Another question on excommunication and sealings

[classylady]

Here's the scenario:  John and Mary are sealed in the temple.  They get divorced.  Mary then marries Sam, who is not a member of the church.  She and Sam have a child together, and the child is considered Born in the Covenant (BIC) because the sealing between Mary and John has not been cancelled.  Now, a couple of years later, Mary's ex husband John is excommunicated.  Mary and her current husband Sam still have not been sealed together, but they have another child.  Is this second child that is born after John's excommunication considered BIC, or because of John's excommunication, is the child born out of the covenant?  Now, furthering the scenario:  John is rebaptized and has his temple blessings restored.  Mary and Sam have a third child after John's temple blessings have been restored.  This third child--BIC?

 

What my understanding is:

Child number one is BIC.

Child number two, I'm not sure, but I don't think BIC. I could be wrong.

Child number three is BIC.

 

What's your understanding?

[Palerider]

I don't believe either one of the two kids are born unde the covenant because this Sam dude is not a member nor a TR holder and she wasn't sealed to Sam

[lagarthaaz]

Why would any children born to Mary and Sam belong to her previous sealing to John? He's not their father!

[notquiteperfect]

Looking at it another way may help - if a person is working on their family history and see that ordinances need to take place, the kids would be sealed to the biological parents, wouldn't they?  So why would it be different for the living???  

 

Just my 2c and others are free to chime in with other info that might make my 2c not worth anything at all. :)

[Vort]

My understanding is that all the children are BIC. Their mother is under covenant, and they are born to her, so they are all born in that covenant.

 

The old rule of thumb used in plural marriage and after was, "The children follow the mother." Many took this to mean that the children somehow "belong to" the mother and not the father, so the father stood to lose the children if his wife left him. But I believe it really just meant that you can tell the birth sealing status of the child by looking at the marital sealing status of the mother.

[MarginOfError]

My understanding is that all the children are BIC. Their mother is under covenant, and they are born to her, so they are all born in that covenant.

 

The old rule of thumb used in plural marriage and after was, "The children follow the mother." Many took this to mean that the children somehow "belong to" the mother and not the father, so the father stood to lose the children if his wife left him. But I believe it really just meant that you can tell the birth sealing status of the child by looking at the marital sealing status of the mother.

 

I will confirm what Vort has said.  All three children are considered BIC so long as the mother's sealing covenant has not been cancelled.  And the only way a mother can have that covenant cancelled is sealing cancellation, excommunication, or voluntary name removal.  The actions of the biological father make no difference.

 

And to make explicit something that Vort left implicit: BIC status is a clerical issue.  Some might argue with me about that, but pragmatically, I don't think it makes a difference.  And yes, those three BIC children born to Mary and Sam would most likely be sealed to Mary and Sam at some point (either after Mary's sealing cancellation or posthumously).  This is why I say the BIC is a clerical issue.  The BIC status on a church membership record does not necessarily align with temporal or eternal claims to ancestry.

[classylady]

Thanks, Vort and MOE.  I was thinking about this some more, and I believe you're right.

 

 

I don't believe either one of the two kids are born unde the covenant because this Sam dude is not a member nor a TR holder and she wasn't sealed to Sam

 

 

Pale, as long as the mother has been at one time sealed, and then has not been excommunicated, had her name removed from the church, or had her sealing cancelled, all her children are considered BIC.  She could even have a child out-of-wedlock, or even in this scenario where the second husband is a nonmember, her children are still considered BIC.

 

Edit:  And for a little more clarification:  If a man that has been sealed to his first wife, and then divorces or is widowed, and then he marries civilly (not sealed) to a second wife, (and the second wife has never been sealed to a previous husband), any of his children with the second wife will not be BIC.

Edited February 13, 2015 by classylady

[MarginOfError]

Thanks, Vort and MOE.  I was thinking about this some more, and I believe you're right.

 

 

 

 

Pale, as long as the mother has been at one time sealed, and then has not been excommunicated, had her name removed from the church, or had her sealing cancelled, all her children are considered BIC.  She could even have a child out-of-wedlock, or even in this scenario where the second husband is a nonmember, her children are still considered BIC.

 

Again, clerically speaking.  Afterall, what good does it do a child to be born in the covenant if her parents are not honoring that covenant?

[classylady]

Children that are BIC or sealed to their parents have the promise of Eternal parentage.

[Vort]

Again, clerically speaking.  Afterall, what good does it do a child to be born in the covenant if her parents are not honoring that covenant?

 

Not sure if this question was rhetorical, but my answer is: I don't know, but it clearly does some good.

 

There are blessings that come from being born in the covenant, blessings so important that a child (of any age) sealed to his/her parents is promised the very same blessings that pertain to someone born in the covenant. It seems obvious to me that these blessings are dependent on the parents for their full realization; but even with unworthy parents, the sealing blessings are vital, and it is important that all people eventually have access to those blessings. The fact that I'm unable to articulate what those blessings are or how they are related to the sealing doesn't change their importance.

