Sealing

[JLHPROF]

But 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?

 

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 The Holy Ghost has priesthood as well and if he has withdrawn from the relationship, then it is null and void IMO.

 

 

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, moved this to a new thread.

 

No, I am not claiming that if a spouse breaks their covenants (or commits a sin like murder or abuse) that the sealing is entact.  I don't buy that either.  Basically, that person has already removed themselves from partaking in that covenant.

Brigham Young also referred to people living together who have estranged affections as adulterers (weird but true).

However, Christ himself said there are only certain reasons for a divorce to be issued.

 

I believe that if a woman is sealed to a husband for eternity and he passes away, that she is still sealed to him and should only be sealed to a new husband for time.  If she has a civil marriage with no sealing at all, then yes, I believe she has comitted adultery (broken her covenants).

 

And my biggest point on sealing that I just can't accept what Alan and others are saying, is that there is only one type of valid "marriage" in Mormonism according to D&C 132 and that is a temple sealed marriage.  If that sealing is still intact and has not been cancelled or violated through sin, then it stands and will stand in the next life.  It cannot be overridden by subsequent sealings or that would be "robbing the dead" which I believe it was BY said you couldn't do.

 

Joseph Smith had plural WIVES, not one wife and a bunch of sealings.  Those sealing ordinances specify that they were wives.

[Calm]

"If she has a civil marriage with no sealing at all, then yes, I believe she has comitted adultery (broken her covenants)."

If so, at that point she is no longer married then by your reasoning and no longer committing adultery.

"If that sealing is still intact and has not been cancelled or violated through sin, then it stands and will stand in the next life"

So you don't believe that choice has anything to do with it? That if two people don't want to be sealed/married, they still have to be unless they are willing to go commit a sin bad enough to remove them as worthy to be sealed?

Edited January 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

 

 

I believe that if a woman is sealed to a husband for eternity and he passes away, that she is still sealed to him and should only be sealed to a new husband for time.  If she has a civil marriage with no sealing at all, then yes, I believe she has comitted adultery (broken her covenants).

 

 

 

This is a little bit heartless though, don't you think.

 

I have a friend who was married for 18 months before her husband passed away from bone cancer.  She was in her early 20s and had no children yet.  

 

Are you really suggesting that she should only marry her next husband for time?  That would mean that she would have to part ways with a man she could be married to for 40+ years at death in favor of a relationship she had for 18 months.  It would also mean foregoing the chance to be sealed to her children (or allowing them to be sealed to anyone as well)?

[Calm]

It also is going much farther than church leadership as they recognise the validity of civil marriages for the here and now (and the inherent value of such relationships which is why we seal those who are not sealed after death as well).

Are church leaders going against the Will of the Lord in doing so? Are they in apostasy on this issue?

Edited January 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[theplains]

I believe that if a woman is sealed to a husband for eternity and he passes away, that she is still sealed to him and should only be sealed to a new husband for time.  If she has a civil marriage with no sealing at all, then yes, I believe she has comitted adultery (broken her covenants).

 

Can the woman be sealed to her second husband or must the deceased husband agree

and somehow communicate back to the bishop to go ahead and annul the first sealing?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

Another question...if the exhusband of a divorced, but still sealed couple remarries is he committing adultery if not sealed to his second wife?

[JLHPROF]

Wow, I didn't think this was such a controversial doctrine I was espousing.  I thought it was basic doctrine based in history, scriptural and prophetic teachings.

For example:

 

JOHN TAYLOR - GENERAL CONFERENCE APRIL 8th 1853.

What would be the position of a man who would take a course to rob his neighbor, or take advantage of him in the case of his legitimacy, which you have heard of this morning? Such a man must be a greater fool than the other. For instance, a good man dies, who has served God in righteousness all his days; the weary wheels of life stand still, and he goes to the world of spirits. He believed in the principles of justice, equity, righteousness, and truth, and that his rights would be held sacred to him by his brethren after he was gone. But some professed man of God comes to his widow, and wants to steal her away from him; he would rob the dead with impunity, under the ostensible garb of justice to her and her dead husband; he will tell her he is doing it out of pure love to them both, and he is going to exalt them in the kingdom of God. We read of the kingdom of God suffering violence; if violence is ever attempted, it is in a case of this kind. It is bad enough to steal from a man his earthly property, his oxen, his cow, his horse, his harness, his wagon wheels, and other paraphernalia; but what think you of a man that would rob the dead of a treasure which he holds the most dear, and prized as the most precious thing he possessed on earth—his affectionate wife! Such a person will assuredly miss his figure.

