Please consider supporting this podcast:

Since polygamy and eternal marriage are both based in the idea of sealings taught in section 132 can we let go of one and still hold on to the other? Does exaltation depend on either? How does it all work?

Links

President Hinckley on Larry King Live

President Nelson Press Conference

Elder Cook Face to Face

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson Correspondence
Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3

King Follet Discourse

Summary

In this episode, Michelle Stone explores the theological connection between polygamy and eternal marriage, questioning whether the doctrine of eternal marriage can stand independently from Doctrine & Covenants 132. She critically examines the origins of temple sealings, LDS leadership’s evolving stance on polygamy, and how different leaders have interpreted eternal marriage over time.

Key Themes:

  1. The Link Between Polygamy and Eternal Marriage
    • Many defenders of polygamy argue that if plural marriage is rejected, then the concept of eternal marriage must also be rejected.
    • Stone explores how both ideas were introduced at the same time within Doctrine & Covenants 132, making them historically intertwined.
    • The first recorded LDS sealing was a plural marriage between Joseph Smith and Louisa Beaman, performed by Joseph Bates Noble.
  2. Brigham Young’s Teachings on Polygamy and Exaltation
    • Brigham Young and other early LDS leaders adamantly taught that polygamy was essential for exaltation.
    • Over time, the LDS Church distanced itself from these teachings, particularly following the Third Manifesto under Heber J. Grant.
    • The modern LDS stance is that monogamous marriage is the only requirement for exaltation, and polygamy is grounds for excommunication—a stark contrast to earlier doctrine.
  3. Confusion and Contradictions in LDS Leadership
    • The LDS Church’s stance on polygamy has wavered over the past century.
    • Gordon B. Hinckley (1998) stated on Larry King Live that polygamy was not doctrinal and condemned it publicly.
    • However, Russell M. Nelson (2018) referenced Doctrine & Covenants 132:63 as a foundational scripture, reaffirming polygamy’s doctrinal importance.
    • Elder Quentin L. Cook (2018) later claimed that polygamy had “fulfilled its purpose” and was no longer necessary.
    • Dallin H. Oaks (2019) gave a General Conference talk suggesting that polygamy is still part of the plan for the next life, further adding to the confusion.
  4. Does Doctrine & Covenants 132 Actually Support Polygamy?
    • Stone argues that verses 19-20 of D&C 132—which describe eternal progression and exaltation—are strictly monogamous in their wording.
    • The scripture consistently refers to a single man and a single wife progressing together, with no mention of multiple wives.
    • If taken literally, these verses contradict the claim that polygamy is required for exaltation.
  5. Personal Revelation and Re-examining Doctrine
    • Stone shares her own experience of fasting and praying over D&C 132, receiving personal revelation that only certain parts may be inspired.
    • She encourages listeners to seek personal answers rather than relying solely on institutional narratives.
  6. The Weaponization of Eternal Marriage
    • Stone recounts personal experiences with LDS members weaponizing the doctrine of eternal families, using it as a fear-based control mechanism.
    • The idea that one must follow LDS leadership to be with loved ones in the afterlife is not explicitly supported by scripture.
    • She explores quotes from Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, showing how belief in eternal family connections existed outside LDS doctrine.
  7. Conclusion: Re-evaluating the Foundations of Eternal Marriage
    • If eternal marriage is real, it should stand on its own merits, rather than relying on polygamy for doctrinal justification.
    • Stone encourages critical thinking, separating cultural tradition from personal spiritual revelation.

Transcript

[00:00:01] Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon Polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. If you feel so inclined, I recommend listening to these episodes in order as they hopefully are designed to build on one another and they each cover different important. Topics. My name is Michelle Stone, and this is episode 2, where we’ll consider what letting go of polygamy might mean for the idea of eternal marriage. Thank you for joining us as we take a deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon polygamy. This might be a bit of a long one today. There’s a lot to cover, and um I, I just have to acknowledge I know that the lighting is a little bit off and I’m a bit of a mess. I try to record early in the mornings, but did not happen on this crazy day and I’m determined to record before I go to bed, but I don’t have any natural light and um. And oh, OK, here’s just one part of my day today. My car was in the shop and among all the other things happening, my girls got home from girls camp today and we needed to get all of their stuff home and while I was working on that, my son was at band camp getting ready for his concert, so I looked at the clock after helping my girls and realized his concert started in 15 minutes, so I threw some sneakers on. And I ran over 1 mile.5 in less than 15 minutes, actually less than 14 minutes, and made it on time. I was able to be there and hear his first song. And then I sat there the whole time feeling like my chest was gonna, like I was gonna start coughing blood, you know, and then we walked home together and the day has gone on from there, so. Anyway, so I’m determined to record tonight and we’re gonna try and focus and this will be a great episode. And I did just have to say that there are some days, right? Some of you will understand where if there were a mom Hall of Fame, I feel like today I should be nominated. So anyway, and now we’re gonna get on to our topic. So moving on to the subject, sorry to get personal for a minute, just If I’m not with it today, that’s why. So, OK, uh, not uncommon concern that I’ve had voice to me or I guess sometimes polygamy um advocates have used this almost as a threat where they say that if we give up plural marriage and 132, we also give up eternal marriage. And um I think that that’s somewhat of a fair critique, so I really wanted to investigate that today. So I think that this stems from the idea that polygamy and ceilings are inextricably linked and cannot be disentangled. And according to the standard accepted history of the church, which I, um, you know, I think that there’s room to question to some extent. According to that history though, I think that there is truth because both polygamy and eternal marriage ceilings were revealed at the same time. They were very Intertwined from the very beginning. Um, the first ceiling, the first ceiling performed was a plural marriage, so that’s how intertwined they were. And interestingly, it was between Joseph Smith and Louisa Beamman performed by Joseph Bates Noble, and again, there are so many. Questions I would like to ask about that and how that works, but as always, the only records we have of this came decades later and not not necessarily firsthand.

