The way sealings work for women is quite disturbing

[_Yoda]

I was beaten by my Mormon boyfriend and the church elders I discussed it with were upset with me because they thought I was causing problems. The real question would be: what do they think constitues abuse? Do Muslims who beat their wives consider it abuse? No, they don't.

I am sorry that happened to you. Your Mormon boyfriend and the Bishop, etc., who made that call were assholes, in my opinion.

They did not conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the priesthood.

The Church does consider physical, spiritual, and emotional violence abuse. My Stake has a current program in place for victims of abuse.

Again, I am sorry for your suffering and hope that you are on the road to healing.

[_Yoda]

I would like to hear Dan's answers to some of these questions on sealing from a doctrinal perspective. I honestly don't understand why women cannot be sealed to more than one man in the temple the way men are sealed to more than one woman.

I understand the patriarchal order, and that ultimately, according to the doctrine we have, women can only be sealed to one man for eternity.

However, since, in cases of both divorce and death, those assignments will ultimately be in the Lord's hands in the hereafter, why make women jump through this additional hoop now, particularly since it is, as you pointed out, a bookkeeping matter?

[_Buffalo]

I would like to hear Dan's answers to some of these questions on sealing from a doctrinal perspective. I honestly don't understand why women cannot be sealed to more than one man in the temple the way men are sealed to more than one woman.

I understand the patriarchal order, and that ultimately, according to the doctrine we have, women can only be sealed to one man for eternity.

However, since, in cases of both divorce and death, those assignments will ultimately be in the Lord's hands in the hereafter, why make women jump through this additional hoop now, particularly since it is, as you pointed out, a bookkeeping matter?

I think because Brigham discontinued Joseph's practice of polyandry, but polygamy is still technically doctrine.

[_Yoda]

I would like to hear Dan's answers to some of these questions on sealing from a doctrinal perspective. I honestly don't understand why women cannot be sealed to more than one man in the temple the way men are sealed to more than one woman.

I understand the patriarchal order, and that ultimately, according to the doctrine we have, women can only be sealed to one man for eternity.

However, since, in cases of both divorce and death, those assignments will ultimately be in the Lord's hands in the hereafter, why make women jump through this additional hoop now, particularly since it is, as you pointed out, a bookkeeping matter?

Ah, but did Joseph allow multiple sealings for women?

My hunch is that he did not. The women that were sealed to him were ONLY sealed to him for eternity. Some women were sealed to their husbands for time. Eliza Snow was an example of this. She was sealed to Joseph for eternity, and BY for time.

[_harmony]

The noncancellation of a sealing for a divorced woman does not stop her from getting married again. It may stop her from getting married in the temple and/or sealed to someone else, but it certainly does not stop her from marrying again, finding joy, having a family, etc.

Such narrow thinking makes me wonder about the ability of women in the church to grow some backbone.

[_Yoda]

The noncancellation of a sealing for a divorced woman does not stop her from getting married again. It may stop her from getting married in the temple and/or sealed to someone else, but it certainly does not stop her from marrying again, finding joy, having a family, etc.

Such narrow thinking makes me wonder about the ability of women in the church to grow some backbone.

I don't think that anyone here is stating that a noncanellation does block those things.

I certainly wasn't.

But I do think that the allowance of women to be sealed to more than one man under the circumstances of divorce and death would eliminate heartache and problems that some women feel.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why aren't sealings automatically canceled upon divorce then? I suppose it wouldn't be immaterial for a woman who wants to get married again to have to petition to do so.

To be honest, I don't exactly know.

In my capacity as a singles ward bishop, I never encountered the issue, and I don't have access to the handbook any more so as to be confident about the details of the policy, let alone about the reasoning or motivation behind it.

I believe that it has to do with the sealing of the children to the family...or the children that have been born under the covenant of that marriage.

I suspect that that is the reason, or, at least, a substantial part of it.

Their view is that it will work out in the next life the way it is supposed to.

I agree with them.

