LDS Freedom Forum

LadyT wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 4:26 pm My mil has found many guys like this. They refuse to even date if the woman is sealed to another man. One asked her if she would be willing to break her sealing with her late husband to be sealed to a new one. She said no and he said then there is nothing to talk about. He was sealed to his late wife. She said that she has talked to several older widows that have had the same thing happen . It's sad.

So weird!
My dad and step mom were both sealed to their first spouses, who died. So they were both okay with being married “for time only”.

ransomme wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 3:48 pm

Niemand wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 1:48 pm

Ebenezer wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 12:51 pm I hear Sharon Eubank is available.

Sheri Dew too.

Neither are available, they both have partners

But are they priesthood holders?

Niemand wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 5:02 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 3:48 pm

Niemand wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 1:48 pm

Sheri Dew too.

Neither are available, they both have partners

But are they priesthood holders?

Give it time.

Niemand wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 5:02 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 3:48 pm

Niemand wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 1:48 pm

Sheri Dew too.

Neither are available, they both have partners

But are they priesthood holders?

You never know...what they think

This attitude by elderly men in the church seems to be a direct result of the devaluing of women that plural marriage engenders. Men are all about themselves and what a women can do for them.

Outside of the church there are many couples that come together as a result of widowhood. They both realize that companionship in this life is a great blessing especially at the end of life.

The man mentioned in the OP may be a wonderful person but his apparent selfish attitude in collecting another wife for the eternities stems from Brigham and Heber and the like. What woman in todays world would submit to this possessive behavior?

Teancum1 wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 6:06 pm This attitude by elderly men in the church seems to be a direct result of the devaluing of women that plural marriage engenders. Men are all about themselves and what a women can do for them.

Outside of the church there are many couples that come together as a result of widowhood. They both realize that companionship in this life is a great blessing especially at the end of life.

The man mentioned in the OP may be a wonderful person but his apparent selfish attitude in collecting another wife for the eternities stems from Brigham and Heber and the like. What woman in todays world would submit to this possessive behavior?

He just wants what the top 2 men in LDS hierarchy have.

Teancum1 wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 6:06 pm companionship in this life is a great blessing especially at the end of life.

Be fruitful
Multiply
Replenish the earth
— In scripture

Remarry
“Companion”
With infertile grans
— Not. Sorry.

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 4:50 pm

LadyT wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 4:26 pm My mil has found many guys like this. They refuse to even date if the woman is sealed to another man. One asked her if she would be willing to break her sealing with her late husband to be sealed to a new one. She said no and he said then there is nothing to talk about. He was sealed to his late wife. She said that she has talked to several older widows that have had the same thing happen . It's sad.

So weird!
My dad and step mom were both sealed to their first spouses, who died. So they were both okay with being married “for time only”.

My mom remarried, 10 years after my dad passed away, to a fine widower who’s wife had died two years earlier. Both had been sealed to their previous companions. They lived together for an additional 16 1/2 years before he died. It was about companionship - nothing about collecting eternal partners.

I talked to my friend (from the OP) and he was very forceful “I just don’t want to waste my time on someone I can’t have forever”.

I think it is a perfectly fine objective but I wouldn't put hard limits on it. Let God work a miracle and see who he wants to put in your path.

“everything in the endowment pertains to the new and everlasting covenant. If we were honest about the new and everlasting covenant we would recognize it as polygamy. "Celestial marriage" and the term "new and everlasting covenant" were code phrases for polygamy because, well, back in the Nauvoo era using the proper name "polygamy" was just one big word-salad mess too far.

Today, in the church. we've sanitized the New and Everlasting polygamy covenant and call it eternal marriage with all its Hollywood feel-good we-live-forever with our families happy days. But that's not how it started in Nauvoo. Back in the day, the endowment was about keeping polygamy secret, including offering exaltation rewards for those who kept the secret, and death by blood oaths for those who didn't. It was never about families can be together forever. It was about hiding the sin of adultery in plain sight. The endowment began as a cover for adultery, but has incrementally become a Bastian of hope for "families can be forever". The Fabian Socialists would be proud of that kind of doctrinal evolution---rebranding adultery as polygamy, changing the name to celestial marriage by virtue of a new and everlasting temple covenant and finally monogamizing it all for sale in the 20th century with a happy forever family face.“

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 8th, 2023, 1:14 pm “everything in the endowment pertains to the new and everlasting covenant. If we were honest about the new and everlasting covenant we would recognize it as polygamy. "Celestial marriage" and the term "new and everlasting covenant" were code phrases for polygamy because, well, back in the Nauvoo era using the proper name "polygamy" was just one big word-salad mess too far.

