posted
I think the issue doesn't come up often, because I believe that most widows don't get sealed when they remarry.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing we know about Sealings are that early in the Church, when the concept and idea was first revealed, there was a lot of muddy details, and a lot of confusion.
Instead of just Marriage sealings, people were sealed to Church authorities (that they were not physically married to at ALL), with the apparant thought that this would grant, well, something better. Some people sealed themselves to great historical figures.
Eventually, things were Officially Sorted Out, and the Right Way To Do Things was laid down clearly.
Doctrines were very rarely revealed Fully Grown form the Head of Zeus - but line by line, precept by precept. Like puzzle pieces slowly coming together. First grasp this concept, then grasp the next, and then look: those two concepts are actually meant to be ONE, and now together, you can understand the full meaning of it.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite court case ever is from Utah in 1902. It's called Hilton v. Roylance. The case really involved kind of a complicated property rights issue, but the single question the whole thing revolved around was the nature or effect of an LDS sealing ceremony. The Utah Supreme Court (not packed with LDS members at the time, AFAIK), actually took judicial notice of a whole ream of LDS scripture and doctrine, in order to answer the question, What does a sealing actually mean?
The case involved a woman who had converted to the Church in England around 1870. She emigrated to Utah, and met an older LDS man who began courting her. In 1872, she became seriously ill, and it was thought she would not survive. Her LDS acquaintances, apparently from prominent LDS families, recommended that she be sealed before her death, and suggested her suitor. The suitor agreed, but only after he was assured most strenuously that the woman would almost certainly not live; he thought that, if she were in good health, she might not really want to marry him, and under the circumstances he didn't want to take advantage. At any rate, the sealing took place, and the woman later recovered. They never lived as husband and wife, and the next year they obtained a "church divorce", or what we would now call a cancellation of sealing. They were never, however, legally divorced. It seems they didn't think it was necessary, because they had never considered themselves married in the first place.
Years later, when the man died, the question arose as to whether he was legally married to the woman at the time of his death. One party, who had purchased some property from the man, claimed that he was not married because the original sealing had not been intended to be binding during the couple's lives, but only "in the eternities", i.e. after their deaths. After examining LDS scripture and the words of LDS authorities, the court concluded that there is no such thing in LDS doctrine as a sealing for eternity only and not for time on earth. Every sealing is, by definition, for time AND eternity. Therefore, even though the woman had remarried and had a large family, she was legally married to the man at the time of his death.
Confusion about how sealings work has, therefore, even found its way into state Supreme Court cases. At least the Court ended up getting it right in this case.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This was on the CNN homepage today. It links the fall of polygamy with Utah joining the Union. Is this an accurate statement?
That is only part of the reason. What most people, and even Mormons, don't seem to understand is that it is actually linked to the VERY SURVIVAL OF THE CHURCH AS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION!
Yes, Utah wouldn't be allowed into the Union without stopping Polygamy. Yes, Mormons wanted to be in the Union. However, people seem to forget that most religious leaders (who happened to be polygamous, and only 20 percent of the full membership ever were at one time) were hunted down and put in jail. On top of that, the Church organization was getting liquidated of any and all assets (and took a whole generation to get out of the debt) by the same Union it wantedt to participate.
Wilford Woodruff, the President and Prophet of the Church, stated that the main reason he stopped the practice was a Revelation he had. What he saw was that all Temples would be taken away and destroyed. Basically, the central pinacle of Mormon Worship would be wiped out. And, for Mormons, get rid of Temple worship and the whole purpose of existance is gone from the Earth. The rest is just temporary window dressing.
I think that point wasn't emphasised to protect the already weak church from getting attacked directly. I mean, as Brigham Young said, every time a Temple went up the bells of hell would ring. so, I think, once the ability to build Temples was taken away -- there would be nothing left to save.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The anti-bigamy laws were enforced in a pretty draconian fashion once Utah joined the union. Men had to abandon completely all of their ex-wives and the children from those wives or be prosecuted for bigamy. My great-grandmother told of hiding out in the corn fields when the feds came by her father's house to check because he wasn't supposed to have any contact with her.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: They were never, however, legally divorced.
