Sealing

[thatjimguy]

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?

 

According what I just read from the post above from President taylor, it's not about the love, but the right to eternal sealing.

[Calm]

Doesn't the living individual have as much right to determine who she wants to be sealed to as the dead husband or do you believe she is more possession than person with agency to decide for herself?

[thatjimguy]

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.

 

Could you link a source please? I would like to see official stuff on that.

[thatjimguy]

Doesn't the living individual have as much right to determine who she wants to be sealed to as the dead husband or do you believe she is more possession than person with agency to decide for herself?

 

If it's like anything else in the church, when you make a covenant, you make a covenant.

 

That being said, I think it will all work out. I'd go by the spirit on the matter. Maybe exceptions are made to individual conditions.

[Calm]

It isn't official yet....it is being reported in numerous places and I personally know one bishop who participated (iirc it amounted to a simple letter of request, so perhaps it is simply a variation on the cancellation request process).

"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"

This sounds like a special case btw...it is not just the case of a widow falling in love with a good man, but intentional deception...someone using their own priesthood standing to persuade the widow to be sealed to him to better their situation...how else would it affect exaltation. There is some discussion about women being released from their sealing by their husband to be resealed to a man a man with a higher priesthood to apparently received what was then believed to be a higher exaltation (much like how they were adopting themselves to men with perceived higher priesthood to add to both exaltation...I have heard it reported there was a case where they argued who should be adopted to whom, each arguing they had higher standing). I am wondering if this is a related issue. If so, the change in doctrine that has removed this priesthood hierarchy and replaced it with actual family connections should make us cautious about any claims based on such reasoning.

So if JLHPROF is using this to demonstrate that remarriages are invalid, what he is really claiming is that having a cancellation is invalid it would seem as living women weren't given the option of multiple sealings in the past so that circumstance is unlikely to have been what was referred to. It seems to me that John Taylor was referring to a case of deception. It is also possible that in the past cancelations of sealings was not allowed save in the case of excommunications...will have to check.

Edited January 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If it's like anything else in the church, when you make a covenant, you make a covenant.

That being said, I think it will all work out. I'd go by the spirit on the matter. Maybe exceptions are made to individual conditions.

But you can be released from covenants if they are no longer appropriate...for example, missionaries commit to serving full time, but when they have fulfilled that calling, they are released from that covenant. Individuals whose spouses refuse to allow them to pay tithing are not penalised even though in a technical sense they are violating their covenant because they are living it to the best of their ability. Exceptions are constantly being given, covenants being adapted for the weakest of the Saint so to speak. I know of an individual who was baptised though he smoked constantly. He was given clearance because his doctors told him not to quit as it would kill him to do so, plus it was a major part of his pain management...he would have had to take much more dangerous drugs to replace the ease it gave him. He was in such a delicate balance of health any change would be such a shock to his system, it would likely be deadly. The bishop and mission president agreed and he underwent baptism at the local hospital's therapy pool (he was wheelchaired bound). He died three months later. I never heard any regret from the leaders for their decision, he was a wonderful man and a wonderful Saint and an inspiration to all who fulfilled his covenant to the best of his ability.

As Christ said, the Sabbath (and all of the gospel) is made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

Edited January 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[thatjimguy]

But you can be released from covenants if they are no longer appropriate...for example, missionaries commit to serving full time, but when they have fulfilled that calling, they are released from that covenant. Individuals whose spouses refuse to allow them to pay tithing are not penalised even though in a technical sense they are violating their covenant because they are living it to the best of their ability. Exceptions are constantly being given, covenants being adapted for the weakest of the Saint so to speak. I know of an individual who was baptised though he smoked constantly. He was given clearance because his doctors told him not to quit as it would kill him to do so, plus it was a major part of his pain management...he would have had to take much more dangerous drugs to replace the ease it gave him. He was in such a delicate balance of health any change would be such a shock to his system, it would likely be deadly. The bishop and mission president agreed and he underwent baptism at the local hospital's therapy pool (he was wheelchaired bound). He died three months later. I never heard any regret from the leaders for their decision, he was a wonderful man and a wonderful Saint and an inspiration to all who fulfilled his covenant to the best of his ability.

As Christ said, the Sabbath (and all of the gospel) is made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

 

Then I would certainly say that going by the spirit on it. Heaven will have it all worked out. Have and show faith that it will be fine.

[Calm]

Then I would certainly say that going by the spirit on it. Heaven will have it all worked out. Have and show faith that it will be fine.

Amen.

[JLHPROF]

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

 

Oh, I tried to bow out of this thread, but I have to respond to this comment at least.  I didn't say that remarriage when the husband was deceased was adultery.  What I said was since she has a husband she's sealed to who passed away, then if she wishes to remarry she NEEDS to be sealed to the new husband for time only.  And if the remarriage is civil only and does not involve a sealing for time then I consider it adultery since she is in violation of the covenant made with her deceased husband across te altar and as part of the law of chastity in the endowment.

