Another question about marriage

[Katya]

(c) politics (liberal-leaning Mormons have a much smaller dating pool to work with if they want to marry someone who is at least minimally tolerant of their views)

I wonder if this continues to hold true. My visceral reaction is to say this is a changed (or at least, changing) phenomenon, that was significantly more accurate say, twenty years ago, than today. I haven't ever dated a girl who is more liberal than I am, but they've all been certainly left of the average.

Could be. (Or it could be that you just have good taste. )

[Portia]

(c) politics (liberal-leaning Mormons have a much smaller dating pool to work with if they want to marry someone who is at least minimally tolerant of their views)

I wonder if this continues to hold true. My visceral reaction is to say this is a changed (or at least, changing) phenomenon, that was significantly more accurate say, twenty years ago, than today. I haven't ever dated a girl who is more liberal than I am, but they've all been certainly left of the average.

Provo isn't representative (any more than Mormons in Portland or Paris would be). I feel that the college scene is well-educated, young - of course - and more progressive than the rest of Utah County or even the south and west suburbs of Salt Lake county. North SL county is of course a haven of left-leaning Mormons of various levels of activity, judging by electoral maps.

[Marduk]

Perhaps. But demographically speaking, I think Provo represents a huge portion of LDS singles. It may not be "representative" but with such a huge portion, it can't really be ignored.

[Dragon Lady]

This is slightly off topic, but I was surprised no one brought up the fact that once a woman has died, she can be sealed to all the men she was married to, assuming they are also dead. Dead women can be sealed to more than one man. So the question really becomes, does it matter if you marry a person that isn't LDS.

I don't think I've ever even heard of that! But then you'd have to assume that people later will do the sealing work for you, right? Does it make a difference? Would you be assuming that your spouse will convert in the next life? (Sincere questions, I'm not trying to be obnoxious. )

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that a woman can be sealed to more than one man, but then in the next life she'll have to choose just one. By allowing multiple sealings, they're allowing her the opportunity to be sealed to whichever she chooses.

My grandma, who married thrice, specifically requested that she not be sealed to her second and third husbands after she died because she couldn't handle having to choose. I can't imagine being in her place. Her first husband she bore 7 children to. Her second probably wouldn't be difficult as it was her brother-in-law who was already sealed to her first husband's sister (it was a marriage of convenience. She had 7 kids, he had 4. Both spouses died around the same time. She needed income; he needed a mom for his kids. They married. He died 14 months later). Her third husband, however, is tougher. They were married for 45 years and is the only father my uncle ever really knew. (Grandma was pregnant with him when Grandpa #1 died.) For that matter, my mom, too. She was only two when Gpa1 died. How could you choose between the father of your 7 children and the husband you raised your kids and spent 45 years with? Especially when neither is sealed to another. (Though, Gpa3 was married twice before, but divorced. Which means my Grandma has, I think, a total of 17 kids/step-kids!)

Anyway, that's my understanding.

[Katya]

This is slightly off topic, but I was surprised no one brought up the fact that once a woman has died, she can be sealed to all the men she was married to, assuming they are also dead. Dead women can be sealed to more than one man. So the question really becomes, does it matter if you marry a person that isn't LDS.

I don't think I've ever even heard of that! But then you'd have to assume that people later will do the sealing work for you, right? Does it make a difference? Would you be assuming that your spouse will convert in the next life? (Sincere questions, I'm not trying to be obnoxious. )

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that a woman can be sealed to more than one man, but then in the next life she'll have to choose just one. By allowing multiple sealings, they're allowing her the opportunity to be sealed to whichever she chooses.

I think that's the assumption that a lot of people make based on other factors (and not an unreasonable one), but I don't think there's official, unambiguous doctrine on the matter.

[Dragon Lady]

I was informed of the same years ago when I took the Temples class at BYU. Granted, the teacher wasn't an official spokesman either, and we all know BYU professors can be [cough] wrong. I know the policy has changed slightly since then, but I think it just changed from "a woman can be sealed to multiple men after her death" to "a woman can be sealed to multiple men during life" but in both cases, she'd still have to choose.

[Portia]

we all know BYU professors can be [cough] wrong.

Blasphemy!

[Katya]

I was informed of the same years ago when I took the Temples class at BYU. Granted, the teacher wasn't an official spokesman either, and we all know BYU professors can be [cough] wrong. I know the policy has changed slightly since then, but I think it just changed from "a woman can be sealed to multiple men after her death" to "a woman can be sealed to multiple men during life" but in both cases, she'd still have to choose.

Has that changed? I wasn't aware of it.

Also, when you say that a woman would have to choose between multiple husbands after death, I'm assuming that it's implied that a man, by contrast, wouldn't necessarily have to choose between multiple wives after death. Is that a correct assumption?

[thatonemom]

From the newfamilysearch.org website (help center, FAQ's, Temple Policies):

"Woman married more than once. A living woman may not be sealed to more than one husband. A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she may be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.
Man married more than once. A deceased man may have sealed to him all deceased women to whom he was legally married during his life."

And that's the end of anything official. The rest is my opinion.
Of course, that doesn't address the question of if a woman or man will have to choose/only have one spouse in the next life. I've always thought (**not doctrine, not anything I've ever heard anywhere, just my opinion**) that polygamy seems unnecessary after this life. Since time, death, & imperfect bodies won't be limiting factors, why would anyone need two (or more) spouses? The idea that there will be some huge dearth of worthy men in the next life doesn't add up at all to me.

Lots of my ancestors were married multiple times (not as polygamists. As people who were divorced/widowed), and while I'm sure they loved their various spouses, I just don't see polygamy as the way things will work out. I'm confident everyone who's worthy and interested in having a spouse in the next life will have their own spouse. But the nitty gritty of how that all works out is beyond me.
Again, just my personal opinion.