[00:03:37] So it’s complicated, right? So, um, we’re gonna look at a couple of different avenues today of the idea of eternal ceilings, eternal families, and kind of what that means to us in the church today and um. So this is, this is a really big topic and there’s no way we can get to all of it in one episode. So we’re just gonna look at a couple aspects of it today, and then we might readdress other aspects of it later on. So, OK, first of all, the first point I want to make is that while it is true that both eternal ceilings, I, I guess ceilings, I’ll just refer to them as ceilings, and by that you can know I mean eternal marriages, right? Um, while both ceilings and polygamy are supported by 132, I think we can agree that the idea that they cannot be separated is clearly not in line with the current with the current stance of the church today. So, although Brigham Young and other early church leaders fervently and consistently taught that polygamy was absolutely essential for exaltation. Basically the exaltation was was built through polygamy. Polygamy was the means toward exaltation. Church leaders have not taught that for over a century. And in fact, there have been quite a few times that they seem to wish that it had never been taught. I think they tried to stay as far away from it and those teachings as they possibly could, as they possibly could, ever since, um, Hebrew J. Grant and what is often referred to as the Third manifesto, which we can also get into at some point. The official teaching of the church has been that only monogamist marriage is acceptable or necessary for exaltation, and polygamy is a sin worthy of excommunication, which in in terms of our beliefs, right, in the church’s terms means complete cutoff from all of the blessings that our church claims to be able to give. So it’s, it’s a, it’s a big deal to excommunicate somebody. So, Despite the church’s embarrassment about its history with polygamy and desire to distance itself from the modern polygamists, many members of the church and leaders at the highest levels. Um, still believe, well, still did believe and continue to believe that polygamy is a law is the law of God and will again be instituted or at the very least, will be lived in the next life. That’s what I grew up believing. So I, I want to just acknowledge here that there is such a divergence of views, and that is very understandable. It’s, it’s very understandable while there’s so much confusion and so many disparate ideas and beliefs about polygamy. Our leaders have been everywhere, everywhere on the topic over time. For decades, it seemed they wish it would wished it would just go away, as I already said. Missionaries certainly haven’t brought it up to investigators for quite a while. It’s not something that we advertise. I think that if I’m remembering and someone could correct me, but I think that it hasn’t been in our lesson manuals, it’s not something that we cover. Or talk about in the church very commonly. I think until now when it’s becoming more, you know, with the internet and with everyone learning everything about our history. There’s, it’s definitely getting more attention than it has for a long time. So, um, I want to talk about a couple of the just

[00:06:59] back and forth that I remember that I’ve experienced. So a little over 20 years ago, President Hinckley, some of you will remember this, President Hinckley did everything he could to publicly disavow polygamy, including, he went on an interview with Larry King Live, if any of you remember that. And he actually condemned it and said that it was not doctrinal. That was the strongest statement that I had ever heard from a church leader. It was, it was really surprising to many members. So I’ll put the link below set to the time where they start talking about polygamy, polygamy, and where he says that he condemns it and disavows it is at the end of that section where they’re discussing polygamy. So, um, so that, that was a big move that was like, wow. But then, Several years later, in his very first press conference as the new president of the church in January 2018, as his final response to a question about the church’s treatment of women, President Nelson said, this is the quote, In the doctrine and covenants, there’s that verse that says, before the foundation of the world, women were created to bear and care for the sons and daughters of God, and in so doing, and in doing so they glorify God. Next question. So, um, again, I’ll put the link to that clip of the press conference below and um I think that I, like many others, probably most other people didn’t know what scripture he was referring to. So, um, I admit I was shocked when I found and read the only scripture it could possibly be referring to, it’s Doctrine and Covenants 13263, which I think is one of the most troubling verses of 132. This is what it says. But if one or either of the 10 virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery and shall be destroyed, for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth according to my commandment and to fulfill the promise which was given by my father before the foundation of the world and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds that they may bear the souls of men, for herein is the work of my father continued that he may be glorified. So that verse not only is about polygamy, but it’s one that includes both the women as property and the threats of destruction, things we’ve done past episodes on. So that was really surprising because from my experience, like I said, one that 132 has really been kept at bay, like, like it’s like we have had a 10 ft pole from it. We don’t include any of the difficult verses in our lessons or talk about them, so it was strange to have that brought up for the first time. So, but then in October of the same year, Elder Cook assured members that church leaders feel church leaders in the top offices feel that polygamy has fulfilled its purpose and is. Not necessary. That link will be below as well. So you can see what I’m saying that it’s like, wait, where are we on this? And then a year later in general conference, President Oaks gave his talk, Trust in the Lord. I think it was, um, probably October of 2019, if I’m remembering correctly. Sorry, you can hear my running voice today. I’ve been running a lot today. Um, and in that talk, let’s see, he basically