[Calm]

Oh, I tried to bow out of this thread, but I have to respond to this comment at least. I didn't say that remarriage when the husband was deceased was adultery. What I said was since she has a husband she's sealed to who passed away, then if she wishes to remarry she NEEDS to be sealed to the new husband for time only. And if the remarriage is civil only and does not involve a sealing for time then I consider it adultery since she is in violation of the covenant made with her deceased husband across te altar and as part of the law of chastity in the endowment.

You never answered that I saw if the man is in the same state, if unsealed when remarried is that adultery for him? Or does the potential of that marriage becoming a sealing give him a pass. Edited January 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

 

 

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).

 

Then there would be an awful lot of excommunicated women.  The church considers a civil marriage a valid marriage no matter who you are.  What you are saying has no relation whatsoever to church practice or belief and it is very offensive to be labeling legally married women as adulterers.

[JLHPROF]

You never answered that I saw if the man is in the same state, if unsealed when remarried is that adultery for him? Or does the potential of that marriage becoming a sealing give him a pass.

 

Then there would be an awful lot of excommunicated women.  The church considers a civil marriage a valid marriage no matter who you are.  What you are saying has no relation whatsoever to church practice or belief and it is very offensive to be labeling legally married women as adulterers.

 

In my opinion anyone, male or female, who has been sealed to an eternal companion is under a covenant to preserve themselves from all others and have agreed to be their partners spouse eternally before God and should be sealed if they wish to remarry anyone with God's approval.

 

I don't see how it is possible to be under that marriage covenant and the law of chastity and remarry outside of the bounds of priesthood sealing without violating those covenants.  And yes, I consider any violation of the marriage covenant with another person to be adultery.

[juliann]

Thank you for the explanation.  However, it is completely outside of what the church teaches and does.  Even bishops are marrying previously married people.  If they are being turned into adulterers, that would make the church an accomplice.

[mercyngrace]

In my opinion anyone, male or female, who has been sealed to an eternal companion is under a covenant to preserve themselves from all others and have agreed to be their partners spouse eternally before God and should be sealed if they wish to remarry anyone with God's approval.

 

I don't see how it is possible to be under that marriage covenant and the law of chastity and remarry outside of the bounds of priesthood sealing without violating those covenants.  And yes, I consider any violation of the marriage covenant with another person to be adultery.

 

I believe I understand how you are approaching the issue, JLHPROF. Divorce is clearly not the celestial law. However, we don't currently live the celestial law so I think the scarlet letter A is a step too far.

 

Consider what Elder Oaks said in the April 2007 GC:

 

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

 

[Calm]

Thank you for the explanation.  However, it is completely outside of what the church teaches and does.  Even bishops are marrying previously married people.  If they are being turned into adulterers, that would make the church an accomplice.

Which implies apparently in JLHPROF's view, the Church leadership is in apostasy (what else would you call it if they are aiding and abetting adultery and violation of the Law of Chastity?)

[JLHPROF]

I believe I understand how you are approaching the issue, JLHPROF. Divorce is clearly not the celestial law. However, we don't currently live the celestial law so I think the scarlet letter A is a step too far.

 

Consider what Elder Oaks said in the April 2007 GC:

Quote

 

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

 

 

Oh, I like that.  That explains the opposing viewpoints I've been encountering.  I guess we were held to a higher standard of "Celestial Marriage" in the early days of the Church than we are today.  Today more allowance is made for our Terrestrial nature.  I thought when we entered into the covenant of Celestial Marriage that we were actually bound to the Celestial standard.  I am glad the Lord allows our hard hearted behavior to be worked on until we become more Celestial in nature.  Perhaps we should all start with a terrestrial (civil) marriage before we are allowed to enter into a Celestial one.

But I agree that the Lord allows for repentance.  I just also believe that we should be following these scriptures:

 

SCRIPTURES

Mark 10:9 -  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Civil Divorce)

Matthew 19:8-9 - He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

See also I Corinthians 10

D&C 131:2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood (meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage).  (Necessity of being sealed)

D&C 132:41-42 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery. (Necessity of being "anointed" to each husband)

 

I really am just following scripture.

Edited January 26, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

In my opinion anyone, male or female, who has been sealed to an eternal companion is under a covenant to preserve themselves from all others and have agreed to be their partners spouse eternally before God and should be sealed if they wish to remarry anyone with God's approval.

 

I don't see how it is possible to be under that marriage covenant and the law of chastity and remarry outside of the bounds of priesthood sealing without violating those covenants.  And yes, I consider any violation of the marriage covenant with another person to be adultery.

So a sealing for time allows a woman to be polyandrously married while living in your view?

[JLHPROF]

So a sealing for time allows a woman to be polyandrously married while living in your view?

 

Yes.  It happened with many of Joseph Smith's wives.

 

I don't know if the sealing for time still features the original form, but in the original the new husband was required to covenant to deliver the wife up to her eternal husband in the resurrection along with any offspring.  They knew that was part of the deal going in.  But perhaps that ordinance has been changed and no longer features this covenant.

