54583 - Husbands dying and getting re-married

[NerdGirl]

When I was a young Beehive, a girl from my ward got married (in the temple) and her husband died in a car accident on their wedding day when they were leaving the reception. She's now married to someone else and has several kids. I've always been really freaked out by the idea of getting re-married if my husband dies, I think at least in part because of what happened to her. I know that things will eventually get worked out for people in those situations, but I have such a strong aversion to being in a such a complicated family situation that I really don't think I could even bring myself to date anyone if my husband died (note that I am not married, even thought I keep saying "my husband"). I don't know why the ideas freaks me out so much, but it really does for some reason.

[Damasta]

I once got my hands on a copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions for Bishops and Stake Presidents. There was a section about multiple temple marriages. I was surprised to see that there were cases mentioned where a woman could be sealed to more than one man. It ended with a statement to the effect that "It will all be worked out in the hereafter." Unfortunately, I cannot remember the conditions given where a woman could be sealed to more than one man.

[Yarjka]

A deceased woman can be sealed to all of her deceased husbands.

If I were a woman, I would remain sealed to my first husband, rather than canceling that sealing in order to be sealed to my second husband. Then, I would request that when both my husband and I are dead, that a proxy sealing be performed so I have the opportunity of being with either of my husbands in the eternities.

This is a problematic aspect of the eternal family doctrine, especially when you start bringing children into the equation. My only solution for it is to redefine my conception of an eternal family ... but I'll leave my crazy notions of the afterlife out of the discussion, since they change very frequently and they're pure speculation (as are most things when we talk of the afterlife).

[Nanti-SARRMM]

So deceased children cannot be sealed to all deceased parents?

[Yarjka]

So deceased children cannot be sealed to all deceased parents?

Not that I know of.

In fact, even if a woman is remarried, the children of the second marriage are considered born in the covenant of the first marriage ... sealed to the father they've never even known or have any relation to.

I believe this applies even after death in doing work by proxy. That is, children are only sealed to one set of parents, and that applies even if the children are sealed to their adopted parents. They can't be sealed to their biological parents in that case (or vice versa if they were already sealed to their biological parents).

This is where my reconception of eternal relationships comes into play (and I believe I am now leaving the realm of doctrine and moving into speculation). The sealing of children to parents, in my opinion, is strictly for forming a link between generations. The key unit is the spiritual bond between husband and wife. It is my belief that this spiritual unit will continue to have spirit children. The original earthly children of that marriage will have their own spouses and will have their own spiritual units. The link between parents and children forms a horizontal connection between all of these spiritual units, so not a single one of them is left on its own. This spiritual network is the coming together of all generations on the same plane, rather than a vertical relationship that we usually picture when thinking of a family tree. In this sense, it really doesn't matter who the children are sealed to, but just that they are sealed to someone in order to obtain access to this familial network.

[Damasta]

The sealing of children to parents, in my opinion, is strictly for forming a link between generations.

I had a temple president say something similar to this. Only he left out 'strictly'. But yes, it doesn't matter what set of parents the children are sealed to. The point is that they have that ordinance. This temple president also begged women who divorced their husbands (for good reason), not to get the sealing broken. The women rarely took his counsel since they 'didn't want to be sealed to that man anymore'. But since he was sinning, she wasn't. Her part of the covenant with God was still intact. But if she had it broken then she no longer had that saving ordinance. This temple president always told them to wait to break the previous sealing until they had someone new to be sealed to. That way it was essentially a transfer of the sealing instead of just throwing it away.

[Gimgimno]

To reiterate the point--being sealed is a saving ordinance. Ideally, we would all be sealed to a spouse that we spend our whole lives with and to two parents who never were separated by death or divorce. The world isn't exactly ideal, though, but the basic truth is that being sealed is more important than to whom we are sealed to. When it's all said and done and Christ returns, every righteous child that ever lived on the earth will be sealed until we're all the family of Adam anyway.

Ultimately, the most important sealing that we will be a part of in this life and in eternity is our being sealed to our spouse. The distinction of being husband and wife for eternity is more important than being a father, mother, son or daughter in eternity, as each of our parents and children will be focusing on their missions as husbands and wives more than anything as well! I don't think that the possibility of separation should discourage or scare anyone from being sealed to someone they love--it seems counterintuitive that the reassurance that everything will work out in eternity would discourage anyone from making an eternal decision! I understand the deeper concern--that that reassurance is seeming unavailable in subsequent earthly marriages--but I think that faith in God's infinite, resolving power can dispel that fear. Whatever is eternally best for everyone will be the end outcome, and I have a hard time believing that God would allow any of His children to walk alone because someone they loved found someone else.

As for the official stance of women being sealed to multiple husbands--it isn't permitted. Women have to get temple cancellations before they can be sealed to another husband. My understanding is that this permission is only granted by the First Presidency, and is generally discouraged because of the "dangerous" time that must elapse between the temple cancellation and the subsequent sealing. It is more important to be sealed to someone you love for eternity than to put eternal things on hold to make the temporary earthly arrangement more ideal. As Damasta said earlier, in the hereafter, all of these concerns will be addressed anyway.

I don't think I contributed anything new to the discussion, but there you go.

[Katya]

As for the official stance of women being sealed to multiple husbands--it isn't permitted.

Again, unless all parties are deceased.

[Tao]

As for the official stance of women being sealed to multiple husbands--it isn't permitted.

Again, unless all parties are deceased.

'Ware blanket statements w/o a solid piece of evidence to back it up. Then only question them insofar as you question all other things.

I cannot cite any printed sources, but I do know of at least one living woman sealed to a deceased husband as well as to her current husband. I do not believe she had any children, so can not offer any input as to what would be done with their ordinances. But the possibility exists.

Then again, it could be a mistake on the part of the Stake and Temple Presidents. Such things do happen.

[Gimgimno]

I know of a number of women in the exact opposite situation--one chose not to get the temple cancellation at the exhortations of her priesthood leaders, and others chose to follow through on the cancellations and be sealed to their current husbands. Any exceptions would have to be approved under the direction of the prophet. Not even a temple president would be able to grant permission for such an ordinance to take place--their keys only allow them to officiate for temple ordinances within their assigned temple and preside in meetings within. It would be comparable to a mission president granting permission for a young man who has disqualified himself for missionary service to be a missionary in his mission. Does he hold the keys to administer in missionary work where the prophet has called him? Yes. Can he grant exception for rules the brethren have laid out? Not on his own. Could the prophet grant exception for the rules? Conceivably, yes. I'm sure there was much more to the situation with this woman than any of us are aware of (or she was simply married for time to her second husband in the temple, which happens occasionally), but based on my understanding of temple policy (which isn't perfect, but is significant), this would require permission from the First Presidency just as every other temple cancellation requires in the church.

Church Handbook quotes:

"A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime."

"A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. 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."

This policy is "new"--it became effective when the latest version of the Church Handbook was printed several years ago.

"When a woman has been sealed and divorced, she may apply for a cancellation of the previous sealing. The bishop and stake president submit an Application to the First Presidency form to seek this cancellation."

Reiteration of earlier point.

I'll note that the Church Handbook has no mention of any exceptions to the rule for living women.