This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[canard78]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, actually, I don't say it is as a way of covering the bases for the eternities, though I know many approach it that way.

I think sealings have meaning, all sealings, until covenants are broken and that doesn't occur any more because a woman marries more than one man than a man marries more than one woman.  I am certain based on the current revelation that polyandry exists eternally if polygyny exists.  It is only logical.

The Handbook used to say the sealings took place when they started to allow multiple proxy sealings, but the woman would be choosing which one was the eternal one.  That has been removed.  No current doctrinal or policy statement saying a choice will be made exists (save for old articles being posted) in my understanding.

I think that is very significant.

That is interesting indeed. 

I was chatting with someone a couple of nights ago. He was born catholic but hasn't been religiously minded for about 20 years (since his teens). His wife left Mormonism in her mid-teens too. He was curious to understand the Mormon concept of eternity (as she could remember the details).

I couched my explanation in the context of it being something that has an "old" convention and an emerging one. I found it much easier to explain the vision of eternity that I was raised with: I started with the spirit prison/paradise principle, then the millenium, final judgement and then three degrees of glory. I went onto the idea that marriages & families can be eternal (in CK). He wanted to know "what next" so I explained the belief that men can become gods (if married and exalted to the celestial kingdom), women can become goddesses (if married, etc) and might be one of several women married to their husband. This came up because the ex-mormon woman's mum is in a slightly tricky situation (names chagned):

• Louise temple married Ron in the 70s. They had several children, which includes the ex-mormon woman mentioned above. They divorced in the 90s (which included a sealing annulment). Ron left the church.
• Jack temple married Karen in the 70s. They also divorced in the 90s, but only a civil divorce. They didn't annul their sealing. Both remained active.
• Louise and Jack met in the 00s and married (both civilly and in sealed). She accepted at the time that Jack was still sealed to Karen and accepted the possibility of being in an eternal polygamous relationship
• Jack died recently. The ex-catholic I was chatting to was trying to understand why his mother-in-law (Louise) didn't want to remarry. I explained that she had probably been taught that living Mormon women could not be sealed to two men at the same time. She'd had to end her first sealing to Ron to be able to then be sealed to Jack and would need to annul the sealing to Jack if she wanted to marry a third time.

Are you saying that church doctrine or policy is now different? That "Louise" could actually marry a third time and be sealed to that man too? My understanding is that "Karen" has already remarried, but isn't sealed to the new husband for the same reasons stated above. I've another friend (who is active) who's mother is a widow. Her widowed mother later married another man. She is in the process of considering annulling her first sealing as she has been told she can't be sealed to the second (who, she feels, is the one she'd want to be with for eternity... which is obviously causing her kids some distress).

My point is that if this is a change in policy or doctrine, it doesn't seemed to have "reached the pews" yet as two different LDS widows that I know are convinced otherwise.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Any specific ones you would recommend?

This one comes to mind: https://www.mormonwomen.com/sunday-school-supplements/

Also, pertaining to my pet peeve of men speaking for women, here is a wonderful account of Elder Bednar modeling how to answer questions about women. He turned the question over to a ..... woman.  http://seekthesilver.blogspot.com/2017/01/weak-things-become-strong.html

Quote

 

A few questions in, Elder Bednar looked at his iPad, and then turned to me from the pulpit. "Chloe, would you help me?"  he asked. "Not a command, but an invitation," he added. "Sure," I said, my mind racing through the possible reasons for his request. I walked towards the pulpit, but stole glances into the audience looking for a friend to share the moment with. As I arrived, we shared a brief smile, and I felt more confident in my second "sure" to Elder Bednar's "You ready?" 

 

He proceeded to read a question from his iPad: "How can we, as disciples of Christ, make sure women feel valued and important in our wards and with church callings?" He finished the question, looked to me, and sat down. 

 

 

[canard78]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not advocate women being ordained and I also advocate that men and women are complimentary and I advocate traditional sex roles in the family if the couple chooses to take that step.  I agree that men and women are different but equally and naturally have different roles, which of course can be changed IF desired by individuals in the exercise of their agency.  The roles have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and were essential to the emergence of the family which was clearly an absolute necessity for the survival of the species as we know it.

I believe that benevolent patriarchy as I have discussed above, is part of the complimentary roles which should prevail between men and women unless they decide for themselves to do otherwise.

These are not "policies" to be changed over night, they are part of the essential and deep doctrine of the church as shown in the Proclamation.

No, I cannot imagine Mormonism being Mormonism without acknowledging sex differences because I think such differences are scientifically obvious. 

