Mormons don't believe in polygamy you say?

[Catholic20064]

I have read statements here suggesting that Mormons no longer believe in polygamy. I disagree strongly with that statement. Mormon men and women are sealed in the temple for time and all eternity. It is not unusual for a Mormon man to tire of his first wife and civilly divorce his Mormon wife without obtaining a temple divorce. I know of at least two such situations in the local Mormon ward. The men went on to marry younger wives and are sealed in the Mormon temple to the trophy wives. That means these men are married in the eyes of the Mormon Church to two women at the same time. They don’t live with the wives they divorced, but are married to them for all eternity unless they get a temple divorce.

In addition to that form of polygamy, a Mormon man can marry in the temple again once his first wife dies. He is sealed to more than one woman for all eternity and will live in polygamy in the next life.

The woman who loses her first husband is not given such a benefit. Without a temple divorce they cannot marry another man in the temple. It is pretty plain that Mormons still believe in polygamy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The doctrine is also in their scriptures. D&C 132. It is a doctrine that is not practiced outwardly, but as you have pointed out, it is practiced with an eye to the hereafter.

 

[MelanieAnne]

According to Mormon Doctrine, polygamy was only taken from the Earth, it is still practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. In fact for all we know Heavenly Father (what Mormons call God) may have several wives, not just one “Heavenly Mother”. Since it is practiced in the Celestial Kingdom, worthy Mormon men can expect to be heads of their polygamous families in the hereafter. So Mormons still believe in polygamy, just not during this lifetime.

 

[pipper]

I know some Mormons still do practice polygamy quite openly. Not too long ago a breakaway but still mormon sect opened a big compound in Eldorado Texas, not far from where I live. They are very secrative their “compound” is surronded by barb-wire fences denieing entrance and egess to everybody not in their religion. They have sister compounds, like in Colorado City AZ and elsewhere, and that is just one of the polyamous sects in Mormonism, there are others as well.

Has anyone seen Big Love on HBO, yes I know it’s only tv show, butn there is a germ of truth to it.

 

[Catholic20064]

I know some Mormons still do practice polygamy quite openly. Not too long ago a breakaway but still mormon sect opened a big compound in Eldorado Texas, not far from where I live. They are very secrative their “compound” is surronded by barb-wire fences denieing entrance and egess to everybody not in their religion. They have sister compounds, like in Colorado City AZ and elsewhere, and that is just one of the polyamous sects in Mormonism, there are others as well.

Has anyone seen Big Love on HBO, yes I know it’s only tv show, butn there is a germ of truth to it.

Yes, but we are discussing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. They claim to no longer practice polygamy, but if your wife gets old and no longer satisfies you sexually you are free to divorce her civilly and get a younger woman who does. You can be sealed to both of them in the temple at the same time while you only live with the playmate. This is actually more common than you might think.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, but we are discussing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. They claim to no longer practice polygamy, but if your wife gets old and no longer satisfies you sexually you are free to divorce her civilly and get a younger woman who does. You can be sealed to both of them in the temple at the same time while you only live with the playmate. This is actually more common than you might think.

Catholic20064,
This is a repugnant subject for me, but thanks for at least telling Pipper the Texas group has nothing to do with the LDS church.

As for your last statement here, I’m in my mid-fifties, and heard of that happening twice, once when I was about age 30 (the man was excommunicated) and once when I was about age 40 (I assume he was excommunicated, but don’t know). Both situations were considered tragic by everyone who knew about it, and the men have lost touch with all the friends they had previously associated with. I have no idea about their current situation. As far as I’m concerned, they merit no forgiveness, period, and would merit the telestial kingdom after suffering for 1,000 years for their significant mistake that has caused so much heartache to their families.

There is no marriage nor any marriage condition in the telestial kingdom. They will have given up all association with their children, parents, or other loved ones from their mortal life–what a tragedy! The whole situation makes me sick to think about. What utter selfishness and foolishness! Such a thing is abhorrent to me and all the people I know.

 

[Catholic20064]

Catholic20064,
This is a repugnant subject for me, but thanks for at least telling Pipper the Texas group has nothing to do with the LDS church.