But if this is true, then they were never actually legally married, either. Because if being unsealed doesn't count as legal divorce, being sealed doesn't count as legal marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That depends on if the same laws of marriage applied then as they do now. Apparently the Court decided that by the definition of the time they were legally married, but not legally divorced. At any rate, neither here nor there for me on that one.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wouldn't be all that different than today -- religious marriages are recognized as legal marriages by the state, but religious institutions cannot process a divorce.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got my information from Times and Seasons, a mormon group blog with lots of smart LDS people on it. We discussed this once and that was the consensus, that women can now be sealed to more than one man. I think the practice has changed fairly recently, though, and isn't uniformly done this way. Doctrinally it's unclear, as well, whether anyone believes in polyandry in the afterlife. We'll see when we get there, I suppose. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: women can now be sealed to more than one man. I think the practice has changed fairly recently, though, and isn't uniformly done this way.
Wow. That is a big change. All my life I've heard that women can only be sealed to one man, and I've never seen anything to contridict it. That is, I've been told that so and so had to had first seal broken from man_1.0 to be sealed to man_2.0. Or so and so didn' get sealed to man_2.0 because she didn't want to break seal with man_1.0. In fact, I recall that several women in the early church were sealed to Joseph Smith and *lived* with other men. Eliza R. Snow was sealed to JS and married to BY but not sealed.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowing Times and Seasons "Mixing Scripture with Lawyer Speak," I would still consider it unproven speculation.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My whole take on polygamy is that it is a culture thing. Western culture hates polygamy. I know the Lincoln's Republican party's platform was 2 marks of barberism: slavery and polygamy...
Arab culture and African culture don't hate polygamy so.
So, given the parent culture, people who practice polygamy will be different people. People who practice polygamy in Western nations today are, well, anti-social and some adjective that is really bad that I can't think of (I don't like crazy because it doesn't really nail their behavior down--they are beligerent, they want to show the world they are above their rules, crazy doesn't convey that). Aha: they think they are god or his long lost twin (I think that describes the Jeff guy).
In the early days of the church, they were pretty much their own culture, they aren't like the anti-social people today. Of course, I believe the early members of the church were commanded by God, which is a big difference in my mind from people doing it today because they think they are god('s twin).
So to compare early members with the people today is no comparision. Just like if you go to countries where they practice polygamy now. Those people don't think they are god('s twin) like the people in US. They are doing something that is practiced by their culture.
I'm rather guessing because I don't actually know anyone outside of US who practices polygamy.
I should also say I grew up with several kids who had more than one mom. They were very very nice people, not like what you hear about in the news. Several of them joined the church (their parents had been excommunicated I guess).
I also have ancestors who moved to Mexico to continue practicing polygamy after the practice was officially stopped. There were lots of members down there who were in good standing. They were some of the last to give up polygamy and still be members.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
No. But a marriage license only certifies that the couple is eligible to be married. They aren't actually married without the action of an officiant.
To put it another way -- clergy can be the officiating signiture on a marriage document, but not a divorce decree.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In very early church history, some women were sealed to men that they were not married to (one of my greatx4 grandmothers was sealed to Joseph Smith, though she was never in any other sense married to him and was married at least twice that I can remember). It would seem to me that modern decisions regarding a woman being sealed to more than one man is at the discretion of the temple presidents. One of my aunts was widowed at a fairly young age (and had been sealed to her first husband). When she was remarried she was told that, should she choose, she could also be sealed to her second husband (without the indication that it would cancel her first sealing). It seems to me like "cover all the bases and let everything get sorted out in eternity", which is fine with me.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom Davidson:"But if this is true, then they were never actually legally married, either. Because if being unsealed doesn't count as legal divorce, being sealed doesn't count as legal marriage."
dkw is right on this. A sealing counts, and counted then, as a legal marriage. The officiator signs the marriage license, and so do the witnesses.
The strange thing in this case, from my own point of view, is that the Church was willing to grant a cancellation of sealing without the couple obtaining a legal divorce first. That would, AFAIK, be impossible today. In fact, today it is difficult to obtain a cancellation of sealing even if you DO get divorced legally. The Church is reluctant to do it unless you are about to get remarried.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My whole take on polygamy is that it is a culture thing. Western culture hates polygamy.
