Sealings quiz

[classylady]

Vort is right. Only if the husband was sealed to all his wives were all the children considered BIC. If he was only married civilly then any children with that spouse were not considered BIC. But, you have to realize that most plural marriages back then were all sealed in the temple.

[Vort]

I know from family records that all the children were considered BIC

I believe you are mistaken. I have been taught that in such cases, the policy was, "The sealing follows the mother". That is to say, if the mother was sealed -- to anyone -- then the child was considered born in the covenant. The father's sealing had no immediate relevance.

I have no proof of this, however; it is just what I have been taught, and I don't expect anyone to believe any such point based solely on my say-so. So if you have some evidence showing a child born to a non-sealed woman who was still considered BIC, please show it for the education and edification of all. :)

[Vort]

this whole thread is making my head hurt. Do you see why so many people say it will all be worked out later?

Because facing such questions later on will be much easier than facing them now?

[pam]

You are right that the child born to the wife would still be BIC. But a child born to the husband who has remarried civilly is not BIC. I researched this about a year ago. It is on "Ask Gramps".

Edit: Also, I have first hand knowledge of this. My husband and I were first married civilly. He had been sealed to his first wife and his sealing had not been cancelled. When we were sealed in the temple our first child needed to be sealed to us as he was not considered born in the covenant.

Okay I will concede. My selection of answer was correct..but not my entire reason for the answer. I should have just left it that the children of the woman would be BIC.

Love that you use "askgramps." Woot!

[applepansy]

I believe you are mistaken. I have been taught that in such cases, the policy was, "The sealing follows the mother". That is to say, if the mother was sealed -- to anyone -- then the child was considered born in the covenant. The father's sealing had no immediate relevance.

I have no proof of this, however; it is just what I have been taught, and I don't expect anyone to believe any such point based solely on my say-so. So if you have some evidence showing a child born to a non-sealed woman who was still considered BIC, please show it for the education and edification of all. :)

I'm not mistaken about what the family records say. :) The person making the records may have been.

[RescueMom]

I agree with Vort on the sealings follow the mother. When my mother had her sealing cancelled it was told to her that her children would be sealed to her. When she remarried and was sealed to my step father we children didn't need to go get sealed...cause we already were.

And on a side note...in Jewish tradition, or at least my understanding...the lineage of being a descendant of Isreal comes from the mothers side. And it how Christ is the King of Isreal, because he inherits his mothers rights to the Kingdom of David...not through Josephs lineage.

So if we follow the ancient church doctrine, it makes sense that sealings follow the mother now.

Just my two cents...I could be wrong.

[skippy740]

You fail to lack in not misunderstanding the scenario.

What a great facebook status quote! (And yes, that's what I did with it.)

[RescueMom]

which brings up another question.

Say if the mother and father divorce. The mother gets excommunicated, and has no desire to rejoin the church, and in fact has joined another church. And the father has custody of the kids and has remained active in the church...what happens then?

I think at some point in the future I assume all of it will be worked out.

[Backroads]

I think at some point in the future I assume all of it will be worked out.

But we can't use that answer!!!

[Guest saintish]

Because facing such questions later on will be much easier than facing them now?

Facing them may not be easier but understanding the rules will be, especially if we have the author there with us to explain.

[pam]

What a great facebook status quote! (And yes, that's what I did with it.)

Yes he did. I saw it and accused him of being a thief.

[Vort]

But we can't use that answer!!!

You tell her, Backroads!

[Vort]

Facing them may not be easier but understanding the rules will be, especially if we have the author there with us to explain.

I do not believe this is how it works. I don't believe that after death we suddenly have all things perfectly revealed to us.

Now, it may be that we simply don't have enough knowledge now, and are awaiting further light on the matter. That's fine; I have no problem with it. But this situation has been dealt with for many decades now, so it's not exactly new. There currently is a procedure in place, and we do have current knowledge on this to some degree. I am interested in discovering what this current state of knowledge is, which is why I specified no comments along the lines of "Don't worry, it will all be worked out in the Millennium." That is a non-answer, a dodge.

[Backroads]

Anytime, Vort. Anytime.

I do trust that everything will work out in the Millenium, no argument there, for I believe God is good and just and merciful.

But it's still nice to know the actual details.

[Vort]

Anytime, Vort. Anytime.

I do trust that everything will work out in the Millenium, no argument there, for I believe God is good and just and merciful.

But it's still nice to know the actual details.

I was only teasing anyway. RescueMom did give answers, not just a dodge.

[Backroads]

Once you get names like Xaviera and Yolando it's hard to be fully serious...

[Vort]

Once you get names like Xaviera and Yolando it's hard to be fully serious...

I was originally going to use letters as name placeholders, e.g. Brother B marries Sister S in the temple, they divorce, Brother B marries Miss T (next letter after 'S') and Sister B marries Mr. C (next letter after 'B'), etc. The kids were going to be at the end of the alphabet, e.g. Brother C and his wife T have baby X, Sister S and her husband C have baby Y.

But it all seemed so impersonal that I thought it would be nicer to attach names to them. Thus we have Bart, Suzie, Therese, and Charlie. The babies were Xavier and Yolanda.

But wait! "Xavier" is a man's name, and "Yolanda" a woman's. For someone with a lifelong interest in biology and genetics, I thought, "This will not do!" We cannot have X represent the man and Y represent the woman! That is just so...wrong. So I re-genderized the names to my liking, and doubtless to everyone else's.

[Guest saintish]

I do not believe this is how it works. I don't believe that after death we suddenly have all things perfectly revealed to us.

I’m not sure one way or the other. However my point was that during the millennium presumably Christ will be directing the ordinances personally and we will have access to the records of heaven so we will know what sealings need to be done/ can or cannot be done.

I am interested in discovering what this current state of knowledge is, which is why I specified no comments along the lines of "Don't worry, it will all be worked out in the Millennium." That is a non-answer, a dodge.

Yeah that never seems to work in threads. BTW please note that I did answer your question as you stipulated on page 1.

[Vort]

Yeah that never seems to work in threads. BTW please note that I did answer your question as you stipulated on page 1.

I never meant to criticize you or anyone else on this thread, saintish. This was meant to be fun and interesting, nothing more. Criticism or condemnation would be out of place.

[Maureen]

which brings up another question.

Say if the mother and father divorce. The mother gets excommunicated, and has no desire to rejoin the church, and in fact has joined another church. And the father has custody of the kids and has remained active in the church...what happens then?...

I would think that the children would be sealed with the father.

M.

[Vort]

which brings up another question.

Say if the mother and father divorce. The mother gets excommunicated, and has no desire to rejoin the church, and in fact has joined another church. And the father has custody of the kids and has remained active in the church...what happens then?

The rule about "the sealing follows the mother" does not have anything to do with the mother's current status in the Church. It is a rule used to determine whether a child is born in the covenant or whether that child needs to be sealed to parents. Future (or for that matter, current) parental worthiness has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Or so it has been explained to me.

[Backroads]

I"m waiting for the "answer sheet".

[Vort]

I"m waiting for the "answer sheet".

I'd love to see it, too. I added my answers under the original post, but I'm not an authoritative source.

[pam]

But it all seemed so impersonal that I thought it would be nicer to attach names to them. Thus we have Bart, Suzie, Therese, and Charlie. The babies were Xavier and Yolanda.

At least you didn't use Bart, Homer, Marge and Lisa.

[Maureen]

At least you didn't use Bart, Homer, Marge and Lisa.

Now that would have been incentuous. :)

M.