for time and all eternity, naw, I changed my mind.


sister_in_faith
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope that this question doesn't offend anyone, but this is something that has bugged me for some time.

When I first learned of sealings in the temple I was impressed by the weightiness of being sealed. I thought, man, these people who decide to be sealed really have to be sure of their decision. This is heavy stuff. This isn't something that can just be tossed aside. People get married every day, knowing that they can just turn around and get a divorce without blinking an eye, but SEALING, wow. That can't just be cancelled! That was my naieve thinking.

I had a friend, who is married. They had both been married in the temple before, and were both sealed to other people as well as being sealed to each other. I was shocked. I asked her (in hushed tones) how that was going to work out in the end, and she was so flip about it, she just said, oh, heavenly father won't make us be sealed to someone we don't want to be.

I'm finding that that this is a pervasive attitude in our church. You can get sealed, and then just cancel it later, HF won't make you stay sealed to someone you don't want to be. I'm thinking, don't seal yourself to someone you don't want to be sealed to.

I completely understand that there are times when divorce/sealing cancellation is necessary, like in cases of domestic violence. I'm just concerned that perhaps some members of the church don't take it as seriously as they should. I mean, sealing is such a precious blessing from Heavenly Father, shouldn't we be very careful not to just toss it aside when it becomes inconvenient? I can't think of a good solution - I mean, I think that maybe there could be a waiting period, so you can't get sealed until a year after marriage, but then children could be born out of the covenant, maybe 8 1/2 months waiting period if you are pregnant, a year if you aren't... I don't know, I guess I just feel like we need to be more careful with this gift.

Does anyone else feel this way? Anyone have some insight that would help me see this from a different perspective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

Sister your concerns are well grounded, but I can assure you that the Church does not take the seriousness of sealing lightly. Cancellations are not given freely or quickly. When the bind between a husband and a wife is broken through infidelity, abuse, or neglect and a marriage ends, I am sure that the parties involved can rest assured that they will not be together in the next life as a family unit (barring reconciliation). This does not mean that they will automatically have a free pass to try again with someone else. For a temple marriage to end there has been a violation of covenants by someone. It takes a fair amount of work to show that one has repented of that violation to get clearance to be sealed again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are those who take their covenants lightly, sometimes it's their baptismal covenant, sometimes the covenants made as part of the endowment, or as you point out their sealing. I'm not sure how persuasive it is, there is incredible selection bias for something like this. For every person who isn't taking the sealing covenant seriously (either prior or after entering into it) how many people are taking the covenant seriously that we just don't notice?

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are those who take their covenants lightly, sometimes it's their baptismal covenant, covenants made as part of the endowment, or as you point out their sealing. I'm not sure how persuasive it is, there is incredible selection bias for something like this. For every person who isn't taking the sealing covenant seriously (either prior or after entering into it) how many people are taking the covenant seriously that we just don't notice?

Idiots do stand out more than the quiet, happily married forever kind of couple. At least in the church they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idiots do stand out more than the quiet, happily married forever kind of couple. At least in the church they do.

And particularly on a site such as this. People don't post (for the most part) to the advice forums asking what they should do about their happy and satisfying marriage which they are treating with appropriate seriousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband was married before in the temple so we have gone through that process. From his point of view he did it so she, and her family, would leave him alone. I suspect a lot of them are that way. It does not make for a good marriage. He had to grow up and learn what it means the hard way.

If its done lightly how can they claim to have a testimony enough to want a temple marriage for real? They do say there are social mormons. Maybe that explains it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brigham Young explains this best

I think it has been taught by some that as we lay our bodies down they will so rise again in the resurrection with all the impediments and imperfections that they had here; and that if a wife does not love her husband in this state she cannot love him in the next. This is not so. Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God. If you can, by faithfulness in this life, obtain the right to come up in the morning of the resurrection, you need entertain no fears that the wife will be dissatisfied with her husband, or the husband with the wife; for those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin. -Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 10:24, October 6, 1862

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most members of the church take their sealing covenant seriously. Granted, there may be a few that don't. From my experience, everyone I've known who have divorced, agonized over their decision. I don't believe they were flippant about their sealing covenant.

As for Sister-in-Faith's comment about children born out of the covenant--For women, who have been previously sealed, and then get divorced or widowed, (as long as they are not excommunicated), any subsequent children they have will still be considered born in the covenant (BIC). Even if she has a child out of wedlock, the child would still be considered BIC. And the same applies if she remarries civilly and is not sealed to her 2nd husband, her children born with 2nd husband is considered BIC. In these instances, if she has been excommunicated, the children would not be BIC. This same principle does not apply to the men. If a man divorces or is widowed, in order for any of his subsequent children to be BIC, he must be sealed to his 2nd wife (unless his 2nd wife is still sealed to a former spouse). So, if a man, who has previously been sealed, has a child out of wedlock or in a civil marriage only, the child would not be BIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most members of the church take their sealing covenant seriously. Granted, there may be a few that don't. From my experience, everyone I've known who have divorced, agonized over their decision. I don't believe they were flippant about their sealing covenant.