[00:10:17] He addressed polygamy. The talk was basically about polygamy, and he basically reaffirmed it, at least in the next life. So we’ll talk a little bit more about that going on. So we are left in quite, quite a bind if we try to look to the leaders of the church for our understanding of polygamy and the nature of eternal marriage, just because it has been. I mean, you can find such divergent teachings from all of them. That it’s hard to know what to think. And so, um, let’s see. I, I think that it is a bit of a mess, and that would mean, um, oh, anyway, and I know that the, you know, like one of the standards is we listen to the current prophet, but that still leaves us in a bit of a mess because that means that the eternal doctrines of God and the means of exaltation and the The future of our eternity changes back and forth depending on the views of the current president. So I don’t find that to be terribly helpful in this case. So, um, let’s see, I think that I’m just gonna use another example because This, this kind of back and forth and and disagreement among leaders is hard enough when it’s just about relatively little things. So one example I’m going to use is that, um, sorry, I keep losing my place. OK, President Hinckley, for those of you that remember him, he boldly asserted his strong approval for the nickname Mormon, and he worked hard. Actually, to intentionally spread it with projects like Mormon.org and Meet the Mormons and many others. He put a lot of effort into marketing and building up our identity as Mormons. Um, and he said in general conference that Mormon means more good. I could link to that talk. A few years later, President Nelson taught in conference that Jesus is offended by the name Mormon. And that we need to stop using it. And if we did, um, we would receive power and blessings like had never since like we had never seen before. So this kind of back and forth is interesting and and you know, kind of like, OK, what do we do here? And when it’s just about the name of the church, you know, it’s not that big of a deal, but when it’s about These eternal concepts that affect our identity as men and especially as women, it’s kind of important. So, um, OK, so that’s why we’re going to talk about this a little bit today and um let’s see. So anyway, back to the subject, the church does the current standard of the church is that it fully accepts the premise that eternal marriage is not in any way related to polygamy, at least that they’re not dependent on each other or intertwined. But we are still left with the supposed problem of both eternal marriage and polygamy being dependent on 132. So in a way, Maybe it seems we can’t have one without the other. That’s what we’re going to delve into. OK, so there’s the preamble to kind of explain the precarious situation we find ourselves in.

[00:13:34] So, OK, so as I’ve mentioned before, and we’re going to get into it a little bit more today, the entire context of the parts of 132 that deal with eternal marriage are completely monogamous and cannot work any other way. I’ve, I’ve really thought this through quite a bit, and I’ll try to explain at least some of it. So the verse is specifically that um 132 verse 19 is the verse specifically that describes exaltation and talks to us about how that is attained. And it is very much given in terms of one man and one woman of as of as a husband and wife and they progress together to attain the Holy Spirit of I’m so sorry, the Holy Spirit of promise as a couple, which If we believe this verse is the ceiling power which the temple ceiling merely points them toward, right? Like ordinances are important, but they are actually, I believe, um, symbolic representations of actual events that we can seek to receive in our lives. And I think ceiling is the same way. So if You know, if, if we step into what the teachings of 132 verse 19. So they can only accomplish this as a united couple. That’s the only way that they can qualify or receive these blessings. There is no description or allowance of any kind for people to ascend and to be sealed and exalted in any other way. They can’t do it as a group, so it can’t be a man with multiple wives or In any other way other than a perfectly united monogamous couple just as God ordained from the very beginning. So, um, 132 19 through 20, I’ll I’ll just read it so you can understand that I’m gonna, I’m shortening it just for time, but, um, you’ll understand the point I’m making. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a Life. So right there, it sets up who it is talking about and throughout the rest of the verse, every time it talks about them or they, it is talking about this one husband and one wife. Um, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them, unto the two of them by the Holy Spirit of promise, and it shall be said unto them, the two of them, ye shall come forth forth in the first resurrection, it shall be done unto them, the two of them. In all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, put upon them as a couple in time and through all eternity, and they, the two of them, shall pass by the angels and the gods which are set there to their exaltation, to the two of their exaltation and glory in all things as hath been sealed upon their heads, upon that man and that woman’s heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds for ever and ever. OK, that’s pretty clear, right? I don’t see how you can interpret that any other way. It sets it up from the beginning, a man and a woman together. Verse 20 is so heady and it is really heady and grandiose and it can be a little bit uncomfortable or embarrassing to read it aloud in public because these are such. Grandiose ideas, um, but it is still important to recognize that it continues to refer to only the united couple, husband and wife. So this is verse 20. Then shall they be gods because they have no end. Therefore, they shall be from everlasting to everlasting because they continue. Then shall they be above all because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods because they have all power and the angels. Or subject unto them, and to the two of them united as a couple.

[00:17:13] Right? So if anyone has other, any other way that they think that this can be bent to be reinterpreted, I would be interested in hearing it. Because to me it seems very, very clear. So, um, it is very strictly describing only a monogamous couple, right? A husband and a wife. I’ve got to get back to my spot cause it just went away from me. And, um, let’s see where I was. So, We’re left to ask how it could possibly work in any other way with more than just one man and one woman. So one other way, so it can’t be a group, right? It can’t be a man and many women. It sets it up very clearly, it’s just the two of them. So the other thing that could possibly happen is that a husband and wife progress in this way together as a unit and and are sealed and united perfectly and then The husband leaves his wife to be separate and single, which verse I think 17 describes as the non-exalted state, right, and he descends and then does the process over again with another wife, leaving this wife like that that does not make any sense at all, right? So and and I can’t think of any other. Explanations, even without, I mean, even without referring back to the scriptures that we find in every book of scripture about a man cleaving to his one wife and to nobody else. Even leaving that aside, there’s no way to make this logically make sense. So it really just seems impossible and almost ridiculous that 132, 19 and 20 are used to in any way support polygamy. They, they have nothing to do with polygamy and they Really actually disprove polygamy. So, um, if we accept the promises of exaltation through ceiling described to 132, we must necessarily be committed to monogamy and nothing else. So, OK, so I know that this gets a little bit complicated because 132 is problematic, right? So, is it the word of God or is it not? Or how does that work? I’m going to share an experience that, um, is just my personal experience. I’m a little hesitant to share cause I don’t want anyone to think, Well, you guys are too smart to think that my answers have to be your answers, right? But I’m just gonna share. So I had this Facebook group and I was discussing back and forth with all of these problems I was discovering and learning. And a couple of times someone would say, Have you fasted and prayed about it? And I kind of felt like, well, yes, of course, cause I fast and pray often and I had been studying this a lot. And You know, but I realized when one man in particular really challenged me to fast and pray for 24 hours, specifically just about section 132. So I, I, I was willing, I was like, OK, I will,

