Weird (stupid) Sealing Policies

[_truth dancer]

I've shared this story before but it applies to this topic.

I had a friend who married the love of her life. Shortly after they were married and sealed in the temple, her husband was diagnosed with cancer and given only a few months to live.

Leaders of the church, (If I recall correctly it even went to the first presidency), advised her to get a sealing cancelation prior to her husband's death because if she remarried (she was in her early twenties), any children from the new husband would be sealed to her first husband, and the new husband would not have his children in the next life.

To make a long story short, this couple did indeed get their sealing cancelled and the husband died shortly therafter.

What sort of God comes up with this garbage?

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

I've shared this story before but it applies to this topic.

I had a friend who married the love of her life. Shortly after they were married and sealed in the temple, her husband was diagnosed with cancer and given only a few months to live.

Leaders of the church, (If I recall correctly it even went to the first presidency), advised her to get a sealing cancelation prior to her husband's death because if she remarried (she was in her early twenties), any children from the new husband would be sealed to her first husband, and the new husband would not have his children in the next life.

To make a long story short, this couple did indeed get their sealing cancelled and the husband died shortly therafter.

What sort of God comes up with this garbage?

~dancer~

The idiotic Mormon God, that's who.

[_Tidejwe]

I've shared this story before but it applies to this topic.

I had a friend who married the love of her life. Shortly after they were married and sealed in the temple, her husband was diagnosed with cancer and given only a few months to live.

Leaders of the church, (If I recall correctly it even went to the first presidency), advised her to get a sealing cancelation prior to her husband's death because if she remarried (she was in her early twenties), any children from the new husband would be sealed to her first husband, and the new husband would not have his children in the next life.

To make a long story short, this couple did indeed get their sealing cancelled and the husband died shortly therafter.

What sort of God comes up with this garbage?

~dancer~

Yes, all sealing cancellations have to go to the First Presidency. Now you know that advice came from reading straight out of the General Handbook of Instructions. This is the first ACTUAL case I've personally heard of though. Thanks for sharing this story again (since I'm new and haven't heard it). That's really sad to think that this guy's dying, and one of the last things he ever deals with in life is his wife telling him that she doesn't love him enough to stay sealed to him and wants a spiritual divorce so she can get eternally sealed to someone else now. That's a nice way to tell someone you love and will miss them eh? I really don't see why she couldn't have waited until he died and gotten a sealing cancellation before having kids with the new husband (assuming she remarries). It's almost like she already started shopping and had a new guy picked out before her current husband died or something for her to preplan it all. Why would they force her to make those decisions and torture her husband on his last few day/weeks/months of life? Seems kind of crewel to me. I want to know which leader(s) came up with that policy, and for being such a crucial thing what is it found nowhere in scripture? Surely God gave someone a revelation if it's such a crucial doctrinal matter? And shouldn't these such crucial things be added into the canon? Where's the revelation? I call bs. Made up policies like these that really hurt people need to stop. Just come out and admit that "WE don't KNOW"...that's better than making things up and telling God what happens instead of the other way around. Anyway, your story is really depressing. I really feel bad for the dying (now dead) husband. I'm sure things were hard on the woman too. Out of curiosity...how old were they and about how long had they been married, if you know?

[_truth dancer]

Incidentally, anyone have any sources or information on the supposed (relatively) recent policy change of allowing widows to be sealed to a second husband without having to get a sealing cancellation first? I know this has been allowed with the deceased…seal a woman to all husbands she had in life and let God sort it out…but supposedly there are several recent examples where living widows (women whose first husbands are deceased) are able to get sealed to a second husband without canceling the sealing of the first (the ASSUMPTION being it will be worked out in the here-after). I've heard this is recently allowed. If anyone has any knowledge or evidence to support this, I'd LOVE to have it.

I have heard of only one claim to such a case... (on FAIR), but no documentation, and If I recall correctly the person claiming this said it was approved by the FP.

I have yet to see anything in writing or any documentation... no actual names, dates, or places. Just claims which may or may not be true.

Personally... my guess is that within my lifetime, the current policy will change and women will be allowed to be sealed to multiple men as are men.

We'll see... :-)

~dancer~

[_Moniker]

I know I'm not supposed to care about this. But it does interest me. Sorry. :(


I don't even understand why children are sealed to their parents anyway. It makes no sense to me at all.

[_the road to hana]

Anti-Mormons, non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, cultural Mormons, inactive Mormons: Listen up. This is not an issue for you. The only people it will ever impact are fully active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why do you even bother?

I have two issues with your statement, Charity.

First, for it to be correct, it would have to be universally correct. It would be like saying on a pro-Mormon discussion board, like MADB, regarding issues like infant baptism or the trinity, "Listen up, you Mormons, this is not an issue for you. The only people it will ever impact are non-LDS." Now clearly you have in the past participated in discussions regarding matters of faith that were completely outside the scope of Mormonism, for whatever reason. Suggesting that your subgroups above have no right to participate in a discussion on LDS sealings is therefore hypocritical.

