quote: Fact is that the church policy has recently changed. Widows sealed to a dead husband used to not be able to be sealed for eternity to one husband. Some time in the last 10 years, this quietly changed. I was startled to learn about the changed policy 3 or 4 years ago, when my aunt, a recent widow, remarried. I remarked to my mom about how her sister was lucky that a good LDS man, who had never been sealed before, was willing to marry her even though it was just "for time." My mom said that they had been sealed. I said what? She shrugged. The policy has changed.
Are any of you aware whether women can in fact be simultaneously sealed to multiple men now, or whether this second sealing merely replaces the first sealing (to this poster's uncle)?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
And Jesus said...
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
it's definitely a mis-understanding. the church has not changed it's policy in this regard. i would gather they were married in the temple, but not sealed. i have been privileged to attend a "for time only" marriage in the temple, and they are not uncommon among older folks who have lost a prior spouse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is it possible that this doctrine could have been changed and just not communicated to the laity effectively?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
nope, doctrine doesn't change in the shadows and never has. if this were to change, it will be announced in general conference or via an official memo. it's obviously someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Tom, from my understanding, a priesthood holder in the LDS church can be sealed again, but a woman can not. I'd like to be able to explain why, but to be honest, I haven't exactly studied as heavily as some people, just remember someone asking in Seminary.
So a man can be sealed for time an all eternity again.
A woman can remarry "for time only."
quote: Family members need not worry about the sealing situation of blended families as it might be in the next life. Our concern is to live the gospel now and to love others, especially those in our family. If we live the gospel to the best of our ability, the Lord in His love and mercy will bless us in the next life and all things will be right.
Robert E. Wells, “Uniting Blended Families,” Liahona, June 1999, 29
[ November 27, 2004, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Anti-Chris ]
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
d is correct. a man can be sealed to more than one woman, (but not at the same time... ie, the second wife cannot be sealed to him while the first is still alive... unless they annull the first sealing) whilst a woman cannot be sealed to more than one man.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Hmmm... it's interesting that this is called a "policy". It doesn't seem like the sort of thing any church could just decide to change... it seems like the sort of thing God would decide.
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Also, please note, I am not calling this poster a liar, or mistaken about the situation, but I am a bit curious as to what happened.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
either: a) his aunt wasn't sealed to her first husband or b) his mother is mistaken that she was sealed to her new husband.
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Yeah, that's what I'm guessing, but again, I do not want to claim that I know the situation and speak for this person, or his/her relatives.
Tom, I would also like to point out to you that this person isn't claiming to have heard it from Church Leaders, or an official source, but speaking from an experience. Naturally, I could be mistaken about what I have said in response to your question.
[ November 27, 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Anti-Chris ]
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
as tres mentioned, this "policy" is not something that can just be changed on a whim, but would require a revelation from god. i'd like to know if the original poster on ornery is LDS or if his mother is LDS. i kind of suspect that if they are, they're not practicing.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Or...
c)The church changed its policy and there is no God. Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I'd be interested in hearing why a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but a woman can be sealed to only one man, if the reason is more than just a revelation (Is this a revelation probably given to the priest holders and/or the Prophet, who are all men?) from God. It seems a very obvious double standard and I wonder how the women in the Mormon community feel about it...
Posted by leem (Member # 7065) on :
I think, with my limited understanding of the LDS church, that the reason LDS men can be sealed to more then one women is because polygamy is a doctrinal belief. The church only ever stopped practicing polygamy to comply with the laws of the land, but since God doesn't change, there will be polygamy in the after life.
Temple sealings to multiple partners for men is a way to practice spiritual polygamy that does not break any secular laws.
Oh, this is lem, I lost my log in password and I accidentally deleted my old email account.
EDIT:
I once heard that the early church practiced polyandry for a short time with select sisters. I never believed it and have never seen it sourced. Are there any Mormons out there who are educated in church history enough to confirm or deny this?
[ November 27, 2004, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: leem ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know official policy, and this is going off of a ten-year-old's understanding of what happened, but I remember a friend of my mother's. She had been sealed in the temple to her first husband, and he died very shortly after. I don't know what he died of. She re-married, and it was with Roger that she had her three sons. Roger joined the church, and when I was about ten, I remember them all going to the temple to be sealed. I also remember eavesdropping on a number of conversations where my mother was talking about what a big deal it was that Anne could be sealed to Roger while still being sealed to her first husband.
So, in answer, yes, I did know that. I don't think it's common, but I think it happens and has for a while.
[ November 27, 2004, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
P.S. I can't ask my mom, but my dad will remember about this. I'll call him and ask him today.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't think it's common, but I think it happens and has for a while."
But what is the doctrinal basis for this? I mean, I understand why priesthood holders can be sealed multiple times -- but I can't think of what doctrine might justify the reverse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Since I don't know, any answer would be pure speculation. I have some ideas. Should I speculate?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*turns skirt backwards* <-- that's the signal that I'm not speaking for the church or the Lord or the scriptures or for ANYTHING but for Katie. Guys flip their ties over their shoulders.
