Who is a widow supposed to marry...?

[cherryTreez]

3 hours ago, Lola said:

Yes... I agree... some women do not want to share.   But... at least no one is telling them the CANNOT do it if they want to.  The choice is theirs whereas in my situation, Church headquarters took that decision away from me. 

I am one of those women who do not want to share. I asked my husband to not be sealed to another woman if I die. He says that he wouldn't marry again. 

He could be married for this life and have a companion.  I would not remarry. But that's a whole different story.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Let's suppose that the sealing to your first husband was canceled. So your first husband has no say in the matter?....With few exceptions, sealings are promises of future blessings predicated on life choices etc. 

Which means what exactly?  Has the woman in this case forfeited sealing blessings because she chose the wrong man to be sealed to? And what do you think the first husband could say or do to affect it?  Do you believe as BY apparently did a wife couldn't be "stolen" from a dead man even if she chose the other man?  Though perhaps he only meant when the wife was not loved by the other man, but seduced for the glory of multiplying wives, but it came across to me that BY viewed any men being sealed for eternity to a widow causing her to chose to break her sealing was committing a sin.

(Serious question, it isn't clear about how you are thinking about your example save that they are future blessings, not ones applied to the here and now...which I am not sure is how the Church teaches it; my impression is it is more along the lines of 'eternity starts now for the faithful')

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Lola said:

Yes... I agree... some women do not want to share.   But... at least no one is telling them the CANNOT do it if they want to.  The choice is theirs whereas in my situation, Church headquarters took that decision away from me. 

Not sure what you are applying "cannot" to.  If you mean they have a choice to share if they change their minds, sure.  But generally the fear of women who want to be exclusive is the husband will choose to remarry if they die or may choose an additional wife in the next life....perhaps a woman who was not able to be married in this one, but was faithful.  Doctrine isn't there that says her expection to remain her spouse's only companion trumps her husband's choice to remarry.  So she cannot choose to be both married to her husband and not share just as you see the choice being taken away of choosing to be married to your husband and sharing your life as well with someone else.  If her husband refuses to walk away from additional marriages, as far as we know her only choice is to turn her back on the blessing of marriage.  And many in my experience interpret doctrine and practice to imply that if they reject the marriage, they will forfeit exaltation as it will be viewed as a sin, so they see exaltation as a plural wife as an enforced hell if they choose to be obedient to God as they truly desire to be.

I assume there are men who are fearful of a wife choosing a different husband after they die and breaking the sealing and with the typical interpretation they don't even get to choose whether to stay or go.

Limiting a woman to only one husband in eternities while allowing multiple husbands in mortality sets up a very confusion doctrine, imo.  But requiring widows to remain single or only accepting the first husband as a valid one for sealing of ancestors in a faith that emphasizes parenthood, the need for a mother and  father in a family, and an eternal connection with their children whenever possible...too many contradictions  on what should be our righteous desires we should be choosing, imo.  What we are moving towards, an equal policy of sealing all relationships, makes the most sense to me given that God allows for parents to die through no fault of their own and often even through righteousness ( such as a woman desiring to bring up children in the Gospel dying in childbirth leaving motherless children or a father dying in a dangerous line of work he choose to protect his family and community) and neither the children nor the remaining parent should be automatically barred from a possible future blessing of once more having two parents in the home when they have already suffered the greatest emotional tragedy that can happen in a family according to psychological research.

We are a culture that likes to talk about the next life in concrete terms, so it isn't surprising that this life gets transposed on the next life since this is all we know at this time.  But a lot of it isn't terribly logical when you start thinking about the implications. The whole sealing of parents to children doesn't make much sense to me as we will, I assume, all be adults in our progression and all be one with God, so why would a parent-child relationship still exist between me and my children?  Why wouldn't some sort of nonheirarchal relationship be in place instead, such as brothers and sisters instead since we are first spiritually siblings?  And if they are one with God than why would I be presiding over them through my oneness with God in any way instead of them being directly dealing with God through their own oneness?

I don't believe the confusion renders sealings meaningless or unrelated to our families.  I just think we only see a vague pattern at this point.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 1/16/2019 at 6:22 PM, Lola said:

I am a young(ish) widow (who was sealed to my first husband) and want to remarry.   I’ve had 2 men tell me that they would want to date me but that they want to to be sealed to their spouse (and… I cannot be).  So…  who am I supposed to marry?  Non-LDS or another widower obviously… but how is that fair?  

Anyone have a decent or real explanation? (other than God will work it out...)

This somewhat approaches my own situation, or rather, the situation of my wife.

Wendy was married to her late husband for nearly 30 years when he passed away.  She was only 54 years old (youngish?).  About a year after his death she started considering the idea of finding a new husband, and she ran into the same problem you write of.  She signed up for an LDS oriented online dating service and found that there were a good number of single men looking for a woman they could be sealed to, but she, like you, was sealed to her late spouse and didn't want to have their sealing cancelled.  So she walked away from the question for a time.  Around Christmas 2015 she decided to give it another go, and in short order found me, a new widower who, having been sealed to my late wife, was not bothered much about her prior sealing, and we fell in love and got married civilly.  

I don't know if this helps or not, but the problem you speak of has similarity to a woman who wishes to marry and have children, but has a hard time finding a man who wishes children.  Or a man, ditto.  One of my sons wanted children, but his partner (they were not married) did not.  The son of a friend of mine wanted to marry a woman who wanted to have nothing to do with his church.

It's not a matter of fairness, actually.  It is more a matter of matching goals.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

This has always been the explanation for why men will/should have multiple wives in the next life or will keep their sealing even if they die.  Their love and commitment means something for the eternities even if cut short.  BY stated something along the lines of God wouldn't allow another man to steal a sealed wife if the husband died by convincing her to break the sealing even, iirc.

It never made sense to me it wouldn't work that way for women as well if that is the way it actually works.  We are not a different species with different feelings of love, incapable of loving more than one man in our lives or at a time.

l agree with you about you ladies being the same species -- at least most of the time!  Once in awhile, though, you guys puzzle me greatly.  

My wife still loves her late husband, and wants to remain sealed to him, but at the same time would have liked to be sealed to me, and wishes we had met when she were younger.  As do I, actually. Oh no!  My wife loves another man!  

Well, darnit, she ought to still love him -- he was a good man and a good husband, and loved her.  As much as I love her, and wish I could stay with her in eternity, too, it just seems wrong to want to take her away from him.  

I expect it will all be sorted out properly in the end.  I am not going to bother myself over what happens in eternity.  I have sufficient perplexities to deal with in the here and now.  Let me deal with the things that I can directly influence -- and trust that the rest will work out.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

 

I don't know if this helps or not, but the problem you speak of has similarity to a woman who wishes to marry and have children, but has a hard time finding a man who wishes children.  Or a man, ditto.  One of my sons wanted children, but his partner (they were not married) did not.  The son of a friend of mine wanted to marry a woman who wanted to have nothing to do with his church.

It's not a matter of fairness, actually.  It is more a matter of matching goals.

I'm curious to see how many more ways you can come up with to tell widows they are being silly or downright stupid to not be able to figure out how easy a problem you will never experience is. 

Is it really impossible for you to see that your trivial examples have nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about?

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

 

Well, darnit, she ought to still love him -- he was a good man and a good husband, and loved her.  As much as I love her, and wish I could stay with her in eternity, too, it just seems wrong to want to take her away from him.  

 

How nice that you have worked out a situation that has nothing to do with our situation. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'm curious to see how many more ways you can come up with to tell widows they are being silly or downright stupid to not be able to figure out how easy a problem you will never experience is. 

I am sorry Juliann.  I don't believe I have told anyone they are being silly or downright stupid, nor do I believe I have implied it.  Thanks for assuming I have no empathy.  She came here asking for advice, presumably.  I felt that I had experienced something like she had experienced, if from a different point of view, so maybe I could offer some kind of hope.  I provided my insight, such as it is, to the matter.  You feel I haven't helped at all.  You may be right.  I shall not distress anyone further with it, then.  

Do you think being a widower was any more easy than being a widow?  I was hoping to die after my wife passed away.  It didn't happen.  I experienced widowerhood for close to three years, while she was still alive,  because her decision to do alternative treatment made it 99.9% certain that I would be burying her.  And the last six months was the worst.  Are you a widow?  Have you been forced to sit back and watch while the most important person in your life wastes away before your eyes, and the only thing you can do about it is ... nothing?  Maybe you have, I have no idea.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Is it really impossible for you to see that your trivial examples have nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about?

Apparently.  OK, I am stupid then.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

How nice that you have worked out a situation that has nothing to do with our situation. 

Sorry again. 

 

[Stargazer]

I apologize to everyone in the thread if my ham-handed attempts to respond to the original post have caused anyone any distress.  I shall not contribute further.

[Nikolai]

Im new here and this is only the second thread i have read.  You have no need to feel bad just because one person didnt like what you had to say.  You seem like a decent guy and i appreciated your input.

[Nikolai]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'm curious to see how many more ways you can come up with to tell widows they are being silly or downright stupid to not be able to figure out how easy a problem you will never experience is. 

Is it really impossible for you to see that your trivial examples have nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about?

How nice that you have worked out a situation that has nothing to do with our situation. 

You dont need to be so rude to someone who obviously meant no harm or offense.  

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

   

Do you think being a widower was any more easy than being a widow?  I was hoping to die after my wife passed away.  It didn't happen.  I experienced widowerhood for close to three years, while she was still alive,  because her decision to do alternative treatment made it 99.9% certain that I would be burying her.  And the last six months was the worst.  Are you a widow?  Have you been forced to sit back and watch while the most important person in your life wastes away before your eyes, and the only thing you can do about it is ... nothing?  Maybe you have, I have no idea.

  

 

It has been a long battle trying to train men to not come into women's discussions and make it all about them and their opinions about their own experiences rather than the womens'. First there is outrage, then comes the hurt feelings, then the take my male ball and go home. There is usually the howling over being told to "shut up," as well. And all of this in the presence of men who are managing very well to stay in a discussion about women and for women. It is a checklist that rarely deviates. 

I remain unsure of why your experience with your wife's tragic death has a single thing to do with a question from a woman about the discriminatory sealing policies that damage a widow's ability to live her life as men are able to do.

But to answer your off topic questions:

• Yes, in the LDS church it is easier to be a widower when one wants to remarry.
• Yes, I watched my husband waste away. Since this is apparently a contest, I can beat your six months of the worst of it.  And I had a 4 year old.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Nikolai said:

You dont need to be so rude to someone who obviously meant no harm or offense.  

Yes I do. Star is a nonstop offender. Who is apparently bringing in the troops. 

And these men who think they can lecture women on why their feelings aren't as important as male feelings DO harm. Since he has been told so very often by multiple women that is the case, there is no way you are going to convince very many that he meant no harm.  

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by juliann

[juliann]

Lola, I'm going to hijack your thread because I am so very, very weary of the nonstop mansplaining.

In these responses from men,  who can identify the response that sympathetically acknowledges the OP's situation? Who can identify which response is nothing but scolding mansplaining?

Quote

 

I have no explanation. I admit I as a single guy would be hesitant to marry someone in your situation. Mostly because I want the blessings of the ordinance of sealing.

I am hopeful for a shift where multiple sealings following the death of a spouse are allowed for both genders. I see no reason that one cannot be tied to multiple people for eternity in the next world where the reasons it would not work here are absent.

 

Quote

 

You reject the answer that God will work it out; or in other words, you want knowledge now without any need for faith, patience, etc.

I don't know if there is one. I think if you were dead you could be sealed to more than one husband - in fact, you could be sealed to all your husbands that had similarly passed on. One answer may be to die and have these sealings done by your family members. Of course, that still leaves you in the position of having to "work it out" at some point in the future.

As far as being alive and being sealed to more than one husband - the easy answer is that it does not happen. However, if your potential partner is only interested in being sealed immediately in the temple then that partner is not a viable candidate for marriage for you - he does not want to marry you. If someone loves you and you love him and have been married for a while and you would like to be sealed to him - and your first husband, the one you originally were sealed to, is dead - you may want to petition for the permission to be sealed to your living husband. I don't have an example that this has happened, but my memory tells me I have heard of this happening before and I just cannot remember the parties involved. 

As far as being a disciple of Jesus Christ goes, we all must learn to live by faith. I suggest you continue to do so and put things in God's hands knowing that he loves you and will take care of each of his children. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by juliann

[Stargazer]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes I do. Star is a nonstop offender. Who is apparently bringing in the troops. 

I haven't communicated with anyone outside this conversation.  I wish I had never chimed in.  I will avoid ever chiming in on such a subject ever again, so maybe I'm trainable after all.  If you think that is taking my "male ball" and sulking off then so be it.  But you have basically told me to shut up and leave, so is it so unreasonable for me to do so?

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

And these men who think they can lecture women on why their feelings aren't as important as male feelings DO harm. Since he has been told so very often by multiple women that is the case, there is no way you are going to convince very many that he meant no harm.  

I never in my life lectured any woman upon the face of God's earth that their feelings aren't as important as male feelings.  Nothing I wrote to the sister who started this thread was intended to do that, and having read them over again a couple of times, I still don't see what you saw in them.  You are reading things into what I wrote what I never intended nor wanted to say.  

And I did not mean any harm.  

And it wasn't a contest about your suffering versus my suffering.  I was trying to tell you that I am emotionally vulnerable, as much as the next person, that I have had similar but not identical experiences.  In a vain hope to demonstrate that I might possibly understand the delicate feelings that exist in this kind of situation.  I didn't know that you were a widow, too, but suspected so.  I am sorry for your loss.

I apologize to you, Juliann, that I have been such a thorn in your side.  Please forgive me.

Respond to this as you will.  I have nothing further to say.  Please accept my best regards, despite it all.

 

 

[juliann]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I haven't communicated with anyone outside this conversation.  I wish I had never chimed in.  I will avoid ever chiming in on such a subject ever again, so maybe I'm trainable after all.  If you think that is taking my "male ball" and sulking off then so be it.  But you have basically told me to shut up and leave, so is it so unreasonable for me to do so?

I never in my life lectured any woman upon the face of God's earth that their feelings aren't as important as male feelings.  Nothing I wrote to the sister who started this thread was intended to do that, and having read them over again a couple of times, I still don't see what you saw in them.  You are reading things into what I wrote what I never intended nor wanted to say.  

And I did not mean any harm.  

And it wasn't a contest about your suffering versus my suffering.  I was trying to tell you that I am emotionally vulnerable, as much as the next person, that I have had similar but not identical experiences.  In a vain hope to demonstrate that I might possibly understand the delicate feelings that exist in this kind of situation.  I didn't know that you were a widow, too, but suspected so.  I am sorry for your loss.

I apologize to you, Juliann, that I have been such a thorn in your side.  Please forgive me.

Respond to this as you will.  I have nothing further to say.  Please accept my best regards, despite it all.

 

 

Do you really not remember how many times women have tried to have conversations on topics that affect them in unique ways only to have some men come barreling in with lectures? You are part of that. If you are going to be "trainable" as you put it, you need to be able to admit what you are doing no matter what you "meant" by it. If you can't see the difference in the two responses I posted, you are going to have to have the self control to let the women work it out themselves.  

