reinstate polygamy via the fantastical story of translating plates of pure gold using a magic rock. So no worries! Joe “I Wanna Marry Teenage Girls” Smithee’s evil fantasy world can’t hurt you!

  • The more interesting question is why folk fear the doctrine. Our religion puts so much emphasis and hope on such a vague understanding of the afterlife. How many personal decisions and belief structures are based on our vague understandings? The lack of clarity on the afterlife and who has the most authority or credibility when talking about it is the battleground for power within the church. Reasonable people like Carol Lynn Pearson and Jana Riess are calling out the contradictions and demanding either new, clearer revelation, or a retreat from historical contradictions. It is not an unreasonable request if the church is what it says it is. As a believer, I think the new generations will reject polygamy and all of the other doctrines that the church has been pulling back on. But it will take 50 years or more.

    As a cynic, when you reject the belief that the church head is receiving up to date relevant revelation and understand that most policies look more like just a giant corporation playing CYA, then finding the patience for continued activity becomes a struggle (worthless struggle?) and boils down more to how you want to maintain the relationship with your family and friends.

    Listening to the conference talks about how to “not zero in” on a problem or set the doubts aside is obviously the only thing to say. But how can I be a member of a religion that says, “Don’t think too hard about this?!”

    I agree that there is spiritual value and that the humble looking for God can find relief and comfort. But why do I have to believe in a afterlife where only vague conflicting pictures have been given, most of which seem to be motivated by the peoples biases at the time? It does make Mormonism special, but it is an impossible offer when you start trying to dig down and look at the foundation.

  • Mormon women, take comfort in the words of Jesus. In Luke 20:35 He made clear there is no such thing as marriage in eternity. The citizens of heaven “Neither marry nor are given in marriage.” So if Jesus is right there is nothing to worry about.

  • A big part of my problem was having to continually convince myself to be okay with this idea that I would be okay with everything I wasn’t, after I got the the celestial kingdom. Because that’s always the pat answer I got. “Oh don’t worry about it. When you get there you won’t care.” The problem was, I didn’t see the point if being happy meant I had to turn into a completely different person. Yeah, I’d be happy I guess, but at some point I wouldn’t be me anymore and that’s a big part of why I exited with my husband, 4 kids, and my mom.

  • There is no ‘heavenly Mother”

    Maybe it is you whom should go back to seminary, as Mormonism is a lie that contradicts the Bible (oh yeah, Mormon’s claim it’s ABOVE the bible)

  • Why would anyone believe a mere man on such matters?

    We will not become God’s, Oh yeah, that was Satan’s desire–thinking He could be God, and in Genesis lying to Eve which brought about the fall of man into sin.

    Gen. 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

  • Mormon women fear eternal polygamy. Well, no kidding, it’s a rotten deal. Why on earth they put up with this garbage is beyond me.

  • There is no other Covenant, just the old and new, and the New fulfilled the old.

    Ole Joseph Smith didn’t ‘hear from Jesus” he listened to some demonic angel Moroni.

    It contradicts the Bible on so many points, including magic, yet here is ole Mr. Smith and his ‘magical plates of gold’ and you don’t see that he was being deceived by the enemy of his soul?? Of course not, because that would mean YOU too are being deceived by the enemy of our souls. The one seeking to devour and destroy.

    The Bible even speaks against such things as Mr. Smiths “divining rods” and yet you believe his lies, May the One True God open your eyes to the truth and save your soul from eternal damnation, before it is to late.

    “My people consult their wooden idol, and their diviner’s wand informs them; For a spirit of harlotry has led them astray, And they have played the harlot, departing from their God.”

    But then we have these conflicting teachings

    Nephi taught us clearly what we ought to do. He said, “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).