<Katie>The only time I've ever heard of it happening is when there are no children with the first husband, and there are or will likely be children with the second husband. It's still not final, but it's one of those things where the Lord is going to have to sort things out. Anyway, if the father and mother of the children are not sealed, then the children belong to the couple that is sealed. In other words, the guy who has children would see them go to someone else. So, he's sealed to the mother of his children who is also sealed to her former husband who had none. No, I don't know why. The above is also all speculation. </Katie>
Roger died a few years ago and Anne has since remarried, but I suspect that it wasn't a sealing, because there are no and will be no children involved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Aren't you out west, Katie? What the heck are you doing awake this early on a Saturday?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wake up at 6:30am every day, because my Evil Demon Internal Alarm Clock thinks that's funny. I'm on Central time, though. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Tom, from my understanding, a priesthood holder in the LDS church can be sealed again, but a woman can not.
You mean that he can be sealed to another woman who is unsealed, right?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My mother-in-law was sealed to two men. I have heard of this happening from others, as well. And it's been going on for years.
The explaination I lean toward is it's another of those "we're going to not deny anyone an ordinance and let them be sorted out in the eternities rather than denying people ordinances here that they can't have later" things.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And just to add-- if my husband died, I wouldn't want to be sealed to another man.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I called my dad, and talked to Coccinelle whose aunt did the same thing.
Nope, only one at a time. When a woman has been sealed and then later is sealed to someone else, that means there was a cancellation of the first temple sealing. This has to go through the first Presidency. My mother's friend Anne had to cancel the sealing to her first husband in order to be sealed to the father of her children.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What happens to kids from the first marriage? Are they still sealed to their father?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Children are sealed to their parents even when a marriage sealing is broken. To go even farther, children are still sealed, although not particularly to anyone other than Heavenly Father, even if both parents lose sealing blessings.
The main issue is still, however, that they are sealed to their own spouses when they become adults.
quote:I once heard that the early church practiced polyandry for a short time with select sisters. I never believed it and have never seen it sourced. Are there any Mormons out there who are educated in church history enough to confirm or deny this?
I cannot positively confirm or deny, depending on what sources you accept as reliable. However, if it did happen it was done with a careful understanding of exactly what was happening. Some information suggests that a few women were married for time to one man, but sealed to another for eternity. Again, if this really did happen the sources are scant and during an introductionary phase of the practice.
[ November 27, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
There's some good evidence to suggest that it was practiced formally, if rarely, in the Nauvoo period. Off the top of my head, I can confirm that several already married women were married to Joseph Smith; I believe Heber Kimball and perhaps another couple of leaders participated as well. In 1841, for example, Smith married Zina Huntington several months after she married Henry Jacobs.
A couple good books about it are Van Wagoner's _Mormon Polygamy_ and Todd Compton's _In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith_.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thanks, Occasional. My husband heard that his mom wasn't sealed to his dad anymore and kind of freaked out. But that's cool, then; if there are children from the first marriage, the wife is still tied to the first husband, even though she's sealed to the second.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I missed something...what does it mean to "be sealed" to another?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I confirm that AFAIK a woman can be sealed to another man if her first husband to whom she was sealed, dies. I don't know about the requirement of the first sealing being broken. In fact, I would be suprised if that were the case since even after a divorce the first presidency is very reluctant to approve the disolving of a sealing. One woman I know who was divorced from an abusive man, the sealing was still in place. I assume this was "in case things changed", to give him a chance and not "cut him off". If she wanted to be sealed to a different man, then she would have to request the sealing be dissolved because I am pretty sure there has never been an approved case of a woman being sealed to two *living* men at the same time.
But if one were dead and she wanted to be sealed to another, no bridges would be burnt. Things would be free to be "sorted out" in the next life as was already stated.
The fact that we LDS here at Hatrack have heard differing things on this matter seems to say to me that this is uncommon enough that we just aren't very aware of it. Just as I don't know of any official church policy about dealing with ambiguous gender. It is rare enough that the average LDS just wouldn't know.
I imagine that women have been allowed to be sealed to more than one man (so long as only one is living) with the understanding that in the eternities only one of them will continue to be her husband for quite some time now. But then, I really don't know. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm almost 100% certain that the first sealing has to be broken for the second one to take place. That's consistent with everything in doctrine, everything publicly said and in every case that I've heard of personally (I did some research this weekend), it's what had to happen before each of those women could be sealed later to someone else.
People just don't talk about breaking the first sealing. I was surprised by the silence, but it does make sense.
So, men, your sealing is forever unless you die young and your wife remarries.
[ November 28, 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
So whatever you do, don't die!
Interesting. I honestly don't know if it being broken is required or not, and it is true that it isn't something that people would openly discuss. At least not around me. I am never in on the "gossip" circles.
It just seems that when it happened to someone I knew that the first one wasn't broken. But I certainly have been wrong before.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was shocked when my dad told me, but it makes sense that it wouldn't be publicly discussed. That is a big deal.
Honestly, I think that sucks.
[ November 28, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I agree. If I were a man, I would be more comforted if the first sealing stayed in place and things were "worked out" in the next life. I like the "no bridges burned" idea.
I just sent out an email to a bunch of LDS family and friends to see if any of them has more specific info on the matter. I want to know what the deal is with the church policy on this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Looking at the original story, the conclusion drawn was that the policy had changed, but it is just as possible that either mother didn't feel like sharing that the first sealing had been broken, or else someone didn't feel like sharing it with the mother.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Maybe. Very possible. But I think we specifically talked with her about how interesting it was that she could be simultaneously sealed to two men at the same time, one of them being deceased. But it was years ago also.
