seashmore

Sealing Children Born Out of Wedlock

Recommended Posts

Anyone know the sealing guidelines for children born to unwed parents? I can't be the only person out there to have encountered this in my family history. 

Don't parents have to be sealed to each other before having children sealed to them? And, generally speaking, what was not bound on earth cannot be bound in heaven, right? So what happens if Tommy's parents never married on earth? 

I once presented this scenario to a temple matron, and got a "I hadn't thought of that" look/response, and someone else got a "God will sort it out somehow" answer from their bishop, so I'm not necessarily expecting an answer. But, yes, it's kept me up a night or two.

Edited by Eowyn
language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this quote from a manual, 'No births are illegitimate. All children are illegitimate'. Children do not bear the sins of their parents. 

Ideas: Call local family history centre. Ask question, if the staff person does not know, ask who would. The director of the centre may not know but there is a phone number for Salt Lake assistance. It might take some asking but eventually they will call Salt Lake. 

My guess is that the parents need to be sealed first. 

Dont sweat the answer. Whatever the situation, God will sort it out. Don't let this keep you up at night. God has it all in hand. Remember we have the millennium to sort out all this sort of thing! A number of people in my ward, come from war torn countries. Not a lot of genealogy is going on there! First Rule: God is not mean! He loves us! It will all be sorted out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a situation that has changed in recent years from what I understand.

Originally, a woman was sealed to the man that she married.  If she married more than once, it was the first husband.  In this situation, the children would go with the father and whoever he was sealed to.

Now, they do it differently.

If I understand it correctly.

Woman can be sealed to multiple men.  In this instance, in order for the children to be sealed to their mother, their mother would be sealed to the father (even if they were never married, or divorced).  The idea now days is to seal everyone together and let the Lord sort it out later.  A LOT more work for those in the millennium.

This has created a rift in our family to a small degree.  An ancestor of mine (close actually) stated that they were NEVER to be sealed to her first husband.  He was abusive (in multiple ways) and she divorced him.  She married again to the individual she wished to be sealed to.  She stated that under no condition whatsoever was she to EVER be sealed to her first husband.

Guess what...

The church sealed her to the first husband (actually, to both husbands).  I suppose part of that is on my family's side of blame.  We put her and that husband together on ancestory/family tree so that the children could also be shown.  The course the church took from there (and it may be another family member did more than I did in that regard and took an active role, not sure on that part) was to seal her to the husband.  Not such good feelings at that course of action in some of the family.

So, even if a couple are not married, these days, they will seal them together (this is only done after death).  The idea is that this will all be sorted out later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

It's a situation that has changed in recent years from what I understand.

Originally, a woman was sealed to the man that she married.  If she married more than once, it was the first husband.  In this situation, the children would go with the father and whoever he was sealed to.

Now, they do it differently.

If I understand it correctly.

Woman can be sealed to multiple men.  In this instance, in order for the children to be sealed to their mother, their mother would be sealed to the father (even if they were never married, or divorced).  The idea now days is to seal everyone together and let the Lord sort it out later.  A LOT more work for those in the millennium.

This has created a rift in our family to a small degree.  An ancestor of mine (close actually) stated that they were NEVER to be sealed to her first husband.  He was abusive (in multiple ways) and she divorced him.  She married again to the individual she wished to be sealed to.  She stated that under no condition whatsoever was she to EVER be sealed to her first husband.

Guess what...

The church sealed her to the first husband (actually, to both husbands).  I suppose part of that is on my family's side of blame.  We put her and that husband together on ancestory/family tree so that the children could also be shown.  The course the church took from there (and it may be another family member did more than I did in that regard and took an active role, not sure on that part) was to seal her to the husband.  Not such good feelings at that course of action in some of the family.

So, even if a couple are not married, these days, they will seal them together (this is only done after death).  The idea is that this will all be sorted out later.

Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

...So, even if a couple are not married, these days, they will seal them together (this is only done after death).  The idea is that this will all be sorted out later.

Are you sure that couples who have never been married can be proxy sealed? I can see a divorced couple being allowed to be sealed because at one point in the relationship they were married.

