Sealing if re-married?

[cassious]

We had an intriguing discussion in Seminary this morning, but our teacher didn't know the answer.

If you were marred and sealed, but your spouse passed away and you remarried, could you be sealed a second time or no? She said she thought possibly that men could but women couldn't, but she wasn't sure.

[MarginOfError]

If a man's wife dies and he remarries, he may be sealed to the second wife.

If a woman's husband dies and she remarries, she may be sealed to the second husband if she obtains a sealing cancellation from the First Presidency. This is usually granted in the instance where the second husband has never been sealed before. If he has been sealed before, they will likely encourage a temple marriage for time only.

[pam]

We had an intriguing discussion in Seminary this morning, but our teacher didn't know the answer.

If you were marred and sealed, but your spouse passed away and you remarried, could you be sealed a second time or no? She said she thought possibly that men could but women couldn't, but she wasn't sure.

I'm curious. Did your seminary teacher just say she didn't know and leave it at that or did she say she would find out and get back to you?

[Maureen]

We had an intriguing discussion in Seminary this morning, but our teacher didn't know the answer.

If you were marred and sealed, but your spouse passed away and you remarried, could you be sealed a second time or no? She said she thought possibly that men could but women couldn't, but she wasn't sure.

From what I understand, in the case of women, for example, my friend; her 1st husband passed away and she remarried. She cannot now, while she is alive, be sealed to her 2nd husband, but when both herself and her 2nd husband have passed away, a proxy sealling can be done for them.

M.

[cassious]

Thanks guys! But I'm a bit confused; Why is it a man can be sealed more than once, but a woman cannot? Isn't the essentially polygamy? I thought that wasn't supported?

Pam: She told us to ask our parents/Bishop and she would also find the answer for our next class for those of us who hadn't asked.

[Mute]

It's not supported by the lds faith at the moment. However, the lds faith believes polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. The lds faith just believes it's wrong to practice polygamy on Earth at the present time.

There is a man I know and he went to a ward I used to attend. Before I met the man he had a wife he was sealed to and she died. He later remarried and was sealed to his second wife as well. I am not 100% sure all the details on what enables a man to marry a second person in the temple after they are already sealed. I know they can if their wife dies. If a man simply divorces his wife though she is still sealed to him in the temple unless they have the sealing canceled. Now can a man just go around getting sealed to a lot of women without marrying them? I have no idea.

Right now my sister went through a divorce but is still sealed to her ex husband. Her new husband is still sealed to his ex wife. My sisters ex husband also has a new child with his new wife. I have no idea how that is supposed to work. It's not something I really tend to think about. Hopefully that helps you get a better understanding.

[Dravin]

It's not supported by the lds faith at the moment.

Indeed, I think the key is that polygamy as a doctrine has never been officially repudiated, it has however (with the exception of sealings to one living wife and a dead one) been stopped as a commandment/practice. It is interesting, if you read the manifesto the wording speaks of being compelled to stop and following the laws of the land. I doubt sealing to a dead wife and a living one was a concern of the law. Nor has it lead to the coming to pass of what Wilford Woodruff saw if polygamy was continued.

A lot of members kinda wander into repudiating polygamy as a doctrine in explaining to themselves and to others how we no longer practice it. I got into a few arguments with my companions on my mission over the matter (polygamy while not being practiced is a true doctrine, its just only practiced when we are commanded to do so and we are not currently commanded to do so, in this life at least). I don't think I'm the only one who experienced this as my Mission President came out during one Zone Conference and made a point of explaining the same thing, polygamy is a true doctrine (D&C 132 is in the cannon), we just don't currently practice it because it is only practiced when the Lord commands and the Lord stopped commanding it a long time ago (except apparently in the case of being sealed to a living wife and a dead wife at the same time).

Edited October 30, 2010 by Dravin

[Traveler]

All that obtain the Celestial Kingdom will be sealed under the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. If there are more ladies than men then it must be that some men are sealed to more than one woman. For whatever reason no one seem concerned that it may be possible there are more men than women in the Celestial Kingdom.

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

Now can a man just go around getting sealed to a lot of women without marrying them? I have no idea.

It doesn't really go over well when you show up at the Temple and try to tell the presidency that you want to get sealed to Audrey Hepburn.