I'll bet a bishop would know the answer....
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I doubt a bishop would know unless he's dealt with it. I don't think it's in the handbook. A temple president would know for sure, though.
[ November 28, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
I asked two people who I know have had recent experience dealing with this matter- my father who was a bishop (and dealt with this matter) and my aunt, who was recently (this summer) sealed to her second husband. Her first husband passed away about ten years ago.
It IS church policy that a woman can only be sealed to one man, living or dead.
When a sealing is cancelled, for any reason, it is not normally talked about. I know that when my aunt went through this, she was encouraged by her church leaders to discuss it with her immediate family, but to be discreet, as emotions become heavily involved when a woman has to choose between two husbands.
The process is lengthy. In cases of divorce/death with no children it can take as little as a year. For my aunt, five grown children were involved and it took about two and a half years. Each case is considered individually. The husband and wife are counselled by their bishop and (in my aunt's case) the children were interviewed and asked their opinions and feelings.
It's a touchy subject and one that happens more than people realize simply because it's not discussed when it does happen. It's not something to be ashamed of, but it is a monumental decision that would be difficult for everyone involved.
My two cents... back to homework for me!
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
This is an interesting discussion. My situation is this: My mother's 86. My father died 33 years ago, and four years later she married my stepfather. Neither of them (my dad and stepfather) are members. We've had my dad's temple work done, but my mother has never been to the temple, and so is not sealed to him. She loves both of them. I've talked to her about who she wants to be sealed to when she dies, and basically, she doesn't know, kinda torn, if you know what I mean. I know who I want her to be sealed to, my dad obviously, because I want to be sealed to him too. But obviously I'm not the only one in the equation here. So, my understanding, (hearsay only,) is that we can seal her to both of them and let it be worked out after this life. Seems logical. But it's a difficult one really ...
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Why does everyone assume there's something to be "worked out" in the next life for a woman with multiple husbands, but not for a man with multiple wives? To me it seems completely self evident that regardless of social conditions on earth in any particular culture at a given time, heaven is fair.
When I first read Saints, before I was a member, I remember feeling horror and revulsion at the idea of polygamy. Then sometime later, after I joined the church, I think maybe when I read the Teachings of the President book for Joseph F. Smith, my feelings changed. He was such a loving and gentle man, and was a doting father to all of his children by all of his wives. I would totally have loved to be his 6th wife or whatever. He was awesome.
Now I feel I have a testimony for plural marriage, both polyandry and polygyny. Not that it's right for everyone, but that there are some marriages it's right for. To me, in many ways, it can be a higher form of marriage, even, because you have to love in a totally non-possessive way. It's very hard for humans to do that, and I know it would take a lot of work to become perfect at it, but it feels to me like a more exalted form of love, one which is closer to the pure love of heaven.
So my feeling about polyandry is that it may well be revelation that hasn't yet been given. And that if women are sealed to more than one husband, there may be no problem at all with that in the next life.
[ November 28, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I really don't know, but I kind of like the "work it out later" idea. I'm not going to ask my mother-in-law, though; that just seems indelicate since she hardly ever talks about her first husband to begin with.
Even if the first sealing is broken, if there are kids, the families are still tied together. It's kind of like divorces here; if your dad is remarried, when you go out to visit your family, you see your mom, and then you see your dad and step-mom. That's not so bad, I suppose. I wonder how often the First Presidency would approve that, though...
Oh, and to be "sealed" to your family means that you are a family forever; those who are married outside the Temple are "till death do us part". Those who are sealed in the Temple are married forever, and their future children are tied to them with family bonds forever (you can also be sealed to your children after they are born if you are a convert), instead of being potentially shuffled around different places in eternity. For those who don't know.
[ November 28, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tatania, I know that you are comfortable with polyandry, but as a general rule I go on what *has* been revealed. And as far as has been revealed, polygyny is OK in certain approved-of circumstances while polyandry has never been doctrinal. How that works out to be fair is not something I understand. That is where I go on faith.
Could polyandry be part of the plan? It is possible. But I have seen no evidence of it.
For now I will happily cleave to monogamy and hope I never have to deal with any other arrangement in this life or the next. I am comfortable here in monogamy-land.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Tammy asked:
quote: I missed something...what does it mean to "be sealed" to another?
This is a good question . . . one that would take an entire book to answer properly. However, here is the short version: When the Savior spoke to Peter in Matthew 16:19 , he gave him the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," and promised him that "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Mormons believe that the Old Testament prophet Elijah, who also had those "keys", appeared to Joseph Smith in the Temple in Kirtland, Ohio, and transferred them to him. They have been passed on to all of the modern-era prophets up through our current prophet. These keys have the power to bind, or seal, things on earth.
One of the things that is sealed by this power is the eternal family. A man and woman go to the temple, and are sealed together, along with any children they already have or will have, as a family unit that will last beyond death. This has the same legal effect as marriage in any church, with the added benefit that the marriage and family will not end with "till death do us part.
