Born Under Covenant

[MarginOfError]

No, by that I mean that any and all decisions about sealing are subject to the discretion of Him whose power has been delegated to man to seal.

[slamjet]

By that do you mean the priesthood holder is the master of his own destiny?

Priesthood holder, non-Priesthood holder, basically all children of God are masters of their own destiny. It's called free-agency. Why are you trying to find complexity and conflict where there is none?

[jlf9999]

Priesthood holder, non-Priesthood holder, basically all children of God are masters of their own destiny. It's called free-agency. Why are you trying to find complexity and conflict where there is none?

Clarity. In some circles there is more to this than is immediately evident.

[slamjet]

Clarity. In some circles there is more to this than is immediately evident.

If you say so.

[Just_A_Guy]

If that's the case, then it's your interpretation from something in the temple ceremony. Additional, Most everything in the Temple can be found in scriptures. So where does this one come from? Or is it what you interpreted yourself? Because I can assure you, God is not a misogynist.

The mere tracing of lineage through one parent over the other is not misogynistic. (I'm not sure I'd agree that it always goes through the priesthood-holder; but I can see why one would draw that conclusion and I can't disprove it.)

For me, the troublesome part is this idea about who the children "go to". They don't "go to" anyone--ideally each child has attained godhood with his/her own eternal companion, and they're off in their own universe.

The ordinance of sealing parent to child was originally called "adoption", and at common law there was only one reason to adopt: it was to establish the child's right to inherit from the parent. The fact that one person adopted another, had very little bearing on who might actually be actually living with whom--that would be governed by a separate legal proceeding called a "guardianship". Our focus on the idea of "eternal families" has led us to look at sealings as setting up some kind of eternal parent-time arrangement. I'm not sure either history, the teachings of the prophets, or the temple liturgy itself supports that idea.

A sealing-as-inheritance paradigm also makes the parents' divorce far less problematic, because the parents' physical living arrangement has zero bearing on what the child can or cannot inherit.

[slamjet]

The mere tracing of lineage through one parent over the other is not misogynistic. (I'm not sure I'd agree that it always goes through the priesthood-holder; but I can see why one would draw that conclusion and I can't disprove it.)

I was referring to this:

Just to clarify, posterity goes to the husband in sealing/covenant matters, not the mother.

For when I asked for a reference, he posted this:

If you wish to hunt through the Journal of Discourses I'm sure those who look will find more on this.

The first, being wholly and completely false doctrine, the second saying that he has no source, but go find it myself. As Pam pointed out, that's not the way it works on this forum.

Gruden really needs to get back into the Gospel and cut out this "peter priesthood" garbage.

[Jennarator]

Do we have any "for sure" answrs, yet?

I discused this with my husband and although we both agree that HEavenly Father will sort things out in a way best for everyone. I am still curious what is going to happen.

Similar to the OP, I am a little concerned about children in my family, too.

[spamlds]

Don't mistake the sealing ordinance to imply "ownership" or "custody" of a person. Obviously in heaven as on earth, we all have free will and can do and act according to our own volition. The sealing ordinance allows our posterity to lay claim to certain blessings, but it doesn't guarantee their bestowal.

Being born in the covenant is a great blessing because it entitles us to secure great blessings if we will become worthy to receive them. It doesn't force blessings upon us if we don't desire them. It doesn't abrogate free will. Souls are sovereign. No one owns them. The blessings of the sealing covenant provide a spiritual advantage to those who are born in the covenant. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for a person to forfeit his blessings through disobedience.

In heaven, we will freely associate with those we love. The conflicts of marriage and divorce will be set aside. Family members will enjoy felicity and harmony by forgiving past wounds and hardness with one another.

[Jennarator]

Don't mistake the sealing ordinance to imply "ownership" or "custody" of a person. Obviously in heaven as on earth, we all have free will and can do and act according to our own volition. The sealing ordinance allows our posterity to lay claim to certain blessings, but it doesn't guarantee their bestowal.

Being born in the covenant is a great blessing because it entitles us to secure great blessings if we will become worthy to receive them. It doesn't force blessings upon us if we don't desire them. It doesn't abrogate free will. Souls are sovereign. No one owns them. The blessings of the sealing covenant provide a spiritual advantage to those who are born in the covenant. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for a person to forfeit his blessings through disobedience.

