Temple Marriage and Sealing to Children

[Q_A_111]

If Husband 1 (who is non-LDS) marries Wife No. 1 (who is LDS) in a civil ceremony, and they later have children, and then divorce, if Husband 1 later converts to LDS and marries Wife No. 2 (who is LDS) in the temple, can Husband 1 get sealed to his children eventhough he is no longer married to Wife No.1? What happens if after Husband 1 (non-LDS) and Wife No. 1 (LDS) divorce, can Wife No.1 later get married to an LDS man and get sealed to the children she had with Husband 1? Is there any way that Wife No. 1 can be sealed to her children if she is no longer married to Husband 1?

[FunkyTown]

Oooh! Good question: Two non-members marry, have kids and get divorced. Later, independently, they marry LDS people and both want to seal themselves to their children.

This is a fantastic question!

[Q_A_111]

Funky Town: You almost got it. Actually, in the first hypothetical, Husband 1 is NON-LDS, but Wife No. 1 is. Husband 1 later converts, but not until after he divorces Wife No.1. After Husband 1 converts, he gets remarried in the Temple to Wife No. 2 (who is LDS.) Hopefully, that clarifies the marital status of all people described in my original post.

[Hemidakota]

They are still belong to both of them unless one of them releases the paperwork for adopation to one or the other and will need permission from the First Presidency.

[WmLee]

My brother was inactive, married a non-member who later joined the church. They had three children and were preparing for the temple when some else caught her eye. She left my brother for this guy and took the kids.

Four years later they are divorced and have worked things out. She and this new friend do not work out.

She then meets a return missionary, (yep, she is a little older) goes back to church and they are married in the temple.

When they wanted to have the children sealed to them my brother had to write a letter to the Stake President with his permission for the sealing. He still pays child support, is still the legal father and all. The children are just sealed to that wicked woman and her much younger and not so bright husband.

(can you tell I am not happy with anyone here)

[FunkyTown]

Why did your brother agree to let them seal the children to them? That's... Wow.

[Q_A_111]

Thanks everyone for chiming in, but I don't think what Hemidakota said is completely accurate, (but I could certainly be mistaken.) The fault is probably mine because I most likely was not clear enough in my original post. Let me try one more time:

Scenario No. 1: In this first case, Husband No.1 (who is NOT an LDS member) marries Wife No. 1 (who is LDS) in a civil ceremony. Husband No.1 and Wife No.1 are NEVER married in the Temple (because Husband No.1 is not a member.) They attend church together as a family for 20 years and have a number of children. Unfortunately, Wife No.1 makes life absolutely miserable for all involved leading to divorce. Again, at the time of their marriage and divorce, Husband No.1 is NOT an LDS member - therefore no Temple ordinances were performed as to marriage or in sealing the children. Assume that following his divorce from Wife No. 1, Husband No. 1 (who always loved attending Church with his family) later converts and becomes a member. If Husband No. 1 later decides to marry again to Wife No. 2 (who has never been married and is also LDS) in the Temple, can Husband No. 1 get sealed to Wife No.2 and his children from his previous marriage (without including Wife No.1 in that sealing?) Would the husband need to get her consent to do that?

Scenario 2: Assume again that Husband No. 1 (non-LDS) and Wife No. 1 (LDS) (who have NOT been married in the Temple) divorce. Can Wife No.1 later get married to an LDS man (who is not the biological or adoptive father of the children) in the Temple and get sealed to the children that were a product of her marriage with Husband No. 1 (and assuming that Husband No. 1 will not give his consent?) Is there any way that Wife No. 1 can be sealed to those children if she is no longer married to Husband No. 1, regardless of whether she ever marries again (LDS or non-LDS)?

Hopefully, that is a little clearer. Thanks all. If anyone has scriptural cites, that would be helpful as well.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Q_A_111
typo

[Q_A_111]

Does anyone have any pearls of wisdom they could share regarding these two scenarios:

Scenario No. 1: In this first case, Husband No.1 (who is NOT an LDS member) marries Wife No. 1 (who is LDS) in a civil ceremony. Husband No.1 and Wife No.1 are NEVER married in the Temple (because Husband No.1 is not a member.) They attend church together as a family for 20 years and have a number of children. Unfortunately, Wife No.1 makes life absolutely miserable for all involved leading to divorce. Again, at the time of their marriage and divorce, Husband No.1 is NOT an LDS member - therefore no Temple ordinances were performed as to marriage or in sealing the children. Assume that following his divorce from Wife No. 1, Husband No. 1 (who always loved attending Church with his family) later converts and becomes a member. If Husband No. 1 later decides to marry again to Wife No. 2 (who has never been married and is also LDS) in the Temple, can Husband No. 1 get sealed to Wife No.2 and his children from his previous marriage (without including Wife No.1 in that sealing?) Would the husband need to get her consent to do that?