You will find in the ancient laws of Israel, there were proper rules in relation to these matters; one was, that if a man died without a child, his brother or the nearest relation of the husband should take the widow; and raise up seed to her husband, that his name might be continued in Israel, and not be blotted out. Where did these laws come from? We are told they came from God. But instead of doing this, suppose he should try to steal this woman away, and rob his brother—how would he get along, I wonder, with such a case against him, at the bar of justice? The laws and ordinances that exist in the eternal world have their pattern in the things which are revealed to the children of men on earth. The Priesthood as it exists on the earth is a pattern of things in heaven. As I said in a former part of this discourse, Priesthood is legitimate rule, whether on earth or or in heaven. When we have the true Priesthood on earth, we take it with us into the heavens; it changes not, but continues the same in the eternal world.

We shall know that we have a claim upon our own in the first resurrection; we shall know that our wives and our children will be there to join us, justice will be administered, and we shall have a claim upon them in the eternal world, and that no unprincipled scoundrel will be permitted to set his foot on another, or rob him of his just claims. Why is a woman sealed to a man for time and all eternity? Because there is legitimate power on earth to do it. This power will bind on earth and in heaven; it can loose on earth, and it is loosed in heaven; it can seal on earth, and it is sealed in heaven. There is a legitimate, authorized agent of God upon earth; this sealing power is regulated by him; hence what is done by that, is done right, and is recorded. When the books are opened, everyone will find his proper mate, and have those that belong to him, and everyone will be deprived of that which is surreptitiously obtained.

 

 

 

Just to be clear - agency matters.  If you understand the highest ordinance of the temple (2nd annointings) it involves a woman choosing her eternal companion of her own free will and choice.  Nobody will be forced to stay where they don't want to be.

 

But I stand by what I said.  At some point we need to put off our personal feelings, our mortal perspectives, and focus instead on what God has actually said and what the ordinances actually do.

And I believe that these show that in the next life a woman will only have one eternal husband, but a man may have many eternal wives.  And I also believe that you cannot rob the dead.

 

The most famous story being Henry Jacobs.

 

Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men's shoes to step out of them. "Brother Jacobs," he says, "the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit."

 

Another  example, - perhaps not proof, but an example of what I am saying.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~larsenbrown/Histories/nathanstakerbywilliammarchantstaker.txt

Edited January 25, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Can the woman be sealed to her second husband or must the deceased husband agree

and somehow communicate back to the bishop to go ahead and annul the first sealing?

 

Thanks,

Jim

No, the bishop does not try to communicate with the dead.

It has been reported in recent years that a woman made be sealed to her second husband without cancelling the first (I know personally one bishop who was involved in such a case and have read of several others) if granted permission by the First Presidency, but at this time it is not mentioned in the Handbook.

[Calm]

Just to be clear - agency matters.  If you understand the highest ordinance of the temple (2nd annointings) it involves a woman choosing her eternal companion of her own free will and choice.  Nobody will be forced to stay where they don't want to be.

]

Don't you think in most cases if a woman has chosen to divorce one man and marry another that she has demonstrated her agency in choosing?

A woman who dies, having deeply loved a man, he remarries...has the new wife stolen his love for his dead wife?

[Calm]

The most famous story being Henry Jacobs.

Was this before or after Zina herself made the choice to leave Henry.

I suspect that if you called your wife your property these days, a number of church leaders including the First Presidency might have something to say to you about that.

Edited January 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Don't you think in most cases if a woman has chosen to divorce one man and marry another that she has demonstrated her agency in choosing?

A woman who dies, having deeply loved a man, he remarries...has the new wife stolen his love for his dead wife?

 

Well, yes.  But a faithful LDS woman who has obtained a divorce by choice (not for sin like adultery/abuse) and wishes to be sealed to a new husband instead SHOULD be requesting a cancellation of the first sealing.

 

And as far as the second question, it's not about stealing his love.  It's about legitimacy as Pres. Taylor describes and robbing a man of

his kingdom and heirs.  We have got to get past these romantic notions that don't fit with revealed truth about eternal order.

They may make us feel better but that doesn't make them true.

I didn't come up with these beliefs.  I believe I showed that the prophets taught them.  And I am just stating those doctrines and sustaining these prophets as God's mouthpiece.

