I'd never heard of this until I started lurking this board, and I've seen it come up several times. Talk of families being reassigned to someone else in the afterlife if they weren't worthy.

What exactly is this? Where did this idea come from?

And where can I find reference to it in LDS sources? Would I find anything about this in any of the teaching manuals, or the scriptures, or in any GC talks?

Thanks in advance.

I see talk of how families could be "reassigned" to worthy priesthood holders as a veiled threat of something beyond the veil. Since nobody can verify it one way or another, a priesthood leader can imply it while being vague about it. It is akin to a visit from a Mafia enforcer who hints that "somebody might have an accident."

When I was "less active" a branch president told my wife that she couldn't be resurrected for the Millenium unless I repented. I was even attending church weekly, but not with the "enthusiasm" that this branch president thought would be worthy of the First Resurrection. From that conversation onward, I always considered myself "less active," regardless of what calling I might have.

The reassignment of families is a great sadness in the LDS tradition. It is now only spoken of in terms of "in the next life." My wife, for example, is a TBM with stake callings. She has had many questions of her leaders since my resignation from the church, and is assured that in the next life she will be assigned a worthy male companion.

But it used to be practiced in this life in the earliest days of the church when a senior priesthood leader might covet one's wife, and find a way to reassign her to him. For instance, Brigham Young acquired Zina Huntington Jacobs from her husband, Henry Jacobs, and assigned her and all the kids to himself. Another example might be Parley P. Pratt, who brazenly took the wife and family of a jealous man, Hector McClean, as his own. Mclean tracked Pratt down and exacted prairie justice on him.

The FLDS, who still live like earlier Brighamites, continue in this practice. When a leader covets a man's wife, he finds a way to discredit the man, possibly excommunicate him, and reassign the man's family to himself. He thereby gains a new woman and more kids to increase his glory in the hereafter.

That is plain sick, cludgie, that church leaders are consoling your wife with promises of a different husband.

I recently attended the funeral of my never-mo aunt and was forcefully struck with the realization that it is a univeral belief that spouses are reunited after death. At her funeral everyone was taking comfort with the fact that, "now she is with (her husband) again." What was suddenly so clear is that everyone else believes in eternal families, and it's actually the Mormons that believe that families can be ripped apart eternally.

Exactly. I was lurking on an LDS message board, and read a post from a woman considering joining the church. She was enthusiatic about the idea of "eternal families", but she was concerned because her husband had no interest in joining. She wanted to know if she, hubby, and their kids could all be sealed together if he doesn't join.

She was told "no" but then offered the possibility that after he dies, he could be bapitized by proxy and then they could be sealed by proxy. Other replies encouraged her to help convert him in this life with the carrot of an "eternal family."

One poster asked if he was Christian, and pointed out that if he is, that argument won't work on him as Christians already believe they will be reunited with their loved ones in heaven. One or more LDS posters exclaimed, "No, they don't teach that! Do they?" Uh, yeah, they do.

I vote to be with the Brady Bunch...such a waste of time.

ABSOLUTELY true that the church teaches it. My wife sat through a RS lesson a few weeks ago that pounded in this teaching. A few of the sisters who were single/recently divorced were not too happy.....

"Husband reassignment" is alive and well in mormonism, if you want to see how it works, just go visit Colorado City in southern Utah. They got it down, and do it all the time.

Wonderful teaching from Joe, Brigham and the other clowns.

Actually, Colorado City (formerly Short Creek) is part of the Arizona Strip, I believe.

bordergirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, Colorado City (formerly Short Creek) is
> part of the Arizona Strip, I believe.


oops, my bad. The two cities are so close together, I forgot they are actually two cities....Hilldale in Utah and Colorado City in Arizona

My poor, poor TBM wife. After having sex with me in this life, she is going to have an eternity of disappointment with her assigned Celestial penis-holder.

More of the same crap taught based upon the usual false doctrine. Mormons have no authority or does anyone else to re-assign families. Being a member of the church does not bring special privledges as they are prone to think. This is just more crapola used as a tool to control people.

Yeah, current LDS doctrine is not that they will be assigned so much as they will choose another husband on the other side. Same would go for a husband whose wife wasn't worthy. Well I guess with the husband it wouldn't matter if she's worthy or not - he just adds to the collection.

