Sealings quiz

[pam]

I thought about that Maureen.

[skippy740]

I think there should be a difference between BIC (as a widow) and having new children under a new civil marriage.

As such, I still haven't seen any official church doctrine or handbook quotations to back up the "maternal" covenant.

[dahlia]

Stop! Stop! My head is spinning!

[mordorbund]

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.

(I'll get to your case in a minute.) First (this may be obvious, but I think it still needs to be stated), a child BIC is sealed to both parents (as opposed to being sealed specifically to father/mother, and only indirectly to the other through the marriage covenant). I think the idea that the sealing follows the mother (as a rule of thumb) is a good one as it works consistently with plural marriages.

I think that in the case where the sealed ex-wife civilly marries a man and they have a child, that child is BIC to the ex's. My reason for thinking this is still the case, even though the covenant is "broken" is because under NT Jesus law, this is adultery (let me explain). Jesus taught that whoever marries a divorced woman is committing adultery because for God there really isn't such a thing as divorce (Elder McConkie says this is a Millenial Law though). So what is the condition of a child conceived via adultery? Say the wife in a sealed couple is unfaithful and has a child, then repents. That child does not have to go to the temple to be sealed to her parents. Although the covenant had been broken at the time of conception and birth, the blessings are still in force to all innocent parties.

Interestingly enough, this also gives me the same answer as Vort for both the ex-husband and the ex-wife. If the husband is unfaithful and the other woman is already sealed, from the above case, the child is BIC, but not to him. If the husband is unfaithful and the other woman later marries another man, then that is the sealing offered to the child to be grafted into (since there is no covenant between the unfaithful husband and the other woman for the child to be born under). And finally, if the husband later marries the other woman (either as a widower, or as in the case Vort spells out) then THAT is the case where the child can be grafted into biological Mom and unfaithful husband's sealing (in all cases, the sealing works like a mathematical ray, not line).

So now what about excommunication? in that case the covenant is indeed broken. If she returns then all her blessings and sealings are re-instated. So I think for the duration of the child's mortality, she can consider herself BIC to the two ex's (actually, this case doesn't even need divorce), but I think there's some legal aspect lacking in the eternal sense because of the case where the wife does not return. Here we have a mostly unbroken chain from the last child all the way back to Adam (which Brigham Young taught was the purpose of these sealings for children), exept for a spouse-less man and his child. Here D&C 132 comes into play. There's a part that sounds similar to the parable of the talents where he had receives more, while he that squanders loses that which he had. And this concept is applied to wives in the Celestial Kingdom (not in a sexist way, but in a Patriarchal way). This man was faithful in life, and so he shall receive even though he had something of a Prodigal Wife. Similarly, there's doubtlessly a faithful woman whose husband broke the covenant and leaves her alone in the eternities with her children who were born into a broken covenant.

Now that we've reached the deep end let's dive. Here I'm immersed in speculation. At some point before the faithful husband and the future wife (remember this is different from the ex'd one) are resurrected, they have to be sealed to each other. I support the teaching of Joseph Fielding Smith that there will probably be open revelation during the Millenium to help us get this right. This not only includes the case of a wife (or husband) getting ex'd, but for any spouse that does not live up to covenants. Then, another ordinance has to be performed to graft the children into this covenant, since they are not born into a general marriage covenant (because then the cheating father's children in the earlier cases would automatically be BIC without any addiitonal work).

And let's just add one more case to this. Let's say there's children who parents have both broken the covenant. For whatever reason, they are to be grafted into Brigham's family. Before the work can be done, the saints would have to know which wife to seal them to as well. I say, let the dead work that out, and then reveal it to the living.

[mordorbund]

I should add that I posted under the assumption that in a plural marriage, each marriage to the man is a separate covenant. Now that I think about it, that might not be the case. I think the first wife participated in the sealing (in essence giving her consent, nothing weird (or weirder than multiple wives)), so the new wife may actually be received under the same covenant. I'll think for a bit how that changes things (if that's the case) before posting more thoughts on it.

[classylady]

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.

I have researched this, because this is what has happened with my husband. He was sealed to his first wife. She had several affairs and was excommunicated. They divorced. They had two children prior to her excommunication--so those two children were BIC. No matter what the parents do, those children will always be BIC and will not lose any blessings.

