Her first husband, Mr Lightner, outlived both Jo
Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner Smith Young, was married to Mr Lightner, who never was baptized. Concurrently, she was sealed to Jo Young married her. She was not concurrently sealed to more than one while they were alive, but she was married to two live husbands. More can be learned about this in the book: “In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith”.
If a [person] did not sustain the first presidency is that grounds for [church discipline] to get them to “regain” their testimony? I’m just wondering because in the baptismal interview, investigators have to answer in the affirmative when asked if Thomas S Monson is a prophet, if they wish to be baptized. . .
The language used to frame your question defaults to their position. By that I mean, you asked if a member could be disciplined for not “sustaining” their leaders. The people in power always control the lexicon – and with that power, LDS leaders have changed the meaning of “sustain” [which we all should do] to mean “vote in favor of” [which we might not necessarily need to do].
We should always sustain our leaders – which are the voice of the church as manifested by the vote of common consent. That’s our leaders who we submit to – b/c even God submits Himself to the voice of the people.
So, in reality, one may choose to not vote in favor for one reason or another [doesn’t matter], but still sustain the leader after the vote is cast and it falls in his favor.
And you’re actually asking about voting – which is a matter entirely separate from whether we sustain the voted outcome or not.
So, a prospective member needing to say they sustain Pres. Monson has nothing to do with how prophetic they think he is – it has to do with whether they submit to the keys of the church that have voted in favor of him. They are not being asked to vote for or against his being a prophet – only asked if they sustain his calling and election as such.
Whether or not I think he is a prophet factors in only in how I vote come Gen. Conf. – it has nothing to do with whether I sustain him as such come worthiness interviews – because I sustain the voice of the people that manifested in his favor.
Which I think is nonsense because of how little an investigator can use to judge whether or not he is a prophet
To me – the issue that would need to be addressed concerning the church persecutions that would come when it is made known that an active couple in a ward as begun marrying plural spouses and co-habitating with them – is why members doing things on their own without Salt-Lake sanction is interpreted as “not sustaining our leaders” or as an out-right challenge to the calling and election of Pres. Monson.
What I find interesting is how so many LDS can so easily disassociate the sealing power from plural marriage. I mean the sealing power was revealed in the context of polygamy, not monogamy. Surely Joseph Smith sent up many prayers to God, talking to Him and seeking council from Him about his feelings for Emma and his desire to marry her. Why did the Lord choose to reveal the sealing power in the context of polygamy and not in the context of monogamy? Knowing the specific context in which the sealing power was revealed, how is it that LDS have no problem seeing it through a monogamy-only filter? Why do we continue to take this revelation out of the context in which it was given? It is obvious (to me) that the sealing power was revealed in the context of polygamy because it is intended for polygamous, not monogamous, relations. Monogamy has no part in the sealing power, for all will eventually be sealed to all.