As for your last statement here, I’m in my mid-fifties, and heard of that happening twice, once when I was about age 30 (the man was excommunicated) and once when I was about age 40 (I assume he was excommunicated, but don’t know). Both situations were considered tragic by everyone who knew about it, and the men have lost touch with all the friends they had previously associated with. I have no idea about their current situation. As far as I’m concerned, they merit no forgiveness, period, and would merit the telestial kingdom after suffering for 1,000 years for their significant mistake that has caused so much heartache to their families.

There is no marriage nor any marriage condition in the telestial kingdom. They will have given up all association with their children, parents, or other loved ones from their mortal life–what a tragedy! The whole situation makes me sick to think about. What utter selfishness and foolishness! Such a thing is abhorrent to me and all the people I know.

As long as they don’t commit adultery before the divorce, they aren’t going to be touched by the LDS Church. Temple divorces aren’t required if Mormon men want to remarry after a divorce. At least two men in my wife’s ward are currently married to second wives in the temple. Their first wives are still sealed to them in the temple. So they are in effect married to two wives at the same time in the eyes of the LDS Church while only living with one of their wives. The Mormon wives must get a temple divorce if they wish to remarry in the temple, but this is not required of men.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Catholic20064,
This is a repugnant subject for me, but thanks for at least telling Pipper the Texas group has nothing to do with the LDS church.

As for your last statement here, I’m in my mid-fifties, and heard of that happening twice, once when I was about age 30 (the man was excommunicated) and once when I was about age 40 (I assume he was excommunicated, but don’t know). Both situations were considered tragic by everyone who knew about it, and the men have lost touch with all the friends they had previously associated with. I have no idea about their current situation. As far as I’m concerned, they merit no forgiveness, period, and would merit the telestial kingdom after suffering for 1,000 years for their significant mistake that has caused so much heartache to their families.

There is no marriage nor any marriage condition in the telestial kingdom. They will have given up all association with their children, parents, or other loved ones from their mortal life–what a tragedy! The whole situation makes me sick to think about. What utter selfishness and foolishness! Such a thing is abhorrent to me and all the people I know.

And that’s heaven?? This is why I find the whole LDS afterlife repugnant, everyone loses out.

As to polygamy (really polygyny) the biggest difference is the LDS believe it’s perfectly fine even good while we see it as sinful.

 

[MelanieAnne]

And that’s heaven?? This is why I find the whole LDS afterlife repugnant, everyone loses out.

What it is is a great money making activity for the LDS Church.

In establishing their Temples and special Temple rituals the Mormons have set up an elite group within the church ~ since entrance to the Temple is limited to the select few ~ that not only elevates their status during life, but also after death. In the Celestial Kingdom they will be the ones from which new Gods and Goddesses are selected. The polygamous families of the celestial kingdom that progress to godhood will be key to producing spirit children for new worlds yet to be populated.

But the process is strictly what politicians might call “pay to play”, because besides being worthy to enter the Temple one must also make sufficient cash donations to the LDS church to qualify for entrance to the Temple and that right to enter must be renewed on an annual basis. Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching. The Corporation that is the LDS Church is a very wealthy organization.

The Mormons may find the idea of the Celestial Kingdom very appealing ~ the “families are forever” is a key marketing ploy for them. The cynics view of the situation may be that the Mormons have set themselves up as the elitists of heaven and are busy in this life raking in the cash from those willing and able to be part of the elite. I can’t help but wonder how Jesus would view all this institutionalized inequality.

 

[Catholic20064]

What it is is a great money making activity for the LDS Church.

In establishing their Temples and special Temple rituals the Mormons have set up an elite group within the church ~ since entrance to the Temple is limited to the select few ~ that not only elevates their status during life, but also after death. In the Celestial Kingdom they will be the ones from which new Gods and Goddesses are selected. The polygamous families of the celestial kingdom that progress to godhood will be key to producing spirit children for new worlds yet to be populated.

But the process is strictly what politicians might call “pay to play”, because besides being worthy to enter the Temple one must also make sufficient cash donations to the LDS church to qualify for entrance to the Temple and that right to enter must be renewed on an annual basis. Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching. The Corporation that is the LDS Church is a very wealthy organization.

