Scrub Jay Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 As I said, I don't know married people with children ought to be telling people that they can be happy without the same things that make them happy. We should be able to choose. Exactly. Never mind there are plenty of conservative religious people who also think you'll go to hell for divorcing and remarrying. How about we all learn to live and let live if it isn't hurting us or others? Stones, glass houses, pot, kettle, all that jazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I was also thinking this thread is full of interesting twists and turns Gay dads marrying women Mormon church Stats for premarital sex Bible debate Music vs, orgasms. All in one thread. Talk about rabbit trails. Oh yes, and the downfall of TLC where the L, use to stand for Learning. Except the men did not self identify as gay. And they did not have any children before they were married (AFAIK, based on the show). So the first line is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I guess I'm just the odd duck that doesn't want to go a level beyond that. And that's okay. You shouldn't have to defend yourself or your desires. How much of this is your natural wiring, how much is developed through personal experience, it really is irrelevant in the scope of things. And importantly enough, this same argument applies to the LGBTQ community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I was also thinking this thread is full of interesting twists and turns Gay dads marrying women Mormon church Stats for premarital sex Bible debate Music vs, orgasms. All in one thread. Talk about rabbit trails. Oh yes, and the downfall of TLC where the L, use to stand for Learning. To be fair this was about Mormon men with "SSA" marrying women from post number one. See, every TLC show has to pair TWO unconventional things to make the cut and get on the air. Non-mainstream religion? Yawn. Gay men married? Double yawn. No, you have to have them together. The next big hit will be about Amish Stage Moms or Transgendered families with eating disorders. Or radical isolationist feminists with children by the dozen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Uh, Galations 3:28 anyone? Boy, you sure take it literally when it helps you oppress, but when it contradicts your non-Biblical beliefs, then nope, sorry, not literal. To be fair, can't Jewish scholars make the same claim against Paul and the Jewish texts as Christians do against Joseph Smith and the New Testament? I mean, it's not like there exists any religion that didn't take root in a previous one, change it around some, add some elements here, take away some elements there, and call it holy at the end of the day, kwim? Mormons consider their theology to be the fulfilment of the Christian faith just like Christians consider theirs to be the fulfilment of the Jewish faith. Not sure where the Muslims fit in here, I suspect along the same trajectory. I think all cultures that enjoy dominance in a culture use their major religions to rationalize oppression. That's like the story of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Amish transgendered families with eating disorders--it will make millions!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelli Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 50 Shades of the Hive around here. I think I need a stand of pearls to clutch as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 To be fair this was about Mormon men with "SSA" marrying women from post number one. See, every TLC show has to pair TWO unconventional things to make the cut and get on the air. Non-mainstream religion? Yawn. Gay men married? Double yawn. No, you have to have them together. The next big hit will be about Amish Stage Moms or Transgendered families with eating disorders. Or radical isolationist feminists with children by the dozen. I can just see the offices of the network executives. CEO: "We need a hook. We need to hook in the American public again. They're so hard to satisfy, what with their exotic tastes for the socially awkward and secretly intriguing. We've got to find a way to bring Tosh .0 to mainstream America, without the broken bones, a few more cute kids, and make it look educational. They'll eat that s**t right up if they think it's educational." Grunt Employee: "Hey boss, what about a show that follows Amish Stage Moms as they parade their children around in towns as they get swapped from one religiously devout family to another each week?" Grunt Employee: "Or what about a reality show that takes a deeper look into the eating disorders and strange addictions that plague Transgendered virgins in desert climates?" Grunt Employee: "Hey, what about a show that follows the growth of quiver full kids who spend all their day at the beach surfing. We can throw in some obstacles, like surprise clowns or David Hasselhoff impersonators?" CEO: "Throw in some Little People in Season Two, and we'll secure spin-offs for the next six years!