On the other hand, each should choose their own way and most certainly men and women should be treated socially equal in every way to enable them to make their own choices for themselves.   Under no circumstances should women be intimidated, dominated, or objectified by men, but always treated as equals who have different natural roles.

If that is "sexism" then so be it.

 

You sound like a progressive guy

I want to pick up on something. You've talked about scientific differences. What are we talking about? Biological? Physiological? Or cultural? There are clearly some biological differences between men and women. The presence of a womb for example! 

The fact that a woman carries the baby for 9 months and the fact that men evolved to be physically stronger means that historically, certain "natural roles" have emerged. But in today's era of tech-enabled lifestyles, those differences are less and less relevant. A woman can work through pregnancy (when historically she was less able to) and a woman doesn't need to be with the baby to feed it. The "nurturer" / "provider" roles are now completely cultural. There is no physiological reason why a man should be providing for the family and the woman nurturing the family. 

It is a principle of doctrine in Mormonism that the man presides and it is also a strongly pushed recommendation that the man also provides. If men and women are equal, the principle of "presiding" should be removed entirely. An equal couple should not need a presiding party within that.

Quote

 

I honestly believe that women have their own priesthood the details of which have not yet been revealed, but hinted at, in different talks and events throughout Mormon history.

Whether that will entail women becoming bishops is unknown at this time, but I certainly think they would make very good ward leaders, if called "bishop" or not-  if it goes that way.

I suppose it is sexist to say that I think women have a special talent at being compassionate and tend to seek consensus in their leadership, which are definitely extremely important in ward leadership and counseling, which are both requirements for a good bishop.  Again, if our culture calls that "sexist", or politically incorrect, I will not apologize for it.

 

I'm glad you believe it. I think more Mormons need to believe it before the prophet will reveal it. I think that seems to be the way Mormon revelations work in the 20th and 21st century... not the other way round.

I agree that women tend to have different characteristics, but that might be an evolution of cultural influences on historical roles. I don't think it's sexist to recognise that often men and women have common differences and similarities, but I do think it's sexist to then assume that different roles should be filled because of that.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, canard78 said:

That is interesting indeed. 

I was chatting with someone a couple of nights ago. He was born catholic but hasn't been religiously minded for about 20 years (since his teens). His wife left Mormonism in her mid-teens too. He was curious to understand the Mormon concept of eternity (as she could remember the details).

I couched my explanation in the context of it being something that has an "old" convention and an emerging one. I found it much easier to explain the vision of eternity that I was raised with: I started with the spirit prison/paradise principle, then the millenium, final judgement and then three degrees of glory. I went onto the idea that marriages & families can be eternal (in CK). He wanted to know "what next" so I explained the belief that men can become gods (if married and exalted to the celestial kingdom), women can become goddesses (if married, etc) and might be one of several women married to their husband. This came up because the ex-mormon woman's mum is in a slightly tricky situation (names chagned):

• Louise temple married Ron in the 70s. They had several children, which includes the ex-mormon woman mentioned above. They divorced in the 90s (which included a sealing annulment). Ron left the church.
• Jack temple married Karen in the 70s. They also divorced in the 90s, but only a civil divorce. They didn't annul their sealing. Both remained active.
• Louise and Jack met in the 00s and married (both civilly and in sealed). She accepted at the time that Jack was still sealed to Karen and accepted the possibility of being in an eternal polygamous relationship
• Jack died recently. The ex-catholic I was chatting to was trying to understand why his mother-in-law (Louise) didn't want to remarry. I explained that she had probably been taught that living Mormon women could not be sealed to two men at the same time. She'd had to end her first sealing to Ron to be able to then be sealed to Jack and would need to annul the sealing to Jack if she wanted to marry a third time.

Are you saying that church doctrine or policy is now different? That "Louise" could actually marry a third time and be sealed to that man too? My understanding is that "Karen" has already remarried, but isn't sealed to the new husband for the same reasons stated above. I've another friend (who is active) who's mother is a widow. Her widowed mother later married another man. She is in the process of considering annulling her first sealing as she has been told she can't be sealed to the second (who, she feels, is the one she'd want to be with for eternity... which is obviously causing her kids some distress).

My point is that if this is a change in policy or doctrine, it doesn't seemed to have "reached the pews" yet as two different LDS widows that I know are convinced otherwise.

Policy has not officially changed for living women, only dead.  In explaining dead women being allowed to be sealed to multiple men instead of just one, the Handbook had the 'only one sticks' clause.  That is what was removed and is not in any currently published official publication that is not a "library" holding older articles.

while official policy has not changed for living women, there are exceptions granted Where no cancellation is required for a second sealing and no explanation this is just pretend until she chooses which one.