Edited January 25, 2014 by JLHPROF

[nebula]

You will find in the ancient laws of Israel, there were proper rules in relation to these matters; one was, that if a man died without a child, his brother or the nearest relation of the husband should take the widow; and raise up seed to her husband, that his name might be continued in Israel, and not be blotted out. Where did these laws come from? We are told they came from God. But instead of doing this, suppose he should try to steal this woman away, and rob his brother—how would he get along, I wonder, with such a case against him, at the bar of justice?

Could someone clarify this for me? This paragraph makes a distinction between a man marrying his dead brother's wife out of respect or in order to steal her away, but I'm not sure I understand the difference. Does it depend on the brother's motivation? How exactly does one "steal" a woman, anyway, short of kidnapping?

[Calm]

Well, yes.  But a faithful LDS woman who has obtained a divorce by choice (not for sin like adultery/abuse) and wishes to be sealed to a new husband instead SHOULD be requesting a cancellation of the first sealing.

 

And as far as the second question, it's not about stealing his love.  It's about legitimacy as Pres. Taylor describes and robbing a man of

his kingdom and heirs.  We have got to get past these romantic notions that don't fit with revealed truth about eternal order.

They may make us feel better but that doesn't make them true.

I didn't come up with these beliefs.  I believe I showed that the prophets taught them.  And I am just stating those doctrines and sustaining these prophets as God's mouthpiece.

In other words, women's ideas about what is theirs don't count and are to be dismissed as emotional and romantic while men's are not...they get to keep their "property" totally to themselves.

The prophets may have taught them. Are they teaching them now? Do you believe in continuing revelation or not? Is it not possible that the current understanding as taught by the prophets is more correct than a former one?

[Calm]

How exactly does one "steal" a woman, anyway, short of kidnapping?

Apparently women don't have enough control over their emotions and reasons to know their own mind and thus a man can force them not to love their dead husband.

Obviously a woman is incapable of loving more than one man at a time while a man can love dozens without there being any interference with his true love for one of them. And to think otherwise is to be overly romantic instead just an observer of human nature.

(yes, I am being sarcastic...but others are not and basically argue this position and yes, this inequality that some promote as doctrine can be a huge issue for many in the Church, I personally think it is false doctrine much like the reasons once given for the Priesthood Ban that have been disavowed by the Church even where some had been taught by 'high ranking' leaders).

Edited January 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

In other words, women's ideas about what is theirs don't count and are to be dismissed as emotional and romantic while men's are not...they get to keep their "property" totally to themselves.

The prophets may have taught them. Are they teaching them now? Do you believe in continuing revelation or not? Is it not possible that the current understanding as taught by the prophets is more correct than a former one?

 

I believe in continuing revelation when I actually see continuing revelation instead of organizational policy change...but that is an issue for another thread.  Revelation comes from God and should be His actual word or instruction on a matter.

 

And PLEASE don't put words in my mouth.  I was not implying that a woman's ideas were to be dismissed as emotional or romantic.  I am saying that we ALL need to follow what God has revealed, whether it makes us feel good or happy or not.  We are all too stuck on whether or not we "like" something and not on whether or not it's how God operates in the eternities.  All I ever want to do is the will of the Lord, and I don't expect it to make me feel good the whole time.

[Calm]

We are all too stuck on whether or not we "like" something and not on whether or not it's how God operates in the eternities..

Not me. I am stuck on "it doesn't make logical sense".

If women aren't property, but free agents who are equal to men in God's eyes who deserve just as many kingdoms and heirs as men do, it makes no sense to put limits on them and no limits on men. Some different treatment is logical based on biological and psychological differences. Cultural differences are not however.

[T-Shirt]

This is a little bit heartless though, don't you think.

 

I have a friend who was married for 18 months before her husband passed away from bone cancer.  She was in her early 20s and had no children yet.  

 

Are you really suggesting that she should only marry her next husband for time?  That would mean that she would have to part ways with a man she could be married to for 40+ years at death in favor of a relationship she had for 18 months.  It would also mean foregoing the chance to be sealed to her children (or allowing them to be sealed to anyone as well)?

Just to clarify.  In the case of woman who is sealed and who's husband dies, if she remarries for time only, any subsequent children born will be born in the covenant, sealed to her and her former husband.

[nebula]

I am saying that we ALL need to follow what God has revealed, whether it makes us feel good or happy or not. We are all too stuck on whether or not we "like" something and not on whether or not it's how God operates in the eternities. All I ever want to do is the will of the Lord, and I don't expect it to make me feel good the whole time.