[00:20:00] I will do that. I will do a dedicated fast, only asking about 132. So I did, and it was really interesting because when the next day after my, when I was getting ready to end my fast, when I knelt and prayed, And I worked really hard to completely clear my mind and be open to any answer, you know, I was like, OK, God, I will hear whatever you tell me, like I will hear whatever you tell me cause I know that whatever you tell me, you will help me understand it and make it make sense. So I had first of all, a rather Profound experience. I won’t necessarily share, but I, um, I saw things that helped me understand polygamy in a different way where I just was like, oh, OK, like I kind of saw the beauty of of our heavenly Father and heavenly mother as an exalted couple in monogamy, and then I saw a third party enter and I won’t describe it exactly, but the spirit could not have been more different. It was, it was, um, almost. dramatic. It was so troubling to feel that difference. So that’s the first thing that that I experienced. And then I had the impression, just the distinct clear words, read through it verse by verse asking which parts are from God. And that really surprised me cause I had never before considered that some of it might be from God and some of it might not be, or that maybe maybe it all did come through Joseph Smith, and in some parts God was, you know, getting getting some inspiration in there and in other parts, um, it was more Joseph’s lens that was talking, you know, I don’t, I don’t know, I don’t claim to know how it worked worked or how it works. I’m just sharing my experience. So I did. I did begin to read it through that way asking God, is this a view, and it was actually palpable in that. In that experience I was in where it just felt dark light, dark light, kind of like what I had seen like the light, the glory of of heavenly Father and heavenly mother as an exalted united couple, and then the darkness of another woman entering into that picture, right? It was the same similar story. And for me personally, when I read verse 19, it was like it felt glorious to me. It felt inspired, it felt beautiful. So I don’t know. You know, I, I can’t tell you other than that’s what I’m inclined to believe at this point because of that experience that I had. And, um, I didn’t get very far past that at all before all of a sudden my kids attacked. You know, and I had to, I got interrupted from my prayer and had to go

[00:22:52] be a mom. And so I never got to get back in that space, but I think I got the answer. That I needed, which was that you don’t have to take it all or not as all or nothing, right? We each are, um, invited, and I would say even more than invited, we’re sort of commanded in general to seek personal revelation, to seek the Lord, to know for ourselves what is true. That’s the only way we can actually really find truth, right? And so, um, so anyway, that’s the experience I had, and If that’s interesting or useful to anyone, I’m sharing it, I guess I’m sharing it in part to just give you where I’m coming from on these questions, and of course I am wide open to learning more and sometimes when I learn more, it helps me see that something I thought I used to know wasn’t right. So, So I’m not in any way claiming that is definitive. That’s just the experience I had and so kind of where I am on this. So, OK, now being back to this question of um eternal marriage and ceilings and internal families, I want to acknowledge that these ideas. I have a lot of difficult implications for a variety of people in a variety of different situations. There are all kinds of trouble that can come from these ideas. So, um, There, there are a lot of directions we could go with this, and I, I’ve had a hard time like keeping, I had to edit a lot out that I was that I was looking into including in this episode, and, and so it was so that I could keep it at all on topic. So please know that I do understand that. And I’m hoping that we can address some of those things in future episodes, but it would be way too long to do them all here. So they’re, they’re beyond the scope of this particular episode, but I do acknowledge them, and I’m hoping that we will get to them to many different issues that people have. So, OK, there’s another issue, however, that I want that I do want to discuss here and um. It’s kind of how we have this idea of ceilings that is taught in 132 specifically of of of specifically verse 19, um, how that has sort of grown and expanded and morphed into something. That I don’t think it was ever meant to be. So I’m gonna talk about that. We are raised in the church believing in eternal families, right, which, um, according to what we are taught means that only families sealed in our temples can be together, which I have interpreted to mean can associate with their loved ones after this life. So, um, I want to clarify, this is a different idea than the promises made to an exalted couple described in 132, which really that says nothing about association with loved ones. That’s about eternal progression and eternal increase as a couple, right? This being able to associate with our loved ones is a very different thing. So, um,

[00:25:49] let’s see. What was I going to say about that? Um, OK, well, verses 15 to 18 of 132, they describe marriages that are not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, so that do not qualify for these blessings, and they say that those marriages are not enforced in the next life, so the couple can’t continue to. To to progress together to receive the blessings of exaltation, but it doesn’t at all say that they will not that they cannot be together or associate and um it and none of this really has anything to do with their loved ones, children, parents, siblings, friends, all of the people that we love that we suffer when they leave and that we hope we will get to see again. There’s nothing that should make us believe that loved ones cannot be together after this life without. The churches say so or permission or or power and so um but it seems that that is what we are taught from childhood. So um I’m, I, I haven’t been able to delve in enough to see exactly where this belief came from, but it seems to have grown from our belief in ceilings between husband and wife and, and just kind of gone on from there. So I’m going to cover some of the other places that this was taught, but it was never in any way connected to ceilings or ceiling power or anything like that. So, um. Let’s see. So I think, I think that our understanding of this and and what we teach about this and eternal families has expanded way beyond anything that scripture actually says. Um, 132, like I said, only talks about the idea of couples becoming exalted, which it defines as a fullness and the continuation of the seeds forever and ever. It is a promise of eternal progression. Um, I’ve already said most of that, so I’m going to skip forward. So, um, As a member of the church surrounded by members of the church for my entire life, I hadn’t really understood how potentially problematic and even. Hurtful and. Offensive these ideas, these claims can be. The claims that we have exclusive power to determine who can be with their loved ones after death. I hadn’t really um seen that from a different perspective until I had both, I had experienced both deep personal loss um of some. Some very dear to me and and then felt those claims used as sort of an attempt to Warn me or what it felt like kind of to kind of a fear-based control to a certain sort of a fear-based control over me, and, and, um, I, I, I, anyway, I never, I, I don’t think anyone who ever did this ever intended to weaponize these ideas, but sadly, somehow that’s kind of what happens and how it can come across. So I’m gonna share two examples of this. So, um, I lost my little girl during The shutdowns and COVID, I lost my first little girl and it was very difficult and.