And when one refuses a sealing to a woman, you are refusing it to a man...so if there is something that allows men to have multiple sealings if they are worthy of the women they love...if more than one man lives her and she is worthy, itfollows she gets to be sealed to both.

-----

In the 50 so years I have been aware of temple procedures being different for men and women, as time goes on, I see more and more of the procedure differences removed.  Outside of the priesthood (which is both hugely different and hugely the same and beautiful in both, in my opinion there are only a few left and this is likely the one to go next, having men and women being given the same procedures (either canceling all but one or allowing all...without an explanation attached...unless revelation comes).  Even if there is a need to choose, in reality that need to choose exists in each and every marriage.  In the final judgment, we are choosing who to become, what role we will be.  Of course being married in righteousness eternally will be part of that reappraisal. 

Not saying rituals should be identical, I am referring to policies about the rituals and who gets to partake.  Having the ordinances they already participate in as fully open to women as men makes sense to me.

[Calm]

My understanding is exceptions are usually granted for widows wanting to remarry, haven't heard of any for divorced women, don't think that it is needed as at least one of the couple had severed their marriage covenant, but understand many see them as still sealed including the Church.  And even women happy with the divorce may want the sealing 'intact' so as to reassure the kids.  If the woman is interested in not cancelling it, she may be able to persuade her bishop to write a letter to the FP requesting for an exception to be made.  If not, maybe a letter asking if it is possible as exceptions had been shared online and the bishop wants more info.  If the Bishop isn't willing appeal to the SP.  If he isn't, (people are so convinced of the old reasoning, they see it as useless I suspect), maybe write herself.  Do research online and try and find one of the women who has been sealed twice and ask advice.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"Under no circumstances should women be intimidated, dominated, or objectified by men, but always treated as equals who have different natural roles."

Do you realize by saying that women in the end need to allow their husbands to have the final say because they preside, equality cannot exist as women will end up having to set aside their own conclusions and accept their husband's as their own at least some of the time, losing their voice in the relationship in that moment...not by reason or inspiration, but decree (and if disagreement occurs ever....which it will, then it means the wife can only be 'less than' in the relationship overall because if they agree the decision is his version even if it hers as well, so he is always dominant and she is only sometimes 'equal'....there is no inherent balance)?  It is more of an employer/employee relationship than an equal partnership.

If disagreement occurs, there needs to be a different way of resolving it than an automatic default to the husband making the decision.  Otherwise the only value a wife's opinion has is the value the husband gives it, her "way" will only occur if it is also "his way " while his is always the family position in the end no matter how much more relevant the wife's might be in certain situations.  It is all well and good to say in a wise husband will accept his wife's position when appropriate and make it his own, but we are talking about situations where disagreement occurs and his "wisdom" is saying she is wrong.  If the default position is that he gets to pull rank and his decision is the final say, where is there any motivation for him to work at understanding and compromise?  He can reason to himself he is doing what is best and his wife will come around when she sees the result.

Evolution has also given humans awareness and ability to judge who is more capable as well as our current social structures.  Taught us to be adaptive as well.  A couple can adapt to the awareness women are now taught to have of relationship dynamics and imbalances.  Men can take the time to learn of them as well, though it can be hard for both to 'get' the other' situation if they haven't been in similar roles.

If the couple approaches discussion on that basis, that they have different strengths and weaknesses and can learn from each other, including by trading roles so they can learn to see what the other experiences---the pressures and necessities as well as the benefits---and they decide ahead of time to weight a wife's opinion heavier in certain circumstances just as they weight the husband's in other, then the husband has the motivation of proving he can be trusted to continue to work at understanding when it is important to him for his choice to become her choice (just as a wife would expected to do so every time if the husband was the final authority, but the husband would not) as does the wife in the cases she might have natural dominance for some reason (better paying job usually, more assertive personality).  