As for Sister-in-Faith's comment about children born out of the covenant--For women, who have been previously sealed, and then get divorced or widowed, (as long as they are not excommunicated), any subsequent children they have will still be considered born in the covenant (BIC). Even if she has a child out of wedlock, the child would still be considered BIC. And the same applies if she remarries civilly and is not sealed to her 2nd husband, her children born with 2nd husband is considered BIC. In these instances, if she has been excommunicated, the children would not be BIC. This same principle does not apply to the men. If a man divorces or is widowed, in order for any of his subsequent children to be BIC, he must be sealed to his 2nd wife (unless his 2nd wife is still sealed to a former spouse). So, if a man, who has previously been sealed, has a child out of wedlock or in a civil marriage only, the child would not be BIC.

wow thats complicated. I do not understand why any child born to him is not under the covenant. Any explanation on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow thats complicated. I do not understand why any child born to him is not under the covenant. Any explanation on that?

I don't know all the whys and the wherefores. My understanding would be because in the case of widowhood, the wife is still considered sealed to her late husband. And her subsequent children that she would have in a civil marriage--or even out of wedlock, would be sealed to her and her deceased husband. As for doctrine, remember the story of Tamar in Genesis 38: 8-26. She was the daughter-in-law of Judah. Her first husband dies, and Judah says to his second son Onan, "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." Then Onan dies, and Judah promises his youngest son Shelah to Tamar. But, when Shelah was grown he was not given to Tamar. Tamar then disguises herself as a harlot and conceives by Judah. Is this just the culture of the time, or is this doctrine? I'm thinking it's a little of both. Culturally, we don't give our daughter-in-laws to subsequent sons. But, the premise that subsequent children are sealed (BIC) to the widow and her first husband would be the core doctrine. This would hold true for divorce if the wife has not received a sealing cancellation, and/or been excommunicated from the church. If excommunicated, her sealing would be revoked.

In the case of a man being widowed, or divorced, and if he remarries civilly, and the new spouse has not previously been sealed, the children would not be born in the covenant. It seems to me, that the sealing goes through the mother. Why? I don't have the answer to that. Maybe because the man can be sealed to more than one wife while in mortality, but the woman may only be sealed to one man. Why? Again, I don't have the answer to that. In my own circumstance, my husband was divorced and previously sealed to his first wife. We married civilly, and had our first child before we went through the temple and were sealed. Our first child, was not BIC, and therefore needed to be sealed to us.

About a year ago, I did some further research on this because my husbands's ex-wife has subsequently remarried civilly, and has two more children. My husband and I were wondering if her subsequent children were sealed to him. I found out that because she was excommunicated, and has never come back into the church, that the children are not considered BIC (sealed to my husband). But, if she had not been excommunicated, her subsequent children would have been considered BIC.

Clear as mud, right? I don't know if my answer helped any.

Edited by classylady
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brigham Young explains this best

I think it has been taught by some that as we lay our bodies down they will so rise again in the resurrection with all the impediments and imperfections that they had here; and that if a wife does not love her husband in this state she cannot love him in the next. This is not so. Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God. If you can, by faithfulness in this life, obtain the right to come up in the morning of the resurrection, you need entertain no fears that the wife will be dissatisfied with her husband, or the husband with the wife; for those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin. -Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 10:24, October 6, 1862

Yeah, but Brother Brigham also said in the journal of discourses that there were people living on the moon.

I wouldn't believe everything in the JD. If it were in any of the Standard Works though it would be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Brother Brigham also said in the journal of discourses that there were people living on the moon.

I wouldn't believe everything in the JD. If it were in any of the Standard Works though it would be a different story.

I should add that the problem I have with the quote is that Brigham seems to be saying that if you don't love your spouse now you will automatically love them in the after life because we'll be perfect. There seems to be a paradox and a contradiction there. It seems to be contrary to the doctrine that we'll be raised with all the passions, feelings, tendencies and knowledge we have when we left the world. The paradox I see is how can we not love them, and everyone else after we are perfected if the attribute of perfect love is not found in us at that point? And would our inability to either accept, or reject the sealing in the afterlife void our agency? Wasn't our agency a rather large sticking point for some in the pre mortal world? Or have I just been awake too long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that this question doesn't offend anyone, but this is something that has bugged me for some time.