Scenario 2: Assume again that Husband No. 1 (non-LDS) and Wife No. 1 (LDS) (who have NOT been married in the Temple) divorce. Can Wife No.1 later get married to an LDS man (who is not the biological or adoptive father of the children) in the Temple and get sealed to the children that were a product of her marriage with Husband No. 1 (and assuming that Husband No. 1 will not give his consent?) Is there any way that Wife No. 1 can be sealed to those children if she is no longer married to Husband No. 1, regardless of whether she ever marries again (LDS or non-LDS)? (And quite frankly, the children do not want to spend all time and eternity with her; do they get any say in the matter?)

Hopefully, that is a little clearer. Thanks all. If anyone has scriptural cites, that would be helpful as well. This sad situation involves a family member, so any insight would be helpful. Thanks again.

[MarginOfError]

Does anyone have any pearls of wisdom they could share regarding these two scenarios:

Scenario No. 1: In this first case, Husband No.1 (who is NOT an LDS member) marries Wife No. 1 (who is LDS) in a civil ceremony. Husband No.1 and Wife No.1 are NEVER married in the Temple (because Husband No.1 is not a member.) They attend church together as a family for 20 years and have a number of children. Unfortunately, Wife No.1 makes life absolutely miserable for all involved leading to divorce. Again, at the time of their marriage and divorce, Husband No.1 is NOT an LDS member - therefore no Temple ordinances were performed as to marriage or in sealing the children. Assume that following his divorce from Wife No. 1, Husband No. 1 (who always loved attending Church with his family) later converts and becomes a member. If Husband No. 1 later decides to marry again to Wife No. 2 (who has never been married and is also LDS) in the Temple, can Husband No. 1 get sealed to Wife No.2 and his children from his previous marriage (without including Wife No.1 in that sealing?) Would the husband need to get her consent to do that?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the husband would only be able to seal the children to him if the children were legally adopted by him and his second wife. I don't believe current policy permits children to be sealed to a single parent.

Scenario 2: Assume again that Husband No. 1 (non-LDS) and Wife No. 1 (LDS) (who have NOT been married in the Temple) divorce. Can Wife No.1 later get married to an LDS man (who is not the biological or adoptive father of the children) in the Temple and get sealed to the children that were a product of her marriage with Husband No. 1 (and assuming that Husband No. 1 will not give his consent?) Is there any way that Wife No. 1 can be sealed to those children if she is no longer married to Husband No. 1, regardless of whether she ever marries again (LDS or non-LDS)? (And quite frankly, the children do not want to spend all time and eternity with her; do they get any say in the matter?)

Again, children can only be sealed to biological or adoptive parents. If the wife's second husband has not adopted her children, then they cannot be sealed to them. If the children are living adults, then they do have a say, but it's a moot point if they haven't been adopted.

Hopefully, that is a little clearer. Thanks all. If anyone has scriptural cites, that would be helpful as well. This sad situation involves a family member, so any insight would be helpful. Thanks again.

Once people are dead, it's a little different. People are sealed by proxy to all of their relations, but that's more of a covering-all-the-bases thing, and the correct sealings get worked out on the other end.

[Hemidakota]

There is no sealing to a single parent...

[Guest Alana]

The kids can be sealed to one set of those parents. The other biological parent not being sealed needs to give permission. You must be married to be sealed to a live person, so there wouldn't be a chance in this situation for the other couple to be sealed to those kids.

When I was 9 my dad, who had just been baptized, married civilly my now step mother who was already a member. One year later we were all sealed (with permission from my biological mother).

My biological mother has died, so I suppose we could have her sealed to my father in the temple, but since my dad doesn't currently have a temple recommend I get to wait for that very 'not awkward' conversation at an other time.