In heaven, we will freely associate with those we love. The conflicts of marriage and divorce will be set aside. Family members will enjoy felicity and harmony by forgiving past wounds and hardness with one another.

I got that. But I am married and each of us have children from previous sealings. I get how that works, but if we have another before we are sealed to eachother, who is that child sealed to, if it is born in the covenant already, and won't be participaing in a sealing when we get sealed? Also my husband's ex is pregnant, and not even close to being active in the church. Who is her baby going to be sealed to, her and?? well not her current non-member husband. Is that child only sealed to her? (I am speaking on church records, here. I know that those not keeping covenants are not going to keep the sealing belssings. I also know that the details don't matter in the big picture, but I am still very curious.)

[MarginOfError]

I got that. But I am married and each of us have children from previous sealings. I get how that works, but if we have another before we are sealed to eachother, who is that child sealed to, if it is born in the covenant already, and won't be participaing in a sealing when we get sealed? Also my husband's ex is pregnant, and not even close to being active in the church. Who is her baby going to be sealed to, her and?? well not her current non-member husband. Is that child only sealed to her? (I am speaking on church records, here. I know that those not keeping covenants are not going to keep the sealing belssings. I also know that the details don't matter in the big picture, but I am still very curious.)

AS far as I know, the church record doesn't record who a child is sealed to. It only records the binary status of "Born in the Covenant" or not. Looking at a random membership record, I could only guess or assume what adults had formed the covenant a child was sealed to, but would have no conclusive knowledge.

[Jennarator]

AS far as I know, the church record doesn't record who a child is sealed to. It only records the binary status of "Born in the Covenant" or not. Looking at a random membership record, I could only guess or assume what adults had formed the covenant a child was sealed to, but would have no conclusive knowledge.

Interesting....

[classylady]

I got that. But I am married and each of us have children from previous sealings. I get how that works, but if we have another before we are sealed to eachother, who is that child sealed to, if it is born in the covenant already, and won't be participaing in a sealing when we get sealed? Also my husband's ex is pregnant, and not even close to being active in the church. Who is her baby going to be sealed to, her and?? well not her current non-member husband. Is that child only sealed to her? (I am speaking on church records, here. I know that those not keeping covenants are not going to keep the sealing belssings. I also know that the details don't matter in the big picture, but I am still very curious.)

I don't know if anything is specifically mentioned as LDS doctrine on this matter--or where we can find it. My understanding may be LDS myth. I don't know. I was taught that in cases of where a woman is sealed and then her husband dies (she becomes a widow), and then she remarries civilly, that her subsequent children by the second husband are still considered BIC. The children are not sealed to the second husband, but his wife and her 1st husband. The only scriptural references I can find on this are in Genesis chapter 38--the story of Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar. Her husband Er dies before they have children. Her father-in-law, Judah tells his second son, Onan, in verse 8 "..., Go in unto they brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother." We know the rest of the story, that Onan was killed, and Judah told Tamar that when his youngest son was old enough that she would be given to him to wife--that didn't happen. So, Tamar poses as a harlot with a veil covering herself, and Judah "came in unto her", and she later bears twins by him.

I don't know if Tamar's experience is LDS doctrine, or just the culture of the time. I had never applied it to divorce, but I'm assuming the same theory applies in being widowed or divorced if the children are still considered BIC. And just a side note, as I was studying what to do in Genealogy work, even if the divorced woman is unmarried and has a child out of wedlock, the child is still considered BIC. But, if the woman is excommunicated, then any subsequent children would not be considered BIC, whether if she remarried (civilly) or not.

So, I don't think this puts your mind at ease Jennarator. I wish we could find some definitive answers on this. My understanding is that your husband's ex-wife's subsequent children (as long as she has not been excommunicated) will be considered BIC. Does that mean they are sealed to your husband and her? I don't know the definitive answer to that. I was taught that would be the case. But is what I've been taught, Mormon Myth or actually doctrine?

As for you and your husband having children before you have a chance to be sealed together, the only experience I have with this, is a friend of mine who was BIC, but her mother was divorced from her first husband and wasn't sealed to my friends biological father before she was born. As a teenager she worried about this a great deal. She would bring it up in Seminary class, Sunday School, with her parents, and her answers were always, not to worry about it--it didn't matter. And maybe it was just typical female teenage angst, but she couldn't seem to stop worrying. So, I don't know. Maybe it would be better to wait until you and your husband can be sealed together before you have children, so your children won't go through the same worries my friend did. Of course if you pray about it, and receive a different answer, then all means go with what the Spirit tells you.