[00:29:04] The things that I experienced in the hospital and in the time leading up to that were so atrocious and traumatic, um, that it left me quite scarred. And I also, I know everyone can have different viewpoints on this, but for me, I felt like being in that experience gave me some real clarity of what at least I believe that this all represented. And I was very troubled by the church’s stance on these issues during this time with what I experienced and Um, both just in society in general, it was an incredibly difficult time to be a um. Struggling morning mother who had been traumatized. It was, it was, it was not good, you know, and I, anyway, so I had some very strong feelings about it and I was not in agreement with what my church leaders were doing or saying. And I was at that time quite vocal about that on social media. I was, I was just sharing my thoughts and my ideas and um. And it was interesting there, there, there was obviously quite a bit of pushback, right? Have we ever seen a more divisive time than 2020? Hard times and um Anyway, one woman in particular, this she was not the only one, but one woman in particular, in particular, just directly called me out and used my little girl who I just lost. To, like she basically just said, you better be careful. You have a little girl who wants to be with you and you’re not going to qualify and you’re not going to get to see her again if you keep speaking out. And um that was so appalling to me and upsetting that That I that it made me just see this idea in a whole different way that someone thought, and I, I will say I know we all have different views, but I really do try to be prayerful and for me where I was, I was feeling, I was very prayerful in what I was doing and what I was saying, I was trying really hard, of course I was not perfect and You know, in my deep emotion, I’m sure I made many mistakes. But, um, but I was trying to follow the Lord the best I could and to have someone come at me like that when I’m following my inspiration and threaten me with my daughter, who I had just lost was not OK. It was really, really, really upsetting. And so, Um, so, you know, I’ve, I’ve experienced that in that divisive time, that was the most direct time, but there were other times that implied similar things that I just felt like this is a terrible thing for us to do. And um and then This most recent conference, I’m sure there are millions of other examples. These are just two that I experienced that I’m going to share. Um, I was listening to the Women’s conference in our last general conference, April 2022, and I heard this said, and, um, I will confess I’m still working through my feelings. I’m trying to be, you know, self-care, right?

[00:32:05] Take care of of my emotions and how I’m feeling. So I turned off conference at this point and couldn’t listen again for quite a while. So, Anyway, I heard this quote from Jean Bingham. There is nothing more important to our eternal progress than keeping our covenants with God. When our temple covenants are in force, we can trust in a joyful reunion with loved ones on the other side of the veil. That child or parent or spouse who has left mortality is hoping with all his or her heart that you will continue to be true to the covenants that bind you together. If we disregard or treat lightly our covenants with God, we are putting those eternal ties in danger. Now is the time to repent, repair, and try again. And um, I don’t know if that would have affected me so profoundly and so deeply if I hadn’t had those previous experiences, but it again felt like these ideas being weaponized to control people, um, out of fear, to claim we have the power to determine whether you get to see your little girl again. So you better toe the line. It did not feel good to me. And um. You know, so, um, anyway, I’m sure that many of you could share examples as well. Maybe being on both sides of this, cause who knows what I might have said before I was awake to this, to this, what I see as a problem now. So, um, anyway, my feelings about these statements did cause me to consider these ideas more deeply. Um, I haven’t, like I said, I haven’t done the comprehensive research to know how these ideas developed or grew. But I, I don’t believe that they are scriptural. I know that nothing in the Book of Mormon talks about eternal families, and we say that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel. Um, let’s see, I’m, I keep losing my spot. I’m sorry, my computer is freezing up a lot. Um. Let’s see, there’s nothing in the Book of Mormon and um in order and and and I think that and you know, even 132, as we’ve said, doesn’t say anything about this. I can’t find any scriptures that talk about Being able to associate with our loved ones being dependent upon um anything from the church, so um in order to um oh and also in order to make and believe the claim that our church has exclusive power to allow loved ones to associate after death, we have to start with several assumptions that I think are rather harmful and we and we don’t usually think about them or discuss them, but. I hope you’re understanding what I’m trying to say. We first have to believe that God will intentionally keep people separate from from their loved ones after death. So that’s if we believe in in eternal life. And I have a hard time understanding what that even means. It left me asking as I thought about it, do we be if, if, if we believe, uh, well, we believe in paradise, right? At least for the generally good people,

[00:35:06] do we really believe that God will keep good people? Isolated, um, like in secluded and separate imprisoned in solitary confinement, basically alone. Do we believe that’s what will happen? Do we um, believe that, let’s see, or, or will God allow us to associate only with spirits that we have no connection to, that we don’t know or love. Is that what we believe will happen? It it just seems so strange to me. Like, honestly, it’s easier for me to understand what I really think about this, it’s easier for me to understand people who don’t believe in an afterlife at all than it is for me to understand in this view of God and an afterlife in paradise where we’re not allowed to be with our loved ones because We don’t have the church’s permission. We haven’t received the ordinances that we claim to believe are necessary to make that possible. So, um, Let’s see, and if we take this a step further, it kind of is even more complicated because that means that only those who pay 10% of their income and who don’t drink coffee or tea and, you know, who obey the somewhat arbitrary and changeable institutional rules, that they’re the only ones that get to see their loved ones again. So in a way we pay for that privilege, you know, that’s hard to understand and If you think about our temple recommend today, which, which I’m fine with, I, you know, I have a temple recommend and I keep all of the standards the best that I can, but it’s interesting to think that Jesus wouldn’t qualify for a temple recommend today. Not only did he drink wine, he actually created wine out of water. Um, Joseph Smith was commanded. Jesus commanded Joseph Smith to make wine, and um Joseph Smith drank wine, so. Many of our greatest leaders wouldn’t qualify for a temple recommend today under our um current standards. So that’s interesting to think about, right? And yet, so that’s how we determine who gets to be with their loved ones after. After, um, death, it just seems very strange to me, and, and it’s strange to me as I think about it also that we believe we have power to basically bind God, to tell God who gets to be together and who doesn’t, and God will defer to us, right? Does that all make sense? I don’t know. These are just some things to Think about that, um, again, please understand, I’m not making any claims in this. I’m sharing my explorations and my thoughts and my thinking, and I’m so open to feedback and to hearing your thoughts. So, um, so moving on with this idea, I can’t see that Joseph Smith ever taught this. I, I, um,