Having both equally working to be understood and for their ideas to be accepted by the other will result in better communication than if it is only inherently required for one of the party (the wife) to be persuasive, so that during stressful times...often the crucial times when agreement is key to not driving wedges between the couple...the husband doesn't decide that it is okay to take short cuts, because once he does likely he will begin to rationalize them at other times until it often becomes SOP as they age and become more set in their ways and it is harder to keep their mind open.

l saw this happen with my parents.  The understanding was traditional roles, with Dad presiding in the sense of final say (and Mom made it clear we would all be toast if he was too stressed and died...her father died in his sixties, Mom looked on it as more of a choice to leave than a weak heart).  When I was younger though, they discussed everything together and made joint decisions with Mom's desires equal if not greater than Dad's because Dad was very happy with the outcome; but as they got older, Dad got more tired and less patient and didn't want to take the time to explain things to Mom and started tuning Mom's input out when he felt it wasn't needed until he was making pretty much all decisions on his own, including two major moves and where to move to without input from Mom...she was just expected to sign stuff where he told her.  He was thinking of her needs as he knew them, to him that was enough.  Actually finding out what she wanted took too much time.  She could only have an impact by refusing to accept a decision after it had been put into place and she became aware of it....which just made him more certain she shouldn't be involved, only allowed to initiate in very limited roles that he determined...like furniture shopping).  By the time he died, he had trained her into a state of negative helplessness in a huge part of her life (she would either refuse to decide at all or put it off or just refuse period) so that the shock of being without him shut down the rest of her positive decision making skills and I and my brother have had to takeover that part of her life.  Thankfully she is starting to take more interest in choosing things for herself (thank goodness for the Internet and catalogs) and I am not having to guess at what clothes she might like or the kind of quilt she needs, only to end up having to take them back or more often take them to DI as she has altered stuff trying to make do as she was required by Dad in later years.  Dad's attitude towards decision making did not help Mom feel he respected her, but rather made her in the end feel he was using her like a familiar coat and she meant as much to him as having a dog around.  I had to constantly remind her to hold on to what they used to have and trust that bond.  And now she is questioning whether she wants eternal marriage to him even though 'she really liked him when they were young'.  So now I push the idea the drugs and medical issues were the problem, though it was more his selfcenteredness and emotional laziness that became too much of a habit that was a problem.  Her disappointment and frustration to not being listened to in so many things made her overreact and believe he listened to her in nothing.  And in defense she stopped listening to him.  Which made him close off more.  It was heartbreaking and shocking to watch; though their love was strong, they weren't liking each other very much towards the end because they both felt the other was being unfair and just couldn't see how they were often behaving the same way.  When they moved into a senior center, Mom sent back the couch and chairs because of a small flaw and they were living without anything to sit on to talk together or just be with each other and instead each was in their own rooms, laying on their beds with TV, laptop,or books...except at meals when they would talk with others in the dining area.

Grateful I believe this will all be healed and their marriage doesn't have to end on a low note, when it was so wonderful and dynamic for so long.  And that I believe these bad habits can be avoided if they are never given a reason to begin by suggesting that one partner has more authority or decision making 'weight' in the relationship than the other....though my problem is more getting my husband to be involved in more decisions than just the ones he is interested in and forcing myself to do the same.  That might have the same result in the end if we are not careful.

One thing occurred to me while I mulled this as I put away groceries: the specific covenant we make as wives in the temple: doesn't it put us in a position to judge our husband's righteousness?  Furthermore, doesn't it make our acquiesquence to their presiding contingent upon it being righteous?

How does this effect the roles?

Edited January 3, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Rain]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

This one comes to mind: https://www.mormonwomen.com/sunday-school-supplements/

Also, pertaining to my pet peeve of men speaking for women, here is a wonderful account of Elder Bednar modeling how to answer questions about women. He turned the question over to a ..... woman.  http://seekthesilver.blogspot.com/2017/01/weak-things-become-strong.html

 

Thank you!

[Jeanne]

This may or may not pertain to the subject at hand..but I am hoping that some of you here may be able to relieve a little of my own anxiety about something I found out just yesterday from my baby brother...who is in his late 40's and getting ready to marry for the 3rd time.  His first marriage was in the Temple..(the one my mother could not attend)..anyway, the marriage lasted over 12 years or so and then it became apparent that things were not to go well.  They divorced civilly but Temple marriage still intact.  During the next 5 years after the divorce, their oldest son died in a car accident.  He was just getting ready to put in his paperwork for his mission...now..they divorced but stilled sealed right???  During this time, my brother was in his second marriage, a very nice LDS school teacher but not sealed...they divorced after my nephew passed away.  Now.................ugh...are they still sealed?  My brother is waiting on paperwork from the brethren/ward to remarry a 3rd time..this time in the Temple.  Now..this is breaking my former sister-in-law's heart..will she lose..will my brother lose ..the sealing to their son???  In LDS theology here...what happens..my sister-in-law will probably never remarry...and I love her still as a sister.  My bro...I would like to kind of kick is butt....but that it is no my call and pardon the expression..but this whole thing is sad if you are a believer of this...who gets my nephew...is my brother going to have two wives...or is my sister-in-law going to give up said covenants at the risk of losing her son?   See...this is how she is looking at it.    Sorry if this is off topic here...but women don't get to have a big voice in this ...do they??