When I first learned of sealings in the temple I was impressed by the weightiness of being sealed. I thought, man, these people who decide to be sealed really have to be sure of their decision. This is heavy stuff. This isn't something that can just be tossed aside. People get married every day, knowing that they can just turn around and get a divorce without blinking an eye, but SEALING, wow. That can't just be cancelled! That was my naieve thinking.

I had a friend, who is married. They had both been married in the temple before, and were both sealed to other people as well as being sealed to each other. I was shocked. I asked her (in hushed tones) how that was going to work out in the end, and she was so flip about it, she just said, oh, heavenly father won't make us be sealed to someone we don't want to be.

I'm finding that that this is a pervasive attitude in our church. You can get sealed, and then just cancel it later, HF won't make you stay sealed to someone you don't want to be. I'm thinking, don't seal yourself to someone you don't want to be sealed to.

I completely understand that there are times when divorce/sealing cancellation is necessary, like in cases of domestic violence. I'm just concerned that perhaps some members of the church don't take it as seriously as they should. I mean, sealing is such a precious blessing from Heavenly Father, shouldn't we be very careful not to just toss it aside when it becomes inconvenient? I can't think of a good solution - I mean, I think that maybe there could be a waiting period, so you can't get sealed until a year after marriage, but then children could be born out of the covenant, maybe 8 1/2 months waiting period if you are pregnant, a year if you aren't... I don't know, I guess I just feel like we need to be more careful with this gift.

Does anyone else feel this way? Anyone have some insight that would help me see this from a different perspective?

Im pretty darn certain that the leadership wishes that the lds membership in general took the coveneants made, especially ones in the temple, far more seriously then we do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Brother Brigham also said in the journal of discourses that there were people living on the moon.

I wouldn't believe everything in the JD. If it were in any of the Standard Works though it would be a different story.

So are you saying we should discount everything in thousands of pages of information because of a few statements? I am curious what you disagree with in the statement I provided and if you believe it is something that should be dismissed as false doctrine? I think it is perfectly logical to believe what Brigham Young said, and we will have a higher capability of love in the resurrection and will be able to look past the faults of others because the faults of others will disappear since we will be on the road towards perfection, and our ability to forgive and look and begin to see people the way God sees them will increase. I see nothing wrong with his statement at all and is in line from what we learn about resurrected Celestial beings from the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that the problem I have with the quote is that Brigham seems to be saying that if you don't love your spouse now you will automatically love them in the after life because we'll be perfect. There seems to be a paradox and a contradiction there. It seems to be contrary to the doctrine that we'll be raised with all the passions, feelings, tendencies and knowledge we have when we left the world. The paradox I see is how can we not love them, and everyone else after we are perfected if the attribute of perfect love is not found in us at that point? And would our inability to either accept, or reject the sealing in the afterlife void our agency? Wasn't our agency a rather large sticking point for some in the pre mortal world? Or have I just been awake too long?

You are mixing the Spirit World with resurrection. In the Spirit World everyone will have the same passions, beliefs, etc... as we do now. But that will obviously change because how will we be a perfect being if we still have our mortal flaws? If we are gossipers in this life, how can we be perfect and still gossip about others? Or if we have a problem with any other sin? We will have a greater capacity to learn, love, grow, create, etc.... in the resurrection. Remember, in the Spirit World, there will be atheists but in the resurrection every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. There is a huge difference between resurrected beings and mortal and spirit beings.

But, the closer we are to Christ in this life, we will have His attributes and have that much more of an advantage over someone who hasn't progressed as far as us. This life is a time to prepare to meet God and we have the opportunity to get a head start on the road to perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are mixing the Spirit World with resurrection. In the Spirit World everyone will have the same passions, beliefs, etc... as we do now. But that will obviously change because how will we be a perfect being if we still have our mortal flaws? If we are gossipers in this life, how can we be perfect and still gossip about others? Or if we have a problem with any other sin? We will have a greater capacity to learn, love, grow, create, etc.... in the resurrection. Remember, in the Spirit World, there will be atheists but in the resurrection every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. There is a huge difference between resurrected beings and mortal and spirit beings.

But, the closer we are to Christ in this life, we will have His attributes and have that much more of an advantage over someone who hasn't progressed as far as us. This life is a time to prepare to meet God and we have the opportunity to get a head start on the road to perfection.

Let me ask you this and get your thoughts on it. I was taught many many years ago, that when we die, we die with many of the same cravings that we had while a mortal being. That's why it's so important to learn to curb those cravings while here on earth. Such as a smoker will still crave nicotine, that an alcoholic will still crave alcohol.

I've always wondered about that. It kind of goes along with the statement you just made. Is that before we are resurrected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share