Treating a person as property is wrong. I know this with such certainty that I could almost say that God himself has assured me of it. I tend to view conscience that way, as an internal communication with God. The most revered religious leader in the world could advise me to go against my conscience, even on pain of eternal damnation, and I wouldn't believe a word of it. I don't think we should discourage anyone from questioning the teachings of religious leaders. If something doesn't sit right with you, if it makes you feel that you're doing something unethical, then it's worthy of scrutiny.

Edited January 25, 2014 by nebula

[Calm]

The most famous story being Henry Jacobs.

]

I knew there was something wrong with that quote. If you are going to make extreme claims, you should use more reliable sources. Using an antimormon source...seriously?

"Critics of the early Saints have, often with glee, latched onto William Hall’s story and used it as a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse, pitting a powerful Brigham Young against a penniless and ill Henry Jacobs, with Zina as some kind of prize for the winner of their imagined contest. It is easy to understand how one might see things that way; it is certainly the way that William Hall portrayed the episode:

At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. “Brother Jacobs,” he says, “the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.”37

The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).

For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the “hundreds” referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either “Zina Jacobs” or “sister Jacobs” as late as June 3, 1847,38 which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.

The diary of William Huntington records only one semi-public and one fully public meeting between May 18 and the first of June. There was a prayer meeting for selected individuals held on May 31,39 and a meeting in the grove near Huntington’s house on June 1 that turned into a “special conference” at which “considerable business” was done.40 There is, however, no record in his diary of any denouncing of his son-in-law by Brigham."

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young

Edited January 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

I believe I will bow out of this particular conversation.  My only interest from the original thread was to express that Joseph's other wives were every bit as much his wives as Emma since they participated in the same exact same sealing ordinance to become his wives.  I was objecting to the notion that they were "sealed but not married".  I don't believe in any such distinction then or now.

 

This discussion has veered into topics I prefer to stay away from discussing since feelings become very riled and raw and the spirit gets a bit lost.

Thank you for your perspectives.

[Calm]

Sorry you are feeling riled and raw. Don't get why you would feel that way, but if you are, you are right to bow out.

[bluebell]

Just to clarify.  In the case of woman who is sealed and who's husband dies, if she remarries for time only, any subsequent children born will be born in the covenant, sealed to her and her former husband.

 

That's right, i had forgotten about that.

 

It really doesn't pay at all to be the husband of a widow who was sealed, does it?  Especially if you are married to her for decades and the first husband was only married to her for months.

 

I think it's really interesting how in the church we actively teach things like "Why would God want us to spend so much time and energy on our families here if they were just going to end at death?" while some members seem to believe that God doesn't care at all about who we love and that spending time and energy on a person doesn't mean squat when it comes to eternity.

[Garden Girl]

 

No, I am not claiming that if a spouse breaks their covenants (or commits a sin like murder or abuse) that the sealing is entact.  I don't buy

I believe that if a woman is sealed to a husband for eternity and he passes away, that she is still sealed to him and should only be sealed to a new husband for time.  If she has a civil marriage with no sealing at all, then yes, I believe she has comitted adultery (broken her covenants).

 

.

I disagree with what I think you are saying here...  Take me, a widow, for example... My husband passed away and I was then sealed to him by proxy... which to me was/is as valid as if it was actually him across the altar from me...  

So, I'm going along in my years of widowhood and I meet a gentleman (LDS or non-LDS), perhaps a widower himself, and we decide to marry and do marry... according to you, we are committing adultery... we and the thousands of other LDS who enter into such marriages...

It makes even less sense when a younger LDS woman is concerned... one like a previous example where she is very young (and sealed to her LDS husband) and has no children yet and her husband dies...  According to you, she is to go throughout life not remarrying or she is committing adultery. 

 

GG

[Garden Girl]

Just to clarify.  In the case of woman who is sealed and who's husband dies, if she remarries for time only, any subsequent children born will be born in the covenant, sealed to her and her former husband.

 

This is something that I do not understand and believe is grossly unfair to the second husband, particularly when there are children born into that union.  I cannot see how this is equitable to that husband so I have to put it aside because I have enough confidence and testimony of temple covenants that I know there will be an answer though I will have to wait...

 

GG

[Calm]

This is something that I do not understand and believe is grossly unfair to the second husband, particularly when there are children born into that union.  I cannot see how this is equitable to that husband so I have to put it aside because I have enough confidence and testimony of temple covenants that I know there will be an answer though I will have to wait...

 

GG

That the First Presidency is now approving multiple sealings for women and men (the second husbands) in this situation indicates to me that doctrine on this is seen by them as having some gaps.