Happens a lot in the many countries were a religious ceremony is not accepted, others specifically don’t accept the LDS ceremony as legal. The instruction though is to travel to the temple when first possible or otherwise wait a year to then go..

But certainly I agree with you in that “The point is that you’re married.”

They only allow this so that children can be sealed to both parents not so that women can have many husbands.

This needs more consideration. I’d say, imho, that the concept of “sealing” is misunderstood.

It’s actually “legally married” who can then go on and have that “legal marriage” (lets call it X) sealed to be recognized by God for all eternity. But the concept is “legally married”. That’s the important part, either it’s a marriage or it’s not. If we see the ‘Sealing’(call it Y) as a marriage then we get into these problems.

Summary: X doesn’t = Y. X is important, and it is either an X that is till death do us part (or divorce these days) or its an X that becomes an XY. (See we all become male! …….get it, xy …get it??)

Anyway, the problem is that over time we have had it beaten into us that a ‘sealing’ in the temple is important and more so that an ordinary marriage when it isn’t. A marriage is a marriage period! (no pun..)
Like the marriage that President Kimball had was just as valuable as the Hinkleys even though the Kimballs had their marriage sealed a year later while the Hinkleys had it sealed at the same time they married. Both will be recognized as a marriage in the here after, the Clinton’s probably won’t ?

Then we need to understand that once death happens, well death happens and the marriage on earth ends -the person is a ‘single’ person. The fact that their pre-death marriage will be recognized in the next life if they are worthy etc, isn’t part of the equation here. Here the person is still ‘single’ albeit a widow/widower or divorced, because they were once married. They can rightly consider their partners only gone for a while if they wish to, or they can marry again and be then a married individual. But all this certainly needs more discussion because the current sealing policies are a mess and usually only end up hurting the innocent, even though the brethren don’t or can’t see it. Those of us at the stake level do see it frequently but the top brass don’t bother asking about it and no one has the balls to tell them! (pardon the expression)

Footnote 26 on page 305.

“Emma’s threat to “be revenged and indulge herself” may have been merely a warning to the prophet to give up his spiritual wives. But Joseph H. Jackson, a non-Mormon opportunist who gained the confidence of the prophet in Nauvoo, recorded in an 1844 expose of Mormonism: “Emma wanted [William] Law for a spiritual husband,” and because Joseph “had so many spiritual wives, she thought it but fair that she would at least have one man spiritually sealed up to her and that she wanted Law, because he was such a ’sweet little man.’”

Although there is nothing to suggest that Law and Emma were more to each other than friends, Law later confirmed that Joseph “offered to furnish his wife Emma with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in his house and to be well treated, etc.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 3 July 1887.)

Perhaps polygyny and polyandry were in the works if Joseph had lived longer???

See, that was easy.

I’ll have to think about the other stuff.

The standard practice, though, for widows and widowers who are sealed to others and who then marry is for them not to be sealed to each other.

So I may be wrong in more ways than one.

I’ll have to think.