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This may or may not pertain to the subject at hand..but I am hoping that some of you here may be able to relieve a little of my own anxiety about something I found out just yesterday from my baby brother...who is in his late 40's and getting ready to marry for the 3rd time.  His first marriage was in the Temple..(the one my mother could not attend)..anyway, the marriage lasted over 12 years or so and then it became apparent that things were not to go well.  They divorced civilly but Temple marriage still intact.  During the next 5 years after the divorce, their oldest son died in a car accident.  He was just getting ready to put in his paperwork for his mission...now..they divorced but stilled sealed right???  During this time, my brother was in his second marriage, a very nice LDS school teacher but not sealed...they divorced after my nephew passed away.  Now.................ugh...are they still sealed?  My brother is waiting on paperwork from the brethren/ward to remarry a 3rd time..this time in the Temple.  Now..this is breaking my former sister-in-law's heart..will she lose..will my brother lose ..the sealing to their son???  In LDS theology here...what happens..my sister-in-law will probably never remarry...and I love her still as a sister.  My bro...I would like to kind of kick is butt....but that it is no my call and pardon the expression..but this whole thing is sad if you are a believer of this...who gets my nephew...is my brother going to have two wives...or is my sister-in-law going to give up said covenants at the risk of losing her son?   See...this is how she is looking at it.    Sorry if this is off topic here...but women don't get to have a big voice in this ...do they??

So her concern is that if her sealing with her previous husband (your brother) is cancelled then she is no longer sealed to her son? 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So her concern is that if her sealing with her previous husband (your brother) is cancelled then she is no longer sealed to her son? 

Right...and if he is waiting for her to sign papers to disolve a Temple marriage...it is very hard for her...and the polygamy also...is there a choice that leaves her with a sister wife??

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Right...and if he is waiting for her to sign papers to disolve a Temple marriage...it is very hard for her...and the polygamy also...is there a choice that leaves her with a sister wife??

Well according to some thinkers in the LDS world he'll be part of the decision whether she'll make it the exaltation or not anyway. 

I'm not trying to make light of this.  It is a weird way the Church as spun sealings to me, which causes all sorts of emotional problems for those involved.  For me I try to go away from the eternal families thing and see all of in the human race a family sealed all together to each other.  Thus, for those who make it will all be sealed to each other anyway.  But it's the "those who make it" part that most troubles me now. 

[Calm]

Sealings to the children remain intact no matter what happens to the sealing between the parents, the kids do not "go" with one or the other.  I can find you an official statement, but if you site search sealings and children it should bring up a statement in the Ensign and likely elsewhere addressing that.

Whether or not she decides to be sealed to another, she will always be able to choose whether she wants to be in a polygamous relationship eternally. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well according to some thinkers in the LDS world he'll be part of the decision whether she'll make it the exaltation or not anyway. 

I'm not trying to make light of this.  It is a weird way the Church as spun sealings to me, which causes all sorts of emotional problems for those involved.  For me I try to go away from the eternal families thing and see all of in the human race a family sealed all together to each other.  Thus, for those who make it will all be sealed to each other anyway.  But it's the "those who make it" part that most troubles me now. 

Thanks for your reply.  In my own mind, she is more worthy than my brother..sad but true.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sealings to the children remain intact no matter what happens to the sealing between the parents, the kids do not "go" with one or the other.  I can find you an official statement, but if you site search sealings and children it should bring up a statement in the Ensign and likely elsewhere addressing that.

Whether or not she decides to be sealed to another, she will always be able to choose whether she wants to be in a polygamous relationship eternally. 

Thanks Calm...I was worried about how she would deal with this.  I hope she is counseled that her son would be with her also.  This is really messed up..IMO

[Calm]

You can send her a link yourself if she needs the comfort.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks Calm...I was worried about how she would deal with this.  I hope she is counseled that her son would be with her also.  This is really messed up..IMO

Yes, the policies around sealing in the face of divorce need some more thought. 

[Calm]

Here are two hits (you need to include divorce too, I forgot:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/12/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/08/to-the-point/if-my-parents-were-sealed-in-the-temple-and-then-got-divorced-which-one-am-i-sealed-to?lang=eng

"For Latter-day Saint children of divorce, questions like this can add to the sadness and uncertainty that divorce brings. But here’s a fact you need to know: children can be sealed to only two parents. So if you were born to your parents after they were sealed in the temple (born in the covenant) or were sealed to them in the temple yourself, you are still sealed to them—both of them—even after a divorce. This is true even if your parents’ temple sealing to each other is canceled. The important thing to remember is that Heavenly Father loves all of you and wants the best for you, both now and in eternity. If you keep your covenants, your relationships in the next life will be fair and right. You can seek peace in these matters by praying and, if you feel you need extra support, by counseling with your bishop."