These keys also have the power to loose things. This is what we're talking about when we mention "breaking a sealing." As has already been mentioned, the prophet and his counselers (also called the First Presidency) are hesitant to break any sealing, as the purpose of the sealing is an eternal covenant between three parties: Husband, Wife, and God.
That is only a partial explanation, but I hope this clears things up.
edit: darn! kq beat me to it, with an explanation that was better than mine. Oh well. At least my explanation used more words.
[ November 28, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Oh, yes, beverly! I totally didn't mean to imply that I was speaking of anything other than my personal beliefs. As far as the church teachings go, I defer to those of you here who know much more than I.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm flattered, Brian. I'll put the fact that you find my explaination "better" down to the fact that you're being cool...
But thank you. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I imagine that women have been allowed to be sealed to more than one man (so long as only one is living) with the understanding that in the eternities only one of them will continue to be her husband for quite some time now.
What is the purpose of marriage? A marriage is just a relationship-a relationship that is voluntarily agreed upon (hopefully) by both parties. The ceremony is just a certificate that makes it socially acceptable and gives tax breaks.
What does a "Sealing" do that 2 individuals with free will can't do on their own? Are there eternal tax breaks?
I have a son who is quite young. If I die and don't have temple work done for me, and if I choose not to accept a proxy sealing, how does he NOT become my son in the afterlife?
Kill me, separate me, throw down a well (or hell), but it was still my sperm that contributed to his genetic make up, and it is my love and affection that is helping to raise him and create bonds of love.
I am confused.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
lem, you don't accept basic premises of the Mormon faith which are required in order for their rituals -- including sealing -- to make sense. Your position that marriage is "just" a ceremony, for example, is not one that they accept.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The LDS perspective would be that your son existed before he was born, and you don't automatically have a right to him just because you helped call him into this world. If you didn't accept proxy ordinances, were unrighteous, etc., your son would be taken away and sealed to another.
Edited to add: God is loving. That's kind of a last-resort kind of situation.
[ November 29, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
God and son willing, of course.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Exactly. The point would be that your son not be denied sealing to parents just because you rejected it.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:The LDS perspective would be that your son existed before he was born, and you don't automatically have a right to him just because you helped call him into this world.
I guess that is where I am confused. What is "having a right to him" entail? I don't know what that means. Calling a rose by any other name does not change the smell of it. I guess I don't understand the Mormon premise of what actually changes. What is the defined, quantitative aspect of being sealed. What rights change if my son is or is not sealed to me.
It sounds like just bragging rights.
"Yeah, he is my son." "No he is not, you are not sealed." "Oh...umm..ok. He is not my son."
So what changes besides the title?
I am not trying to be rude. I know that is how I am coming across. I am just trying to understand the big dilemma for kids unsure of which dad they are going to be sealed to.
I guess I can't understand the answer outside of the faith and should just leave it at that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, the premise we're going from is that you want your kids to be with you, to have a continued relationship in the afterlife. If you aren't sealed, you may be separated and never see each other, never get to continue that relationship. I mean, it's not automatic you'd get separated, either, and we don't really have too many details on exactly how the system works, but we do know that those who are sealed, if they are righteous, will be together and get to continue their association and loving family life.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Ahh...so it is a matter of proximity? If you are sealed, you are close enough to visit and have a relationship? If you are not sealed, then they are too far away to enjoy a relationship?
That makes sense in an odd way. Children leave anyway. It must be important for visiting rights for children and proximity for spouses.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Especially since we believe that you can continue to grow your family after you die.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
sealings, in relation to parent-child is much more difficult to explain that sealings to husband-wife. once you understand the difference between the husband-wife sealing, the parent-child begins to mean something.
the short explanation of a husband-wife: traditionally, you marry in the courthouse (or in many churches) "till death do you part." however, a person who has authority from god (sealing power) can marry and seal you for "time and all eternity." meaning, you have the blessing of a spouse for all time, and all the blessings that come with being married.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's a very concise explaination.
[ November 29, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:It IS church policy that a woman can only be sealed to one man, living or dead.
This is not true. Sisters can be sealed by proxy to every man they were legally married to in life, even if the marriage ended in divorce. And I've known two women who were sealed to more than one man in life.
One was a young widow who was married in the temple. She had two children by first hubby. Several years later, she was sealed in the temple (I was there, this was not a "for time only" marriage), and had two more children with hubby #2.
The other was not a member when her first husband died. She remarried a member, and after a time she was baptised and they went to the temple. She was sealed to both of her husbands on the same day. Hubby #2 was proxy for hubby #1. She had children with both men. This took place in the early 1970's, so it's not especially new.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about this subject. My understanding is what has been mentioned before... the ordinance is so important that no one should be left out and it will be sorted out later.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
lem, I have faith in the doctrine of sealing, though I don't fully understand it myself. I figure we don't know much about the next life, only what is necessary for us to know in order to be happiest there. But I do have an imagination. Here are some thoughts.
I don't imagine proximity will be so much an issue. I imagine "distance" and "time" may have little meaning in the next life. On the other hand, the ties that bind us here on earth may not endure in quite the way we might think. How long do we live on this earth? 100 years if we are lucky? How long is an eternity? How much will the parent-child relationship matter 1,000,000,000 years from now? Do you think you will really care that much then that your sperm contributed to the genetic make-up of your current son? Let's say you might care for the first 10,000 years. Then the familial bonds of mortality will seem nothing but a faint dream. Why would such a faint dream still hold any meaning for you? After that you may just consider him a friend as any other friend you may happen to have as family bonds will have little meaning. This is assuming the passing of time will even hold meaning then.