[00:37:49] I’ve searched and, um, and again, who knows how comprehensive my searches are. So if anyone has something, I’m always open, but It looks to me like he that he taught the opposite. He said that um we will be with our loved ones, friends, as well as family, and there’s nothing to indicate that this is in any way dependent on principles taught in 132 or on temples. Um, so Doctrine Covenants 130 verse 2, which we’ll talk about a little bit more again, it says, and that same sociality which exists. Among them here will exist among us there, which exists among us here will exist among us there. Only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy. So it seems possible that somehow we have expanded on these ideas in our culture, far beyond what they were actually taught, what what they were actually taught to be. So in addition to this teaching by Joseph Smith, um, I believe we can look to our own experiences and our own intuitions. And um to those of many others, I believe that many of us inherently know that um. And inherently know that we will be with our loved ones on the other side of the veil. Um, I, so again, personal experiences today. My dad passed away, um, almost 16 years ago, and um I’ve had a lot of experiences with him. I have one son in particular who I’ve just repeatedly felt my dad’s guidance and direction in his life and in helping me um help him in his life in really beautiful and profound ways that were so clearly like I just. Felt my dad. I knew it was my dad and the things that were involved were my dad, right? Like I have felt his influence in our life, and um, I also, I think many can relate to this. I have often had the experience of just a deep knowing through various experiences and feelings, sometimes overwhelming. Knowing that someone was waiting to come to our family, that it was time to have another baby, right? I’ve experienced that many times, and those, those little babies weren’t sealed to us yet, right, even though they were born in the covenant, that hadn’t happened yet, there was a connection, a spiritual tie that existed before and that continues on after and um also I have had very profound experiences with each of my little girls who passed away, and experiences that have left me with zero doubt of who they are, not just as infants, but as. As people and um and it left me with no doubt of our ongoing relationship that existed before they were born that continues now after they are gone. I, I know they are involved in our lives, and I know that I will have them again, that I will see them again and um. I also know that these associations and relationships are not dependent on the approval of the church. I, I know that as deeply as I know

[00:41:02] these other things through various experiences and through. Just my own knowing, right? And um also, these kinds of experiences, just one evidence for that. These kinds of experiences are not at all unique or restricted to only members of the church who have been sealed in the temple. Many people have these kinds of experiences throughout the world and throughout time. Um, I have been in, um, you know, online support groups for grieving mothers, and I can promise you, I’m not the only one who’s had these kinds of experiences and Most of the women in these groups are not in my same faith, and it’s just um how the world works and how eternity is, right? So, um, I believe that many others in our society have known these same things. So I want to give a couple of examples. I guess the point I’m trying, well, maybe I’ll get to this later, but it is interesting because in order to, to sort of sell this idea that we in the church have this exclusive power of allowing families and loved ones to associate after death, we have to first convince. People that they can’t associate after death. And that brings up all of these questions, right? And I think that for many people, um, obviously people who don’t believe in God and don’t believe in a purpose to creation in an afterlife, don’t necessarily believe in, um, well, don’t at all believe in reunions after death. But for those who do believe in God, I think it is a natural belief to come to. That we will be with our loved ones. So I’m going to share just a couple of um examples of these ideas in our culture. Um, so first of all, these are 3 movies that I have always loved, so I’m hoping my son who does my editing can insert these movies. You can watch them. I don’t have to just cut this whole part out, but Here’s the first one. So I was, I was raised watching old movies. My mom would collect on video. This is May time. My favorite Jeannette McDonald and Nelson Eddy movie made in 1937, and this was always my favorite scene. I think it speaks to all of us, not just members of the church. I don’t think we can watch it without crying. And then the next one is Somewhere in Time with Jane Seymour and Christopher Reeve, admittedly not as high quality of a movie, but still another one of my favorites growing up and with maybe one of the most beautiful scores of all time, I still can’t watch. This scene without tearing up. And I hate cutting it off because it feels like a sin to interrupt the gorgeous score. Um, the next one is Braveheart with Mel Gibson. Hopefully many of you have seen this movie. It’s a good one. And then finally, Gladiator with Russell Crowe. You can remember the scene, those of you who have seen this movie. Go to them No So each of these scenes, right, they burn deeply into our souls and bring us to tears, at least those of us who, you know, can be brought to tears. They speak deep truths that we recognize, and