    Ephesians 2: 4-10
    But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

    Salvation is a gift, and not something you can ‘earn’

  • You are so wrong about the “paying them back for my son’s mission”, the church Does not EVER ask anyone to pay back any kind of help, that help comes from family first, then tithing, then the ward.
    As far as your ex “did you get a temple divorce from your husband?” Because if your ex remaried like you say he did, then he got a temple divorce from you! And NO your children are sales to you FIRST, any children resulting out of his new marriage will be sealed to him and his New wife “that is if they are married in the temple and have their NEW children sealed to them .
    I am sorry for you.
    11:58 p.m., Sunday July 24

    I wanted to respond to your comment James but for some reason I can’t find it on the feed so am replying now. I take offense at you telling me I am wrong about being asked to pay back the money the ward used to pay for my son’s mission. Youo were not in the Bishop’s office when I was told that so please do not insult me. I am very well versed in the process of receiving help in the church as I served many in need.
    Next a man does not need a temple divorce to get married in the temple again. If he was sealed to his first wife and she is still alive it requires a letter of clearance from her for him to be sealed to another. If the first wife has died nothing is needed. I know this because 1. I’m not stupid and 2. I had to write one. But the sad thing is is the church only cares that he is current on child support and alimony but it does give the first wife an opportunity to share her feelings. so before I left the church he was sealed to both of us on the records of the church. The woman if she was sealed to another man and wishes to remarry in the temple must get the first sealing annulled. church doesn’t like to grant temple annullment to the women unless she is getting sealed to another man. See a man can be sealed to more than one woman but a woman can only be sealed to one man at a time.
    And again concerning my post about children. You were not in the temple sealing room when the Temple President presented how chldren are called forth. so please your one seems to imply I don’t know of what I speak. And finally I don’t need you to be “sorry for me”

    But please be respectful in your comments. And realize that although I may be the only woman on this discussion site, I am not dumb and I know more about the church and its doctrine than you obviously think. Pleasant Monday to you.

  • I find it interesting that everything in Mormonism today has to be viewed as a “nuance”. This was not the case when I was a kid. Joe Smith could interpret ancient writings. The first vision was a solid witness of God and Jesus. The native Americans were descended from Jews who ventured across the ocean as described in the book of Mormon.
    Today we know from the book of Abraham that Joe couldn’t translate anything at all. We know from documented evidence that he gave multiple, widely varying accounts of the first vision making his witness totally useless and we know from DNA evidence that the native Americans are of Asian origin and now middle eastern.
    And so enters the need for “nuance”. Suddenly things need to be spun. We need to redefine words and try to reinterpret statements from past prophets as having some new, obscure meaning.
    Look, 100 years from now people are not going to need to question the evil of the holocaust just because they didn’t live in the 1940s. They will be able to understand it just fine the same way we understand the uniquely vile behaviors of Joe Smith and the other early Mormon leaders and other evils of that time like slavery. Through personal journals, government records and the journalism of the day on top of physical evidence and science.
    Sorry but 180 years ago was not that long ago.

  • The strength of your grammar does not improve your logic anymore than flaws in mine invalidate my argument. Of course dealing with facts is not the strength of a person who believes in an invisible magical being with no substantive facts to support their belief. So please continue to insult me, that is after all the only bastion a person of your faith has left to use as a defense.

  • With all the changes in society today, polygamy is not at the top of the list. Homosexuality and transgender to name but two. I guess women could have multiple husbands in any scenario. Lots of other things to worry about.

  • So this non-polygamy policy isn’t enforced as long as only one wife is alive. And the children from these polygamous sealings are not restricted from Church ordinances and membership. Doesn’t seem very consistent.

  • 0r, in other words,
    join one of the 58,000 “protestant” denominations, one for every conceivable interpretation of every scripture.
    the problem with the Catholic Church is that, after 2,000 years,
    they have developed reasoned, rational interpretations consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
    Don’t restrict yourself to what Jesus taught. Interpret his teachings for yourself.
    Even if you have no understanding of the context.

