Jump to content

Marriage In Temple For Time Only


Recommended Posts

The current church handbook of instructions (which was written in 2010)  says that the only people that are able to marry in the temple for time only are widows (who are sealed) marrying widowers (who are sealed) who have never been divorced.

 

However, in the past, widows marrying again, and divorced people who could not be sealed yet due to the current sealing they had which had not been cancelled yet were able to marry for time.

 

Does anyone know when this change took place? I have a friend that married in the temple for time before 1998. The policy either changed in the 1998, 2006, or the 2010 handbook. 

 

Thanks!

 

 

Link to comment

The current church handbook of instructions (which was written in 2010)  says that the only people that are able to marry in the temple for time only are widows (who are sealed) marrying widowers (who are sealed) who have never been divorced.

 

The church handbook seems wrong. Are you sure you are reading it correctly?

A female widower cannot be sealed to two men at the same time. The church

does not have the authority to break the sealing to her deceased first husband 

before she is sealed to another living man. But from what I have heard about

Brigham Young, several living women could be sealed to him if authorized by said

church.  They would be his extra wives in the resurrection.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Link to comment

The church handbook seems wrong. Are you sure you are reading it correctly?

A female widower cannot be sealed to two men at the same time. The church

does not have the authority to break the sealing to her deceased first husband 

before she is sealed to another living man. But from what I have heard about

Brigham Young, several living women could be sealed to him if authorized by said

church.  They would be his extra wives in the resurrection.

 

Thanks,

Jim

I think the OP is about marriages for "time only" that take place in the temple.

Link to comment

One more time, women can also be sealed to more than one husband by special permission. 

 

Well, they shouldn't be (in my opinion).  Unless there is uncertainty where they will belong in the next life, it goes against established gospel principles (in my opinion).

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment

Well, they shouldn't be (in my opinion). Unless there is uncertainty where they will belong in the next life, it goes against established gospel principles (in my opinion).

Good thing your opinion on it doesn't matter, or your disagreement with the prophet could be a problem.

:D

Link to comment

Well according to the Church Handbook a living woman can only be sealed to one husband.  If she wishes to be sealed to a second a cancellation of the first sealing must be issued.

A deceased woman with multiple civil marriages in her life will be sealed to all posthumously since her "eternal companion" is not known.  But this does not mean all sealings will stand polyandrously.  It means she gets her choice.

 

Any exceptions to this Church Handbook policy that have been issued, even with approval, seem to go against gospel principles in my opinion.  That's what the handbook says and it agrees with principles in D&C 132.

Link to comment

" But this does not mean all sealings will stand polyandrously. It means she gets her choice."

And yet that explanation was removed, not added....usually that happens to a speculative or false teaching, not actual doctrine from what I've seen.

So since the First Presidency is acting against he Will of God by confirming these second eternal sealings without conditions attached, you need to put them straight before this becomes the defacto practice...for then only you would know what Truth was!

Since the rest of us most likely will believe that given such a significant practice, that our prophets are acting under inspiration from God.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

Well according to the Church Handbook a living woman can only be sealed to one husband. If she wishes to be sealed to a second a cancellation of the first sealing must be issued.

A deceased woman with multiple civil marriages in her life will be sealed to all posthumously since her "eternal companion" is not known. But this does not mean all sealings will stand polyandrously. It means she gets her choice.

Any exceptions to this Church Handbook policy that have been issued, even with approval, seem to go against gospel principles in my opinion. That's what the handbook says and it agrees with principles in D&C 132.

And again, it's a good thing your opinion doesn't matter at all.

The prophet of the church has authorized some sealers to use the sealing power to bind some women to more than one man so that she is sealed, on earth and in heaven, to multiple husbands.

Handbook policy aside.

:)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Kenngo1969
      It was not unexpected, because she had been rather seriously ill for some time, but it was, alas, premature.  (After all, this was the woman my brother had hoped to grow old with, to serve a second mission together with [they met as missionaries in the then-Italy-Catania Mission, but, no, in case you're wondering [as if it's anyone's business! ] nothing developed romantically until he came home and she came to the States], and so on.)  Those closest to her are experiencing a mix of grief and relief ... grief at her passing, relief that she no longer is suffering.
      I know we have some widowers here on the Board.  I'm not sure what to say beyond the typical, the standard, the (alas!) seemingly wholly inadequate.  
      "Welcome back to The Bachelors Club!" ... no doubt is so incredibly, completely, indubitably, inanely, insensitively out.  (Of course, our situations are completely different: Less like "apples-and-oranges" and more like "apples-and-Buicks": Personally, I think whoever said, "It is better to have loved and lost" [which applies to him] "than never to have loved at all" [which, perhaps, applies to me] was a complete, utter, total moron.)
      Thoughts?
       
×
×
  • Create New...