Now on the other hand, take the LDS doctrine of sealing family relationships. What does that mean exactly? Well, it seems that there is a special feeling and bonding that happen when your child has children. We believe that (as was said) sealed parents will continue to have children--spirit children--that will later inhabit mortal worlds not yet created and go on to become immortal also. Those unsealed will not procreate at all. There may be a special continuing bond of emotion present when your child is having children into the eternities. How could we even begin to understand such a thing now?
But this is only speculation arrived at based on how I understand the doctrine and my own imagination.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:What is the purpose of marriage? A marriage is just a relationship-a relationship that is voluntarily agreed upon (hopefully) by both parties. The ceremony is just a certificate that makes it socially acceptable and gives tax breaks.
The purpose of marriage for a Latter-day Saint is more than an Earthly relationship. It has eternal ramifications that can effect uncounted billions of trillions of individuals if you can imagine infinity at all. The word "Sealed" means a close uniting that is not easy to break. In fact, the only one who can make or break the family relationship is God. It is true that Latter-day Saints believe that an earthly marriage is an agreed upon certificate (although necessary as LDS believe that God respects covenants of any kind more than He does simple nods of the head that offer no lasting commitment). However, as soon as Latter-day Saints in good standing with the Church enter into a marriage and family Covenant in the Temples, it goes far beyond a simple agreement of a mutual relationship. It becomes a binding force with very huge potential and equally as serious consiquences.
quote:What does a "Sealing" do that 2 individuals with free will can't do on their own? Are there eternal tax breaks?
It allows the couple to become a member of the Family of God. For a Latter-day Saint, there is a belief that we all were with Heavenly Father as His Children as Spirits. After the Fall of Adam and Eve, that allowed mortality to exist in the first place (a good thing as there was no way they could ever have children because of their innocent natures), we were able to gain mortal bodies that would allow us to progress from what we were as spirit personalities.
However, the downside is that we lost our original connection to God and thus fell along with Adam and Eve. This means we were no longer part of the Family of God and have had to start from scratch, if you will, in gaining our previous position. The upside of this loss is that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the properties of mortality (whatever that means), we will be allowed to become GREATER than we were before losing that connection with God.
And that is where the "sealing" of husband and wife and children become important. Through LDS Temple ordinances done by those who are given the Priesthood of God (i.e. the power to act in God's name), we are reconnected to not only our spouses and children, but to the whole Household of God as we once were. On top of that, because we form our own family units than we may someday realize what God already is -- Kings and Queens, Mothers and Fathers, Eternal Families. Our Eternal Parents, through Temple ordinances, gives us the chance to follow after Them.
[ November 29, 2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:I have a son who is quite young. If I die and don't have temple work done for me, and if I choose not to accept a proxy sealing, how does he NOT become my son in the afterlife?
From an LDS point of view, there really isn't an absolute answer to this question. How much of a relationship will still exist for those not sealed has not been expounded. For all we know he might be emotionally and sentimentally your son. But, that is as far as the bond will go. You and your son will have no increase; no way of going beyond a certain point of growth.
This goes for even those LDS who go to the Temple, but do not get sealed to a spouse through their personal choices. They may get to Heaven, but that is the end of their progress. For all practical purposes they become angels -- servants to those who chose the Higher Path of Eternal Marriage.
quote:So what changes besides the title?
To put it simply; your bonded relationship to God and the ability to follow after God's footsteps.
[ November 29, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
I looked it up to make sure. The official word is that a woman may be sealed to only one husband while she is living (unless her previous sealing ordinance is first canceled). She may remarry, even in the Temple, but it will be for time only.
A man may be sealed to more than one wife while he is living. Like for instance if he is a widower and marries another woman in the Temple. Both his sealings will be valid.
I know that this hardly seems fair to some folks. But I can safely vouch for my wife and many other women I know, that they do not have a problem with this. They understand that it is not something they are going to have to worry about until we all go to that great Homemaking Meeting in the sky. (Especially since polygamy has been discontinued. Yeah!) And they are confident that God knows what he is doing and that it will all work out for our good and His name’s glory.
I, on the other hand, DO have a problem with it. I’ve never had any particular desire to have more than one wife. Like a friend put it, "That’s just what I need! TWO women telling me how to drive!" (Hey, my friend said it not me. Get on his case.)
Oh well, I guess I will just have to develop the same level of faith that the women folk have - that it’s all going to work out all right, that we really can live happily ever after.
At any rate, if we are taking about the dead, the guidelines for performing, by proxy, the sealing ordinances for deceased relatives is slightly different. Both women and men are to be sealed to each husband or wife to whom they were legally married. Of course, then the question arises as to which one she will be married to in the eternities. To which I answer, "I don’t care. It’s not my call to make."
Katharina used a phrase that, I think, is one key to understanding this subject and not getting bogged down with too much ulcer causing minutia. She said that GOD WILL SORT THINGS OUT.