Are you sure? The most common form of marrage in most western nations, including the USA, is serial polygamy.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The strange thing in this case, from my own point of view, is that the Church was willing to grant a cancellation of sealing without the couple obtaining a legal divorce first
I imagine it's because they didn't consider them to be married in the first place. Why get a divorce if they aren't married?
quote: The most common form of marrage in most western nations, including the USA, is serial polygamy.
No, that's called serial monogomy.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph:"I imagine it's because they didn't consider them to be married in the first place."
But that's what's strange. They knew a sealing had taken place, but didn't consider themselves married? That could never happen today. It just doesn't fit in with the LDS view of sealing/marriage. But apparently, under certain circumstances, it could make sense in the early LDS Church.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: A sealing counts, and counted then, as a legal marriage. The officiator signs the marriage license, and so do the witnesses.
But then the sealing isn't the legal marriage. The signing of the marriage license is the legal marriage. That they happen at the same time does not mean that they're the same event.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That they happen at the same time does not mean that they're the same event.
I agree with this as well, especially considering there are plenty of cases where a married couple gets sealed years later. They are two different things that quite often happen at the same time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Since, today, a sealing of a previously unmarried couple is ALWAYS concurrent with a legal marriage, the two events are usually referred to by a single term. If my failure to separate the terms in describing the court case caused confusion, I apologize.
The point is that, in the court case, the couple was married in a sealing ceremony, but one party to the suit claimed that the sealing/marriage was intended by the couple to only have effect in the afterlife, and not in mortality. The Court held that LDS doctrine does not provide for any such sealing/marriage, and that in the absence of a legal divorce the couple was still married at the time of the man's death.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if they signed the marriage document, then they were right. If they had been sealed but not married, I would say they were wrong. But I know that's not done (now, anyway.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point is that, in the court case, the couple was married in a sealing ceremony, but one party to the suit claimed that the sealing/marriage was intended by the couple to only have effect in the afterlife, and not in mortality. The Court held that LDS doctrine does not provide for any such sealing/marriage, and that in the absence of a legal divorce the couple was still married at the time of the man's death.
And MY point is that legally, it shouldn't matter at all what LDS doctrine says. If they signed a marriage certificate, they were legally married in this life. If they didn't, they weren't. There is as I understand it no implied marriage certificate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, given the time frame we're talking about, it's entirely possible that not all marriages had certificates back then; we may have added some legal requirements nowadays to what used to be presumptions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just reviewing the case, and it appears that there was no "marriage license" per se at the time. There was a "certificate of sealing" signed by the officiator (Daniel H. Wells, a member of the LDS First Presidency) and the witnesses. Much of the law about how a marriage was contracted was, at the time, common law. The Court went into a bit of detail on the subject, but the upshot was that under State law at the time a sealing did constitute a legal marriage, as long as the necessary element of consent of the parties was present.
Consent/intent of the parties was important in this case, because it was claimed that the parties had never intended to be married in life. The Court concluded that the parties knowingly were sealed, and that a sealing is by definition for both "time" and "eternity".
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that's what's strange. They knew a sealing had taken place, but didn't consider themselves married? That could never happen today. It just doesn't fit in with the LDS view of sealing/marriage. But apparently, under certain circumstances, it could make sense in the early LDS Church.
It fits in much better with some of the weird things that were happening in the early Utah church (sealing women to dead men they had never known, etc.).
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Upon reflection, I think they DID consider themselves married. What they didn't recognize was the distinction between a cancellation of sealing and a divorce. They (the couple) assumed that, since they had been married by the Church, the Church could also dissolve the marriage. This may have been much easier to believe in the territory of Utah at the time, since there was so much overlap between the Church and the government.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of comparison, Roman Catholic nuns consider themselves married to God / Jesus so the pratice isn't without root.
On an aside ... to add extra perspective to the questions regarding man / woman discrimination. Aristotle, in many texts, is 'claimed' to be sexist, while others just say that his man centrism is purely a function of the time in which he wrote.
Knowing very very little about LDS, I would propose that the disparity regarding the doctrines concerning polygamy for men and women is purely a function of the era in which polygamy was disucssed and relevant rather than sexism. One of the strengths of LDSs is the fact that the religion can and does change with time.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