  • A few meanings for “force”. We have m*dv/dt, exercising power and influence, coercion or compulsion, threats of violence. It doesn’t have to refer to aiming the lethal A-10 GAU-8 30mm cannon at Joseph and commanding him to introduce polygamy. A few historical facts are problematic as they exhibit an intent to exercise excessive power/influence, coercion, compulsion, and threats of violence – I will let you decide which definition of force applies in these cases: 1) Terryl Givens/Jana’s NPR interview they were asked about the angel with the drawn sword. “A heavenly being visited the founder of the Mormon church commanding him to take multiple wives, – twice he refused, but on the angel’s third visit that angel came wielding a sword and so Joseph eventually relented.” Terryl givens was asked to respond what he thought of this. [Was this angel a humble Clarence 2nd class?] No, Givens said, “it doesn’t sound like a very meek, gentle and persuasive angel, it sounds like a different kind of influence that is being exercised there. It seems inconsistent with the kind of God, and the kind of influence that generally is exercised in any righteous context that the Lord approves of.” 2) Mary Lightner confirms that “the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.” Mary enters polygamy under stress that if she did not – Joseph would be killed by the slayer angel 3) again this slayer angel persuades Benjamin Johnson to allow his sister to enter polygamy “Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law.” “He told my sister to have no fears, and he there and then sealed my sister, Almira, to the Prophet.” “Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira’s room and bed, and also asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M.” Benjamin’s older brother Joseph also knew about the “first frigging” that was done in his house between his mother in law Mary Heron Snyder and Joseph Smith. J. Johnson then says, “I never plighted my faith on Joseph’s transactions”. 3) Helen Mar Kimball and Joseph’s promises of salvation to the Kimball family: Helen wrote, “After which he said to me, ‘if you take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.’ This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” 4) Joseph’s marriages to the Lawrence girls. Maria Lawrence was a teenaged orphan who was living in the Smith household. Joseph secretly married both Maria, age 19 and her sister Sarah, age 17 on 11 May 1843 and was serving as executor of their $8,000 estate. 5) Threats of violence and destruction of section 132:64, “then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her;” 6) Emma’s reaction to the secret polygamy was to apply equal force through threats of exposure, divorce, and violence. Emily Partridge said in 1843 that Emma threatened Joseph, “Emma said some very hard things—Joseph should give us up or blood should flow. She would rather his blood would run pure than be polluted in this manner.” 7) Joseph said to Sarah Pratt after she turned down his polygamy proposal, ‘Be silent, or I shall ruin your character. My character must be sustained in the interests of the church’. 8) Loyalty tests tried upon John Taylor and Heber C Kimball if they did not give their wives to Joseph Smith.
    I think we can agree prophets should follow D&C 121:37, and if there are any cases where they did not then the actions performed will not carry force in eternity. The problem is that the essay defends Joseph in every single case and does not concede from the perspective of women the authenticity of that “initial revulsion and anguish”. A host of folk doctrine, spin-off cults, and speculative commentaries find their roots in section 132, and the fact that these are still promulgated by those in authority negatively affects the relationships of the living and causes trauma and disaffection from the faith.

  • Polygamy was a test for both Joseph and Emma and everyone else. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son. Joseph would have had to sacrifice his fame as prophet and his own salvation out of love for Emma. (he failed). Emma would have had to willingly sacrifice her need to have a loyal husband by consenting to polygamy (she failed by backsliding in her support). When God asks you to deprive or lose something because you love Him, He is only testing you, He doesn’t intend to deprive you for eternity because He is a loving God.

  • But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven….”

  • I’m an active believing latterday saint and as much as I would like to agree with you, your conclusion is utterly ridiculous!!!! Of course we are all bothered by it! But we have faith. Faith is not a certain knowledge. There are too many priceless principles of our Mormon faith to give up just because we don’t understand this doctrine. I personally hate it but I refuse to give up my faith just because of one inconsistent doctrine. I will wait until I have more information. There are MANY inconsistencies in the Bible but I would never throw out any of it. I will wait. but never assume we don’t have a problem with it. If you don’t have a problem with polygamy I question your present views of monogamy!