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelwydd Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 50 Shades of the Hive around here. I think I need a stand of pearls to clutch as well. I'm on it. Would you like to clutch the single strand? Or, would you care to try the double strand? Remember: Double the handle, for double the scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 CEO: "Throw in some Little People in Season Two, and we'll secure spin-offs for the next six years!" Jen Arnold and Bill Klein are the best reality parents, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 50 Shades of the Hive around here. I think I need a stand of pearls to clutch as well. It's getting perilously close to 50 Shades of TMI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I need to borrow some pearls, the things that happen to threads while one is off doing school. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 To be fair, can't Jewish scholars make the same claim against Paul and the Jewish texts as Christians do against Joseph Smith and the New Testament? I mean, it's not like there exists any religion that didn't take root in a previous one, change it around some, add some elements here, take away some elements there, and call it holy at the end of the day, kwim? Mormons consider their theology to be the fulfilment of the Christian faith just like Christians consider theirs to be the fulfilment of the Jewish faith. Not sure where the Muslims fit in here, I suspect along the same trajectory. I think all cultures that enjoy dominance in a culture use their major religions to rationalize oppression. That's like the story of humanity. Yes. It's not so much about the LDS church, as Christians who claim all kinds of things that don't actually fit with a literal or even sensible interpretation of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuzi Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I can just see the offices of the network executives. CEO: "We need a hook. We need to hook in the American public again. They're so hard to satisfy, what with their exotic tastes for the socially awkward and secretly intriguing. We've got to find a way to bring Tosh .0 to mainstream America, without the broken bones, a few more cute kids, and make it look educational. They'll eat that s**t right up if they think it's educational." Grunt Employee: "Hey boss, what about a show that follows Amish Stage Moms as they parade their children around in towns as they get swapped from one religiously devout family to another each week?" Grunt Employee: "Or what about a reality show that takes a deeper look into the eating disorders and strange addictions that plague Transgendered virgins in desert climates?" Grunt Employee: "Hey, what about a show that follows the growth of quiver full kids who spend all their day at the beach surfing. We can throw in some obstacles, like surprise clowns or David Hasselhoff impersonators?" CEO: "Throw in some Little People in Season Two, and we'll secure spin-offs for the next six years!" I think "Little People, Big Love" could have some potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I think "Little People, Big Love" could have some potential. Do you mean small polygamists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuzi Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Do you mean small polygamists? Ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I hope you are saying this because you just haven't had good sex. It's transcendent, and there's just no comparison. Fireworks in your body is a pale analogy to what goes on during a life-changing orgasm. It's like you can feel your brain light up and connect with everything that exists. If you're not feeling like this is the best moment of your life and you've just been united with the entire cosmos in a way that makes fireworks and supernovas look like little sparks, then it's time to get laid because that's what it's like. I recommend "Moregasm" by babeland. If you'd experienced that kind of sex you'd never want to deny it to anybody unless you were a truly horrible person. It would be like saying, "We can puncture people's eardrums. Deafness isn't a big deal." No music. No, love's not a requirement for a life but neither is music. Plenty of deaf people lead happy, fulfilling, and more importantly meaningful lives. But it's just not true that they aren't missing anything. They are missing something. Music. I don't feel sorry for them because I know if I were deaf I'd hate to be pitied. But I'm not going to lie, I really love music and I wouldn't take it away from anybody for the world. I can't imagine what kind of pale appreciation for music, or cold, cruel heart, would ever consider asking anyone to live without true love or music. I have this sinking feeling that the same people who would deny others true love and the mind-blowing sex that accompanies it, also do not have a feeling for music, and that this metaphor is not going to work... This is basically like saying that a man is only gay because ha hasn't had really good sex with a woman yet. Or a woman with a man. If you accept homosexual or bi/trans or anything of the sort, you must also accept asexuality as perfectly valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I need to borrow some pearls, the things that happen to threads while one is off doing school. :lol: That'll teach you to go teach your kids! Also, I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes a good televised surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I know a lot of married people that appear to be living a celibate life. ba-dum-pum, tip your waitress. Thank you, Akron. Appearances can be deceiving... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I'm baffled just reading about it. :confused: It was just getting interesting when I read the clarification... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 ~~~The Orgasm Wars~~~ *Now being fought on message board near you.* :smilielol5: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdahoHomeschooler Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I think "Little People, Big Love" could have some potential. I would totally get cable if this ever becomes a reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Looks like a show I will not watch, good grief it seems as if TLC, Discovery, and History are nothing but stupid reality shows. I used to love those channels. :( When we were at my moms we were excited to see a show about Tesla on the History channel but no...it was actually about whether or not he was influenced by aliens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Who else needs a cigarette? I quit smoking a long time ago too. Yeah. I just might have to take up smoking again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 We can't blame TLC for selling what we are (apparently) buying. Anything that is out of the mainstream seems fodder for these shows. My brother and his husband were approached by a casting agent for families with a trans parent via a group they were in. Not this channel but another cable channel. My brother though wouldn't touch that crap with a 10 foot poll, not for all the tea in China. Wish they'd call me. We could use the money. :b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Then why reply? :laugh: You know I'm not laughing at you, but at us, right? I mean, it's all good, isn't it? Of course we disagree. That comes as no surprise to either of us. I'm curious to know why. Do you disagree that being encouraged to first adopt the attitude that being LGBTQ is somehow undesirable or unfortunate? Do you disagree that this attitude is increasingly being rejected? Do you disagree that it's incompatible with being compassionate or nurturing? Do you disagree the concept of a "perfect world" is vague and unidentifiable? Do you disagree that people focus on one aspect of a belief so much that they are blind to another? It makes for a more interesting discussion than a series of replies that simply state agreement or disagreement. Kwim? :) It is slightly amusing. I answer because I don't want you to think I ignored you. I question your motives in dialogue. Color me suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Wish they'd call me. We could use the money. :b Would you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Wish they'd call me. We could use the money. :b I normally wouldn't watch the show, but I would if you were on it! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 This is basically like saying that a man is only gay because ha hasn't had really good sex with a woman yet. Or a woman with a man. If you accept homosexual or bi/trans or anything of the sort, you must also accept asexuality as perfectly valid. No. It is nothing like saying that. First of all, Scarlett did not claim to be asexual and I think it would be seriously misreading what she wrote to assume that she is (it is totally clear that she identifies as a straight woman from her posts--Scarlett I hope you don't mind my speaking for you on that one). She wrote, and I am assuming as an adult woman, mother of children, in good faith, that she didn't believe that a romantic, sexual relationship was necessary to have a fulfilling life. And while I do agree with that, I further clarified that I thought that anybody who thought it wasn't that important probably hadn't had a really great sexual relationship, and therefore wasn't qualified to deny one to others. This is compatible with the idea that asexual people haven't had great sex. Of course they haven't. They are asexual. But if they went around saying, "I think we should stop having sex entirely, you know, because of over-population and it's not that fun anyway," I would object. I'd be like, "Uh, no. It really is a great, amazing part of my life and I don't want to stop at all. You are hardly qualified to tell other people whether or not sex is important because you aren't a sexual person!" Likewise gay people telling straight people they don't really need straight marriage to live a happy and fulfilling life, or vice versa. I mean come on. I think that anyone who's in a really wonderful, life-changing, earth-moving relationship would have to be a horrible person to deny that to anyone else. You just wouldn't deny music, or love, to other people unless (a) you didn't experience it as wonderful and life-changing OR (b) you were a total jerk. Who could deny that to others? Again, not "who could not have that level of romantic, sexual realtionship" because god knows if my ex-husband hadn't cheated on me and left, I wouldn't have had that. But I wasn't going around telling everyone else sex and romance wasn't important, was I? I wasn't trying to ruin it for a whole class of people. If