Edited April 26, 2011 by classylady

[Jennarator]

I don't know if anything is specifically mentioned as LDS doctrine on this matter--or where we can find it. My understanding may be LDS myth. I don't know. I was taught that in cases of where a woman is sealed and then her husband dies (she becomes a widow), and then she remarries civilly, that her subsequent children by the second husband are still considered BIC. The children are not sealed to the second husband, but his wife and her 1st husband. The only scriptural references I can find on this are in Genesis chapter 38--the story of Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar. Her husband Er dies before they have children. Her father-in-law, Judah tells his second son, Onan, in verse 8 "..., Go in unto they brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother." We know the rest of the story, that Onan was killed, and Judah told Tamar that when his youngest son was old enough that she would be given to him to wife--that didn't happen. So, Tamar poses as a harlot with a veil covering herself and Judah "came in unto her", and she later bears twins by him.

I don't know if Tamar's experience is LDS doctrine, or just the culture of the time. I had never applied it to divorce, but I'm assuming the same theory applies in being widowed or divorced if the children are still considered BIC. And just a side note, as I was studying what to do in Genealogy work, even if the divorced woman is unmarried and has a child out of wedlock, the child is still considered BIC. But, if the woman is excommunicated, then any subsequent children would not be considered BIC, whether if she remarried (civilly) or not.

So, I don't think this puts your mind at ease Jennarator. I wish we could find some definitive answers on this. My understanding is that your husband's ex-wife's subsequent children (as long as she has not been excommunicated) will be considered BIC. Does that mean they are sealed to your husband and her? I don't know the definitive answer to that. I was taught that would be the case. But is what I've been taught, Mormon Myth or actually doctrine?

As for you and your husband having children before you have a chance to be sealed together, the only experience I have with this, is a friend of mine who was BIC, but her mother was divorced from her first husband and wasn't sealed to my friends biological father before she was born. As a teenager she worried about this a great deal. She would bring it up in Seminary class, Sunday School, with her parents, and her answers were always, not to worry about it--it didn't matter. And maybe it was just typical female teenage angst, but she couldn't seem to stop worrying. So, I don't know. Maybe it would be better to wait until you and your husband can be sealed together before you have children, so your children won't go through the same worries my friend did. Of course if you pray about it, and receive a different answer, then all means go with what the Spirit tells you.

This is what I was afraid of. Oh well good thing I know the concern is on an earthly concern and HEavenly Father will fix everything. Still a worry, tho....

And no, my husband's ex in not been ex'd. YEah, I don't like that part, either....I'm trying to stay positive! >.<

[applepansy]

Jennarator, I would like to suggest that you find the answer in the temple. Fast. Pray about this specific issue and then go to the temple. Join in the prayer circle.

I have had two experiences in directly receiving answers to questions in the temple regarding my children. One of the experiences was regarding a child I lost to miscarriage. I was 20 weeks along when the babies heart stopped. I started having dreams about this child. After fasting and prayer we went to the temple where I was assured through the spirit about the concerns I had for that child.

Another time my husband and I had been praying and worrying about our 2nd son. He had left his mission after only 6 months. He was angry and was making some bad decisions which eventually undermined his faith and he's no longer active. We were discussing the situation on the way to the temple. We changed, got to the chapel, sat down and I picked up a Bible to read. I let if fall open and found the words I needed to hear.

There are more, but I think these two experiences illustrate (at least for me) that Heavenly Father cares about our children and, as their earthly mothers, He cares about our concerns too.

I believe you will find the peace you need only in the temple. Especially because there isn't written doctrine about this.

Best wishes.

[Guest]

Just my 2 cents on the matter:

Matthew 22:30:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Why did Jesus say this? Because... temporal marriage has no bearing in heaven.

So, it really doesn't matter if you are married to your husband on earth. If you are sealed to your ex-husband, that's the eternal marriage.

So, your child being born in the covenant is born in the covenant of your eternal family - your ex-husband.

So yeah, God will sort it out. I'm just going by how I understand the scriptures.

[HEthePrimate]

Under ideal circumstances, the child is going to grow up, find a spouse of his own, get sealed to her, at which point it is irrelevant which parents he is sealed to.