Because of the excommunication the sealing between husband and wife has been revoked. But, the children that were BIC don't lose any of those sealing blessings. Any subsequent children the ex-wife has will not be considered BIC because she was excommunicated. Even if they had remained married, any subsequent children would not be BIC and would need to be sealed to the parents after her rebaptism. My husband and I researched this because his ex has had two daughters since their divorce. She has never been rebaptized, so her subsequent children were not BIC. Now if she had gotten rebaptized, and had her temple blessings restored before giving birth to the subsequent children, then they would have been BIC.

Edit: If I'm not making any sense here and repeating myself, forgive me, I was flying most of the day--first from SLC to Houston and then Houston to Seattle--and it was like 3 in the morning when I typed this.

Edited June 24, 2011 by classylady

[MarginOfError]

How dare you guys go and have a policy quiz while I'm out of reach?!

Brother Bart is sealed to Sister Suzie in the temple. Tragically, they divorce some time later, but do not get their sealing dissolved at that time. Bart then marries Therese in a civil ceremony, and together they produce little Xaviera.

QUESTION 1: Is Xaviera born in the covenant?

• Yes, Xaviera is born in the covenant of her father Bart and Suzie, to whom he is sealed.
• No, Xaviera is not born in the covenant.

Technically, the answer is "Yes if and only if Therese was previously sealed to any man and that sealing remains in place. Otherwise no." (Handbook 1 3.6.2)

During this time period, Suzie also remarries in a civil ceremony. She and her husband Charlie welcome a new baby, Yolando.

QUESTION 2: Is Yolando born in the covenant?

• Yes, Yolando is born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and Bart, to whom she is sealed.
• No, Yolando is not born in the covenant.

Yes (Handbook 1, 3.6.2).

After some time, Bart and Therese are sealed. Suzie has her sealing to Bart cancelled, and then she is sealed to Charlie.

QUESTION 3: Can little Xaviera be sealed to her parents?

• Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. She was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.
• Of course she can be sealed to her father Bart and to her real, biological mother Therese. Her sealing to Bart and Suzie is of no effect, since the sealing between them no longer exists.
• Of course not; she was born in the covenant of her father Bart and his first wife Suzie, so another sealing is meaningless.

She may as she was not sealed in the first place. (Handbook 1, 3.6.2)

QUESTION 4: Can baby Yolando be sealed to his parents?

• Of course he can be sealed to his real, biological father Charlie and to his mother Suzie. He was never sealed to anyone else in the first place.
• Of course he can be sealed to his real, biological father Charlie and to his mother Suzie. His sealing to Bart and Suzie is of no effect, since the sealing between them no longer exists.
• Of course not; he was born in the covenant of his mother Suzie and her first husband Bart, so another sealing is meaningless.

They may if and only if the First Presidency grants approval (Handbook 1, 3.6.2 sub-sub-sub section "Adopted or Foster Children Who are Living"

Yolando and Xaviera grow up, meet, and against all odds fall in love and are married.

QUESTION 5: Isn't this kind of like, um, incest or something?

• This is totally just wrong.
• Hmmm. No, not incest, because they aren't related by blood. Just weird.
• Oooh, yuck, I can't think about this!

The CHI doesn't define incest, which leads me to believe that it accepts the local legal standard of incest, ie, blood related. Hence, this would not be incest unless there were some relation among all the parents that happened to satisfy the legal standard for incest between the children.

QUESTION 6: Who pays for the reception?

• Bride's parents.
• Groom's parents.
• They split the cost.
• Let the darn kids pay for it themselves.

I can't find any statement in the CHI that addresses this issue. It is a matter under the discretion of local priesthood leadership.

Bart and Suzie's long-lost daughter Wanda comes back one day.

QUESTION 7: How is she introduced by Yolando and Xaviera at Church?

• "This is my sister and, um, Yolando's sister, too"?
• "Xaviera and I have a sister in common, and, well, here she is."
• "Hi, we're Wanda, Xaviera, and Yolando, and we're visiting your ward today."

Again, the CHI has no statement regarding the proper form of introduction. It is a matter under the discretion of local priesthood leadership.

[pam]

You can see how we struggled without you MOE.

[Dravin]

I can't find any statement in the CHI that addresses this issue. It is a matter under the discretion of local priesthood leadership.

