Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

If Temple Marriages Are Eternal Why Is It Ok For A Widow To Marry Again?

Temple marriage

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 JAHS

JAHS

    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:40 PM

This was a question someone recently asked me. Civil marriages are an untill death do you part situation and if the husband dies so does the marriage and the widow is free to marry again. If temple sealings are eternal and we have promised complete fidelity to our eternal spouse why is it OK for a widow to marry again and have sexual relations with her new husband?
I understand that usually a second marriage can be performed in the temple, but the sealing is for time only and the woman is still sealed to her first husband and will be with him in the eternities and any children she has with her second husband are sealed to her and her first husband. But if the marriage is eternal why does the act of death make it OK for the woman to marry again and have sexual relations with the second husband?
  • 0

#2 MorningStar

MorningStar

    UMW ..... UMB if you're nasty!

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,425 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:59 PM

Because it would be cruel to make her be alone the rest of her life?
  • 4

"Celery is nasty." ~ MorningStar

 

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. ~ John 13:34


#3 CV75

CV75

    Creates Beasts Of The Earth

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,259 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:59 PM

This was a question someone recently asked me. Civil marriages are an untill death do you part situation and if the husband dies so does the marriage and the widow is free to marry again. If temple sealings are eternal and we have promised complete fidelity to our eternal spouse why is it OK for a widow to marry again and have sexual relations with her new husband?
I understand that usually a second marriage can be performed in the temple, but the sealing is for time only and the woman is still sealed to her first husband and will be with him in the eternities and any children she has with her second husband are sealed to her and her first husband. But if the marriage is eternal why does the act of death make it OK for the woman to marry again and have sexual relations with the second husband?

i suppose because being legally and lawfully married is the standard for chastity. The widow can still be chaste in a marriage with her new husband while being sealed to her deceased husband. Having sex with her second husband in this world doesn't mean she isn't faithful in the sealing covenant with her first husband.
  • 2

#4 Saints Alive

Saints Alive

    Pure Mormon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:06 PM

Because it would be cruel to make her be alone the rest of her life?

Then wouldn't it also be cruel to not offer same sex sealings?

Don't make this a thread about gay marriage.
  • 0
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him" - John Morley
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" - Unknown
http://mormonthoughandopinion.blogspot.com/

#5 Saints Alive

Saints Alive

    Pure Mormon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:08 PM

i suppose because being legally and lawfully married is the standard for chastity. The widow can still be chaste in a marriage with her new husband while being sealed to her deceased husband. Having sex with her second husband in this world doesn't mean she isn't faithful in the sealing covenant with her first husband.

Thats the best explanation I think I have ever heard. It seems that it could be classified as a type of temporal polyandry.
  • 0
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him" - John Morley
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" - Unknown
http://mormonthoughandopinion.blogspot.com/

#6 divinenature

divinenature

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:37 PM

Boy, the double standard is bad enough as it is. Can you imagine if the Church began preaching that women could not remarry post divorce or death of spouse!?
  • 1
"Salt, vinegar and pepper given internally and plunging in the river when paroxysms begin will cure cholera." Joseph Smith Jr.

"I had now completed the organization of the Church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies." Joseph Smith Jr., March 30th 1836

#7 JAHS

JAHS

    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:43 PM

i suppose because being legally and lawfully married is the standard for chastity. The widow can still be chaste in a marriage with her new husband while being sealed to her deceased husband. Having sex with her second husband in this world doesn't mean she isn't faithful in the sealing covenant with her first husband.


In the eyes of the law and the rest of the world this makes sense. And according to the church a woman can be considered chaste so long as she only has sexual relations with her lawfully and legally married spouse. But having been endowed and sealed in the temple aren't we required to live a higher law where in the eternal sense she is still sealed and married to her first husband and shouldn't she therefore maintain complete fidelity to him only? It would almost seem to make more sense that anyone sealed to an eternal companion in the temple should not ever get married again nor have sexual realtions with anyone else. I understand how lonely that might be for a young widow but I am just trying to make some sense out of it. If a young widow woman marries a second husband and spends the rest of her life with him having and raising children is she really going to want to give him up to be with the first husband?