Not impressed with this answer because by trying to add an explanation, it adds the complication of what happens to the sealing if one parent is unworthy.

[Calm]

This one has a quote from the General Handbook.  It may be phrased different in the newer version, but teaches the same:

"Answer/Elder James A. Cullimore

As to the first question, “What happens when a couple gets a temple divorce?” we should understand that there is no such thing as a temple divorce. What we refer to as a temple divorce is in fact a cancellation of a temple sealing. When a couple is married in the temple, they not only satisfy the law of the land as to a legal civil marriage, but they are also sealed for time and all eternity in an eternal relationship.

A civil divorce nullifies the marriage so far as the civil law is concerned, but only by a mandate of the president of the Church can the sealing of the couple be cancelled. A cancellation of the sealing is what we are really referring to when we talk about a temple divorce.

When one has been granted a civil divorce after his temple sealing, he must be cleared by the First Presidency before he can be granted a temple recommend by his bishop. After a divorce clearance has been granted by the First Presidency, an application for a cancellation of the temple sealing might be made to the president of the Church. Normally it is the woman who seeks a cancellation of sealing. Since a woman cannot be sealed to two men at the same time, she must have a cancellation of sealing from one before she can be sealed to another.

As to the next question, “What happens to the children in the next life when there has been a cancellation of sealing of the parents?” it is understood that in the case of a cancellation of the sealing of the woman to the man, this does not cancel the sealing of the children to the parents, since they were born in the covenant, which is a birthright blessing. They remain in the status of the sealing to their parents and can never be sealed to anyone else. The decision as to with whom they will go will be determined by the Lord in the hereafter.

Regarding being born in the covenant the General Handbook of Instructions states, “Children born in the covenant cannot be sealed to anyone, but belong to their natural parents. This rule is not altered by adoption, consent of the natural parents, request of the child after becoming of age or death of the natural parents.” (P. 101.)

It should be kept in mind that to be born in the covenant is a birthright blessing, and that if a child remains worthy in this life of celestial blessings, regardless of the actions of his parents, he is assured of that birthright and is guaranteed eternal parentage. One’s worthiness in this life through living the gospel and keeping the commandments, in this as in all things, is the key to eternal life."

Edited January 3, 2017 by Calm

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

This one has a quote from the General Handbook.  It may be phrased different in the newer version, but teaches the same:

"Answer/Elder James A. Cullimore

As to the first question, “What happens when a couple gets a temple divorce?” we should understand that there is no such thing as a temple divorce. What we refer to as a temple divorce is in fact a cancellation of a temple sealing. When a couple is married in the temple, they not only satisfy the law of the land as to a legal civil marriage, but they are also sealed for time and all eternity in an eternal relationship.

A civil divorce nullifies the marriage so far as the civil law is concerned, but only by a mandate of the president of the Church can the sealing of the couple be cancelled. A cancellation of the sealing is what we are really referring to when we talk about a temple divorce.

When one has been granted a civil divorce after his temple sealing, he must be cleared by the First Presidency before he can be granted a temple recommend by his bishop. After a divorce clearance has been granted by the First Presidency, an application for a cancellation of the temple sealing might be made to the president of the Church. Normally it is the woman who seeks a cancellation of sealing. Since a woman cannot be sealed to two men at the same time, she must have a cancellation of sealing from one before she can be sealed to another.

As to the next question, “What happens to the children in the next life when there has been a cancellation of sealing of the parents?” it is understood that in the case of a cancellation of the sealing of the woman to the man, this does not cancel the sealing of the children to the parents, since they were born in the covenant, which is a birthright blessing. They remain in the status of the sealing to their parents and can never be sealed to anyone else. The decision as to with whom they will go will be determined by the Lord in the hereafter.

Regarding being born in the covenant the General Handbook of Instructions states, “Children born in the covenant cannot be sealed to anyone, but belong to their natural parents. This rule is not altered by adoption, consent of the natural parents, request of the child after becoming of age or death of the natural parents.” (P. 101.)

It should be kept in mind that to be born in the covenant is a birthright blessing, and that if a child remains worthy in this life of celestial blessings, regardless of the actions of his parents, he is assured of that birthright and is guaranteed eternal parentage. One’s worthiness in this life through living the gospel and keeping the commandments, in this as in all things, is the key to eternal life."