My understanding of sealing is different. Children are still sealed to their parents and their siblings, as well as to their spouse. That's why we do all that proxy work for dead people, to seal entire families together, not just spouses. It's not just a matter of raising the children, but enjoying an eternal relationship with them.

As to the original question, I agree with what others have said, that just because the child isn't sealed to his mother's current husband, doesn't mean they won't be together in the next life. Everything will work out for the best.

[Jennarator]

Ugh....ok....I need to stop dwelling on this, it is seriously messing with me! I really don't want my husband's ex's child to be sealed to him, when it's not even his child. It's already hard enough being a second wife, as I'm sure it is hard for him to be a second husband. And I hope my husband and I can get sealed before a child comes our way! (If one ever comes.) I wish bishops would move on things faster like 2 years ago when we gave them the paperwork to get things going.

Ok....rant over, I have vented, thanks for listening. Sorry for taking over the thread.

[peanutgallery]

This situation happened to my sister. She had a child with her second husband before she had been granted a temple cancellation with her first husband. When she, her second husband, and their child showed up to be sealed, they said the child was already sealed to her and was BIC. The temple president explained that the child was sealed to her and would automatically be sealed to anyone she was sealed to so the ordinance didn't need to be done. He said that the only way the child could possibly wind up with the first husband for eternity would be if my sister and her second husband both broke their temple covenants.

It will all work out. The Lord is loving and kind and wants us to be together.

[Jennarator]

this situation happened to my sister. She had a child with her second husband before she had been granted a temple cancellation with her first husband. When she, her second husband, and their child showed up to be sealed, they said the child was already sealed to her and was bic. The temple president explained that the child was sealed to her and would automatically be sealed to anyone she was sealed to so the ordinance didn't need to be done. He said that the only way the child could possibly wind up with the first husband for eternity would be if my sister and her second husband both broke their temple covenants.

It will all work out. The lord is loving and kind and wants us to be together.

thanks!! A ton!!!

[classylady]

Ugh....ok....I need to stop dwelling on this, it is seriously messing with me! I really don't want my husband's ex's child to be sealed to him, when it's not even his child. It's already hard enough being a second wife, as I'm sure it is hard for him to be a second husband. And I hope my husband and I can get sealed before a child comes our way! (If one ever comes.) I wish bishops would move on things faster like 2 years ago when we gave them the paperwork to get things going.

Ok....rant over, I have vented, thanks for listening. Sorry for taking over the thread.

Jennarator, this issue seriously was bothering me at one time too. My husband's ex-wife has two other children by her subsequent marriages. When I first became aware that her children (two girls) could possibly be considered sealed to my husband, it also "freaked" me out. I didn't know her excommunication would nullify her children being considered BIC. When I found out that because of her excommunication her girls were not BIC, I was surprised at my reaction--I was disappointed. All this time, I had been stressing about this, because I did not want my husband to have any more connection with her than he already did, and then when I find out her two girls are not BIC, and perhaps sealed to him,--I'm disappointed? How could my feelings have changed so drastically on this? And I came to realize, that yes, I was relieved to know that that extra bond would not be there between my husband and his ex, but I was disappointed because I know her two children. And those children need the sealing covenant in their lives. They have not been brought up in the gospel at all. The choices they have made in their lives have brought upon them hardships and sorrows. There's a reason we are given commandments. If we follow the commandments, it will bring us peace and joy. These girls need the blessings of the sealing covenant in their lives. As parents, we have been taught that if our children stray, the sealing covenant will help bring them back--if not in this life, at least in the next.

So, I know what I just said doesn't help you much in your feelings, because your husband's ex is not excommunicated. And I don't know if this will help any, but because of my step-children, they have a relationship with their mother's two girls (their half-sisters), so I have gotten to know the girls as well. My husband had custody of his two children (a girl and a boy) from his previous marriage, so I pretty much raised them, and consider them basically as my own. My oldest step-daughter would babysit the girls on a regular basis, with the girls coming to stay with us when their mother would have her military training once a month, and then also when she had her three weeks of training during the summer. Plus, at one time we almost had the chance to adopt the oldest girl, before his ex finally got her life in order. And because I have gotten to know the girls so well--I love them. How can this be, I ask myself? These are not my husband's children. They are his ex's. And there is not a good relationship between his ex and us. But, it is no fault of the girls, that they were born into a home that does not have the gospel in their lives. They are sweet girls, but they are really messed up--to some extent. The oldest girl is married, and pregnant, but the baby's father is not her husbands. The younger girl has a baby, and has never married. She has a drug problem, and was arrested and convicted. She was able to stay out of jail, but she has a probation officer who keeps strict tabs on her--which she hates.