[Calm]

I would lie to see a reference for that one, please. Not that it happened, that the ceremony was written so....

Since the sealings to multiple husbands for dead women are identical and for eternity, I assume you consider it likely that these are polyandrous sealings as well.

Edited January 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

I would lie to see a reference for that one, please.

For which point?  Here's one for each:

 

ORDINANCE OF SEALING FOR TIME WITH DECEASED HUSBAND

Letter from Mercy Thompson to Joseph Smith III.The time was appointed, with the consent of all parties, and your father sealed me to your uncle Hyrum for time,in my sister's room, with a covenant to deliver me up in the morning of the resurrection to Robert Blaskel Thompson,with whatever offspring should be the result of that union, at the same time counseling your uncle to build a roomfor me and move me over as soon as convenient, which he did, and I remained there as a wife the same as my sister to the day of his death.  All this I am ready to testify to in thepresence of God, angels and men. * * *                                        MERCY R. THOMPSON."http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=mercy+thompson+%22covenant+to+deliver%22&source=bl&ots=i9j_Bh0srF&sig=55vsy1eWejTaA9orvovGQ2RIZak&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4GPkUvLMCojzqwHOh4HoDA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mercy%20thompson%20%22covenant%20to%20deliver%22&f=false

See also "The Seer" pg 142 for a reference to this covenant.  In fact, let me add it:

But if, previously to marriage for eternity, a woman lose her husband by death and marry a second, and if her first husband was a good man, then it is the duty of her second husband to be married to her for all eternity, notfor himself, but in the name of her deceased husband, while be, himself, can only be married to her for time ; and he is obliged to enter into a covenant to deliver her up with all her children to her deceased husband in the morning of the first resurrection. In this case, the second husband would have no wife only for time, neither could he retain his children in the eternal worlds, for they, according to the law of Heaven, would be given up to the wife and her first husband. Therefore, it would be the duty of the second husband to marry a second wife for time and eternity ; for by marrying her for time, he could raise up an offspring which would bear up his name not only on the earth, but, with their mother, they would be legally his in the resurrection. The husband, in this case, nmst necessarily have two wives living at the same time, or else be deprived of a wife and family in the eternal state.

 

 

JOSEPH SMITH'S WIVES POLYANDROUS SEALINGS FOR TIME

 

A few months after Joseph Smith’s death, Nancy and another six of Joseph’s wives married Heber C. Kimball.  Since the temple had not been completed when Nancy married Joseph, she was re-sealed to him in 1846 in the near complete, but dedicated, Nauvoo temple.  Her husband “for time”, Heber C. Kimball stood proxy for Joseph Smith in this sealing.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/33-NancyWinchester.htm

 

Now I know this isn't a definitive source, but if you read through the Nauvoo Temple Record (the definitive source) there are many records of Joseph's wives being resealed for eternity to Joseph and to the proxy (usually Brigham or Heber) for time.  See "The Nauvoo Endowment Companies" by Anderson.

Edited January 26, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

The first was what I wanted, I know about the sealings themselves. Thank you.

[Calm]

But perhaps that ordinance has been changed and no longer features this covenant.

There is one major problem with your reasoning. There isn't a "sealing for time only" anymore (assuming such marriages were ever called sealings officially). Check your handbook 1 (ask your bishop).

Not only that, but if people get married while waiting for a cancellation, they may have to wait a year (and I don't know if that is the case even) but they are never treated as if they've been committing adultery.

Our Church leaders are hardly shy about calling a sin a sin, why would they be hiding the fact of adultery from everyone.

Marriage in the temple for time only (which is specifically not called a sealing) can only occur between a man who is sealed already and a woman who is sealed already as well both to dead spouses. Your standard would eliminate all unsealed men as legitimate partners for widows or divorced women unless they had cancelled their sealings prior to marriage....thereby forcing the very situation you claimed the sealings were in place to protect, the 'robbing of the dead'.

I find it highly improbable that Church leaders are allowing adultery to happen when the intent is to not cancel aprevious sealing without warning the partners what they were doing or that the doctrine would force a cancelation of a sealing in order for children to have two living parents.

Edited January 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

There is one major problem with your reasoning. There isn't a "sealing for time only" anymore (assuming such marriages were ever called sealings officially). Check your handbook 1 (ask your bishop).

Marriage in the temple for time only (which is specifically not called a sealing) can only occur between a man who is sealed already and a woman who is sealed already as well. Your standard would eliminate all unsealed men as legitimate partners for widows or divorced women unless they had cancelled their sealings prior to marriage....thereby forcing the very situation you claimed the sealings were in place to protect, the 'robbing of the dead'.

I find it highly improbable that Church leaders are allowing adultery to happen when the intent is to not cancel aprevious sealing without warning the partners what they were doing.

 

No wonder we are going to need a 1000 year long millennium with our days devoted to Temple work to untangle the mess we mortals have made of God's family order.  It almost makes me wonder if 1000 years will be enough time to do all the ordinances necessary to get people where they belong in the eternities.