Today, in the church. we've sanitized the New and Everlasting polygamy covenant and call it eternal marriage with all its Hollywood feel-good we-live-forever with our families happy days. But that's not how it started in Nauvoo. Back in the day, the endowment was about keeping polygamy secret, including offering exaltation rewards for those who kept the secret, and death by blood oaths for those who didn't. It was never about families can be together forever. It was about hiding the sin of adultery in plain sight. The endowment began as a cover for adultery, but has incrementally become a Bastian of hope for "families can be forever". The Fabian Socialists would be proud of that kind of doctrinal evolution---rebranding adultery as polygamy, changing the name to celestial marriage by virtue of a new and everlasting temple covenant and finally monogamizing it all for sale in the 20th century with a happy forever family face.“

I'm not an unsealed woman but I'm enjoying the discussion. You've got me thinking about "Families Can Be Forever" and it has been a while since I have come across that phrase. I've been thinking lately that the endowment and sealing ordinances might represent the reunification of Adam and Eve in a very literal sense, meaning that once they are sealed they become united into one being. We are reminded in the endowment that we are all Adam and Eve. We use that language when speaking of mortal marriages wherein we become "one flesh." There is no mention of females in the higher realms nor any mention of Heavenly Mother (except Nemenhah Record). I don't believe that a male God married to a female God is the way we become "sons" and "daughters" of God. It is when we become sons and daughters that we receive a "new name" and we are no longer referred to in the collective Adam and Eve, which are many. If my way of thinking is correct (rarely is) then Families are Forever is one clever marketing trick and heck of a falsehood.

Hmmmm.

Mike

I have no idea what to think about this man or his desire. That's his business. A woman that doesn't like the terms is not compelled to accept them. If I'm selling something with outrageous stipulations, the stipulations are mine to write and any other is welcome to make or skip the purchase.

Were I his age, though, I wouldn't even bother. If I reach 75 and my wife dies around that time, I wouldn't have a purpose in it, anyway. Children grown and moved out. Too old to expect sexual gratification. At that point, I would already have a wife waiting for me. From my current perspective, I would be uninterested in taking on the costs and emotional considerations of another wife for the three to twenty years I have left. I would rather just do my own thing until I'm done with mortality and can have my first wife back.

Were I not his age, however, it gets complicated very quickly. I'm still raising children who need a mother and I'm still young and healthy enough to intensely desire to be, and fairly expect a woman who is, sexually engaging. I don't know what the Celestial Kingdom is like, or Celestial relationships. What I do know is that if things worked out well enough with my marrying a second woman, I would want to be sealed to her for eternity. At the core of things, I don't care about other men, other women, or whatever others consider "fair" or "equal". When the intensity of the labor in raising a family or the vastness of eternity in relationships is concerned, I can only speak to what I want and leave others to accept that or walk away. If I sought for a woman unsealed, it would be to entirely avoid the selfishness of asking anyone to annul a previous sealing.

It is also possible, of course, that I would never really hit it off with her, and she would merely be a mother for my children and that after years of giving her the attention and care she is due, we would not even remain for all of time, much less eternity, and her sealing status would be unimportant to me.

Honestly, I find marriage to be more socially and emotionally nuanced, complex, and unfulfilling than I like to put up with. It is something like gambling; a hefty payment with a hoped-for but ever-unrealized payoff. I don't need two of them, and this is why I don't peg polygyny as being a scheme by men during the Restoration to have sexual variety.

This reminds me of my BFF's father when her mother passed. They were at the funeral, and he was trying to find his next wife amongst the attendees!! Despicable! His seven kids were so hurt and embarrassed at how he was acting towards the women WHILE THEIR MOTHER LAY IN HER CASKET ACROSS THE ROOM! He was in his 80s and a HUGE narcissist, so it didn't even phase him, he felt he was justified and entitled. Seriously...

I once asked an older single sister in my ward if she was looking for a man and she said definitely not. I pushed her for an answer because she was so strongly against the idea. She said, first off I’m already seal to a man so half the eligible bachelors don’t want to even try me out and the half that’s left either want a purse or a nurse. Every guy has his own agenda.

Jamescm wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 3:32 pm
At the core of things, I don't care about other men, other women, or whatever others consider "fair" or "equal".

Frankly, that’s not really celestial kingdom material, as far as I’m concerned. You don’t get to the celestial kingdom without caring about others. And I mean others besides your spouse and your immediate family.

