58 replies to this topic

[elect_lady]

Freedom, on Jun 26 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

Quote

I have heard that starting the first of the year multiple sealings are no longer allowed.

The church manual would have to be changed. If you mean this year then you are wrong because i was at the temple last week and performed a sealing for a woman who was sealed already to another man. (by proxy that is).

So, she was sealed to two men?  Did I misunderstand?  I didn't think that was allowed.

[thesometimesaint]

Who Knows:

Not so much the King, as too lazy for my own good.      

Edited by thesometimesaint, 26 June 2006 - 10:07 AM.

[bluebell]

elect_lady, on Jun 26 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

So, she was sealed to two men?  Did I misunderstand?  I didn't think that was allowed.

It is allowed if the woman is deceased and was legally married to more than one man during her lifetime (such as if she her husband died and she remarried).

She is sealed to both husbands because no one would know which one she would choose to spend eternity with.

It is an LDS belief that she would then be allowed to choose which one she wanted to be sealed to for eternity....

It is not allowed for a woman who is alive and remarries (who was previously sealed) to be sealed to another unless the first sealing is canceled.

[liz3564]

Familyof4, on Jun 26 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

Start of 2007, this is what I was told.  No one else has had this told to them?

I'm curious...Where did you hear this?  Was it a temple president?  A temple worker?  A Stake President?  A Regional Representative?  I'm just curious as to your source.

No...this is the first I've heard of this.

[alter idem]

Familyof4, on Jun 26 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

Start of 2007, this is what I was told.  No one else has had this told to them?

No.  What temple were you at?  Who told you this?  Was it in writing or did someone mention it in passing?  Did you ask any questions?  It would probably help if you could give more information since you are the only source for this new change so far.  

[John Corrill]

Familyof4:  The final nail in the Polygamy coffin . . .

John Corrill:  For me "the final nail in the Polygamy coffin" will be when we as a church distance ourselves from Joseph Smith's polgyamy.  This would mean we stop portraying him as monogamist, speak openly about his plural relationships and quit defending them as appropriate.  Sorta like David of the Old Testament.  

I can feel this day inching closer and closer.  Yea!!!!

[alannasaunt]

Who Knows, on Jun 26 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

alannasaunt, on Jun 26 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

thesometimesaint, on Jun 26 2006, 09:52 AM, said:

alannasaunt:

Call For References.

Thanks. Eventually I'll catch on to all these acronyms.  

FWIW/FYI, TSS is the king of acronyms.  HTH.

  

HTH = ?

(you asked for it...but, I got 3 out of 4)

[urroner]

alannasaunt, on Jun 26 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

Who Knows, on Jun 26 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

alannasaunt, on Jun 26 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

thesometimesaint, on Jun 26 2006, 09:52 AM, said:

alannasaunt:

Call For References.

Thanks. Eventually I'll catch on to all these acronyms.  

FWIW/FYI, TSS is the king of acronyms.  HTH.

HTH = ?

(you asked for it...but, I got 3 out of 4)

Happy To Help or Hope This Helps

There are several serious lists of acronyms out there and I would provide a link to several of them, but they all contain several vulgar terms so I wont'.

[alannasaunt]

urroner,
Thanks. Eventually....

[Who Knows]

alannasaunt, on Jun 26 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

urroner,
Thanks. Eventually....

HLOLARAWCHAWMP

Seriously, the internet will (and is) changing the english language.  It'll be interesting to see it 50 years from now.

As a side note, maybe Pacman can now see how JS got a paragraph of text out of a single egyptian character.

[alannasaunt]

Who Knows, on Jun 26 2006, 10:39 AM, said:

alannasaunt, on Jun 26 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

urroner,
Thanks. Eventually....

HLOLARAWCHAWMP

     I won't even ask....

[Scott Lloyd]

Familyof4, on Jun 26 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

Start of 2007, this is what I was told.  No one else has had this told to them?

So, come January of 2007, when this rumored change does not transpire, will Familyof4 be coming back on this board to explaim him/herself? I wonder.

[Number 9]

I would say, on topic, that the best thing to do is to wait to see if an official announcement comes from the 1st Presidency. This is something with eternal consequences that you are suggesting, and it would effect many, many people both living and dead. This is not something you should just take the word of a temple worker on. They are just as prone to gossip as anyone else.

You can be sure that if it comes directly from the 1st Presidency there is no trace of gossip in it. Until that happens, I would suggest that you take it with a grain of salt.

[Doctor Steuss]

My dad often says that there are two places that people spread false doctrines/rumors more than anywhere else.  One is at funerals.  The other is in the temple.

[Ryan B]

Your dad must be smart.  This one smacks of rumor.  I would think there would be some announcement or something on this issue.  There are many people I know where if this was true could change their religion.  FAMILYOF4 you should be more careful.  Before you know it you'll have everyone moving to Jackson County.

[alter idem]

Familyof4, on Jun 26 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

I am uncomfortable naming names or positions.  So I will just wait for confirmation from another Temple bee

Hmm...If I'm to understand correctly, you won't be explaining further, therefore I'm assuming it  came from the LDS rumor-mill and we should just discount it.

[cougarfan]

I doubt this is true...

... and if it were, it would cause real problems with proxy work done for names generated by extraction.

I suppose this could be a change in church practice...

... but if it were to be a change in doctrine it would cause me serious thought.

This would really be punishment for 2nd wives of widowers (who had been unsealed), ans the church really encourages widowers to remarry...

Edited by cougarfan, 26 June 2006 - 11:38 AM.

[William Schryver]

Familyof4 failed to mention the "rest of the story."

Beginning in 2007, we will also be permitted to reduce our tithing payments to 9%, however, the monthy fast offering will be increased to the cost of an average Thanksgiving dinner for 10.

In addition, Dead Horse Point State Park in southeastern Utah has now been designated as the place where the "Ancient of Days" will return, and has accordingly been renamed Adam-ondi-Moab.

Finally, a new temple site for the City of Zion has been dedicated in a secret location known (at present) to only a select few who are busily buying up the adjacent real estate in anticipation of the formal announcement.

[onelowerlight]

Doctor Steuss, on Jun 26 2006, 10:51 AM, said:

My dad often says that there are two places that people spread false doctrines/rumors more than anywhere else.  One is at funerals.  The other is in the temple.

That's right.  Except usually people aren't in the temple when they speculate or gossip about temple doctrine (from my experience).

[onelowerlight]

alter idem, on Jun 26 2006, 11:10 AM, said:

Familyof4, on Jun 26 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

I am uncomfortable naming names or positions.  So I will just wait for confirmation from another Temple bee

Hmm...If I'm to understand correctly, you won't be explaining further, therefore I'm assuming it  came from the LDS rumor-mill and we should just discount it.

That's pretty much the way I see it.  Until some documentation comes out.