  • I don’t think you understand women at all. Read up on many of the early women required to allow polygamy in the church. They were certainly not “just fine” ie, Emma of course, Valaite Kimball, Maryann Young.( Kept her own house in Fillmore. Not in the Lion house) If we can’t have a real conversation as active members, how can those who don’t yet have a testimony of our other doctrines understand. Laura Hales (coauthor of “Joseph Smiths Polygamy” and active member of the church) recently stated “if you go into a study of polygamy with the idea that you will feel comfortable, you will be disappointed”. This history is fraught with dilemmas.

  • Thank you I really appreciate you posting this it sums up my feelings completely! Yes I am disturbed by the historocity of polygamy but I refuse to allow something so unimportant to the here and now take away from my comfort, peace and joy that my testimony bring me every day.

  • So, this is totally, “The Gospel According to Breeboo,” so take it for what it’s worth…

    Let’s take any doctrine of any church out of the discussion for minute. Here’s what I get:
    – Polygamy wasn’t invented by Mormons, not by a long shot. Many of the prophets of the Old Testament had deity-sanctioned multiple wives and concubines. If you disagree with the practice, or have a terrible time imagining yourself in that position (that’s where I’m at), don’t blame the Mormons! Or their leaders. If you’re looking for answers, it’s probably a good place to start by asking why that practice was ever in place to begin with, and why/when it stopped being God-approved.
    – I will never, and I mean ever, understand how someone can believe in a God that forces his children to do things they don’t want to do. I don’t think that’s how it is. Oh, sure – like any action in the universe, there are consequences for every action we take. And because God loves his children, wants nothing more than for us to be happy, and knows which actions have consequences associated with them that will make us happy, he points us in that direction (what the kids are calling, “commandments”). However, we are always free to chose. So, if two people are married, and sealed together forever, one of them dies before the other (which, in my experience, is almost always the way it happens… don’t often see both spouses passing away together), and the other person remarries (*footnote: let’s assume that they all worked hard their entire life to follow Christ and keep their covenants), I am so totally confident that EVERYONE involved (spouses, children) gets a choice in their personal outcome at some point – and lucky them, they will likely be counseled by God on what the outcomes of their choices will be before they actually make the choice. Awesome, no ambiguity! Again, I just refuse to believe in a God that would set up a system that would punish his children for loving Him, and following His commandments to the absolute best of their abilities. If you believe He’s smart enough to create a universe, and keep it ticking, I’m betting the “challenges” we’re discussing here are pretty easy for Him to solve. Any questions I ever have about anything, I just keep that in mind while I search for the answers. The answers are here for us.

  • I dispute some of your statements above and definitely the framing, but that is beside the point. Look, I don’t think you will find any rational person who doesn’t look at polygamy from our modern perspective who doesn’t have concerns. I personally do not understand why God tests some people one way and others a different way. You appear to have set yourself up as a judge on why God does this. What you didn’t quote were any of the experiences of those faithful members of the church who said no to the practice of polygamy, yet still remained faithful. If you were consistent in your thinking, you would research and quote these people or do they even matter to you? They clearly had a choice and chose differently. They clearly were not destroyed or forced out of the church. Did they pass or fail their tests? I don’t know and neither do you. Your narrow perspective leaves no room for the idea that they still had a choice. Maybe they would have failed an incredibly difficult “abrahamic” style test so they chose what they did, but to argue they didn’t have a choice where there is clear evidence of the contrary is the definition of a closed mind.

  • Hey has anyone found those original golden tablets that Joseph Smith boasted about? (Not the second set fabricated to cover his backside)

    Didn’t think so. That guy was a master con artist and the whole Mormon religion is a giant con – like mainstream Christianity but even more so.