The guideline used to be different. It used to be that even in vicarious ordinances for the dead we could seal a woman to only one husband. Growing up I remember many a family get together in which there was much discussion about who ought to be sealed to whom. A typical discussion would be variations on the following theme:
Aunt Matilda was sealed in the Temple to Uncle Frank. But he turned out to be a drunken bum who abused his wife and kids. Then he died, thank goodness, and Matilda remarried to a really good man, Erving, but she can’t be sealed to him. (Or in another variation, they were not members of the church. So now there are the plans to do their Temple ordinances by proxy. So we have to make a judgment call about Frank since she couldn’t be sealed to both.)
It gets worse. It was also common practice to NOT do the Temple work for someone who killed themselves. And we also used to agonize over just which set of parents to seal the children to.
As if we were qualified to judge any of the above. It always seemed pointless to me to worry about it. It doesn’t matter who is sealed to whom. What matters is that the ordinances be performed for each person and then the promises connected to those ordinances are assured.
Fortunately the Church changed the guideline to be in better accord with the doctrine that God is the only one qualified to judge. Now the guidelines are basically that we seal them all, and let God be the judge of who is finally going to be sealed to whom in the hereafter and which ordinances are going to be valid. And no, the new guidelines do not imply that there will be polyandry in the hereafter. There is no justification for that notion. It just means that God will sort it out.
But then it has always been clear to those who understood the doctrine, even back with the old guidelines, that 1) Any ordinance we perform on earth has got to also have God’s seal of approval, or it is null and void anyway. (Our scriptures call it “being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.”) And 2) No one is going to be held accountable, and therefore lose their salvation, for things that they genuinely had no control over - things like ordinances that were impossible for them to do in this life. 3) No one will be forced to be married to someone unsuitable for them. And 4) God is going to sort it all out and we need to trust that He knows what He is doing.
And to inject another bit of perspective. It used to irk me a little, in those above mentioned family get togethers. that some folks seemed to be so worried about who to seal the children to. For sure, it is really important who raises the children here on earth. Ideally you don’t want some nut-ball like Uncle Frank to raise the kids. So you try to pick your spouse wisely.
But in the hereafter, among those who go to heaven, inherit eternal life, become joint-heirs with Christ, inherit the Celestial Kingdom, or whatever phrase you want to use. As I say, among those who go to heaven, what does it matter? Sure, we teach that families can be forever. But that doesn’t mean we will be living with our children there in the same mansion, as it were.. Heaven, as we see it, is a kingdom of married couples. Our children will be grownups with their own spouses and households.
Our pattern here has some similarities to the pattern that will exist there. Here our children grow up to adulthood, leave home (please let it happen soon!), get married, and establish their own households. (If we are lucky it won’t be next door.)
Yes, he is my son. And I love him dearly. But I don’t have, and don’t want to have, a lot of say so in how he runs his household. It is nice to be able to associate with him and his wife as our equals. It is fun to be able to have dinners together and do stuff together. It is nice when he thinks I finally got smart after he turned 25. But he is an adult, he is his own man and so is his wife (except that, she is her own woman). But it is also nice that he has his own household.
What I am saying is that I will be able to freely associate with him there regardless of which set of parents he is sealed too. The phrase “families can be forever” is used a lot in our culture. But I’ve often mused that it follows that friendships can be forever too. The ultimate goal of this sealing work is the linking together of the decedents of Adam and Eve, who become saved in Christ, into one family network by sealing husbands and wives together, and parents to children. The ordinance of sealing children to parents is a promise that a person will have eternal parents; a promise that one will have a place in the network. It does not guarantee WHERE on the organizational chart he is going to be. And of course, like any covenant, the promises are dependent on whether or not we live up to our end of the bargain. At any rate, I do not believe that our place in the network is going limit us in any way as to who we can associate with there. We will all be joint-heirs with Christ.
Now, some people may think it’s kind of strange, this whole business of baptism for the dead and sealing ordinances for the dead. Strange or not, you’d think, in a country where the institution of marriage and family is increasingly reviled against, some folks ought to be glad that there is at least one group around that reveres it enough to want the institution to continue for eternity.
But I can see where our talk of vicarious ordinances for the dead might conjure up images of us figuratively dragging our relatives, kicking and screaming, to the baptismal font and then to the altar and forcing, say, Aunt Matilda to marry Uncle Frank all over again. Well, it isn’t that way at all because free will is sacred to God. Everyone is free to accept or reject any ordinance that is done on their behalf.
One way to look at it is this: Suppose that a rich friend pays for tickets for you to a great Broadway show you’ve been wanting to see. He tells you that the tickets will be waiting for you at the box office and all you have to do is go enjoy the show. And by the way, he says, the tickets also admit you into an exclusive fancy reception afterward.
Now, you have a choice to make. You can go to the Broadway show, or you can stay home and watch Regis and Kathy Lee reruns on TV. But the choice is yours. Basically the tickets become null and void, as though they never existed, if you don’t redeem them. And you will have no one to blame but yourself. You certainly can’t blame your friend.
But then, this concept should not seem strange to my fellow Christians. After all, one of the foundations of Christianity is the idea of vicarious work for the dead. Didn’t Christ do something for all people - those who had died, those who were then alive, and those who were yet to be born - something that they could not do for themselves?