I agree with you about marriage being a complex thing though. But I think a lot of people, myself included, don’t like being alone or lonely, so maybe they are willing to put up with those parts of marriage in exchange for having someone to talk to, someone to go on dates with, someone to eat dinner with, etc. to avoid loneliness. But not everyone gets remarried. Gordon Hinckley didn’t get remarried after his wife died. Of course he also stated publicly that he didn’t think polygamy was doctrinal. So he was different from Nelson and Oaks in that way.

Lineman1012 wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 10:13 am My friend, who’s 75 years old, lost his wife a couple months back. I was talking to him this week and he said he’s ready to start dating again. But there’s one catch, He only wants to date women that haven’t been “sealed” to anyone. He doesn’t want to love someone he can’t have forever. We had a short discussion and his mind is made up. “Only unsealed women” and they will have to be able to get along with his dead wife, in the eternities.

What do you think? Is this rational thinking or not?

Yes, it is. It would just feel really weird to many guys to be married to someone who really belongs to another guy.

The other side is also rational.

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 11:30 am I think it’s dumb. But I can see where he arrived at that thinking. How does he know his 2nd wife would get along with his first wife anyway? He doesn’t. It’s just a guess.

Maybe the unsealed women out there don’t want to be heavenly polygamists.

Everyone--not just two wives--in the CK will get along, or they wouldn't/ won't be there.

Who we are now, is not who we will be. Just passing to the spirit world will be amazing; going to the CK will be glorious.

In the CK, THERE ARE NO: concubines, 1st wife above the other wives, 2nd wife above the others "below", etc.

JohnnyL wrote: ↑November 10th, 2023, 8:46 am

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 11:30 am I think it’s dumb. But I can see where he arrived at that thinking. How does he know his 2nd wife would get along with his first wife anyway? He doesn’t. It’s just a guess.

Maybe the unsealed women out there don’t want to be heavenly polygamists.

Everyone--not just two wives--in the CK will get along, or they wouldn't/ won't be there.

Who we are now, is not who we will be. Just passing to the spirit world will be amazing; going to the CK will be glorious.

In the CK, THERE ARE NO: concubines, 1st wife above the other wives, 2nd wife above the others "below", etc.

I’m of the opinion that there is not polygamy in Heaven.

Gather ‘round, Boomers. Embroad your ken.
The purpose of wives is this: CHILDREN.
Not be some broad’s girlfriend and sit and chat,
Nay: family creation. It’s tit for dat.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I heard recently that the church now allows (similar to men) for a woman to be sealed to multiple husband's, BUT only after that woman has passed on. Seems like a nod to the woman, a la all of the other recent temple changes (wearing veil, no more covenant with Adam, etc)

Anyone else heard of this, AND aware of the rationale used to explain it?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I heard recently that the church now allows (similar to men) for a woman to be sealed to multiple husband's, BUT (unlike the men) only after that woman has passed on.

Seems like a nod to keep women from rising up, similar to many of the recent temple changes (manner of wearing veil, no more covenant with Adam, etc)

Anyone else heard of this, AND aware of the rationale used to explain it?

petertaylorpedro wrote: ↑November 10th, 2023, 7:44 pm Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I heard recently that the church now allows (similar to men) for a woman to be sealed to multiple husband's, BUT (unlike the men) only after that woman has passed on.

Seems like a nod to keep women from rising up, similar to many of the recent temple changes (manner of wearing veil, no more covenant with Adam, etc)

Anyone else heard of this, AND aware of the rationale used to explain it?

Yes, this is indeed the case. My late wife’s grand mother and mother are so sealed to multiple husbands. As for the rationale I am unaware of any official reasons given.

.

petertaylorpedro wrote: ↑November 10th, 2023, 7:44 pm Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I heard recently that the church now allows (similar to men) for a woman to be sealed to multiple husband's, BUT (unlike the men) only after that woman has passed on.

Seems like a nod to keep women from rising up, similar to many of the recent temple changes (manner of wearing veil, no more covenant with Adam, etc)

Anyone else heard of this, AND aware of the rationale used to explain it?

This is not the same as men being sealed to multiple women, but to give the women the opportunity to choose which one husband.

Reading this makes me realize how extremely complicated the church is, and why I decided years ago to avoid the mass of confusion.
Normal people don’t agonize over who to get sealed to.
And by the way, eternal marriage is a great thing, except for guys like my nephew who had 2 wives divorce him after being sealed.
I promise to be with you forever and ever, or until I get bored or need more money.