I guess, what I'm trying to get across in this, is that your husband's ex's subsequent children, are innocent. They need the blessings of the sealing covenant in their lives as much as your own children. Try not to dwell on the connection between your husband and his ex, but rather look at it from the children's standpoint, the blessings they will receive from being BIC. I'm sorry you have this stress in your life. All will eventually be sorted out.

[Jennarator]

You are right. Thanks. I needed to be put in my place. Just having one of those days. I am in the mists of deciding weather to cry today or what. Emotions are at the surface and all today.

But you are right the children are innocent. I love my step kids I'm happy they are BIC, and as far as the other child soon to be born is innocent, and needs the blessings....

[Just_A_Guy]

My understanding of sealing is different. Children are still sealed to their parents and their siblings, as well as to their spouse. That's why we do all that proxy work for dead people, to seal entire families together, not just spouses. It's not just a matter of raising the children, but enjoying an eternal relationship with them.

I'm open to being refuted by any official Church sources; but the text of the sealing ordinance itself does not bind the children together--it only binds parent to child.

Moreover, D&C 130:2 teaches that "that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." It does not identify a temple sealing as being a prerequisite to maintaining that sociality.

My opinion is that the sealing is primarily about setting up the proper lineages through which thrones, kingdoms, principalities and powers are inherited. Social relationships may be indirectly influenced qualitatively through those lineages and blessings; but I don't think the sealing (or lack thereof) directly addresses, limits, or proscribes social relationships per se. A god who denies two people any interaction at all throughout the eternities merely because of the absence of a sealing bond, strikes me as a vindictive kind of a cuss antithetical to the Being our religion teaches us to worship.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[rameumptom]

You are right. Thanks. I needed to be put in my place. Just having one of those days. I am in the mists of deciding weather to cry today or what. Emotions are at the surface and all today.

But you are right the children are innocent. I love my step kids I'm happy they are BIC, and as far as the other child soon to be born is innocent, and needs the blessings....

I wonder if you realize that your misspellings created a double entendre here.

"I am in the mists of deciding weather to cry today or what."

Normally would have been written: "I am in the midst of deciding whether to cry today or what."

Your spelling created the idea of weather and rain through the entire sentence structure, including your crying and emotion. I thought it was cute, and hopefully it can make you laugh a little, also.

We all have tough days. On those days, the best thing we can do is remember the best days of our lives, and realize we will have more of those in the future.

[Jennarator]

I wonder if you realize that your misspellings created a double entendre here.

"I am in the mists of deciding weather to cry today or what."

Normally would have been written: "I am in the midst of deciding whether to cry today or what."

Your spelling created the idea of weather and rain through the entire sentence structure, including your crying and emotion. I thought it was cute, and hopefully it can make you laugh a little, also.

We all have tough days. On those days, the best thing we can do is remember the best days of our lives, and realize we will have more of those in the future.

Eh.....figures. My husbands teases me like crazy about my spelling. I know better, but never proof read. I guess I am hastey and always in a rush.

[spamlds]

Here's an interesting thing that relates to the topic of the sealing.

"During the Messianic reign Elijah will be one of the eight princes (Micah v. 4), and even on the Last Day he will not give up his activity. He will implore God's mercy for the wicked who are in hell, while their innocent children who died in infancy on account of the sins of their fathers, are in paradise. Thus he will complete his mission, in that God, moved by his prayer, will bring the sinful fathers to their children in paradise.

Read more: JewishEncyclopedia.com - ELIJAH

I have heard it related from Jewish tradition that, before the judgment, during the Messiah's reign (what we call the Millennium) that the children whose parents abused them or even murdered them will plead to Elijah to rescue their families and bring them together because they don't want to be in heaven alone. They seek forgiveness for those who harmed them in life because it is so important to them to have their family in heaven.

Obviously, Jewish traditions don't carry the weight of revelation, but it shows the expectation of the continuation of family relationships and the role of the keys of Elijah in healing and preserving those bonds. Take comfort that the Lord will do everything possible to ensure our happiness in heaven, short of violating our agency or another's.