JLHPROF Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Not so my friend.If a man who is married and sealed to a woman divorces her and marries another, he can have the new wife sealed to him without dissolving the first sealing. He doesn't have two wives, he has one. But he is sealed to two women, one of which is his wife.He is not married to them both at the same time, but he is sealed to them both.Even the church does not recognise him as being married to the first wife in these circumstances. Furthermore, it is possible for a man to be married to someone he isn't sealed to, while at the same time being sealed to other women, to whom he is no longer married. To argue that a sealing equates to marriage is simplistic and unreasonable. There is absolutely no reason why Joseph could not have been married to Emma and sealed to her, while also being sealed to several others. He would still have had only one wife. This is not rocket science. Well, if the priesthood sealing that united them as man and wife is still intact then they are still husband and wife in the eyes of God. What on earth difference could a civil divorce make to an eternal marriage? It means nothing. And the Church SHOULD recognize an intact marriage sealing as representing a marriage. They were pronounced man and wife by priesthood authority. Only priesthood authority can end them being man and wife. (Seal/Lose on earth & in heaven).There is only one ceremony that God recognizes as creating a marital unit and there is only one ceremony that God recognizes as ending it. And it takes place in the temple by priesthood authority. All else is the foolishness of man.
Calm Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) , if the priesthood sealing that united them as man and wife is still intactBut the sealing itself remaining intact depends on their behaviour, not the sealing. They have to live up to the sealing, it is not a guarantee that once a sealing takes place a man and woman are forever together.If a divorce isn't a signal that behaviour is not sustaining a sealing, what is in your view?Only priesthood authority can end them being man and wife. So you are claiming if the man (or woman) abuses the spouse, murders them even, if for some reason no one knows about this and the priesthood sealing is not removed and the murderer continues in a normal life with all the paperwork intact, they have to be seen as married since the sealing was not removed through excommunication or cancelation.I don't buy that if that is what you are really claiming.The idea that two people who don't want to be together are somehow locked in a marriage relationship and have no say over it because someone with priesthood married them makes no sense and turns heaven into an eternal prison. The Holy Ghost has priesthood as well and if he has withdrawn from the relationship, then it is null and void IMO. Edited January 24, 2014 by calmoriah
WmLaw Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Well, if the priesthood sealing that united them as man and wife is still intact then they are still husband and wife in the eyes of God. What on earth difference could a civil divorce make to an eternal marriage? It means nothing. And the Church SHOULD recognize an intact marriage sealing as representing a marriage. They were pronounced man and wife by priesthood authority. Only priesthood authority can end them being man and wife. (Seal/Lose on earth & in heaven).There is only one ceremony that God recognizes as creating a marital unit and there is only one ceremony that God recognizes as ending it. And it takes place in the temple by priesthood authority. All else is the foolishness of man.There is an actual cancellation ceremony? EVERYBODY. Please reread the OP and get back on topic. Start a new thread to debate sealings.
Helen47 Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Imagine if both Joseph and Emma had mobile phones back then.
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 There is an actual cancellation ceremony? A ceremony to the extent that the FP prays about then signs and has delivered the documents cancelling the Sealing.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 The problem is that these were a long time after the fact, and in Utah. Given the prevailing interpretaion by that time, and looking at the Nauvoo period through Utah eyes, they could have been interpreted as marriages.However, some of these same women also stated that some of their children were Joseph's, something which modern DNA research has proved false. So how reliable are these affidavits?CFR for a women that claimed her child was Joseph's with subsequent DNA testing showing that she was incorrect. Sylvia Lyon claimed that Joseph was her daughter Josephine's father. DNA evidence can rule out sons, but it is my understanding that it cannot speak to daughters (at this time) and has certainly not ruled out Josephine.
Calm Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Well, if the priesthood sealing that united them as man and wife is still intact then they are still husband and wife in the eyes of God. What on earth difference could a civil divorce make to an eternal marriage? It means nothing. And the Church SHOULD recognize an intact marriage sealing as representing a marriage. They were pronounced man and wife by priesthood authority. Only priesthood authority can end them being man and wife. (Seal/Lose on earth & in heaven).There is only one ceremony that God recognizes as creating a marital unit and there is only one ceremony that God recognizes as ending it. And it takes place in the temple by priesthood authority. All else is the foolishness of man.So you believe that God sees a woman and man as committing adultery if they are married but she is sealed to another?
JLHPROF Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 So you believe that God sees a woman and man as committing adultery if they are married but she is sealed to another?As per the Mods, started a new thread.
JLHPROF Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 CFR for a women that claimed her child was Joseph's with subsequent DNA testing showing that she was incorrect. Sylvia Lyon claimed that Joseph was her daughter Josephine's father. DNA evidence can rule out sons, but it is my understanding that it cannot speak to daughters (at this time) and has certainly not ruled out Josephine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives#Allegations_of_children_born_to_alleged_polygamous_wives Not definitive, but there you go.
Calm Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 As per the Mods, started a new thread.My apologies to all, missed the mods note. JLHPROF, thank you for doing this.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives#Allegations_of_children_born_to_alleged_polygamous_wives Not definitive, but there you go.Alan said that multiple women in Brigham's time claimed to have had Joseph's children. He went on to say that DNA testing had proven this false. I am aware that DNA testing has been done on many potential children of Joseph Smith and in every case where the results were definitive, the results have indicated that Joseph was not the father. What I am unaware of is any child that meets this from Alan: "some of these same women also stated that some of their children were Joseph's, something which modern DNA research has proved false. So how reliable are these affidavits?"
Recommended Posts