  • Algebraically, it should be minus given Richie’s subject-verb-object sentence structure. Whichever, his meaning is well placed.
    Mormon = Scientology – 175
    Mormon+175 = Scientology
    Richie’s opening question is more than rhetorical. Why would any woman want to be a Mormon?

  • “Especially it’s a terror to sealed widows. A widow who is sealed to her first husband is considered way out of the pool of attractive women for Mormon men to date. One man actually hung up the phone when a woman told him she was a widow.”

    Wait, so this woman who wants to marry a second man says her problems stem from the ability of men to marry a second woman??

    So the article goes over fact that a husband might have multiple wives in an afterlife is a bad thing, but at the same time it seems to say a wife NEEDS the ability to potentially have multiple husbands in the afterlife??

    I’m not sure what this article is trying to get at.

    Personally, I intend to marry exactly once due to my own taste in monogamy. So I can understand the fears of women who think they might be in plural marriages in the afterlife.

    But isn’t the concern of the widows the… exact opposite of that concern?? The article seems to be taking the position that men should NOT remarry (one I agree with personally, but not a standard I would force on another person) but simultaneously seems to be taking the position that it needs to be EASIER for women to remarry.

    Why the double-standard there?? It seems to me that one should either believe a marriage should be eternally monogamous, as I do, or one should believe that the marriage of multiple partners is okay. This article embraces both ideas, and it leaves me confused.

    The article goes “Oh no!! What if women end up with multiple husbands because their surviving spouse remarried!!”

    But then goes on with “Oh no!! Widows can’t find men because men don’t want to end up in situations where they are married to multiple women!!”

    I don’t get it. Embrace fully either monogamy or polygamy. Don’t do this thing where the women shouldn’t have polygamy forced on them, but men should.

  • Seems like a stupid theological debate here I wish no part of, but your math error bothers me enough to interject here.

    The person was saying that Scientology would look like Mormonism after the passage of 175 years, therefore equation would algebraically be:

    Mormonism = Scientology + 175

    It’s saying the religions would be equivalent after an equal passage of time. Therefore the addition needs to be made to the Scientology side of the equation.

    Go back and learn math before trying to lecture others on the topic.

  • “why that practice was ever in place to begin with”

    It’s a social safety net. Until recently (relative to the entirety of human existence) men had a MUCH higher death rate then women due to over-representation in dangerous careers. This causes lots of widows and a gender imbalance between men and women. Polygamy serves a very good purpose in older time periods in ensuring that every woman is provided for, even if there are less women than men and even if there is a good chance the husband they relied upon for support would die in his job.

    Now in the modern age death rates of men have plummeted thanks to ever-increasing safety of labor. And living in a society without a large gender imbalance, I can say that I personally find polygamy distasteful and have no interest in more than one marriage. But I can still see how it was, at one point in time, a VERY necessary thing to prevent massive amount of suffering for women.

  • But Abraham didn’t actually kill his son. These people did have to practice polygamy…. FOR ETERNITY. So comparing it with Abraham doesn’t work.

  • Well, both religions are fairy tales so from that some comparison actually is valid.

  • How can you say that God will never force anyone into polygamy, when according to Joseph Smith that is exactly what God did to him? If we can believe Smith, the only reason he took up polygamy was because an angel with a drawn sword threatened to kill him he refused. At least that is the story he told a teenage girl to convince her to have sex with him. So either Smith was making the story up to manipulate and abuse a young girl and her family or God has indeed forced polygamy on a person against their will.