[00:46:57] I think that the reason that these scenes are so powerful are because of these truths and how profound they are. Um, I think it would be hard to convince everybody making or seeing these movies that no, that’s wrong. You, you, they won’t get to see their loved ones cause they don’t have our our say so, they don’t have our blessings, right? So, um, another profound example in our culture where the letters, the famous letters exchanged between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson at the end of their lives until they both died on the same day, the 4th of July 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I had to throw that in because it is such a miraculous amazing fact. So these are um the letters that they sent. When Abigail’s beloved wife, I mean John’s beloved wife Abigail, passed away, so this is November November of 1818. Um, now, sir, for my griefs, the dear partner of my life for 54 years as a wife and for many more years as a lover now lies in extremis, forbidden to speak or be spoken to. If human life is a bubble, no matter how soon it breaks. If it is, no matter how soon it breaks, if it is, as I firmly believe, an immortal existence, we ought patiently to wait for the instructions of the great teachers. That’s what John Adams wrote as his wife was passing away. Then, um, this is Thomas Jefferson’s reply. The public papers, my dear friend, announced the fatal event of which your letter of October 20th had given me an ominous foreboding. Tried myself in the school of affliction by the loss of every form of connection which can writ the human heart. I know well and feel what you have lost, what you have suffered are suffering and have yet to endure. The same trials have taught me that for ills so immeasurable, time and silence are the only medicines. I will not therefore by useless condolences open afresh the sluices of your grief, nor although mingling mingling sincerity with my. Uh, sincerely my tears with yours, will I say a word more where words are vain. But that if but that it is of some comfort to us both that the term is not very distant at which we are to deposit in the same. Um, cement our sorrows and suffering bodies and to ascend in essence to an ecstatic meeting with the friends we have loved and lost and whom we shall still love and never lose again. God bless you and support you under your heavy affliction. That first of all is the most beautiful letter um of condolence that I that I know of. It is just perfect and um. You can hear how deeply he has thought of it, thought about these things and how deeply he has had to search them to understand that he would be able to see his loved ones again, and he says, I know not how to prove physically that we shall meet and know each other in the future state. Nor does revelation as I can find give us any positive assurance of such a felicity. My reason for believing it as I do most undoubtedly are all moral and divine. I believe in God and in His wisdom and benevolence, and I cannot conceive that such a being could make such a species as the human merely to live and die on this earth. If I did not believe a future state, I should believe in no God. This universe. All this uses a Greek word that means the end to the beginning, this everything would appear with all its swelling pomp a boyish firework. And if there be be a future state, why should the Almighty dissolve forever all the tender ties which unite us so delightfully in this world and forbid us to see each other in the next? I think those are profound, profound sentiments from some of the brilliant founders. Um, it seems to me that most humans inherently tend to believe that relationship relationships and associations continue beyond death, that they will be reunited with their loved ones,

[00:51:22] and those ideas do speak to us deeply. Um, it requires specific teachings to convince us otherwise. So like we discussed, when people cease to believe in God, then they cease to believe in being reunited with their loved ones, which I think is one of the harder parts for many people of accepting atheism, um, letting go of hope that of of continuation with loved ones. And um I think the main thing that convinced most Christians that their marriage relationships would not continue, which the LDS promises of ceilings were in part responding to, is one not very well understood verse in the Bible. It’s Luke 20:34, which also continues to cause confusion for us, and which ironically grew out of polygamy. Isn’t that interesting? Everything comes comes from polygamy. So in this verse, the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection, were trying to use the polygamist part of the law of Moses to trap Jesus, and it seems to sort of mock the idea of life after death. And so I’ll start in this is Moses 20, I’ll start with 28. They came to him saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die having a wife and he die without children, that is, that his brother should take his wife and raise up seed unto his brother. Therefore, there were, therefore 7 brethren, and the first took a wife and died without children, and the second took her to wife and died childless. And the third took her and in like manner, the 7 also, and they left no children and Died. Last of all, the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife is she? Whose wife of them is she? For 7 had her to wife. And I think what they’re doing here is trying to just say, look, the idea of eternity is ridiculous. Here, let us give you an example of how ridiculous it is. How are you going to solve this problem? And I think that we can have a lot of similar issues like that, a lot of similar questions. Today, so continuing on with 34, and Jesus answering, said unto them, the children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage. Neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of resurrection. So I think. Much of most of Chris and Emma has taken this. They neither marry nor are given in marriage to mean there is no marriage in the next life, and um I think that we take, took it to mean, oh, they had to be married and sealed in this life in order to be sealed in the next life. That’s kind of how we interpret it, interpreted it, which again opened up all kinds of problems because You know, it was taught that people who weren’t married in this life wouldn’t have those blessings, but then we have the problem of many people not having the opportunity to marry or having other reasons that they can’t marry or being sealed to people that they don’t want to be sealed to. There are, there are a lot of different problems and um or being widowed or, you know, there are lots of different different issues with it. So we’ve we’ve kind of had to also set that aside and say we don’t understand, but it’s gonna be OK, no promises will be denied. It’s all gonna work out, right? So I think that it’s interesting to realize that in this response Jesus

[00:54:45] was responding to a challenge about life after death, not mainly about marriage at all. And so I, I personally think it’s fair to interpret his answer in the same vein as what both Christian and now LDS church leaders say, which is basically. We don’t have all the answers. We don’t know the details, but we know that God loves us and that it will be more wonderful than we can possibly imagine. That seems to be where we are united. I, this is from Focus on the family and then, um, their website and then answer. They’re just one representation I’m using. Of general Christian thought, and this is their answer to the question about whether there will be marriage in heaven. They say Jesus did say that life in the world to come won’t include marriage as we know it here on earth. When questioned by the Sadducees about this, he said, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. However, Jesus didn’t say that all earthly earthly relationships will be nullified in heaven. Those of us who accept God’s merciful offer of unmerited deliverance and salvation will definitely be brought together with our loved ones in the next life. We just don’t know exactly what form that togetherness will take. Human relationships will be different in heaven, but they can’t be less than what than what they’ve been on earth. Instead, they’ll be something more, something better, something far more fulfilling and satisfying than we can imagine. So that’s an interesting sentiment, right? Um, they, I don’t think people generally take Jesus’s statement about not marrying and giving a marriage to mean separation from loved one or the complete dissolution of any emotional ties, right? And um, so interestingly, in his talk called Trust in the Lord. What I referred to earlier, um, President Oakes responded to worries about polygamy and um some other concerns in the next life by saying we don’t know how it will be, but we should just trust in the Lord. Here’s one sample from his talk. That same principle, the principle of trusting in the Lord, applies to unanswered questions about ceilings in the next life or desired readjustments because of events or transgressions and mortality. There is so much we don’t know that our only sure reliance is to trust in the Lord and in his love for his children. It’s amazing how similar that is to to what the Christians teach, right? We’re really kind of on the same um same page. So, um. Let’s see. I actually, I actually like these answers, even, even if they are different from what I was taught to believe growing up. I think it is good for us to believe in continued association with loved ones that is not dependent on any church or any institution. Um, President Oakes in this talk also referred to the King Folet discourse. So I admit that for many years I heard about the King Folet discourse and I had no idea what it was. It’s an interesting title and I didn’t know what it was referring to. So several years ago I looked it up, so I will share with you for anyone who’s like, what’s King Follet? So King Follett is the name of a man. His first name was King. His last name was Follet. So a man named King Follett was a member of the church and a friend of Joseph Smith. He died tragically. I just learned this in preparing for this episode. He died tragically in March of 1844 when a bucket of rocks fell on his head while he was helping dig a well. They were lowering them down and the rope broke and it landed on his head and killed him. A month later,