[Portia]

Since time, death, & imperfect bodies won't be limiting factors, why would anyone need two (or more) spouses? The idea that there will be some huge dearth of worthy men in the next life doesn't add up at all to me.

Clarify?

[Dragon Lady]

The tongue-in-cheek answer I got from a religion teacher way back in the day as to why a man could have multiple sealings, but not a woman was that if a woman had more than one husband, they would bicker and argue over who got to wear the pants and rule their various worlds. But multiple wives would be able to work together despite their differences and get everything done celestially.

[Marduk]

Why would anyone need two (or more) spouses?

Well, why do we need exactly one? Why would we believe that monogamy (which has been the rule for only a small fraction of earth's history) would always be the rule of heaven? Who is to say someone wouldn't be HAPPIER with more than one spouse (male or female?) Or be HAPPIER not being the only spouse? Assuming monogamy is the right answer for every person seems awfully limiting, to me. For an earth life, where we have finite material resources, and finite amounts of time to spend with any one individual, there's certainly an argument for it. But I don't really understand why we assume monogamy is the default, and to do anything different is the unusual.

[Katya]

The tongue-in-cheek answer I got from a religion teacher way back in the day as to why a man could have multiple sealings, but not a woman was that if a woman had more than one husband, they would bicker and argue over who got to wear the pants and rule their various worlds. But multiple wives would be able to work together despite their differences and get everything done celestially.

Statements like that (even made tongue-in-cheek) are a big part of the reason I took my last 5 religion classes through independent study. Perpetuating such stereotypes hurts both men and women.

[wired]

The tongue-in-cheek answer I got from a religion teacher way back in the day as to why a man could have multiple sealings, but not a woman was that if a woman had more than one husband, they would bicker and argue over who got to wear the pants and rule their various worlds. But multiple wives would be able to work together despite their differences and get everything done celestially.

Statements like that (even made tongue-in-cheek) are a big part of the reason I took my last 5 religion classes through independent study. Perpetuating such stereotypes hurts both men and women.

And promotes non-doctrinal theological tidbits as a core part of our religion... which they're not.

Also, I missed this whole discussion (if there ever was one) - is there a Board Question or a BoardBoard post where mic0 discusses her history with the church?

[Katya]

The tongue-in-cheek answer I got from a religion teacher way back in the day as to why a man could have multiple sealings, but not a woman was that if a woman had more than one husband, they would bicker and argue over who got to wear the pants and rule their various worlds. But multiple wives would be able to work together despite their differences and get everything done celestially.

Statements like that (even made tongue-in-cheek) are a big part of the reason I took my last 5 religion classes through independent study. Perpetuating such stereotypes hurts both men and women.

And promotes non-doctrinal theological tidbits as a core part of our religion... which they're not.

Exactly.

[thatonemom]

Since time, death, & imperfect bodies won't be limiting factors, why would anyone need two (or more) spouses? The idea that there will be some huge dearth of worthy men in the next life doesn't add up at all to me.

Clarify?

Sorry, that really was a "read my mind" type of comment.

One of the most common ways I've heard polygamy in the early Church explained was that the Church was so small, so many men had been killed, there were lots of widows and fatherless, etc. So polygamy allowed for all those widows and fatherless to be cared for, and provided a way for a lot of babies fairly quickly. I also had a religion teacher say that Jacob 2:30 explains that same idea. YMMV

So the first part of my comment is in response to that. All the seemingly temporal reasons for having polygamy, like being a widow, or needing to make a lot of people really quickly, won't apply in the next life.

I've also heard various roommates/single's ward Sunday School teachers say there will have to be polygamy in the next life because there are so many more righteous women than men. It's hard for me to buy that. Not only does it play into gender stereotypes, but I feel like it suggests a sort of "oh crap!" view of the whole plan. If God knows the end from the beginning, I'm sure he plans for everyone's eternal happiness. I don't imagine him up there going "gosh, all these men are wicked. Now what? Guess we'll just double and triple up the women in the next life."

Ok, that's far more dismissive and sacrilegious than I've ever heard anyone try to argue. But I often feel like those are the implications of that line of thought.

Again, all just my opinion. That's not to say my understanding can't or won't change.

[Laser Jock]

This is clearly all conjecture, but suggesting that there will be no polygamy (or polyandry) is the same as saying that exactly as many men as women will reach the highest degree of celestial glory. Now, I don't doubt that God could arrange this...but I can't think of any way to allow for that while also allowing for moral agency. (It kind of starts implying predestination.)

Unless you want to say that he had exactly the right proportion of spirit children, of exactly the right genders and future rightousness, to make it all work out just right? (Which, come to think of it, may be exactly what people do say. I'm just not sure most people think it through quite that far.)

[Portia]

I am quite sure that a female surplus in the American West is demonstrably false.

[C is for]

I am quite sure that a female surplus in the American West is demonstrably false.

Yeah, and most of the men out in the American West were coarse and gross and mean and not someone I would be willing to marry.

(Is a female surplus in the Church in the American West demonstrably false?)

[Portia]

I'd rather marry one dude who may be a little rough around the edges than one who could only do his duty by me every third Tuesday.

Looking at modern polygamist communes, there is an equal sex ratio & many young men are left partnerless. The Sultans of the Middle East weren't saving a bunch of poor arabian bachelorettes from singlehood: they got harems because they could. The numerical majority of early Mormon men were monogamists and there's no indication they were gross or less righteous, so speculating backwards from the conclusion seems unwarranted.