Thanks for all of this.  I want to read it again..but it sounds like my nephew will still be okay with both parents...that is, if his mother is sealed again to someone else for exaltation..or she does not sign for a Temple divorce..but it another wife.  Correct me...please.  In any case, my brother comes out on top..I love my bro..but he has no right to do this to her..IMO.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

One thing occurred to me while I mulled this as I put away groceries: the specific covenant we make as wives in the temple: doesn't it put us in a position to judge our husband's righteousness?  Furthermore, doesn't it make our acquiesquence to their presiding contingent upon it being righteous?

How does this effect the roles?

I think there will eventually be changes to the archaic wording. I think the more recent interpretations of women being able to determine if their husband is making righteous choices is an afterthought, an attempt to justify the unequal position of the wife. It is question begging, actually. It assumes that there is a situation in which a husband would have to step down from his presiding role. It also assumes there is a policy/ procedure for such that a wife could rely on, there isn't. Such an occurrence is, in actuality, a marital argument and little more. 

When this wording was created, men were in charge. Period. They had social, legal, and political control of women, and there were consequences to women who stepped out of line. I don't see any way to salvage wording from another time, it is going to have to be modified to match the modern language of our leaders that is emphasizing equality in marriage. 

[juliann]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

Are you saying that church doctrine or policy is now different? That "Louise" could actually marry a third time and be sealed to that man too? My understanding is that "Karen" has already remarried, but isn't sealed to the new husband for the same reasons stated above. I've another friend (who is active) who's mother is a widow. Her widowed mother later married another man. She is in the process of considering annulling her first sealing as she has been told she can't be sealed to the second (who, she feels, is the one she'd want to be with for eternity... which is obviously causing her kids some distress).

My point is that if this is a change in policy or doctrine, it doesn't seemed to have "reached the pews" yet as two different LDS widows that I know are convinced otherwise.

First of all, I can't believe that you would bring something so unsettled as an introduction of the church to a nonmember. Really??

We have been over this soooooo many times it is really frustrating to have to explain it every. dang. time. So here it is. Again.

We have had a board member say she has a second (living) sealing. I know a woman who is sealed to a second husband. Another poster, a former bishop, has even explained that two women in his ward (and I think they were divorced) had a second sealing. In other words, it is done with special permission. That means that I, as an individual, know for sure of one instance and have credible accounts of three others. That said, I had a situation with a sealing that required permission and a woman has to get past the gatekeepers, first the bishop and most important the Stake Prez. Mine were very supportive. My opinion is that if you don't have a stake prez who is fighting for you rather than just pushing through the paperwork, it's not likely to happen. Not fair but that is the stage we are in. 

Leaving aside the problem of almost no one being aware of this to be able to take advantage of it, what it represents is the most important. What we currently have is a policy of sealing dead women to all husbands.... as well as some live women. What does that do to stubborn belief that we are still operating under Brigham Young? What happens is that we actually have members telling others that proxy work is meaningless for women, the very proxy work that is a basis of our religion!  And it gets worse as justifications are created to undo women's live sealings while protecting men's (apparently with the belief that men's sealings have nothing to do with women's sealings and are always secure.) 

So where are we now? Both men and women are being sealed to more than one spouse. When it comes to the theology, it doesn't really matter if it is one woman being sealed or thousands. The only thing that matters is that it can be done.

What this may do, and what I see more of (as Stem noted above)  is to force a more realistic look at the purpose of sealings and the construction of the heavenly family. It seems to me that with the emphasis on the family, we are stuck with messy mortal families as our only model. That has pushed us into what I call the honeymoon cottage theory of eternal life where we are in exclusive enclaves with people we love.... more than everybody else.  That isn't very heavenly let alone Christlike.

So this is but one more example of how elevating women ultimately enhances and expands our understanding. 

 

[Buckeye]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think there will eventually be changes to the archaic wording. I think the more recent interpretations of women being able to determine if their husband is making righteous choices is an afterthought, an attempt to justify the unequal position of the wife. It is question begging, actually. It assumes that there is a situation in which a husband would have to step down from his presiding role. It also assumes there is a policy/ procedure for such that a wife could rely on, there isn't. Such an occurrence is, in actuality, a marital argument and little more. 

When this wording was created, men were in charge. Period. They had social, legal, and political control of women, and there were consequences to women who stepped out of line. I don't see any way to salvage wording from another time, it is going to have to be modified to match the modern language of our leaders that is emphasizing equality in marriage. 