Second, you state: "The only people it will ever impact are fully active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Really? That isn't even LDS Church teaching. LDS Church teaching, if it is to be believed, is that sealings impact all those who are sealed, whether living or dead.

Now, I could try to point out some things that are obvious to you. Whether or not someone subscribes to the belief that LDS sealings are valid, it could still be an issue to them (just as the concept of LDS baptisms for the dead can be an affront to certain individuals or groups, as was the case with descendants of holocaust victims). And sometimes, family relationships among the living are impacted by beliefs in how sealings will exist beyond the grave. Some people here might be former LDS who are directly impacted by it.

Suggesting that this is not a topic for anyone other than currently active LDS is somewhat disingenuous. Unless you plan to completely stop discussing principles and practices of other religions that really should have no direct impact on you.

[_truth dancer]

Anti-Mormons, non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, cultural Mormons, inactive Mormons: Listen up. This is not an issue for you. The only people it will ever impact are fully active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why do you even bother?

Hold the phone here a sec....

IF the LDS church is indeed the one and only true church upon the face of the earth, then, whether anyone believes it or not, they are still subject to the rules of the LDS God.

While I suppose according to LDS doctrine, unless one is a TR holder they won't make it to the CKHL, still non-believing families (with believing members) will be separated, torn apart, and eternity will be what is the view of the LDS church.

Personally I am not concerned about the after life but I do think this policy effects families, often in harmful ways.

~dancer~

Hi Tidejwe...

This couple was very young when they married. If I recall correctly he had recently returned from a mission and she waited for him. I believe he passed away within the first year of their marriage. Also, this young woman was not happy about it at all. She did not want to cancel the sealing but they both felt they had to obey the leaders. But, even though they had the feeling they were doing God's will, it was enormously painful for this young woman even many years later when I knew her. It was heartwrenching for her to even discuss it. The process and discussions that occurred during the final days of this young man's life must have been the most heartbreaking one could imagine. I know it was for the young woman.

td

[_Tori]

Anti-Mormons, non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, cultural Mormons, inactive Mormons: Listen up. This is not an issue for you. The only people it will ever impact are fully active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why do you even bother?

You know, Charity....when I first read your post I was amazed at the arrogance (especially the "listen up" part, like "Let me tell all of you Heathens just what's up, correct, right....like you know)....but you know what? You're right. The only people it will ever impact are "full active" (that would be believing) members of the whole BS the LDS Church lays out about so-called 'Sealings'. They actually are the ones that swallow this stuff hook-line&sinker.

It's all crap. CRAP, CRAP, CRAP! Nobody is going to be 'sealed' to anyone so it doesn't matter. God wouldn't do that. He wouldn't separate people from their loved ones nor put them (is that what happens?) with somebody they don't want to be with. When you think about it, you realize how ridiculous the whole Sealing thing is.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Tidejwe

I think you and I may be similar. Ever post on the NOM board? I have posted there under another name. Been a while. I need to go back there and change my name there to my name that I use here.

Anyway, yes there are a lot of oddities that can occur if one reads the policies. A person I know who was also a temple president once explained what he thought drove some of the handbook decisions-In LDS theology sealing is of utmost importance. Thus the policies are created to make sure kids, married people etc, stay sealed to someone somehow. It still ends up with some problems.

Another problem is when a woman is sealed to a man, they have two kids, he dies, she remarries. She cannot be sealed to her new husband unless she cancels her first marriage and I am not sure if a cancellation would be given in this case . Now, if he is an active member and has never been married where does that leave him? If she does not cancel her first marriage they cannot be sealed? If they have kids their kids are sealed to the former husband. And if he never gets sealed then he cannot be exalted.

Anyway, interesting thread.

[_Jason Bourne]

Incidentally, anyone have any sources or information on the supposed (relatively) recent policy change of allowing widows to be sealed to a second husband without having to get a sealing cancellation first? I know this has been allowed with the deceased…seal a woman to all husbands she had in life and let God sort it out…but supposedly there are several recent examples where living widows (women whose first husbands are deceased) are able to get sealed to a second husband without canceling the sealing of the first (the ASSUMPTION being it will be worked out in the here-after). I've heard this is recently allowed. If anyone has any knowledge or evidence to support this, I'd LOVE to have it.

I have heard of only one claim to such a case... (on FAIR), but no documentation, and If I recall correctly the person claiming this said it was approved by the FP.

I have yet to see anything in writing or any documentation... no actual names, dates, or places. Just claims which may or may not be true.

Personally... my guess is that within my lifetime, the current policy will change and women will be allowed to be sealed to multiple men as are men.

We'll see... :-)

~dancer~

I have the most recent handbook and I do not see that policy has changed at all. Not sure where you are hearing this.

Just looked again. A woman must get a sealing cancellation to be sealed to any other man if she is alive. If deceased she can be sealed to all husbands.