 

I would not choose the phrase "clerical issue", though in a sense I think it's true. I would say that we do not currently understand how these various ordinances and blessings interact, but that ignorance does not stop us from accepting and taking advantage of these things as they are given to us. For example:

 

It doesn't seem "fair" to me that a good man is not "sealed to" his children that he has by a woman sealed to another (unworthy) man. Okay, so it doesn't seem fair. But God is just, and that justice encompasses anything I think of as "fair". So my feelings that this is unfair are really just a sign that I don't know what's going on. Which is true: I don't. Clearly, a just God will do everything in a just manner. If we are noble and honest, we will have nobility and honesty returned to us. We see now through a glass, darkly, but that doesn't mean reality is dark and distorted. It isn't. It means that our vision is imperfect. That's part of the limitations of mortality.

 

So rather than worry about this and rail at the Church or its leaders or God himself because my perception of reality doesn't match up with what I think reality should be, I would do better to accept things as they are, put the question aside for the moment (which might last for a day or for the rest of my life), and go on about my business. In this sense, I accept MOE's characterization of this as a "clerical issue".

[classylady]

Not sure if this question was rhetorical, but my answer is: I don't know, but it clearly does some good.

 

There are blessings that come from being born in the covenant, blessings so important that a child (of any age) sealed to his/her parents is promised the very same blessings that pertain to someone born in the covenant. It seems obvious to me that these blessings are dependent on the parents for their full realization; but even with unworthy parents, the sealing blessings are vital, and it is important that all people eventually have access to those blessings. The fact that I'm unable to articulate what those blessings are or how they are related to the sealing doesn't change their importance.

 

I would not choose the phrase "clerical issue", though in a sense I think it's true. I would say that we do not currently understand how these various ordinances and blessings interact, but that ignorance does not stop us from accepting and taking advantage of these things as they are given to us. For example:

 

It doesn't seem "fair" to me that a good man is not "sealed to" his children that he has by a woman sealed to another (unworthy) man. Okay, so it doesn't seem fair. But God is just, and that justice encompasses anything I think of as "fair". So my feelings that this is unfair are really just a sign that I don't know what's going on. Which is true: I don't. Clearly, a just God will do everything in a just manner. If we are noble and honest, we will have nobility and honesty returned to us. We see now through a glass, darkly, but that doesn't mean reality is dark and distorted. It isn't. It means that our vision is imperfect. That's part of the limitations of mortality.

 

So rather than worry about this and rail at the Church or its leaders or God himself because my perception of reality doesn't match up with what I think reality should be, I would do better to accept things as they are, put the question aside for the moment (which might last for a day or for the rest of my life), and go on about my business. In this sense, I accept MOE's characterization of this as a "clerical issue".

 

And, a good many people do worry about this.  There are a lot of divorced members who have been previously sealed to their first spouse.  Then the woman remarries civilly.  She and her second husband have a child.  Later when the couple decide to go to the temple to be sealed, it can be quite a shock to them to find out their child is already BIC if they don't understand this principle.

[Pa Pa]

Here's the scenario: John and Mary are sealed in the temple. They get divorced. Mary then marries Sam, who is not a member of the church. She and Sam have a child together, and the child is considered Born in the Covenant (BIC) because the sealing between Mary and John has not been cancelled. Now, a couple of years later, Mary's ex husband John is excommunicated. Mary and her current husband Sam still have not been sealed together, but they have another child. Is this second child that is born after John's excommunication considered BIC, or because of John's excommunication, is the child born out of the covenant? Now, furthering the scenario: John is rebaptized and has his temple blessings restored. Mary and Sam have a third child after John's temple blessings have been restored. This third child--BIC?

What my understanding is:

Child number one is BIC.

Child number two, I'm not sure, but I don't think BIC. I could be wrong.

Child number three is BIC.

What's your understanding?

Once they are divorced and she remarries, none of Mary and Sam's are John's and one ex'ed he loses all Temple covenants, although re-baptized Mary's son never was his, but hers. No matter what men might think, if wrong...God will make right. Also I have a close friend who was married in the Temple they divorced and when he met someone new they were married in the Temple without sealing canceling. Anyway....if John was ex'ed he may have Temple covenants restored (after a long wait), but he would not have his marriage restored.

[Jane_Doe]

Here's the scenario:  John and Mary are sealed in the temple.  They get divorced.  Mary then marries Sam, who is not a member of the church.  She and Sam have a child together, and the child is considered Born in the Covenant (BIC) because the sealing between Mary and John has not been cancelled.  Now, a couple of years later, Mary's ex husband John is excommunicated.  Mary and her current husband Sam still have not been sealed together, but they have another child.  Is this second child that is born after John's excommunication considered BIC, or because of John's excommunication, is the child born out of the covenant?  Now, furthering the scenario:  John is rebaptized and has his temple blessings restored.  Mary and Sam have a third child after John's temple blessings have been restored.  This third child--BIC?

 

What my understanding is:

Child number one is BIC.

Child number two, I'm not sure, but I don't think BIC. I could be wrong.

Child number three is BIC.

 

What's your understanding?

 

 

This is actually quite simple if you look at the implications of BIC.

 

Sealings: in mom and dad weren't sealed to begin with, then kid needs to be sealed to them (after mom and dad are sealed of course).  Any other people mom and dad have been sealed to in the past or will be sealed to is irrelevant.  

 

Being raised with the Gospel in the home: is determined by what mom and dad teach them.  It has nothing to do with the "BIC" label.

[Palerider]

I will have to ask the Temple Presidency. This has got my curiosity