[Maureen]

Scenario No. 1: In this first case, Husband No.1 (who is NOT an LDS member) marries Wife No. 1 (who is LDS) in a civil ceremony. Husband No.1 and Wife No.1 are NEVER married in the Temple (because Husband No.1 is not a member.) They attend church together as a family for 20 years and have a number of children. Unfortunately, Wife No.1 makes life absolutely miserable for all involved leading to divorce. Again, at the time of their marriage and divorce, Husband No.1 is NOT an LDS member - therefore no Temple ordinances were performed as to marriage or in sealing the children. Assume that following his divorce from Wife No. 1, Husband No. 1 (who always loved attending Church with his family) later converts and becomes a member. If Husband No. 1 later decides to marry again to Wife No. 2 (who has never been married and is also LDS) in the Temple, can Husband No. 1 get sealed to Wife No.2 and his children from his previous marriage (without including Wife No.1 in that sealing?) Would the husband need to get her consent to do that?

From reading what WmLee wrote it appears that Husband No. 1 and Wife No. 2 could be sealed to his children if Wife No. 1 gives permission.

Scenario 2: Assume again that Husband No. 1 (non-LDS) and Wife No. 1 (LDS) (who have NOT been married in the Temple) divorce. Can Wife No.1 later get married to an LDS man (who is not the biological or adoptive father of the children) in the Temple and get sealed to the children that were a product of her marriage with Husband No. 1 (and assuming that Husband No. 1 will not give his consent?) Is there any way that Wife No. 1 can be sealed to those children if she is no longer married to Husband No. 1, regardless of whether she ever marries again (LDS or non-LDS)? (And quite frankly, the children do not want to spend all time and eternity with her; do they get any say in the matter?)

Given this scenario if Wife No. 1 remarries an LDS member, if Husband No. 1 does NOT give permission for sealing of children, then I doubt they can be sealed. And definitely children cannot be sealed to a single parent because the catalyst for a sealing is marriage.

[Neto]

As a single parent who adopted children, I am sad that I cannot have my children sealed to me. I doubt very much that I will ever marry, and so, I chose adoption as a way to have a family of my own. I wish our church would allow this to happen. I would love to be a forever family, sealed in the temple. Please President Monson, please look to those of us who may never marry but did want a family to have something done for us to be sealed to our children.

[Vort]

As a single parent who adopted children, I am sad that I cannot have my children sealed to me. I doubt very much that I will ever marry, and so, I chose adoption as a way to have a family of my own. I wish our church would allow this to happen. I would love to be a forever family, sealed in the temple. Please President Monson, please look to those of us who may never marry but did want a family to have something done for us to be sealed to our children.

So you think this is simply a matter of Church leaders not taking your feelings into account?

What you are saying does not make sense. It's like saying you want to build a snowman without using snow -- impossible by definition. Your children CANNOT be sealed to you alone. They can only be sealed to PARENTS. That means two, a husband and a wife. It is meaningless to have children sealed to an umarried woman (or man). The children's sealing exists within the marriage covenant between husband and wife. No marriage covenant means no sealing of children.

[michaelgbluth]

So you think this is simply a matter of Church leaders not taking your feelings into account?

What you are saying does not make sense. It's like saying you want to build a snowman without using snow -- impossible by definition. Your children CANNOT be sealed to you alone. They can only be sealed to PARENTS. That means two, a husband and a wife. It is meaningless to have children sealed to an umarried woman (or man). The children's sealing exists within the marriage covenant between husband and wife. No marriage covenant means no sealing of children.

What's the matter with you? Do you not have any compassion at all? She understands the policy she just would like to have her children sealed to her. Have some tact man. If we do things via proxy and the Lord was our great proxy for sin and redemption then there is no reason that Church policy can't change. You are way too dogmatic. Major Church policy has changed in the past. It could happen again

[Vort]

What's the matter with you? Do you not have any compassion at all? She understands the policy she just would like to have her children sealed to her. Have some tact man. If we do things via proxy and the Lord was our great proxy for sin and redemption then there is no reason that Church policy can't change. You are way too dogmatic. Major Church policy has changed in the past. It could happen again

You misunderstand. This is not a matter of "compassion". It is a matter of recognizing reality.