If Christ is then going to require a person to hear his message and be baptized, it would follow that he would provide a way for everyone to hear his message and be baptized, and to fulfill any other requirement. It is not a question of whether or not he requires some act on our part. That is also a basic tenant of Christianity. He does require us to do something. I say that because, even the act of accepting him as our Savior is a voluntary, conscious act of will.
So the question is - just what does he require of us? I’m a lot more comfortable with our view of it because I like answers, and I like justice. Sure, I would like to believe that all I have to do is accept him and then everything will be hunky dory. But the problem is that the folks who have preached that for all these centuries have never come up with a reasonable explanation to show how God is just and merciful at the same time. Indeed, they have instead consigned millions of people to hell for no other fault than that those people were born under circumstances that prevented them from hearing about Christ. And by so doing, those preachers have put the hopelessness and sting back into death despite anything Paul said about Christ’s victory. Therefore I’m forced to consider those preachers clueless and therefore I’m not required to take them seriously.
I like our explanation better.
I know that the original question of this thread was about the sealing of husband and wife. But I think it is easier to understand that part of it if one understands the bigger picture. More on the subject can be found in The Doctrine and Covenants sections: 110, 128, 130, 131, 132, 137, and 138.
Sam
[ December 01, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I know that this hardly seems fair to some folks. But I can safely vouch for my wife and many other women I know, that they do not have a problem with this. They understand that it is not something they are going to have to worry about until we all go to that great Homemaking Meeting in the sky. (Especially since polygamy has been discontinued. Yeah!) And they are confident that God knows what he is doing and that it will all work out for our good and His name’s glory.
I, on the other hand, DO have a problem with it. I’ve never had any particular desire to have more than one wife. Like a friend put it, "That’s just what I need! TWO women telling me how to drive!" (Hey, my friend said it not me. Get on his case.)
You post was mostly fine, Sam, but I don't like the above two paragraphs.
If there is a fair and spiritual reason for the way things are (and I do believe there is), there simply has to be a way to justify it without narrow stereotypes and sexist jokes.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Katharina, I apologize for the lame joke in that second paragraph. You would have to have been there when my friend said that. It’s not nearly as funny here as it was then. Oh well, I tend to be flippant and it sometimes backfires on me. Sorry.
As for the first paragraph, I really am glad I live now and not back when some of my ancestors had more than one wife. And the women folk I mentioned really do have strong faith that everything is going to work out for the best even though none of us really know how it will all play out.
I enjoyed your posts. I assure you that I take this subject very seriously.
[ December 01, 2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I understand. I didn't mean to jump on you. The serious answer as to why things are the way they are is that that's the way the Lord made it, that's fairly bald. It also has to do with politics between women and men, and people tend to make jokes. I don't like that, though.
I do think that sometimes simply saying "It doesn't bother me." doesn't help when someone has a concern, because there could be a lot of reasons it doesn't bother someone. I've had questions before, and the most common response I got when I polled friends and family was "That's never bothered me, and it shouldn't bother you." It was distinctly not helpful - not only did it not answer my question (or else they tried to answer it with layman sociology rather than a spiritual answer), but it made me feel more like a stranger for having the question in the first place.
I'm not trying to harp on you, I promise. I think that sometimes people have questions and I'm trying to figure out how I wish mine had been answered. Saying "I wouldn't want things to be equal anyway." never helped, but "There is no way the Lord would create a system that was ultimately unfair, so there must be a reason for it." is better.
The first response made me want to say, "You like being relegated to the short end of the stick? What color is the sky in your world?" The second feels more true. If this isn't the Lord's work, then there is no justification. Since it is, then everything will work out. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yes, I feel the same as katharina. The one thing I'm sure of is that things are fair in heaven. The answer "they wouldn't want that anyway" is one that has been extremely common here on earth throughout history as a reply to why discrimination of all sorts exists. Also the joking response is quite common.
Samuel, I loved your post, and you know that I joined the church after long discussions about this and everything else with both you and your wife. You are a one of my mentors, and the light that you carry is one of the lights that led me to the church. Please understand, though, that these are serious concerns, and not something to be dismissed with a laugh and a wave.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
I would have posted this sooner but I was at the oral surgeon. I am happy to be able to report that they were able to remove the foot okay, and the prognosis is good of my mouth healing up nicely. Unfortunately, my shoe is a goner.
Katharina, you’re right. An answer like “It doesn’t bother me so it shouldn’t bother you” is, at best, a non-answer and, at worst . . . well, the FCC won’t let me say what it is at worst. If I came across like that, I deserve to have someone “harp” at me.
Titiana, if I implied that phrase, then I deserve to take lumps, and I am way sorry, and I sure didn’t mean it that way. I’m referring to that phrase, “They wouldn’t want it that way.” It is a disgusting excuse for an answer. You’re right, it has been used throughout history. It was a common song and dance that good ol’ slave holders used to justify their horrible abuses. They’d argue that the slaves were happier in bondage. It’s enough to make you want to hurl.
I’ve gone back and more carefully reread this thread. I find I enjoyed the posts even more the second and third time through, and that probably I ought not try to be flip during a serious discussion. But I would like to say one thing in my own defense. That first paragraph of mine about how some of the women I know feel about the subject, well, I was being serious. I was responding to JonnyNotSoBravo. He said, “It seems a very obvious double standard and I wonder how the women in the Mormon community feel about it...” I should have mentioned that that is what I was answering.