Aren't sealings specifically meant for a married couple. You can't seal children to one parent because sealings are connected to marriage. And aren't proxy sealings still a choice for the members of families. Deceased women can be proxy sealed to all their husbands (who are also deceased); but isn't that a family choice. The LDS church doesn't command you to do those sealings if you prefer not to, do they?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's due to the children not being able to be sealed (apparently that's a thing with their system) unless the parents are sealed together.  I think the genealogy part is up to the individual inputting the information however.  If you have children from a couple, whether married or not, it counts them as being able to be sealed or something like that.  If you never put the information or the children in (and children need parents and a line from what I can tell) it doesn't show anything in regards to temple work.  Once it's in the system though, it's up for grabs.

Proxy sealings (or temple work in general), after 110 years from their birth is no longer a choice for member families.  It is an automatic thing.  My grandparents were born in the 1800s, so that should tell you a thing or two about who our family has a choice or no choice about in regards to proxy sealings.

What's ironic is my grandmother has had her temple work done at least 4 times over (her name that shows I'm related to her has four listings...each with temple work done on different dates, most recently as of 2015), with a fifth one seemingly having been input over the past two years and being processed currently.  When I tried to clear it up all sorts of havoc was raised about it.  I wanted to merge the files, but some seemingly liked it how it is.  I'm puzzled over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Proxy sealings (or temple work in general), after 110 years from their birth is no longer a choice for member families.  It is an automatic thing.

Not exactly. People just aren't required to get permission from the closest living relative before requesting the work to be done after that date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SilentOne said:

Not exactly. People just aren't required to get permission from the closest living relative before requesting the work to be done after that date.

I'm not sure I see the difference.  It basically makes it free game for them to do any genealogy in there without any permission from the member families.  If they had asked any family member on regards of my uncle, we would have told them about his temple work and everything else, but they just decided to go and do stuff without asking any family member.

I HAD some temple work which I could have done for my relatives (otherwise my genealogy is a dead end right now, no idea how to get it further without translators in other nations, etc), but people outside the family did it all in the past two years without any choice (or permission if people want) from me or anyone else in our family.  In fact, it was done by people we have no idea who they are, it was just done.  We had no choice in the matter.

If asked, I'd have preferred to be able to do my own family's temple work, or had my kids do it.  Now, it's all been done by people who gave us no choice in the timing or who or where it was done.

So, I'm not sure I see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

...I HAD some temple work which I could have done for my relatives (otherwise my genealogy is a dead end right now, no idea how to get it further without translators in other nations, etc), but people outside the family did it all in the past two years without any choice (or permission if people want) from me or anyone else in our family.  In fact, it was done by people we have no idea who they are, it was just done.  We had no choice in the matter....

Is there some way that when you find family names you can put restrictions on who can do work for those names. If there are rules that permission is needed from family members and other members in other countries are not following those rules, then something should be said.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Is there some way that when you find family names you can put restrictions on who can do work for those names. If there are rules that permission is needed from family members and other members in other countries are not following those rules, then something should be said.

M.

Yes, FamilySeaech now allows you to  "reserve" names you plan to do yourself.  I have also heard anecdotally that if someone else has reserved the name (but not yet done the work) of someone very close to you, you can make your case to the FamilySearch tech support team and they may "unlock" it so that you can reserve it for yourself.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2017 at 8:06 PM, seashmore said:

Anyone know the sealing guidelines for children born to unwed parents? I can't be the only person out there to have encountered this in my family history. 

Don't parents have to be sealed to each other before having children sealed to them? And, generally speaking, what was not bound on earth cannot be bound in heaven, right? So what happens if Tommy's parents never married on earth? 

I once presented this scenario to a temple matron, and got a "I hadn't thought of that" look/response, and someone else got a "God will sort it out somehow" answer from their bishop, so I'm not necessarily expecting an answer. But, yes, it's kept me up a night or two.

Log into FamilySearch, then go to this address:  https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Can-a-Couple-Be-Sealed-Who-Never-Married-or-Whose-Marriage-Date-I-Cannot-Find-1381812085539&lang=en_US

Short answer:  they may be sealed if they lived together as husband and wife, even if they were never formally married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2017 at 1:09 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Log into FamilySearch, then go to this address:  https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Can-a-Couple-Be-Sealed-Who-Never-Married-or-Whose-Marriage-Date-I-Cannot-Find-1381812085539&lang=en_US

Short answer:  they may be sealed if they lived together as husband and wife, even if they were never formally married.