Edited by JAHS, 04 September 2012 - 01:48 PM.

  • 0

#8 Pa Pa

Pa Pa

    Shhh...Don't tell the anti-Mormons

  • Limited
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,506 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:47 PM

Then wouldn't it also be cruel to not offer same sex sealings?

No
  • 0
"So now it's just another show, leave them laughing when you go. And if you care don't let them know. Don't give yourself away" Joni Mitchell
There is no such thing as "Christian Tolerance"! Theo 1689 (CARMite)
See my Poetry Blog

#9 divinenature

divinenature

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:24 PM

In the eyes of the law and the rest of the world this makes sense. And according to the church a woman can be considered chaste so long as she only has sexual relations with her lawfully and legally married spouse.


That is the current practice, however it has not always been the law in the church. It used to be within church practice for a woman (and man) to have sexual relations with a "spouse" to whom they were not legally married, but only sealed by someone in the church (in or out of the temple).


But having been endowed and sealed in the temple aren't we required to live a higher law where in the eternal sense she is still sealed and married to her first husband and shouldn't she therefore maintain complete fidelity to him only? It would almost seem to make more sense that anyone sealed to an eternal companion in the temple should not ever get married again nor have sexual realtions with anyone else. I understand how lonely that might be for a young widow but I am just trying to make some sense out of it. If a young widow woman marries a second husband and spends the rest of her life with him having and raising children is she really going to want to give him up to be with the first husband?


Maybe she won't have to give him up.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young didn't see anything wrong with becoming sealed to divorced women, widows and even married women.
  • 2
"Salt, vinegar and pepper given internally and plunging in the river when paroxysms begin will cure cholera." Joseph Smith Jr.

"I had now completed the organization of the Church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies." Joseph Smith Jr., March 30th 1836

#10 oremites

oremites

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 254 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:28 PM

But having been endowed and sealed in the temple aren't we required to live a higher law where in the eternal sense she is still sealed and married to her first husband and shouldn't she therefore maintain complete fidelity to him only?

No. I think you're reading something into the law of chastity that just isn't there. My memory may very well be faulty, but I don't recall anything in the scriptures or from church leaders that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Why do you think that the fidelity you describe here is living a "higher law"?
  • 0
History is a collection of a few facts and a substantial assortment of rumors, lies, exaggerations, and self-defense. As time passes, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the various categories. - Jack McDevitt

People seem to be hard-wired to get things wrong. They confuse opinion with fact, they tend to believe what everyone around them believes, and they are ready to die for the truth or whichever version of it they have clasped to their breasts. - Jack McDevitt

#11 oremites

oremites

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 254 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:34 PM

That is the current practice, however it has not always been the law in the church. It used to be within church practice for a woman (and man) to have sexual relations with a "spouse" to whom they were not legally married, but only sealed by someone in the church (in or out of the temple).

That may be more of a culture thing. Common-law marriages used to me more common and accepted than they are now. I don't think the spirit of the law has changed in this case.
  • 0
History is a collection of a few facts and a substantial assortment of rumors, lies, exaggerations, and self-defense. As time passes, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the various categories. - Jack McDevitt

People seem to be hard-wired to get things wrong. They confuse opinion with fact, they tend to believe what everyone around them believes, and they are ready to die for the truth or whichever version of it they have clasped to their breasts. - Jack McDevitt

#12 JAHS

JAHS

    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:38 PM

No. I think you're reading something into the law of chastity that just isn't there. My memory may very well be faulty, but I don't recall anything in the scriptures or from church leaders that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Why do you think that the fidelity you describe here is living a "higher law"?


The "higher law" being the covenants that we make in the temple compared to those we make at baptism when becoming a member of the church. This question comes from a person who just can't accept the fact that if he should die it is OK for his wife to have sexual relations with another man. To him it seems that it would break the covenants he and his wife made in the temple.
  • 0

#13 divinenature

divinenature

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:42 PM

That may be more of a culture thing. Common-law marriages used to me more common and accepted than they are now. I don't think the spirit of the law has changed in this case.