they want to deny it to themselves, or if they were born not wanting that, or just didn't get lucky in that department, that is fine with me. Just don't tell other people they can't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 No. It is nothing like saying that. First of all, Scarlett did not claim to be asexual and I think it would be seriously misreading what she wrote to assume that she is (it is totally clear that she identifies as a straight woman from her posts--Scarlett I hope you don't mind my speaking for you on that one). She wrote, and I am assuming as an adult woman, mother of children, in good faith, that she didn't believe that a romantic, sexual relationship was necessary to have a fulfilling life. And while I do agree with that, I further clarified that I thought that anybody who thought it wasn't that important probably hadn't had a really great sexual relationship, and therefore wasn't qualified to deny one to others. This is compatible with the idea that asexual people haven't had great sex. Of course they haven't. They are asexual. But if they went around saying, "I think we should stop having sex entirely, you know, because of over-population and it's not that fun anyway," I would object. I'd be like, "Uh, no. It really is a great, amazing part of my life and I don't want to stop at all. You are hardly qualified to tell other people whether or not sex is important because you aren't a sexual person!" Likewise gay people telling straight people they don't really need straight marriage to live a happy and fulfilling life, or vice versa. I mean come on. I think that anyone who's in a really wonderful, life-changing, earth-moving relationship would have to be a horrible person to deny that to anyone else. You just wouldn't deny music, or love, to other people unless (a) you didn't experience it as wonderful and life-changing OR (b) you were a total jerk. Who could deny that to others? Again, not "who could not have that level of romantic, sexual realtionship" because god knows if my ex-husband hadn't cheated on me and left, I wouldn't have had that. But I wasn't going around telling everyone else sex and romance wasn't important, was I? I wasn't trying to ruin it for a whole class of people. If they want to deny it to themselves, or if they were born not wanting that, or just didn't get lucky in that department, that is fine with me. Just don't tell other people they can't have it. I would agree with all that. So long as, in the effort to not deny them a wonderful relationship (or music), we also didn't deny them knowing what all their choices were. I guess in some ways I would've liked to have known more options when I was younger. I made my choices based on what I knew to be my options as does everyone, but I didn't have all the options there and I hear people from both sides bickering (or debating) and I wonder how many people on both sides are not aware of ALL their options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It is slightly amusing. I answer because I don't want you to think I ignored you. Ah. Gotcha. Okay, thanks. :) I question your motives in dialogue. Color me suspicious. I wear my intentions out on my sleeve. I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on these ideas because I can't imagine a reason to disagree. For example, do you disagree that being encouraged to first adopt the attitude that being LGBTQ is somehow undesirable or unfortunate? I can't understand how this would be a good thing, good news to hear. I can't imagine how it would be offered as anything other than negative. In my mind, the alternative plays like this: "Hooray! You're gay! That's beautiful! Now just so you know, you can't ever have a fulfilling, intimate relationship with the person you are truly attracted to, emotionally, mentally, and physically! Cool, innit?" I don't mean to sound snarky, well, I don't mean to not sound snarky because I can't imagine it any other way. But I'm sure that's not where you're coming from. So I ask. Because it interests me. Because I can't imagine it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggieamy Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Completely on topic ... DH and I got a new Bose radio and he found this fantastic classical radio station in Switzerland that we are loving. The first few days we were listening to it they played this beautiful march that I just adored. I ran in from the other room and told him that I loved that song and to please figure out the name of it. He responded he had no way to figure out the name and sorry. Well. He has spent the last four days researching this radio station and their play list and it turns out that they archive their music online. So he figured out around what time and day we heard it and went through the records and listened to all the songs until he found the one I liked. Wow. That's love. Also ... he's really attractive. Toe curling. Earth shaking. Passionate. Love. and Good music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Oh my. Now I really wish I had read this thread earlier. And now I'm off to google a new book.