The Mormons may find the idea of the Celestial Kingdom very appealing ~ the “families are forever” is a key marketing ploy for them. The cynics view of the situation may be that the Mormons have set themselves up as the elitists of heaven and are busy in this life raking in the cash from those willing and able to be part of the elite. I can’t help but wonder how Jesus would view all this institutionalized inequality.

You’re exactly right. You are essentially paying for your salvation. If you can’t pay you can’t go to your kids’ weddings or get married in the temple yourselves. They encourage large families, no welfare, etc. and then demand 10 percent of your salary to be saved. It’s essentially extortion.

 

[MelanieAnne]

You’re exactly right. You are essentially paying for your salvation. If you can’t pay you can’t go to your kids’ weddings or get married in the temple yourselves. They encourage large families, no welfare, etc. and then demand 10 percent of your salary to be saved. It’s essentially extortion.

Well, of course the Biblical command to tithe is still there. But the context in which that command to tithe no longer exists now that the government has assumed many of the obligations that once belonged to the Church. And to be fair, the LDS set up many social welfare programs of their own to assist the less fortunate members among them.

What I find troublesome is the built-in elitism. I can’t imagine Jesus putting His stamp of approval on any sort of caste system.

 

[ParkerD]

As long as they don’t commit adultery before the divorce, they aren’t going to be touched by the LDS Church. Temple divorces aren’t required if Mormon men want to remarry after a divorce. At least two men in my wife’s ward are currently married to second wives in the temple. Their first wives are still sealed to them in the temple. So they are in effect married to two wives at the same time in the eyes of the LDS Church while only living with one of their wives. The Mormon wives must get a temple divorce if they wish to remarry in the temple, but this is not required of men.

Catholic20064,
You don’t get it. The temple sealings are in effect because usually there are children involved, and the children stay sealed to their mother. Those men, if they weren’t faithful to their first marriage, have lost their exaltation, period, unless they repented including keeping every legal requirement associated with their divorce, and doing everything in their power to resolve any harm or bad feelings associated with their divorce for anyone impacted by it. They are not “in effect married to two wives,” any more than the eyes of the law of the land say that they are married to two wives.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All this only shows the LDS belief in polygamy. I mean come on, you are explaining how a man who has committed adultery is not a polygamist.

 

[Catholic20064]

Catholic20064,
You don’t get it. The temple sealings are in effect because usually there are children involved, and the children stay sealed to their mother. Those men, if they weren’t faithful to their first marriage, have lost their exaltation, period, unless they repented including keeping every legal requirement associated with their divorce, and doing everything in their power to resolve any harm or bad feelings associated with their divorce for anyone impacted by it. They are not “in effect married to two wives,” any more than the eyes of the law of the land say that they are married to two wives.

Why don’t they get a temple divorce as well as a civil divorce then? And why are the wives required to get a temple divorce, but not the men?

 

[ParkerD]

Why don’t they get a temple divorce as well as a civil divorce then? And why are the wives required to get a temple divorce, but not the men?

Catholic20064,
It is because of the children of the sealing. They are sealed to the mother. A mother who remarries after divorce, who was originally sealed in a temple, needs that original sealing nullified if she is going to be sealed in another marriage, because her children then become sealed to her still but at that point it is within the new marriage/sealing–the original one having been “loosed on earth and in heaven.”

The children are not sealed to the men, per se, without a mother and wife being a part of the sealing. The temple divorce doesn’t need to be applied to them, because (in heaven) they lost the children of their first marriage when they elected to divorce. The children “stayed” with the mother. Again, the sealing applies to the children.

 

[Religio71]

is there anywhere where we can read about that ParkerD? I’ve never heard it explained like that.

 

[Finrock]

Yes, but we are discussing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. They claim to no longer practice polygamy, but if your wife gets old and no longer satisfies you sexually you are free to divorce her civilly and get a younger woman who does. You can be sealed to both of them in the temple at the same time while you only live with the playmate. This is actually more common than you might think.