From the article: 

"Please note for couples that were never married, there must be evidence that the couple did live together as husband and wife even though there was no marriage or documentation of a marriage."

My original question pertains to children born of two persons who did NOT live together as husband and wife. Are they walled off from being linked to their forebearers, thereby having the same effect on their posterity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2017 at 7:06 PM, seashmore said:

Anyone know the sealing guidelines for children born to unwed parents? I can't be the only person out there to have encountered this in my family history. 

In my family history? Nope, that is MY situation.  My mom never married my father, but she did get married twice later.   I have heard different suggestions of what to do about this, and I should decide soon since I have my moms name reserved at the temple....

I could seal her to her second husband, even though they were divorced.  And then seal myself to them--even though he's not biologically or legally my father....hmmmm, feels wrong to me, but that is what I was told.

I was also once told I could be sealed to my grandparents.  Then I would still be sealed to my mom (though more as a sister.)

I'll have to pray about it, I guess.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

In my family history? Nope, that is MY situation.  My mom never married my father, but she did get married twice later.   I have heard different suggestions of what to do about this, and I should decide soon since I have my moms name reserved at the temple....

I could seal her to her second husband, even though they were divorced.  And then seal myself to them--even though he's not biologically or legally my father....hmmmm, feels wrong to me, but that is what I was told.

I was also once told I could be sealed to my grandparents.  Then I would still be sealed to my mom (though more as a sister.)

I'll have to pray about it, I guess.  

 

Technically, you're part of your family history. ;-)

From what it sounds like, you're needing to decide which husband to seal your mother to (thereby having a full set of parents to be sealed to yourself). Definitely pray, and maybe attend some sealing sessions as a proxy to listen for an answer.

The reason I ponder this rather often is because I have a younger sister whose mom never married our dad. And I just can't imagine Heavenly Father saying, "Nope, sorry. You only get her as a sister in mortality." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe, as a matter of theology, that siblings are sealed to siblings anyways.  For all our overly-simplistic PR; sealings aren't really about being in physical proximity to each other in the hereafter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seashmore said:

Technically, you're part of your family history. ;-)

LOL, okay.  

Quote

From what it sounds like, you're needing to decide which husband to seal your mother to (thereby having a full set of parents to be sealed to yourself). Definitely pray, and maybe attend some sealing sessions as a proxy to listen for an answer.

No problem there...the first husband is not even an option.  He was abusive to both my mother and I.  Maybe one of his other wives will have him. 

Quote

The reason I ponder this rather often is because I have a younger sister whose mom never married our dad. And I just can't imagine Heavenly Father saying, "Nope, sorry. You only get her as a sister in mortality." 

That sounds cruel, and Heavenly Father is not cruel.  So I don't think you have to worry about that.  I don't know exactly how things will work on the other side, but we know it will be fair, just and loving 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't believe, as a matter of theology, that siblings are sealed to siblings anyways.  For all our overly-simplistic PR; sealings aren't really about being in physical proximity to each other in the hereafter. 

I am hoping that sealings give you the right to visit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2017 at 8:28 PM, JohnsonJones said:

It's a situation that has changed in recent years from what I understand.

Originally, a woman was sealed to the man that she married.  If she married more than once, it was the first husband.  In this situation, the children would go with the father and whoever he was sealed to.

Now, they do it differently.

If I understand it correctly.

Woman can be sealed to multiple men.  In this instance, in order for the children to be sealed to their mother, their mother would be sealed to the father (even if they were never married, or divorced).  The idea now days is to seal everyone together and let the Lord sort it out later.  A LOT more work for those in the millennium.

This has created a rift in our family to a small degree.  An ancestor of mine (close actually) stated that they were NEVER to be sealed to her first husband.  He was abusive (in multiple ways) and she divorced him.  She married again to the individual she wished to be sealed to.  She stated that under no condition whatsoever was she to EVER be sealed to her first husband.

Guess what...