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Okay so this is a totally crude joke and I don't believe it but this thread made me think it... A good girl believes she is not dressed unless she is wearing a strand of pearls. A bad girl believes she is dressed if she is wearing only a strand of pearls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 hahahaha, I never tried tantra, it seems a little weird to me. But DH read a Tim Ferriss book with a chapter about a twenty minute orgasm, and ever since he first tried the advice it's one of his favorite routines. I suggest trying it with no kids in the house, even if you think you're quiet in bed. You might not be. Wait, are you talking about the science writer? The guy who writes about space? Oh, googled, two different guys, okay, I was thinking I had skipped a chapter somewhere. Here is the errr...plan? http://staroversky.com/blog/15-minute-female-orgasm-simple-visual-guide Pearl clutchers should probably avert their eyes. ETA: my tired eyes misinterpreted one of those drawings and I was thinking "WOWZA, OUCH" but then refocused and figured out what was actually happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Wait, are you talking about the science writer? The guy who writes about space? Oh, googled, two different guys, okay, I was thinking I had skipped a chapter somewhere. Here is the errr...plan? http://staroversky.com/blog/15-minute-female-orgasm-simple-visual-guide Pearl clutches should probably avert their eyes. ETA: my tired eyes misinterpreted one of those drawings and I was thinking "WOWZA, OUCH" but then refocused and figured out what was actually happening. LOL, Mrs. Mungo. I think I saw what you saw. I've only glanced over this, but it looks pretty complicated. Not worth it to me. Anything with that many lines.... No. :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Wait, are you talking about the science writer? The guy who writes about space? Oh, googled, two different guys, okay, I was thinking I had skipped a chapter somewhere. Here is the errr...plan? http://staroversky.com/blog/15-minute-female-orgasm-simple-visual-guide Pearl clutches should probably avert their eyes. ETA: my tired eyes misinterpreted one of those drawings and I was thinking "WOWZA, OUCH" but then refocused and figured out what was actually happening. Also not safe for work :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Back on the original topic, here is the perspective of a gay Mormon man who nearly entered a mixed orientation marriage but didn't. He explains the background cultural and religious pressures. http://mcwilleyfactor.com/2015/01/14/beyond-the-cameras-understanding-what-happens-in-the-years-leading-up-to-my-husbands-not-gay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I really should be lesson planning for coop tomorrow, but I can't seem to focus on History with all of THIS carrying on! A pox on all of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Women who are married multiple times can only be sealed to one man during life even if they loved and married multiple men. After death, a woman may be sealed to all the men she was legally married to in life. The idea is that in the afterlife she will choose one husband to be with and the not chosen husbands will get a different wife (one of the women who never married in this life?). Men who are married multiple times can be sealed to all their wives during life. Even if a couple divorces, the couple remains sealed unless the divorced woman marries another man in the temple and get sealed to that man instead. If she marries someone outside of the temple (her only option if she is a sealed widow), she remains sealed to her first husband. Any children she has with her second (not sealed) husband are sealed to her first husband. A divorced man may marry another wife in the temple after obtaining a sealing clearance. If his first wife is still sealed to him (because she didn't marry another man in the temple and cancel her first sealing), the next wife is a plural wife in the eternal context. In Mormon theology a man can have as many wives in heaven as he was sealed to (in fact, plural marriage was once taught as necessary). A woman can only have one husband. The current sealing practices cause lots of strange and uncomfortable situations. You can't have your sealing canceled without approval from the office of the prophet/president of the church. Some people feel trapped because they went into marriage thinking it would work for eternity, but after divorce no longer wish to be bound together. Most members believe God will sort it all out in the end (after death), but some members wish the church would change its policies regarding sealing practices so that you can be sealed to everyone you were married to (whether you're a man or a woman) and so that you can cancel a sealing upon divorce *without* the woman having to be married in the temple to a different man. Ok, this explains why I couldn't remember what I had been told on this subject before.....not sure I really get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Ah. Gotcha. Okay, thanks. :) I wear my intentions out on my sleeve. I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on these ideas because I can't imagine a reason to disagree. For example, do you disagree that being encouraged to first adopt the attitude that being LGBTQ is somehow undesirable or unfortunate? I