Since Forestpal hasn't chimed in, here's another take on the 'reassignment' question.

- TBM woman marries TBM man.
- TBM husband is abusive.
- Civil divorce but not a temple divorce
- Woman remarries but cannot be sealed to second husband.
- Woman and 2nd husband have three children

What is the result in Mormon heaven?

Woman and children are sealed to 1st husband and will belong to him in eternity. Children are sealed to a man they never met in life and who abused their mother. Wife lives eternally separated from the man she loves and forced to live with a man she divorced.

Eternal family dcotrine results in family being torn apart.

Of course, it's all nonsense but the Mormons believe it.

All of which is why I found the mormon doctrine abhorrent. I look forward to a heaven with my spouse and family regardless of whether they are in the same church. The idea that you have multiple levels so that one is actually LIKELY to be in a different one from one's spouse is terrible. I also don't wish to be a god. I actually like the fact that each person is different. I don't like the idea that we are all dressed in white in the CK.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2013 04:54PM by rhgc.

Okay, so we have reassignment of spouses, what about reassignment of children? I seem to have heard that one too.

And where can I find this in LDS sources? Is it in any current manuals?

With children it doesn't matter as much, at least doctrinally.

It's not like they are going to be living with their parents anyway - it's like a relationship with adult children.

The doctrine as I understand it is that the children just have to be sealed up the chain somehow to get all the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant but that it doesn't really matter how as long as they get the blessings - whereas who you are married to eternally matters a lot more.

...to me, anyway, is how cavalierly they "reassign" human beings. Whether in so-called Real Life or in some nebulous afterlife, if anyone- ANYONE, I don't care who- ever tried to take me away from my husband to give me to some other guy as if I were a possession, a thing, I would fight tooth and claw! I am NOT a thing to be given away! I WILL be with my husband because I want to be. I make my own choices, thankyouverymuch.

Don't these wives ever bitch about it? Besides our Forestpal, I mean... don't any of the TBM wimmins go, "Hey, waiddaminnit! I'm a free human being and *I* decide with whom I'm gonna stay, NOT the church" or do they just agree like sheep... bow their heads and say yes?

Feh!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2013 01:22AM by Doxi.

But, like Mormons know anything.

When you join the Church it is tacitly assumed that you ARE a
thing. You are the Church's thing. You are told you can't
refuse a calling because it came from GOD who created you and
owns you. You should feel good about paying tithing because
it is all God's anyway as are you. Didn't you take the
covenants upon yourself in the temple? Weren't some of them
about obedience and sacrifice? You are owned.

Don't even THINK about not going on a mission. It's not YOUR
life, it's God's.

And the beauty of it is God never appears in person to ask for
a thing. He just sends Church leaders. But, as it says, "if
from my mouth of the mouth of my servants, it is the same," --
another goodie that God forgot to put in the Bible but
revealed to Joseph Smith for our edification.

IMO I still wish that the f$&@ed theology was true because the sad reality is IMO that this life is all that there is for us and that immortality simply isn't a reality.

Who is it that is in charge of all this reassigning ?

Joe, OF COURSE!

to the Uber-fundies, things like this 'make sense', are affirmations of 'the gospel';

to NOMs, this is Straight Wacko.

You think LDS beliefs are weird/strange, dive into some of the reincarnation notions from different religions. Those get really complicated. One gal explained her religious beliefs about an after life and said there were something like 17 different degrees .... etc.

One of the more fascinating things about religions are the after life beliefs and their rituals around death and burial, etc.

What I like most about that subject? It's all imaginary, from what
I can tell!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2013 12:54PM by SusieQ#1.

There was an interesting Robin Williams flick several years back which explored the various conceptions of the after-life. Very thought-provoking.

I have no idea how widespread this teaching is today, but 30-40 years ago it was well-known. One poor woman (a convert) sobbed about how if her parents (nonmos) didn't join the church she'd be assigned to different parents in eternity; this was because her parents had heard about tscc in this life and rejected it. So they'd never get to the celestial kingdom where she and her tbm husband were going. She was really upset about it.