If local priesthood leadership told me who was to pay for the reception I'd give them a curious look and promptly ignore them unless I was impressed it was wise counsel. I'd put it on par with my Bishop coming up to me (or us/her) and telling me (or us/her) what the wedding colors should be, or what flavor the cake should be*.

*Friendly advice is of course one thing, but if told in the same capacity (or supposed) capacity as say, "No, you can't stay at the hotel and bless the sacrament. You still need to come to Church even if it's the day after the wedding." that'd just be weird.

[MarginOfError]

If local priesthood leadership told me who was to pay for the reception I'd give them a curious look and promptly ignore them unless I was impressed it was wise counsel. I'd put it on par with my Bishop coming up to me (or us/her) and telling me (or us/her) what the wedding colors should be, or what flavor the cake should be*.

*Friendly advice is of course one thing, but if told in the same capacity (or supposed) capacity as say, "No, you can't stay at the hotel and bless the sacrament. You still need to come to Church even if it's the day after the wedding." that'd just be weird.

Sorry, Dravin. I've been backpacking with my boy scouts all week and have been telling them preposterous stories in a tone of voice that makes them think I'm serious. I've had them believing all sorts of ridiculous things. I guess I'm still in the habit of doing it. The statement you quoted was very much intended to be dry humor.

Now, anyone want to come give me a hip massage (strangely, my shoulders feel pretty good)

[Gwen]

I think there should be a difference between BIC (as a widow) and having new children under a new civil marriage.

As such, I still haven't seen any official church doctrine or handbook quotations to back up the "maternal" covenant.

There is a difference between divorce and widow. We can't use the standard or make assumptions about one based on the other. The reason being, in my opinion/understanding, is that the sealing covenant is nothing more than potential. God will allow us to have an eternal marriage IF we live a covenant marriage. When you divorce that covenant is no longer in tact, you broke your end of the deal you have no promise.

When a spouse dies there is an assumption that the until death shows that you did live the covenant and a desire to have that promise in the next life (if the couple does not they will have to take that up with the lord later).

So the couple that divorces and remarries has a child in a covenant with no promise.

The child born to a widow is born into a covenant with a promise.

Big difference.

[Gwen]

Now, anyone want to come give me a hip massage (strangely, my shoulders feel pretty good)

Question 5 has appropriate answer choices for this, A or C work well.

[classylady]

I think there should be a difference between BIC (as a widow) and having new children under a new civil marriage.

As such, I still haven't seen any official church doctrine or handbook quotations to back up the "maternal" covenant.

I don't know where to find the information in the handbook. It could be there. But, some of the answers are with "Ask Gramps". My husband and I were researching this because of his sister who is widowed, and previously sealed to her first husband. She then remarried, and because she was already sealed, she could not be sealed to her second husband. She had a child with her second husband. Her child with her second husband is BIC. My husband and I were wondering if this doctrine applies to widows, does it also apply to divorcees, because he is divorced and his ex has had two subsequent children. In "Ask Gramps" it does go over the BIC doctrine with divorcees--and how the same doctrine applies to them.

What I have found in the Old Testament is the history of Judah and his three sons. His oldest son Er married Tamar. Er died. Then Judah said unto Onan (his second son), Genesis 38:8-9 "Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 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." Onan dies, and verse 11 "Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law. Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house." We know the rest of the story. Shelah becomes an adult, and Tamar was not given to him as a wife. She poses as a harlot, and waits for Judah. Judah gives her his signet, bracelets, and staff as tokens to her and "came in unto her, and she conceived by him."

I'm thinking this is more than just the culture of the time. And my understanding is that the same doctrine applies to a divorcee who hasn't had her sealing cancelled when she has subsequent children. I know it's bothersome to some people.

Edited June 26, 2011 by classylady

[skippy740]

Let's not forget that there are sealings "for time only" and not for eternity. This is for when a couple is married, but the wife has already been sealed to her 1st husband, but has since passed.

Let's just make it easy for everyone: Never get divorced. Get married once. Never get married again if your spouse dies or whatever. It just makes the family history and record keeping way too complicated!

(I'm teasing... well, to a point anyway.) :)

[Gwen]

There are no "sealings" for time only. You can go to the temple and be legally/civilly married but not sealed (for time only). But they are not "sealings".