can't understand how this would be a good thing, good news to hear. I can't imagine how it would be offered as anything other than negative. In my mind, the alternative plays like this: "Hooray! You're gay! That's beautiful! Now just so you know, you can't ever have a fulfilling, intimate relationship with the person you are truly attracted to, emotionally, mentally, and physically! Cool, innit?" I don't mean to sound snarky, well, I don't mean to not sound snarky because I can't imagine it any other way. But I'm sure that's not where you're coming from. So I ask. Because it interests me. Because I can't imagine it. If you have read the entire thread you will have gathered my overall feeling on the matter. Suffice to say your summation is no where near correct in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If you have read the entire thread you will have gathered my overall feeling on the matter. Suffice to say your summation is no where near correct in my opinion. I have read the entire thread. I didn't think my summation was accurate, but can't think of an alternative. Making a comment suggests to me an invitation to further dialog, but I understand now for you it does not. Nevertheless, I'm still interested if you should change your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawana Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Ok, this explains why I couldn't remember what I had been told on this subject before.....not sure I really get it.The TL:DR version:Men can be sealed to more than one woman, but only to women they can be legally married to, i.e. not polygamy. Women can only be sealed to one man (at a time, but reversing a prior sealing is fairly uncommon). Edited for clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The TL:DR version: Men can be sealed to more than one woman, but only to women they can be legally married to, i.e. not polygamy. Women can only be sealed to one man (at a time, but reversing a prior sealing is fairly uncommon). Edited for clarity It is polygamy in a spiritual/eternal sense. Men remain sealed to all deceased and ex-wives even if they are sealed to a new wife. The ex-wife only gets unsealed to her first husband if she is later sealed to a different man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawana Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It is polygamy in a spiritual/eternal sense. Men remain sealed to all deceased and ex-wives even if they are sealed to a new wife. The ex-wife only gets unsealed to her first husband if she is later sealed to a different man.Thanks for the clarification. I meant not polygamous in the temporal sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The TL:DR version: Men can be sealed to more than one woman, but only to women they can be legally married to, i.e. not polygamy. Women can only be sealed to one man (at a time, but reversing a prior sealing is fairly uncommon). Edited for clarity My BIL had to get approval to be sealed to his second wife. It came pretty close to the wire, and there was talk of changing the date if they didn't get the approval in time. He and his first wife divorced. I am not sure if the first sealing had to be dissolved to allow the second to proceed. This is a change from how it used to be. (My BIL was married in 2012.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 My BIL had to get approval to be sealed to his second wife. It came pretty close to the wire, and there was talk of changing the date if they didn't get the approval in time. He and his first wife divorced. I am not sure if the first sealing had to be dissolved to allow the second to proceed. This is a change from how it used to be. (My BIL was married in 2012.) Men have to get a sealing clearance (permission to be sealed to more than one living woman). Women have to get a cancelation (permission to have a prior sealing dissolved because a woman can only be sealed to one living man). Both processes involve filling out a form, requesting a letter from the ex-spouse, and submitting this paperwork to the office of the first presidency. The process is overseen and facilitated by the bishop of the petitioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blondeviolin Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Women can be sealed to multiple partners as well. It is very rare and often requires that the woman and her husbands be deceased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Women can be sealed to multiple partners as well. It is very rare and often requires that the woman and her husbands be deceased. Actually, not rare if they are all dead. Many women were married to more than one man during their lifetime. They can be sealed to all who they were married to just like men can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 What does SSA even mean, not what the acronym means but what is it? It seems like a Christian made up term? Are they saying they are bi or are they saying they are only attracted to the same sex but they don't like the "gay" word so they are using something different? If they are saying their husbands are not gay then how are they not gay? I am not going to watch the show. This show sounds horrifically offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts