Temple Sealing Question

[Xander]

Everyone- keep the personal remarks and analysis of each others behavior out of the threads. If you don't like someones tone then report it or disengage or both!

Is there and "ignore" feature by chance?

[Stargazer]

Allow me to write from experience.

My wife was sealed to her first husband, but he later got excommunicated and divorced her. They had seven children, all either sealed to them (the first four), or born in the covenant (the last three), with the very last born after his excommunication. A couple of years later we got married, and at that time she sought a sealing cancellation -- because an excommunication is not in itself a cancellation -- so we could be married in the temple. The cancellation did not arrive soon enough, and since the Army was about to send me to Europe, it seemed wise to get the marriage done so as to reduce the turmoil of getting her and the rest of the family connected with me so they could join me over there. Accordingly we were married civilly. Coincidentally, President Kimball signed the sealing cancellation on the day of our wedding, and we received it a few days later.

President Kimball's letter announcing the cancellation said specifically that the cancellation did not affect the rights of children previously sealed or born in the covenant to eternal parentage, and stated that in this life at least they could not be sealed to anyone else. It seemed clear to me at the time that the sealing cancellation dealt with the husband-wife sealing, and not the child-parent sealing. The main fact that I took away from this is that the ultimate place of a child in the patriarchal chain was dependent upon justice, mercy, and the will of God. I have considered that if I remain faithful to my covenants that all of their children will be my wife's and mine in the eternity. Her first husband abrogated any rights he had, in the same way that the Lord said that David's wives would be given to another because of his transgression.

In other words, the misbehavior of a parent does not doom a child to loss of blessings that he or she is otherwise entitled to.

[alter idem]

President Kimball's letter announcing the cancellation said specifically that the cancellation did not affect the rights of children previously sealed or born in the covenant to eternal parentage, and stated that in this life at least they could not be sealed to anyone else. It seemed clear to me at the time that the sealing cancellation dealt with the husband-wife sealing, and not the child-parent sealing

Thanks for sharing Stargazer. As I read what you wrote above, the thought came to me that we here on earth live in a temporal time frame--however, in God's realm, time is not as we understand it. While we may not understand how a sealing can be cancelled, yet the sealings taken place are still binding, I'm sure it will be clear in the next. We have a loving, merciful Father in heaven who wants us all to have access to blessings he desires to bestow on us.

You mention that your experience was during Pres. Kimball's time and I wonder if there have been changes to policy since then. The handbooks were updated just recently so there could be changes. I used to have access to a handbook while my husband was Bishop, but he's been released.

[Flyonthewall]

Allow me to write from experience.

My wife was sealed to her first husband, but he later got excommunicated and divorced her. They had seven children, all either sealed to them (the first four), or born in the covenant (the last three), with the very last born after his excommunication. A couple of years later we got married, and at that time she sought a sealing cancellation -- because an excommunication is not in itself a cancellation -- so we could be married in the temple. The cancellation did not arrive soon enough, and since the Army was about to send me to Europe, it seemed wise to get the marriage done so as to reduce the turmoil of getting her and the rest of the family connected with me so they could join me over there. Accordingly we were married civilly. Coincidentally, President Kimball signed the sealing cancellation on the day of our wedding, and we received it a few days later.

President Kimball's letter announcing the cancellation said specifically that the cancellation did not affect the rights of children previously sealed or born in the covenant to eternal parentage, and stated that in this life at least they could not be sealed to anyone else. It seemed clear to me at the time that the sealing cancellation dealt with the husband-wife sealing, and not the child-parent sealing. The main fact that I took away from this is that the ultimate place of a child in the patriarchal chain was dependent upon justice, mercy, and the will of God. I have considered that if I remain faithful to my covenants that all of their children will be my wife's and mine in the eternity. Her first husband abrogated any rights he had, in the same way that the Lord said that David's wives would be given to another because of his transgression.

In other words, the misbehavior of a parent does not doom a child to loss of blessings that he or she is otherwise entitled to.

This is what I am being told, that the child cannot be sealed to the father. This is bothersome to me.

I understand that the child should not be denied any blessings because of the sins of the parents, but in this type of situation, it seems as if the child has already been taken from his father and given to another.

I have been assured that everything will work out in the end, but it is still bothersome...We can cancel the sealing of a wife to a husband so that she can marry again in the temple, why can't the sealing of a child be transferred to the actual parent?

Why should a child of a current husband be allowed to be sealed to a man that has been out of the picture for almost a decade...especially since the current husband is doing everything right to get to the temple, and get sealed to his wife...and then be told his child can never be sealed to him...

Bothersome is the best way to describe it.

[alter idem]

This is what I am being told, that the child cannot be sealed to the father. This is bothersome to me.

I understand that the child should not be denied any blessings because of the sins of the parents, but in this type of situation, it seems as if the child has already been taken from his father and given to another.

I have been assured that everything will work out in the end, but it is still bothersome...We can cancel the sealing of a wife to a husband so that she can marry again in the temple, why can't the sealing of a child be transferred to the actual parent?

Why should a child of a current husband be allowed to be sealed to a man that has been out of the picture for almost a decade...especially since the current husband is doing everything right to get to the temple, and get sealed to his wife...and then be told his child can never be sealed to him...

Bothersome is the best way to describe it.

I always like to remember that they won't be 'children' in the next life, they will be adults. The sealing power binds God's posterity together through generations--but it's not a matter of force, our agency is always protected.

In this life, where we work under limited knowledge, there are also the feelings of the child to be considered. It may seem unfair to a new husband that he isn't able to be sealed, but children's feelings should also be considered. Oftentimes, even if the biological parent is a jerk or absent, the child still loves them and still hopes for a connection--a good reason for not breaking earlier sealings and just muddying the waters more. And besides, if he is sealed to the mother and she in turn has children sealed to her, then there is a connection there that IMO, is a bond which is recognized in Heaven.

Personally, I'll trust that God knows what he's doing and his appointed authorities on earth do his will.

[JAHS]

It seems very odd to not be able to seal a child to his father, rather to have him sealed to someone who is not even a part of his life. There must be more than you are saying because it does matter who children are sealed to...otherwise the family unit doesn't mean much

The family unit means a lot for us in this life, but in the next life, those who have been sealed and are exalted in the Celestial kingdom are all going to be members of the same eternal family of God. That is the family unit that is eternal. So as long as a child is sealed to someone in this life, if both he and both fathers(who are also sealed to someone) obtain exaltaion they will all be sealed to each other in God's family unit. And each will have their own eternal companion to whom they are sealed. Each couple will go on to be gods of their own universes.

[rodheadlee]

If my wife were to die and we are not sealed yet can we still be sealed by proxy?

[LeSellers]

If my wife were to die and we are not sealed yet can we still be sealed by proxy?

Absolutely.

You would act on your own behalf, and a proxy would for her.

Lehi

[rodheadlee]

Absolutely.

You would act on your own behalf, and a proxy would for her.

Lehi

Thank You!

[Pahoran]

Let's say a husband dies after getting killed by a drunk driver.

Okay; let's say that. Frankly I'm not sure how that would work; I'd expect him to die at the same time he was killed, but who knows?

Before his death he has five children.

Obviously.

He lived his life faithfully to his family and to the Church. He was sealed to his wife and children in the temple.

A few years after his death, the mother decides she wants to remarry. She also decides that she wants to be sealed to her new husband.

Question: Can she?

Yes.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctor Ninja]

Another thread tainted by Xander (Kevin Graham) with another warning for him. What is that 8 for him now?

Look, I understand he was "invited" for his good deed for defending Juliann, but seriously was it worth all his antagonizing? Free passes eventually expire, well at least I thought so.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So what you're saying is that the woman can be sealed to both men?

Yes.