  • Mormonism is not the biblical version of Christianity. It is not Christian at all, and Mormons serve a different god than Christians – a god that does not exist. So all of this discussion on sealing and eternal polygamy is moot. The whole Mormon pre-existence story is a fairytale originating from the pit to deceive (and unfortunately it deceives many), and the extra Biblical after death marriage connections and all temple ceremonies all farce.
    Mormons, seek the God of the Bible! All people are God’s creation, not His children unless/until you come to Him in faith, ask for forgiveness of your sins, and allow Him to come into your life. John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
    I was raised Mormon and at age 22, the real God got ahold of me, opened my eyes to the deception. I accepted Christ into my life and left Mormonism and all its lies behind. Freedom from religion…Free to pursue a relationship with the only true God. My eternity secure, my life here a gift from God, what I do with it, to help others find truth and salvation in Christ alone….my gift to Him. I pray often for those trapped in the deception of Mormonism…perhaps someday I will be made aware of what those prayers accomplished.:)

  • Mormonism is not the biblical version of Christianity. It is not Christian at all, and Mormons serve a different god than Christians – a god that does not exist. So all of this discussion on sealing and eternal polygamy is moot. The whole Mormon pre-existence story is a fairytale originating from the pit to deceive (and unfortunately it deceives many), and the extra Biblical after death marriage connections and all temple ceremonies all farce. Mormons, seek the God of the Bible! All people are God’s creation, not His children unless/until you come to Him in faith, ask for forgiveness of your sins, and allow Him to come into your life. John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. I was raised Mormon and at age 22, the real God got ahold of me, opened my eyes to the deception. I accepted Christ into my life and left Mormonism and all its lies behind. Freedom from religion…Free to pursue a relationship with the only true God. My eternity secure, my life here a gift from God, what I do with it, to help others find truth and salvation in Christ alone….my gift to Him. I pray often for those trapped in the deception of Mormonism…perhaps someday I will be made aware of what those prayers accomplished.:)

  • We are not told that if would be eternal. We are told:
    D&C 132: 66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega.

    It also says that Emma was not to partake and it also says that God did it to test them:
    D&C 132: 51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

  • The lesson we learn from this, is that men are to listen to their wives more. Adam should listen to Eve. Joseph should listen to Emma. God made woman to help man. He didn’t need to make a helper for the woman, it was the man who needed a helpmeet. So men, listen to your wives. If your idea goes against your wife’s heart, then no matter that you think God is telling you, it is off.

  • What?!?!? This isn’t what I was taught growing up active LDS in utah. Sealings are forever. Emma will be damned for not accepting polygamy. Are you saying they should have never practiced polygamy??

  • My wife, to whom I am sealed, passed away last November. I loved her.

    I have since met another wonderful woman. I love her also. I want to be sealed to her too. She also wants to be sealed to me.

    But I know that my deceased wife will not want to share me in the afterlife. I fear that if she is given a choice of being a part of a polygamous marriage with me in the Celestial Kingdom, or to be with someone else, she will choose the latter.

    What should I do?

  • The Bible says that “The heart is desperately wicked.” And Sarah laughed within herself at what the angel said. Nope, don’t trust a woman’s heart.

  • No woman is forced to stay sealed to you if she doesn’t want to. We still have free will in the next life. Anyone with someone by their side will have it because both want it.

  • The Bible doesn’t compromise on the words, “desperately wicked” nor does it add the word broken for the sake of the agenda you are pushing.

  • If the word means everything to you and the spirit of the word means nothing then tell me. Can you live without a heart? The spirit of the law is just as important as the letter of the law. Otherwise we have what we have in congress, bills thousands of pages long. I am pushing my view because it is correct.

  • John chapter 1
    “In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was Life, and The Life was The Light of men. And the light shined into the darkness and the darkness overcame it not.”

    When you come up with your own words and your own spirits, while despising The Word of God, you are practicing witchcraft.

  • I was raised in the LDS church. When I came of age I was told by a church leader that more women than men would be getting into heaven, and because of this I would have to be okay with sharing my husband with other women, if I wanted to be worthy of returning to god when I die. I cried hysterically. I was told god would help me come to terms and be okay with it. I’m not okay with it. And I would never want to marry any man who would be okay with it. Him being okay with something like that means I am worthless to him, and he has no business being anybody’s husband. Not in this life, and not in the next.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.