The pouty stuff doesn't work. If you can't hold back on the sermons and lectures, of course you should "shut up" and leave. That would be polite to start your own thread about male experiences with sealings and it would be a useful topic. Just not in a thread about women's very different experiences with sealings. But all that is being asked is that you model the first response I posted from a man. I have seen many men step in and help control mansplainers so women don't have to retreat to closed groups to have these discussions. I hope you will be one of those men. Meanwhile, I'm just so so very very done with having to watch women be subjected to this when they are asking questions from deeply hurt hearts. 

[Nikolai]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Yes I do. Star is a nonstop offender. Who is apparently bringing in the troops. 

And these men who think they can lecture women on why their feelings aren't as important as male feelings DO harm. Since he has been told so very often by multiple women that is the case, there is no way you are going to convince very many that he meant no harm.  

 

I will take your words and keep them in my mind as i am new here.  However, i didnt see anything in that independant post that sounded intent to harm.

I do agree with you though, there are too many men that have the mentality of stewardship over “all” women and i dont believe that is proper at all.

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, Nikolai said:

I will take your words and keep them in my mind as i am new here.  However, i didnt see anything in that independant post that sounded intent to harm.

I do agree with you though, there are too many men that have the mentality of stewardship over “all” women and i dont believe that is proper at all.

Welcome, Nikolai! I'm glad you are here. Without the benefit of being part of previous rodeos, I totally understand where you are coming from. It is getting better because a few of us are putting our feet down. But there was a time where we would be shouted down and run out of a thread if we tried to discuss women's concerns. We were called apostate, feminists--meant as an insult, power hungry, etc. etc. 

I don't consider someone innocent if they have been part of countless explanations, objections, and downright begging to knock it off. Someone can step on my foot and mean no harm at all. But if they refuse to remove their foot after being asked to along with detailed descriptions of the pain they are causing, they are knowingly doing harm. 

I should add that Star is a great guy. He just won't recognize certain boundaries. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by juliann

[Jean-Luc Picard]

My mother is a widow in her late 50's. She has her own business and is pretty successful. She had an acquaintance feed her the same line about not dating sealed widows. She let the rest of the ladies in her group know he is a creep (he was not pleased, since he had his eye on one of her never married friends). 

Good luck on your journey. It is definitely an undiscovered country at times. My mom recently told me, she just wants someone to have fun with and go on trips with. I think she is getting lonely and tired of seeing her friends remarry and do fun things. She is just not sure where to start...

[MustardSeed]

Wow , really tough topic.  Ironically my sister and i went to the temple yesterday and she had researched family names to do work for. One family member was sealed to a man who died, and was married a second time.  family Tree indicates that her sealing work to the second husband needs done.  We asked about that and were told in the temple that after death, women can be sealed to more than one man.  Why am I just now learning this?? 

My sister also told me the story of a friend who’s young husband died in a car accident at BYU.  The young woman was rejected by men who felt they needed to be sealed when married (not jerks in my mind, but rather trying to do what they’ve been taught their whole lives) and so she “lost her mind” according to my sister.  Dated a few bad apples outside the church and eventually disappeared into the ether.  

I imagine if my husband died I’d probably date outside the church.  That is, unless the ridiculous double standard were re examined and changed. 

 

To the original poster looking for answers- there will be men who won’t consider you as an option from the get go.  That’s the fault of the church setting this dynamic  up.  I believe God wants you to love and be loved, and would hold your face in his hands and tell you he loves you totally and completely. Go be a good human and don’t be afraid.  Be healthy and loving and righteously pursuing the Lords way and you will attract to yourself good men in and outside the church.  The good men will all accept God on the other side and it will all work out. IMO. 

Im sorry for your loss. 