The culture of the early church was certainly a culture unto itself. Polygamy in all its forms was illegal in the United States which might be why illegal marriages were allowed.
  • 0
"Salt, vinegar and pepper given internally and plunging in the river when paroxysms begin will cure cholera." Joseph Smith Jr.

"I had now completed the organization of the Church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies." Joseph Smith Jr., March 30th 1836

#14 divinenature

divinenature

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:42 PM

The "higher law" being the covenants that we make in the temple compared to those we make at baptism when becoming a member of the church. This question comes from a person who just can't accept the fact that if he should die it is OK for his wife to have sexual relations with another man. To him it seems that it would break the covenants he and his wife made in the temple.


Does he feel that should his wife die that he should not remarry, either?
  • 0
"Salt, vinegar and pepper given internally and plunging in the river when paroxysms begin will cure cholera." Joseph Smith Jr.

"I had now completed the organization of the Church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies." Joseph Smith Jr., March 30th 1836

#15 JAHS

JAHS

    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:00 PM

Does he feel that should his wife die that he should not remarry, either?


Yes. Which should end the problem for him if he and his wife both promise each other to not marry again if one dies.
But he still questions the doctrine about this.
  • 0

#16 MorningStar

MorningStar

    UMW ..... UMB if you're nasty!

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,425 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:17 PM

The "higher law" being the covenants that we make in the temple compared to those we make at baptism when becoming a member of the church. This question comes from a person who just can't accept the fact that if he should die it is OK for his wife to have sexual relations with another man. To him it seems that it would break the covenants he and his wife made in the temple.


No, that's not true. You covenant not to have sexual relations with anyone to whom you are not legally and lawfully wed. If you legally and lawfully wed another person after your spouse dies, you are still keeping that covenant.
  • 0

"Celery is nasty." ~ MorningStar

 

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. ~ John 13:34


#17 divinenature

divinenature

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:18 PM

Yes. Which should end the problem for him if he and his wife both promise each other to not marry again if one dies.
But he still questions the doctrine about this.


Very interesting.
  • 0
"Salt, vinegar and pepper given internally and plunging in the river when paroxysms begin will cure cholera." Joseph Smith Jr.

"I had now completed the organization of the Church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies." Joseph Smith Jr., March 30th 1836

#18 USU78

USU78

    Dr. Pepper Addict

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,231 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:46 PM

Yes. Which should end the problem for him if he and his wife both promise each other to not marry again if one dies.
But he still questions the doctrine about this.


As Mary Poppins observed, this is a pie-crust promise: easily made; easily broken.
  • 0
In the immortal words of? Socrates...I DRANK WHAT???!!!

#19 CV75

CV75

    Creates Beasts Of The Earth

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,259 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:35 AM

In the eyes of the law and the rest of the world this makes sense. And according to the church a woman can be considered chaste so long as she only has sexual relations with her lawfully and legally married spouse. But having been endowed and sealed in the temple aren't we required to live a higher law where in the eternal sense she is still sealed and married to her first husband and shouldn't she therefore maintain complete fidelity to him only? It would almost seem to make more sense that anyone sealed to an eternal companion in the temple should not ever get married again nor have sexual realtions with anyone else. I understand how lonely that might be for a young widow but I am just trying to make some sense out of it. If a young widow woman marries a second husband and spends the rest of her life with him having and raising children is she really going to want to give him up to be with the first husband?

The higher law of chastity, so far, is what we covenant to do in the temple—legally and lawfully married. I believe eternal and celestial love transcends any of the problems we can imagine (and obviously those engaged in such relationships don’t see these as problems) and makes them inconsequential in comparison to teh sealing blessings.

I think many of the problems are developmental in nature: there are big differences between possessing someone, belonging to each other, and becoming one. I believe the last attitude solves all the problems.
  • 1

#20 CV75

CV75

    Creates Beasts Of The Earth

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,259 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:41 AM

That is the current practice, however it has not always been the law in the church. It used to be within church practice for a woman (and man) to have sexual relations with a "spouse" to whom they were not legally married, but only sealed by someone in the church (in or out of the temple).

I always had the sense that what constitutes "legally and lawfully married" included any church-condoned covenant (whether secular or religious).
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Temple marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users