Suppose I wrote the following:

As an earthbound human without wings, I am sad that I cannot fly by flapping my arms. I doubt very much that I will ever grow wings, and even if I did, the physics of the situation seems to work against me being able to fly. I wish our church would allow me to fly by flapping my arms. I would love to be able to fly around under my own power. Please President Monson, please look to those of us who want to fly and consider allowing us to participate in this wonderful activity by flapping our arms.

Would you show compassion on me and perhaps join in requesting to President Monson that this policy be changed and updated to reflect modern sensibilities? Or would you try to inform me that what I'm asking for does not make any sense?

[michaelgbluth]

Your metaphors and hypothetical examples are kind of silly and irrelevant. What you are saying is that we have a closed canon and that there is no longer a need for revelation. We both know that is not the case. The policy can be changed. I am not saying it will but it is possible. You are acting as if you know God's future will. I'll repeat myself, policies have been changed before and they can be changed at anytime if it is God's will. Even if it weren't possible(which it is), your response to her original post was callous and cold.

[Guest]

Your metaphors and hypothetical examples are kind of silly and irrelevant. What you are saying is that we have a closed canon and that there is no longer a need for revelation. We both know that is not the case. The policy can be changed. I am not saying it will but it is possible. You are acting as if you know God's future will. I'll repeat myself, policies have been changed before and they can be changed at anytime if it is God's will. Even if it weren't possible(which it is), your response to her original post was callous and cold.

Michael, I'm sorry but Vort is correct in this. Open cannon or not, children sealing to parents are part of the marriage sealing covenant. Without the marriage sealing, children don't have anybody to get sealed to. This is not a matter of policy but a matter of doctrine. To change this policy is kinda like saying the same thing as - we have an open cannon so it is possible that in the future, Church policy will change so that we don't have the need for the Atonement of Christ to get to heaven. It's a bedrock of our faith. It's not something that can change.

Make sense?

[Vort]

Your metaphors and hypothetical examples are kind of silly and irrelevant.

You say this only because you don't understand. It appears you have never witnessed the sealing of children to parents or taken part as proxy; if you have, then it would seem you did not pay attention.

When the sealer seals the child to his or her parents, he says something like the following (paraphrasing the sacred temple language): "I seal you to your parents and seal on you all the blessings exactly as if you had been born in the covenant."

In other words: Sealing a child to parents substitutes for being born in the covenant.

Born in which covenant? Why, in the covenant that the parents make with God in their marriage sealing. So please follow this logic:

• No marriage sealing = no marriage covenant
• No marriage covenant = no being born in that covenant
• No being born in the covenant = no meaning to the idea of sealing a child to a single parent "exactly as if you had been born in the [nonexistent] covenant"

Now do you see the problem? You can't seal a child to a single parent. That has no meaning. It's like saying "saved in sin" or "evil God". It's a meaningless contradiction in terms. Children are sealed to parentS who are themselves sealed in a marriage covenant. The sealing of the children is an extension of the parents' marriage covenants. Outside of the marriage covenant, there is no "parental sealing".

Don't know how to say this any more clearly.

What you are saying is that we have a closed canon and that there is no longer a need for revelation.

Not at all. Rather, I'm saying that black doesn't mean white and up doesn't mean down.

The policy can be changed.

I suppose if you wish to change the plain meaning of words. Maybe God can "change the policy" of resurrection and of exaltation. You think?

You are acting as if you know God's future will.

No, I am acting as if I know what the sealer says when sealing children to parents.

Which I do.

Even if it weren't possible(which it is), your response to her original post was callous and cold.

Only if you think that clarifying an astounding misunderstanding of the meaning of things is "callous and cold". I do not agree with your assessment.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Vort

[RMGuy]

Actually, under the Law of Adoption individuals were sealed to each other even when no marriage relationship existed. Most of these were brother-to-brother with the intention of joining families together (so in most, but not all of those instances the brethren involved were part of a marriage covenant with their spouses). This practice was discontinued in the 1890's.

While currently there is not a method to allow children to be sealed to a single sister or brother, I have learned that policies (even doctrine related to sealings) changes from time-to-time. As evidence, please see the real world example of the Law of Adoption described above. I for one will not tie the Lord's hands by telling him what he can or cannot do.

I recognize and hear the concern expressed above.

-RM