The church sealed her to the first husband (actually, to both husbands).  I suppose part of that is on my family's side of blame.  We put her and that husband together on ancestory/family tree so that the children could also be shown.  The course the church took from there (and it may be another family member did more than I did in that regard and took an active role, not sure on that part) was to seal her to the husband.  Not such good feelings at that course of action in some of the family.

So, even if a couple are not married, these days, they will seal them together (this is only done after death).  The idea is that this will all be sorted out later.

All sealings are voluntarily accepted by the individual. They choose to accept or reject it. We just make the option available. We do not know how many reject temple ordinances but I feel it won't be as few as we hope. "there will be gaps in some families" 

Edited by Kshuller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2017 at 11:30 AM, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not sure I see the difference.  It basically makes it free game for them to do any genealogy in there without any permission from the member families.  If they had asked any family member on regards of my uncle, we would have told them about his temple work and everything else, but they just decided to go and do stuff without asking any family member.

I HAD some temple work which I could have done for my relatives (otherwise my genealogy is a dead end right now, no idea how to get it further without translators in other nations, etc), but people outside the family did it all in the past two years without any choice (or permission if people want) from me or anyone else in our family.  In fact, it was done by people we have no idea who they are, it was just done.  We had no choice in the matter.

If asked, I'd have preferred to be able to do my own family's temple work, or had my kids do it.  Now, it's all been done by people who gave us no choice in the timing or who or where it was done.

So, I'm not sure I see the difference.

May have been the Church extraction program. I find the worst mistakes when they get involved. I spend a lot of time fixing mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to assume any "extraction program" is a black ops initiative.

31 minutes ago, Kshuller said:

May have been the Church extraction program. I find the worst mistakes when they get involved. I spend a lot of time fixing mistakes.

Yup, that reads much better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2017 at 7:05 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

For all our overly-simplistic PR; sealings aren't really about being in physical proximity to each other in the hereafter. 

Actually...they may be about just that -- at least in the sense that all those in the Celestial Kingdom (this earth) will be physically together in the same place (that place being somewhat extensive).

Of course where that breaks down is in the lower kingdoms. What stops them from being together physically...living in family units, etc.?

Maybe the whole "get your own planet" thing is what the telestial and terrestrials get. Their own planet...all......to............themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]Actually...they may be about just that -- at least in the sense that all those in the Celestial Kingdom (this earth) will be physically together in the same place (that place being somewhat extensive).

[2]Of course where that breaks down is in the lower kingdoms. What stops them from being together physically...living in family units, etc.?

1.  Perhaps; but if we’re just going to define the size of the “very extensive” place in which we find ourselves—if we define to include an entire world, rather than just a house or a town or a valley or a continent; then why not go on and say we will all be “together” because we will be in the same universe?  Perhaps there are places where even the Celestial cannot go?

2. I’m not sure anything physically does.  I’m not sure there are any scriptures or authoritative statements saying they can’t.  I realize the danger in imputing one’s own personal preferences onto the character of God; but it does seem unnecessarily punitive to separate people just for the sake of separating them.  I mean, if that’s how it is, then all one can do is acknowledge that God’s ways are just.  But I see very little, theologically, telling me that that must indeed be how it is.

One intriguing thought I came across recently—maybe it was Givens, maybe it was Faulconer; I’m not sure—but the question they asked was along the lines of “what if decay—disillusionment and apathy and disaffection and separation—is the natural life cycle of love; and that there is something special about the patriarchal order and the seal of the Holy Spirit it Promise that stops this otherwise-inevitable process of decay?”  And, building off that—what if the “curse” of the terrestrial and telestial isn’t that they won’t be with their most deeply loved ones; but that they simply won’t care who they are “with” because they are no longer able to feel the same kind of familial/parental/romantic love that they used to?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And, building off that—what if the “curse” of the terrestrial and telestial isn’t that they won’t be with their most deeply loved ones; but that they simply won’t care who they are “with” because they are no longer able to feel the same kind of familial/parental/romantic love that they used to?

If listening to Nibley's 1953 radio series Time Vindicates the Prophets taught me anything, it was that Godly joy is no light thing. We cannot now bear the joy that God promises us. The purpose of our lives is to prepare ourselves to be able to receive this unthinkable, utterly overwhelming joy that can be ours. So this theory you suggest makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now