[GADBabaganoosh]

I prefer the term "Plural Marriage" myself.

[cassious]

Well, that's intriguing, I wonder if it's going to work the other way if there are more men than women?

[Tsem]

Well, that's intriguing, I wonder if it's going to work the other way if there are more men than women?

I strongly believe there will me many more women then men in the Celestial Kingdom.

Women exist in a Celestial glory much more comfortably then many men as women are able to handle their responsibilities therein much better.

a good thought analogy is why there are more single mothers then single fathers.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Tsem
clarity

[Dravin]

I strongly believe there will me many more women then men in the Celestial Kingdom.

Women exist in a Celestial glory much more comfortably then many men as women are able to handle their responsibilities therein much better.

a good thought analogy is why there are more single mothers then single fathers.

Because of court and cultural bias, and biology (Mom can't exactly be absent from the birth)?

[Tsem]

Because of court and cultural bias, and biology (Mom can't exactly be absent from the birth)?

because women are naturally better at sacrificing of themselves for the care of others, hence cultural bias and biology.

Women more often live up to their responsibility to care then men live up to their responsibility of stewardship

for women, as you've stated, its in their very biology.

men have to step up to theirs.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Tsem

[Dravin]

because women are naturally better at sacrificing of themselves for the care of others

Interesting. Have any peer reviewed studies reaching the same conclusion that have been rigorously controlled for nurture? If you are going to claim it's nature you have to isolate for it else nurture could be throwing things off. Even if you don't have a scientific study to back you up I'm curious how you've rigorously controlled to make sure your experiences are not the result of nurture.

Also keep in mind the plural of anecdote is not data.

for women, as you've stated, its in their very biology.

I stated no such thing. I stated by biology they can't be absent from the birth of their own child. Plenty of women 'shirk' their responsibility by having abortions, and simply not killing your own child is not the same as living up to one's responsibilities. Nor are maternal behaviors the sum of sacrifice and responsibility.

Edit: If you are wondering why I'm bothering it's because sexism isn't particularly appealing.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Dravin

[Tsem]

I have no data, only my perspective of a truth.

There are more women then men in the celestial kingdom.

this is because more women then men reach the celestial kingdom.

this is because they are better at fulfilling their obligations required by a celestial kingdom then men are

womens obligations are to nurture

mens obligations are to lead.

its imprinted in the identity of our genders.

I stated no such thing. I stated by biology they can't be absent from the birth of their own child. Plenty of women 'shirk' their responsibility by having abortions, and simply not killing your own child is not the same as living up to one's responsibilities. Nor are maternal behaviors the sum of sacrifice and responsibility.

Women can indeed shirk their responsibilities. this does not stop it from being in their nature to nurture.

Edit: If you are wondering why I'm bothering it's because sexism isn't particularly appealing.

this isnt sexism. men and women are different. its OK. God is not sexist because there are more women then men in His Kingdom. its just how it is.

Interesting. Have any peer reviewed studies reaching the same conclusion that have been rigorously controlled for nurture? If you are going to claim it's nature you have to isolate for it else nurture could be throwing things off. Even if you don't have a scientific study to back you up I'm curious how you've rigorously controlled to make sure your experiences are not the result of nurture.

Also keep in mind the plural of anecdote is not data.

nature leads to nurture. two sides of the same coin.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Tsem

[Dravin]

I have no data, only my perspective of a truth.

Correction, what you believe is the truth. You have provided nothing in support that it is the truth beyond your claims.

There are more women then men in the celestial kingdom.

Evidence? Or is this more claims?

this is because more women then men reach the celestial kingdom.

Well you've mastered the circular argument, I'll give you that much.

this is because they are better at fulfilling their obligations required by a celestial kingdom then men are

And we go back to assertions.

womens obligations are to nurture

mens obligations are to lead.

Have we reached the non-sequitur point already? You're like someone in a hamster wheel, you are running all right, but you are still where you started.

this isnt sexism.

Yes it is. You are categorically declaring one sex superior, not different. All men are by nature less capable of meeting their responsibilities is a sexist statement. It's sexist regardless of the truth of it (which has far to go to be established by anything you've done in this thread).

nature leads to nurture. two sides of the same coin.