Ps if there is a way to send a letter to Wendy Watson or her best friend about this....  ❤️

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by MustardSeed

[katherine the great]

On 1/17/2019 at 6:15 PM, Calm said:

 often men and women just assume women love in different enough ways that no woman would actually want to be sealed to multiple men because she would only want to focus her love and attention on one. (This was the constant explanation I was hearing in my youth and adulthood back in 70s and 80s....don't hear it any more.)

I'm astonished. Have the people saying this ever met a woman? That's truly one of the most lame, antediluvian things I've ever heard. (no offense if these were people you love) 💕 

[Tacenda]

On 1/18/2019 at 11:56 AM, juliann said:

It has been a long battle trying to train men to not come into women's discussions and make it all about them and their opinions about their own experiences rather than the womens'. First there is outrage, then comes the hurt feelings, then the take my male ball and go home. There is usually the howling over being told to "shut up," as well. And all of this in the presence of men who are managing very well to stay in a discussion about women and for women. It is a checklist that rarely deviates. 

I remain unsure of why your experience with your wife's tragic death has a single thing to do with a question from a woman about the discriminatory sealing policies that damage a widow's ability to live her life as men are able to do.

But to answer your off topic questions:

• Yes, in the LDS church it is easier to be a widower when one wants to remarry.
• Yes, I watched my husband waste away. Since this is apparently a contest, I can beat your six months of the worst of it.  And I had a 4 year old.

Who cares if Stargazer adds his experience?! If it helps someone and even if it didn't, he is not one to think less of any woman or think he needs to straighten them out or one up. Honestly Juliann, can you empathize a little better, especially since you can relate all to well?

[Judd]

I don’t believe that all men are so concrete or elementary in their understanding of God and His commandments. I can’t speak to the proportions, or to anyone’s experiences, nor does it answer the question of what a single windowed woman is to do in those circumstances, but the question is predicated on the belief that all men do or should have that rigid (poor) of an understanding of the gospel, which I believe may not be uncommon but is not universal.

[Tacenda]

On 1/31/2019 at 1:43 AM, MustardSeed said:

Wow , really tough topic.  Ironically my sister and i went to the temple yesterday and she had researched family names to do work for. One family member was sealed to a man who died, and was married a second time.  family Tree indicates that her sealing work to the second husband needs done.  We asked about that and were told in the temple that after death, women can be sealed to more than one man.  Why am I just now learning this?? 

My sister also told me the story of a friend who’s young husband died in a car accident at BYU.  The young woman was rejected by men who felt they needed to be sealed when married (not jerks in my mind, but rather trying to do what they’ve been taught their whole lives) and so she “lost her mind” according to my sister.  Dated a few bad apples outside the church and eventually disappeared into the ether.  

I imagine if my husband died I’d probably date outside the church.  That is, unless the ridiculous double standard were re examined and changed. 

 

To the original poster looking for answers- there will be men who won’t consider you as an option from the get go.  That’s the fault of the church setting this dynamic  up.  I believe God wants you to love and be loved, and would hold your face in his hands and tell you he loves you totally and completely. Go be a good human and don’t be afraid.  Be healthy and loving and righteously pursuing the Lords way and you will attract to yourself good men in and outside the church.  The good men will all accept God on the other side and it will all work out. IMO. 

Im sorry for your loss. 

Ps if there is a way to send a letter to Wendy Watson or her best friend about this....  ❤️

 

So well put, I'd like to share this sentiment with so many LDS women out there that suffer with this dilemma.

[The Airbender]

On 1/16/2019 at 12:11 PM, Lola said:

Thank you ladies for your sentiments...  ❤️...  but, that wasn’t my question.    

Yes... we should marry who we love, obviously.   But what if who I love wants to be sealed?   Or what if I want someone who is serious in the church (and anyone who is serious, is going to want to be sealed).  

Does anyone have any official doctrine on what the church expects widows in that position  to do?

I believe God's official doctrine is for you to marry your husband's brother

[Jeanne]

Just find love and do that...who is she supposed to marry???  Someone she loves, respects and enjoys life with.  Why would God be bothered by that?