Good morning Catholic20064! I hope you are doing well today. It’s not as warm today in Metro Detroit as it has been. How’s the weather where you reside?

Thank you for clarifying that not all people who claim to be Mormon are actually affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a common misconception.

As far as the rest of your post here, I’m not sure why you seem to think this bad conduct of a member of the LDS church is representative of the Church and it’s policies. I’m so sorry you’ve had such bad experiences with the Mormon church and people who claim to be Mormon. The practice you describe isn’t part of the Church and it isn’t common at all. You seem to infer that this is someone how a regular and accepted practice. It is not. I’ve never known of anyone in the LDS church, in my 24 years as a member, to have done what you describe. I’m not saying that noone has never been motivated by such things, I’m just saying that it isn’t common and it definately isn’t a sanctioned practice.

I’ll post another post later to clear up some apparent misunderstandings about Sealings, polygamy, and such. There seems to be a general misunderstand of this principle from many of the posters thus far.

When I first joined the forum I remember someone welcoming me by stating something to the effect that don’t let the conduct of a few Catholics here bias your opinion of all Catholics. That’s good advice, I think. Just because there are some bad people in any religion, doesn’t mean the bad conduct of the few is representative of the whole.

Be well Catholic20064!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[MelanieAnne]

Good morning Catholic20064! I hope you are doing well today. It’s not as warm today in Metro Detroit as it has been. How’s the weather where you reside?

Thank you for clarifying that not all people who claim to be Mormon are actually affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a common misconception.

As far as the rest of your post here, I’m not sure why you seem to think this bad conduct of a member of the LDS church is representative of the Church and it’s policies. I’m so sorry you’ve had such bad experiences with the Mormon church and people who claim to be Mormon. The practice you describe isn’t part of the Church and it isn’t common at all. You seem to infer that this is someone how a regular and accepted practice. It is not. I’ve never known of anyone in the LDS church, in my 24 years as a member, to have done what you describe. I’m not saying that noone has never been motivated by such things, I’m just saying that it isn’t common and it definately isn’t a sanctioned practice.

I’ll post another post later to clear up some apparent misunderstandings about Sealings, polygamy, and such. There seems to be a general misunderstand of this principle from many of the posters thus far.

When I first joined the forum I remember someone welcoming me by stating something to the effect that don’t let the conduct of a few Catholics here bias your opinion of all Catholics. That’s good advice, I think. Just because there are some bad people in any religion, doesn’t mean the bad conduct of the few is representative of the whole.

Be well Catholic20064!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hi Fin,

I trust that you are not equating the opinions of people who do not agree with you with “bad people”. That’s also a common problem here on the forum. There are people who post to this forum who, for some unknown reason, believe that any disagreement with their personal opinion is a personal attack. It’s not.

Last time I checked, this was a free country and people were free to express their opinions, even those opinions that other people don’t agree with. Freedom of expression does not equal hate speech or any sort of personal attack, yet from the reactions of many Mormons on this forum, one could come to the conclusion that at least they believe it does. I trust you are not among them.

There are many Catholics on this forum that are very knowledgeable about both their own faith as well as Mormonism and they often strongly disagree with various aspects of Mormonism. This does not mean that they hate Mormons, in fact many have Mormon friends and/or relatives that they love and admire. Yet if they express their disagreement with Mormon theology on this forum, there is often a reflexive paranoia on the part of many Mormons that the disagreement is an “attack” or that the person who has this opinion is an “anti-Mormon”. If Mormons are truly here to have a discussion about various faiths, including their own, this sort of childishness needs to stop.

 

[Finrock]

Hi Fin,

I trust that you are not equating the opinions of people who do not agree with you with “bad people”. That’s also a common problem here on the forum. There are people who post to this forum who, for some unknown reason, believe that any disagreement with their personal opinion is a personal attack. It’s not.

Good afternoon MelanieAnn! Thanks for reading my post and responding. Also, thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify my post.

In my post I was making a reference to the bad Mormons who, according to Catholic20064, left their wife because she “no longer satisfied them sexually.” I was just saying that the advice I got about “a few bad Catholics doesn’t represent the whole” is good advice and is applicable to Mormons. A few bad Mormons, do not represent the Church or it’s beliefs, practices, and policies. That’s all.