Nature lead a women to shake her child to death, or leads children to curse versus use polite language? Just because they are related does not mean they can be assumed to be the same thing, you claim is that it is nature until you can isolated it you're full of smoke. And please can we not repeat a stating of gender identities? It's a red hearing, your claim is that by nature women are more capable/prone of meeting their obligations then men are theirs, in that context gender identities and responsibilities is moot as to just what they are unless you are providing a study or some such demonstrating the men are worse at leading then women are at nurturing (good luck finding that study).

Edited November 2, 2010 by Dravin

[Tsem]

Ah I see, I believe a womens celestial role is to support and nurture. I believe that it is a part of who they are; their gender identity.

Is this what we are disagreeing on?

There are more women then men in the celestial kingdom.

--Evidence? Or is this more claims?

This can be deduced from the fact that polyandry is not ordained of God. If there is Plural marriage, but no polyandry, then there must be more women then men in the Celestial Kingdom. As we know that only those sealed into a family may enter into the highest kingdom, we know that the population of men is at least equal to the population of women. factor in that there are plural marriages but no polyandry, we are left with the anecdote that there are more women then men in the celestial kingdom. as a precursor we know that only those who are worthy can enter into the highest kingdoms of God, we are left with the anecdote that there are more women then men worthy of a celestial glory.

We might be getting into an argument of beliefs here, I did not suppose at first.

I am debating from an LDS perspective.

also: I apologize for derailing the thread.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Tsem

[Dravin]

Ah I see, I believe a womens celestial role is to support and nurture. I believe that it is a part of who they are; their gender identity.

Is this what we are disagreeing on?

One of the definitions of moot, the one I meant, is that something is tangential to the discussion. So no, the exact nature of gender roles, here on earth or in the eternities is not a point of disagreement.

This can be deduced from the fact that polyandry is not ordained of God. If there is Plural marriage, but no polyandry, then there must be more women then men in the Celestial Kingdom.

Here we go! Something more than assertion. There is however one fatal flaw in your premise, namely that everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be married. I think you are forgetting that the Celestial Kingdom is made up of three levels only the top which requires marriage. So the possibility that there is a scad of men living singly in the other levels undermines your starting premise.

You also have yet to demonstrate, even if we limit things to the topmost level, that any demographical imbalance is the result of nature over nurture.

factor in that there are plural marriages but no polyandry, we are left with the anecdote that there are more women then men in the celestial kingdom.

That word you are using? I do not think it means what you think it means. (Sorry, couldn't pass of a Princess Bride reference:p )

I am debating from an LDS perspective.

I find this a curious thing that crops up from time to time. The implication is that if I was LDS I'd agree with you.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Dravin

[Tsem]

I think you are forgetting that the Celestial Kingdom is made up of three levels only the top which requires marriage

The top is what I am referencing. There are more women then men there.

You also have yet to demonstrate, even if we limit things to the topmost level, that any demographical imbalance is the result of nature over nurture.

Men and Women have different natures, Male and Female have natural, differing, roles.

There are more women then men at the uppermost echelons of the celestial kingdom.

More women are worthy of being a Mother then there are men worthy of being Fathers.

This must be because women are better at being mothers then men are at being fathers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsem

because women are naturally better at sacrificing of themselves for the care of others

Interesting. Have any peer reviewed studies reaching the same conclusion that have been rigorously controlled for nurture? If you are going to claim it's nature you have to isolate for it else nurture could be throwing things off. Even if you don't have a scientific study to back you up I'm curious how you've rigorously controlled to make sure your experiences are not the result of nurture.

Also keep in mind the plural of anecdote is not data.

Quote:

for women, as you've stated, its in their very biology.

I stated no such thing. I stated by biology they can't be absent from the birth of their own child. Plenty of women 'shirk' their responsibility by having abortions, and simply not killing your own child is not the same as living up to one's responsibilities. Nor are maternal behaviors the sum of sacrifice and responsibility.

Edit: If you are wondering why I'm bothering it's because sexism isn't particularly appealing.

Ah I see, I believe a womens celestial role is to support and nurture. I believe that it is a part of who they are; their gender identity.

Is this what we are disagreeing on?

One of the definitions of moot, the one I meant, is that something is tangential to the discussion. So no, the exact nature of gender roles, here on earth or in the eternities is not a point of disagreement.