[00:58:14] they had a special commemoration for him and Joseph Smith gave this sermon. So, um, it’s where Joseph Smith first spoke publicly about the ideas of exaltation, and I find it interesting that it’s never been canonized as scripture. I. I don’t know why. I just, I think that’s interesting when apparently, you know, it’s something that church members have believed and have taught. So President Oakes paraphrased Joseph’s teaching in the sermon by saying that he taught, oh saying he taught, quote, that family members who were righteous will be together in the world of spirits. So that’s interesting. And here is one here is one of the exact quotes from the King follow sermon. When I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season. Their spirits, which existed with God, have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were, and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth. So, um, I’ll attach the King Falet sermon below, but this is what I found really interesting. This made me curious cause this sounded what was shared in that by Joseph Smith sound did very much like our funerals today, our LDS funerals today. So I looked to see if King and his wife Louisa Follett had been sealed, and I can’t find any record. That that they were sealed during his life, ceilings were just barely getting going, and I think ceilings for the dead were very limited. And um so I don’t think that they were sealed before he passed away and after his death, Louisa and her children moved to Iowa, so they didn’t stay with the saints and with the temple. So these teachings from Joseph Smith, it seems, were, well, were obviously not dependent on temple marriage, right? He was teaching this about King Fala who had died. And he hadn’t been sealed, so these the even the teachings from Joseph Smith were not dependent on ceilings or on temples. Um, and they, they go hand in hand with what he taught Melissa and Benjamin Johnson the same month which we have recorded in section 130, so that it was only recorded in a um personal journal, but that is canonized, it’s interesting. And he said, I’ll read again, and that same sociality which exists among here will exist among us there. Only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy. So, and again, Melissa and Benjamin weren’t yet sealed when he taught this, and he taught it at the King Fat discourse in front of many people who want it sealed, and he didn’t in any way tie it to sealing. He was teaching it as a principal, as I understand it, so. I don’t know how we have expanded these ideas of sociality after death so far to come to believe that our church has the exclusive power um to allow loved ones to be together after death. That is definitely something that I think is worth rethinking and really pondering on. Um, I don’t know that I would have if I hadn’t been put in this situation, but As a result of it, I mean the situation with feeling that kind of used against me um as a grieving mother. That that really made me rethink what this is about and how we should teach it and how we should think about it, and I think that’s worth exploring. So to sum up this long episode.

[01:01:38] I think it’s clear that people through with throughout time, including our brilliant founding fathers and. Throughout our culture, there are, I mean, the, I shared a few little clips and a few examples, but you can find them everywhere that people believe that they will be reunited with their loved ones after death. Um, Christians, and I’m guessing most other people who believe in an afterlife believe that as well. And Joseph Smith taught it before his death with no dependence on the temple. So I, I do personally. I want to again differentiate um that association with our loved ones after death is a different thing than the idea of it the Holy Spirit of promise and a couple being sealed and progressing and um and experiencing eternal progression and exaltation. Those are two different things, right? I don’t think it’s one or the other that either they’re sealed and Um, and exalted, or they are kept apart from each other and not allowed to associate. So I think that it would be good for us, at least this is where I am now, to recognize that we do believe that people will get to see their loved ones and they don’t have to have the permission of the church in order to believe that, right? I am that on that part of it, I think that we can each just seek the truth of that for ourselves, is my ability to Be reunited with my loved ones to see them again, is that dependent on being on my on my temple ceiling and then, um, which again. The the anything about ceiling only is about couples. It doesn’t have much at all to do with children or fathers and mothers and friends, siblings. That’s all, that’s all extra for the ceilings that we talk about in 132. And then I do think that there is a possibility that there is something to this idea of eternal ceilings that um That I think can maybe lead us to more pondering and more thought and more seeking. I do think I recognize again that it can cause a lot of problems and I happen to agree with church historians that I don’t think 132 was ever meant for public consumption. And so, um, but aside from all of that, back to our central topic, 132 itself makes it very clear that even if we believe in ceilings and progression toward exaltation through the Holy Spirit. of promise that commits us strictly only to monogamy, because it cannot be accomplished according to 132 itself, it cannot be accomplished in any other way. So, um, I, I personally think that Parts of 132 are good fuel for introspection and seeking personal revelation, which I think, especially when we see how divergent the views of various church leaders have been on this and on other topics, we see that that personal seeking, personal introspection and Seeking for personal revelation really is our best source for truth. So thank you so much for joining us. I hope that you found this valuable, um, and I will see you next time hopefully under slightly better circumstances. My name is Michelle Stone, and this is 1132 Problems.