As for that crack about my friend and the driving, yes, that was a sexist joke. But I meant it in the nicest possible way.
So I will be totally serious. When I said in my post that I looked it up, I mean I looked it up in The Handbook and it says what I paraphrased in my first two paragraphs. It also gives the procedure for bishops and stake presidents to follow in requesting the cancellation of sealings. That policy has not changed for at least as long as I’ve been alive, nor has the doctrine changed.
What has changed. though, is some of the procedures for doing vicarious ordinances FOR THE DEAD. Now we seal a women to all of the husbands she was legally married to. We used to seal her only to the first husband and let it go at that. Although one could seal her to a husband other than the first one, but it required special permission. The way we do it now is a lot easier.
In connection with the idea that God will sort things out. There is a phrase I often hear that makes me cringe. The phrase is “She will be given to another.” or any variation of it that phrase. It just does not ring true to me. Free will is sacred. I can kind of envision people striking up friendships and courting there much like we do here, maybe. Only I can’t imagine there being the nagging worry, like we have here, that we might choose unwisely and marry a lemon. But this is just my opinion. I have no scriptural backing except the “free will” thing.
I try to empathize with other folks whose situation is different than mine. Here we have a church whose doctrine clearly states that people must be married in the temple for time and eternity or they cannot inherit the highest reward in heaven (D&C 131); a church which reveres big families; and holds the whole package up as a shining “ideal” complete with lots and lots of testimonials on how blessed and wonderful temple marriage and parenthood are. (And they are, don’t get me wrong, but still . . .) And then all too often gears a lot of it’s programs and activities with the “ideal” in mind. You even sometimes hear some smart alecy comment (often attributed to Brigham Young) like, “If a young man is 19 and unmarried he is a menace to society.” (Ha ha, very funny. But what about my friend Russ who is middle aged, never been married, and is a totally nice guy?)
But that is what it is: an “ideal.” The reality is that the situation most, if not all, of us find ourselves in does not perfectly match the ideal to some degree or an other. There is a whole bunch of different situations we find ourselves in such as (and I’m not making a judgment call here as to good or bad, just stating things as they are) : 1) single; 2) single parent; 3) married but the only member in the family who has joined the Church; 4) married in the temple and raising a pretty good bunch of kids, more or less, but still with plenty of feelings of inadequacy; etc., etc., (In fact I tend to steer clear of people who don’t have feelings of inadequacy. I’m afraid there might be a fanatic lurking underneath that facade.)
I can understand how perceptions of second-class citizenship might happen - both self perception and the worry that that is how others in the church perceive us. That is where an understanding of the Atonement and of the ultimate fairness of God gives us hope.
(Now, obviously I can’t really know first-hand how other people feel about this. After all, I’ve been married two thirds of my life so far. I got married 4 months after I finished my missionary service. I really don’t know what it is like being a single adult in the church. But I may get an inkling of it every year when my company throws a big employee appreciation breakfast for us - well some of us, anyway. Because they pretty much ignore those working rotating shift. The one fifth of us working day shift that day get grub. The rest of us who have days off or are working graveyard shift are just out of luck. Now, I’m a big boy and I can get my own breakfast, but it still rankles sometimes. Maybe they should call it the “employee slap-in-the-face breakfast.” Or better yet, how about we shift workers just shut the power plant down between the hours of 4 pm and 6am. How do you like them apples, Boss Man. Maybe you will start appreciating us now, while you sit there freezing in the dark! . . . Oh well, the breakfast thing is just a minor annoyance, but I think I understand, to a tiny degree, how some in the church might feel about the subject of this thread.)
Below are references to four talks and articles which say it so much better than I could. One of the things about Christ’s Atonement is that it not only covers sins but also a whole bunch of bad things that happen to us that are not sins. Such as injustices done to us by other people; dumb mistakes we make; and even nasty life circumstances (like sickness) that happen through nobody’s fault but are just common to the human condition - to name just a few. And this is why we can say that he is fair and merciful: because he understands what we are going through. And all the injustices and adversities we suffer now, and any joys and blessing we lose out on here, will be more than compensated to us. If not here then in the life to come.
In one of the talks, Spencer J. Condie says the following:
“The purpose of the Fall is succinctly summarized by Lehi: ‘Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy’ (2 Ne. 2:25). Much of this joy is found in our posterity. Further, modern prophets have borne witness that in God’s divine justice and mercy, those who live worthy lives and who are denied the blessings of parenthood on earth will receive eternal compensation, and no blessings of exaltation will be lost if they remain true and faithful (see Harold B. Lee, Ye Are the Light of the World, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, p. 292; Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., 5 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957–66, 2:36).”
It is a gospel of hope. And whatever wonders I can imagine about Heaven, they must fall short of the actuality. I love what Paul said in 1 Cor 2:9, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
Well, I’ve said enough. These articles are excellent. (If the URLs don’t work, go to lds.org and click on “Gospel Library” then “Church Publications - HTML (text)” then “Magazines” then “Ensign” and find the year and month.)
Sam
“Beauty for Ashes: The Atonement of Jesus Christ,” by Bruce C. Hafen Ensign, Apr. 1990
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Oh well. At least my explanation used more words. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)