Last time I checked, this was a free country and people were free to express their opinions, even those opinions that other people don’t agree with. Freedom of expression does not equal hate speech or any sort of personal attack, yet from the reactions of many Mormons on this forum, one could come to the conclusion that at least they believe it does. I trust you are not among them.

There are many Catholics on this forum that are very knowledgeable about both their own faith as well as Mormonism and they often strongly disagree with various aspects of Mormonism. This does not mean that they hate Mormons, in fact many have Mormon friends and/or relatives that they love and admire. Yet if they express their disagreement with Mormon theology on this forum, there is often a reflexive paranoia on the part of many Mormons that the disagreement is an “attack” or that the person who has this opinion is an “anti-Mormon”. If Mormons are truly here to have a discussion about various faiths, including their own, this sort of childishness needs to stop.

Your points here are unrelated to what I’ve posted, nonetheless, they certainly are important and very true. Thank you for bringing these points up. I agree, freedom of expression doesn’t equate to hate speech neither does it mean a personal attack has occured. Personally, I haven’t experienced any Mormon on the forum yet to have equated mere freedom of expression to hate speech or personal attacks. You are also absolutely right that because someone disagrees with a Mormon, doesn’t mean that they hate Mormons. Neither have I experienced a Mormon on the forum yet who equates mere disagreement with a personal attacks.

Man, it certainly sounds like you’ve just had some horrible luck when coming across Mormon people. My experience as a Mormon has been completely opposite. Sure, all Mormons are flawed, just as I am flawed, but I’ve seldom seen anything that you describe here. Well, hopefully someday you will come across a Mormon who is a good and honorable person. I’m surrounded by them here where I live. Perhaps you’d like to come visit our Ward?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[MelanieAnne]

Good afternoon MelanieAnn! Thanks for reading my post and responding. Also, thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify my post.

In my post I was making a reference to the bad Mormons who, according to Catholic20064, left their wife because she “no longer satisfied them sexually.” I was just saying that the advice I got about “a few bad Catholics doesn’t represent the whole” is good advice and is applicable to Mormons. A few bad Mormons, do not represent the Church or it’s beliefs, practices, and policies. That’s all.

Your points here are unrelated to what I’ve posted, nonetheless, they certainly are important and very true. Thank you for bringing these points up. I agree, freedom of expression doesn’t equate to hate speech neither does it mean a personal attack has occured. Personally, I haven’t experienced any Mormon on the forum yet to have equated mere freedom of expression to hate speech or personal attacks. You are also absolutely right that because someone disagrees with a Mormon, doesn’t mean that they hate Mormons. Neither have I experienced a Mormon on the forum yet who equates mere disagreement with a personal attacks.

Man, it certainly sounds like you’ve just had some horrible luck when coming across Mormon people. My experience as a Mormon has been completely opposite. Sure, all Mormons are flawed, just as I am flawed, but I’ve seldom seen anything that you describe here. Well, hopefully someday you will come across a Mormon who is a good and honorable person. I’m surrounded by them here where I live. Perhaps you’d like to come visit our Ward?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hi Finrock,

On the contrary, the Mormons I’ve come in contact with that exhibit the reflexive paranoia I described are only among those I have bumped into on this forum. If you haven’t run into them, or seen such behavior, chalk it up to your relatively new forum membership. I put such persons on ignore because it is not possible to have a thoughtful discussion with persons that have such a childish outlook. Suffice it to say that I have seen plenty of examples of what I described, and I’ve also been called a liar when I’ve reported unhappy facts about Mormon authorities. If you spend enough time on the forum, and you keep an objective outlook, you’ll see what I mean.

But I haven’t had bad experiences with Mormons I’ve come in contact with personally. One of my oldest friends is Mormon, as is her entire family, all of whom I dearly love. I have many other Mormon friends as well that I’ve known for up to 20 years. I have had many good experiences with Mormons personally, and only a few experiences that were negative. However, those negative experiences were with enough church hierarchy that you will not see me entering a Mormon church building anytime soon, not even your nice friendly ward.