I thought that a women's nature was the essence of our discussion.

the gender roles are thus not moot, for my argument is based on the fact that women make better nurturer's because it is in their nature, it is their gender role, their gender identity

The reason I presented this idea was to assert that there are more single mothers then single fathers, this is because women more often live up to their responsibilities then men do, this is because more women embrace being a nurturer then there are men who embrace stewardship and responsibility.

The point of bringing this up was to provide a mental analogy as to why there are more women then men in the celestial kingdom, so Cassious's question of whether or not women will be sealed to multiple male partners if there are not enough wives is only hypothetical. there is, are, and always will be more women in the highest levels of the celestial kingdom then men.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Tsem

[Dravin]

The top is what I am referencing. There are more women then men there.

Men and Women have different natures, Male and Female have natural, differing, roles.

You repeat this like a battle cry but to no avail. Recognizing that men and women have different roles and natures is not the same as accepting that one gender is inherently better at fulfilling their respective roles.

You are falling back into the assertion stage, which is disappointing honestly as you were showing some promise when you actually tried to support your position instead of bleating it into the night.

More women are worthy of being a Mother then there are men worthy of being Fathers.

This must be because women are better at being mothers then men are at being fathers.

Non-sequitur, in the logical sense this time instead of the more conversational one.

I thought that a women's nature was the essence of our discussion.

You thought incorrectly then, at least where it concerns my conversation with you.

the gender roles are thus not moot, for my argument is based on the fact that women make better nurturer's because it is in their nature, it is their gender role, their gender identity

You argument is that women by nature fulfill their roles better than men by nature fulfill theirs (at least this is the assertion I take issue with). The exact nature of the roles is moot to that point except for possible demonstrations (it would determine what you need to demonstrate). Such demonstrations would have to rule out nurture though. If those roles were nose picking and belching you'd have to demonstrate that by nature (meaning you'd have to control for nurture) women are better at nose picking then men are at belching. That is the extent to which the actual role is relevant.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

a good thought analogy is why there are more single mothers then single fathers.

Well, seeing as how women are not capable of spontaneous reproduction, I would point out that there are equal numbers of single mothers as there are single fathers.

Here we go! Something more than assertion. There is however one fatal flaw in your premise, namely that everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be married. I think you are forgetting that the Celestial Kingdom is made up of three levels only the top which requires marriage. So the possibility that there is a scad of men living singly in the other levels undermines your starting premise.

Another flaw in the logic: we don't know why polygamy (or polygny, if we want to be super technical) was instituted. We don't know if it's because there are more righteous women than there are men. The purpose(s) has/have not been revealed to us. As such, we cannot make evidentiary assumptions based on the practice.

we are left with the anecdote that there are more women then men in the celestial kingdom.

That word you are using? I do not think it means what you think it means. (Sorry, couldn't pass of a Princess Bride reference:p )

Nice reference. That's one I use myself from time to time. I agree with you on the usage of the word, and ironically, anectodal evidence is about all we've got here, thus disproving Tsem's claims.

I find this a curious thing that crops up from time to time. The implication is that if I was LDS I'd agree with you.

Which, of course, you are. Tsem would do better to state that he is debating from his own perspective, and add that he is LDS.

The top is what I am referencing. There are more women then men there.

It's interesting that you keep using the present tense in your statements. As the Final Judgment has not yet happened, I don't believe that there is anyone in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Wingnut]

If you would like to continue this discussion further please create a different thread.

Lol. You started the tangent, so it might be more appropriate for you to start a new thread if you'd like to continue it.

Such demonstrations would have to rule out nurture though. If those roles were nose picking and belching you'd have to demonstrate that by nature (meaning you'd have to control for nurture) women are better at nose picking then men are at belching. That is the extent to which the actual role is relevant.

Clearly you've never been party to a Nose-Picking and Belching Battle of the Sexes. Otherwise you'd know that men are far better at nose-picking, and women barely edge out the men at belching.

[Dravin]

Which, of course, you are. Tsem would do better to state that he is debating from his own perspective, and add that he is LDS.

Don't blow my cover. The next step is usually to imply that if I simply had sufficient understanding of 'Church doctrine', I'd agree.

[Wingnut]

Sorry.