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)?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it possible that this doctrine could have been changed and just not communicated to the laity effectively?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
posted
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.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 530 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
P.S. I can't ask my mom, but my dad will remember about this. I'll call him and ask him today.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I don't know, any answer would be pure speculation. I have some ideas. Should I speculate?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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_.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 862 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ...
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