Amen!

The temple ordinances have changed steadily over the years. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so as the current wording is not tenable. But I also don't foresee a one-time wholesale change where men and women make the exact same covenants and are placed in the exact same relationship vis-a-vis deity. It's one thing to change the wording so that women make covenants to God rather than to their husbands (including the covenant of obedience). But what then? Do women get to bring their husbands through the veil (with all that accompanies that)? Does the sealing ceremony change so that men give themselves to their wives rather than just receiving? Does the male initiatory change to match the female initiatory (i.e., pronounce certain blessings as accomplished rather than something that may come in the future)? And, of course, do women get ordained like the men? 

Fixing some problems is laudable. But doing so can also serve to highlight other problems that are not yet addressed. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

You sound like a progressive guy

I want to pick up on something. You've talked about scientific differences. What are we talking about? Biological? Physiological? Or cultural? There are clearly some biological differences between men and women. The presence of a womb for example! 

The fact that a woman carries the baby for 9 months and the fact that men evolved to be physically stronger means that historically, certain "natural roles" have emerged. But in today's era of tech-enabled lifestyles, those differences are less and less relevant. A woman can work through pregnancy (when historically she was less able to) and a woman doesn't need to be with the baby to feed it. The "nurturer" / "provider" roles are now completely cultural. There is no physiological reason why a man should be providing for the family and the woman nurturing the family. 

It is a principle of doctrine in Mormonism that the man presides and it is also a strongly pushed recommendation that the man also provides. If men and women are equal, the principle of "presiding" should be removed entirely. An equal couple should not need a presiding party within that.

I'm glad you believe it. I think more Mormons need to believe it before the prophet will reveal it. I think that seems to be the way Mormon revelations work in the 20th and 21st century... not the other way round.

I agree that women tend to have different characteristics, but that might be an evolution of cultural influences on historical roles. I don't think it's sexist to recognise that often men and women have common differences and similarities, but I do think it's sexist to then assume that different roles should be filled because of that.

I posted about all this earlier in this thread. 

In humans cultural evolution is biological evolution- they are inseparable due to our huge brains and therefore helpless babies, and the 15 years or so of maturation needed before reproduction can happen with parents who are sufficiently socialized to care for a child within cultural norms. 

Honestly I don't care if women get the priesthood tomorrow but that would be a culturally specific first world position for the 21st century, not an eternal and universal one for all time and eternity.

In my home, mama rules the roost anyway, sexist that I am. 

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Amen!

The temple ordinances have changed steadily over the years. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so as the current wording is not tenable. But I also don't foresee a one-time wholesale change where men and women make the exact same covenants and are placed in the exact same relationship vis-a-vis deity. It's one thing to change the wording so that women make covenants to God rather than to their husbands (including the covenant of obedience). But what then? Do women get to bring their husbands through the veil (with all that accompanies that)? Does the sealing ceremony change so that men give themselves to their wives rather than just receiving? Does the male initiatory change to match the female initiatory (i.e., pronounce certain blessings as accomplished rather than something that may come in the future)? And, of course, do women get ordained like the men? 

Fixing some problems is laudable. But doing so can also serve to highlight other problems that are not yet addressed. 

I'm not sure why these temple things would be bothersome. Christ should be the one taking everyone through the veil when it gets right down to it.  What happens in a temple is after all, ritual. Not everyone is married anyway. Part of the problem with ritual is that it does eventually break down, we don't really attend to the logical holes. I'm curious as to what you see as a problem with sealing vows being the same. What difference does semantics make now that women are also receiving more than one husband? Realistically, shouldn't both parties receive and give? I can't speak to male initiatory ritual. There was an early belief that women weren't actors, they had no power and thus no responsibility. I remember a popular book in the 70s (I think) on priesthood that was still saying that. It is the idea that only men, who have the knowledge/priesthood, can sin sort of thing. Again, archaic.

The temple is where women do share in priesthood so ordination is a separate issue. My thoughts on this are still evolving, but my preference for now would be to open up callings for women by separating some jobs from priesthood. Was it  Elder Oaks who spoke of priesthood as an umbrella...or one of the women conference speakers? Anyway, it is a great way to start seeing priesthood that can open up so much more opportunity for women, we all operate under the umbrella. Ordination isn't always necessary as long as you are under the umbrella. 

I guess we are different in that I don't see highlighting as a problem, I see it as a solution in that it advances our knowledge as the restoration of the gospel proceeds.

Edited January 3, 2017 by juliann

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by mfbukowski
Nevermind