[dahlia]

There are no "sealings" for time only. You can go to the temple and be legally/civilly married but not sealed (for time only). But they are not "sealings".

Can you explain this further? Eventually, I would like to be sealed to my deceased husband. I would also like to get married again. I thought we would have to get married in the chapel, but are you saying that we could get married in the temple, but not sealed? That would be nice.

[classylady]

My husband's sister, when she married the second time, she was married in the temple--it was not a sealing, but marriage for time only.

[Gwen]

Can you explain this further? Eventually, I would like to be sealed to my deceased husband. I would also like to get married again. I thought we would have to get married in the chapel, but are you saying that we could get married in the temple, but not sealed? That would be nice.

There are 4 kinds of temple marriages.

Proxy marriages (when both are passed on)

Ones where sealing and marriage take place at the same time.

Sealings after civil marriage.

Marriage for time only (if both parties were previously sealed to spouses that have passed on)

If both people are temple worthy and have their own covenants then they can be married in the temple without being sealed, the words of the ceremony are different. The sealers have to get the legal authority to perform marriages before they can perform marriages/sealings so it's not a big deal to do this.

[classylady]

With marriage for time only in the temple, the man does not necessarily need to have been sealed previously. My SIL's second husband had not been sealed previously. And that can lead to some problems because then the man is not sealed, and perhaps may not have the blessing of being sealed in this life time. That's when we really have to rely on the promise that all will be taken care of in the next life.

[Guest saintish]

My understanding has been that for men there is no "taking care of it later" If its not taken care of in this life you are pretty much SOL. Assuming you were of age to marry etc.

[pam]

My understanding has been that for men there is no "taking care of it later" If its not taken care of in this life you are pretty much SOL. Assuming you were of age to marry etc.

What if you are a male convert, already married when baptized and your wife didn't join the church? Would a man then be just SOL? I would hate to think so.

[Guest saintish]

Me too, but that is my understanding, which may very well be wrong.

[Gwen]

my understanding was if you had opportunity and rejected it then there is no taking care of it later, that was true for men and women. The catch to that is no one here can be the judge of if someone had the opportunity.

If someone proposes but the spirit tells the person to say no or to break it off after accepting then that was not an opportunity. Pam's situation would be clearly not having the opportunity to be sealed.

Judging who fits the had the opportunity and passed it up is kinda like us trying to judge who had truly denied the holy ghost. We can't, we don't know what they knew, what they were capable of, what the spirit told them and when, etc. It's not ours to judge.

[classylady]

I agree,, we just can't judge. In my SIL's situation, her second husband had never been married before. Will he forever be denied the blessings of exaltation because he married a woman who was widowed and previously sealed, so he was unable to be sealed to her? I think in cases such as these, there will be opportunities in the next life for things to be worked out.

Saintish, I had also heard for men there was no "taking care of it later", but I'm thinking that might possibly be Mormon Myth, or opinions of some early church leaders. I simply don't know if there's any church doctrine on this. If anyone knows differently I'd like to know the sources. I do know that my husband's grandmother, after she was widowed (and she had been sealed to her first husband) chose not to marry a man who had never been married before because she didn't want to deny him the blessings of an eternal marriage, and was afraid that he would lose his chances of exaltation. I know this has been the opinion of quite a few in the church.

[Maureen]

I agree,, we just can't judge. In my SIL's situation, her second husband had never been married before. Will he forever be denied the blessings of exaltation because he married a woman who was widowed and previously sealed, so he was unable to be sealed to her? I think in cases such as these, there will be opportunities in the next life for things to be worked out.

Saintish, I had also heard for men there was no "taking care of it later", but I'm thinking that might possibly be Mormon Myth, or opinions of some early church leaders. I simply don't know if there's any church doctrine on this. If anyone knows differently I'd like to know the sources. I do know that my husband's grandmother, after she was widowed (and she had been sealed to her first husband) chose not to marry a man who had never been married before because she didn't want to deny him the blessings of an eternal marriage, and was afraid that he would lose his chances of exaltation. I know this has been the opinion of quite a few in the church.

I wonder if this would apply to your SIL and her 2nd husband.

Deceased women married more than once. You may have a deceased woman sealed to all men to whom she was legally married. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

Member's Guide to Temple and Family History Work Chapter 7: Providing Temple Ordinances

M.