Whether or not the sealing has been formally cancelled in such an instance is essentially a matter of bookkeeping.

Not really, or women would not have such a horrendously difficult time getting a sealing cancellation. We all know a man must give his permission for a sealing cancellation by his former wife. . . . Women are sealed in the LDS church until there is an official cancellation. If this is just a matter of bookkeeping, they need to get more help in the COB.

By "a matter of bookkeeping," I didn't intend to say that it was merely a matter of inefficiency in Church record-keeping. I was saying that, whatever is recorded upon the books, if one party to a covenant has reneged upon the covenant, or one or both parties want out of the covenant, that covenant is de facto null, whether it is null de jure or not.

And, if this were so, women would be under the same rules as men but such is not the case. Men do not need to have a sealing cancellation prior to a second marriage.

It's quite true that men and women are treated differently under sealing rules. This is no surprise. The question is whether women effectively become the unwilling chattel possessions of even unworthy men, simply because a temple sealing has been performed and remains officially uncancelled.

I have never heard anybody espouse such a position. I certainly don't.

Such a sealing is already "of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead." Whether the Church has formally noted the reality of the situation is immaterial, almost anticlimactic.

Immaterial? Tell that to the women who cannot get a cancellation!

Once again -- perhaps you're over-eager to view me as uncaring and sexist -- I think you're missing my point, which was that such a sealing, if the woman wants out of it, will be a dead letter in the life to come. She will not be forced to be the wife of someone she despises.

My personal feeling is that women be allowed to be sealed to more than one man, just as men are allowed to be sealed to more than one woman.

If all "assignments" are going to be worked out in the hereafter, then why not just let the sealings stand, have God work it out?

I seem to recall that, in some cases, precisely that has been done.

I was beaten by my Mormon boyfriend and the church elders I discussed it with were upset with me because they thought I was causing problems.

This is possible, I suppose. And it's certainly possible that it's your sincerely held view.

I'm genuinely sorry for any suffering you endured.

Whenever I encounter claims like this, though, I always wonder whether I'm getting the full story. What would the boyfriend say? What would "the church elders" -- an odd phrase, that -- say? What did they know? How did they understand the situation?

In all of my life, I don't believe that I've ever met a bishop, let alone a whole group of local leaders, who would be serenely supportive of a man's beating a woman.

Plenty of Mormons commit awful sins and still hold that their covenants are real.

In the Latter-day Saint view, it doesn't ultimately matter what they think. What matters is what God thinks.

Why not just get rid of eternal sealings altogether?

Because they're a central part of the faith commonly known as "Mormonism." I'm not alone in believing in that faith.

Why don't Hindus just grill some hamburgers tonight? Why don't Jews just get with the program and worship a few more gods? Why doesn't Islam just jettison the Qur’an? What's the big fetish that Catholics have about the pope? Wouldn't Methodism be a lot less challenging if they dropped that Jesus guy? Wouldn't atheists be better accepted if they just acknowledged that there is a God? Why can't socialists just be libertarians?

Define faithfulness and unfaithfulness.

I'm not defining them in any eccentric way, and I think you can easily enough figure out what I mean.

A person is either faithful to the terms of an agreement, or not.

I did not read the passage by McConkie that you quoted

Then, in that case, I see no reason why I should read what you post.

So if a man beats me and reforms, the covenant is still valid?

Not necessarily. But that is his only hope of having it divinely recognized. And, even so, only if the other party to the covenant still wants to hold to it.

What if I divorce a man who beats me, and then he reforms his behavior, and then refuses to consent to the sealing being undone? What then?

You will not be bound to or by a covenant in eternity from which you want out. Not even with God, let alone with a husband.

[_Scottie]

What about children born into the covenant who then break the oaths they never made in the first place?

Why should a parent never get to see the child in the afterlife, even though the parent kept all promises THEY made? The child never promised anything, and therefore should not be subject to the oaths of the parents, right?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What about children born into the covenant who then break the oaths they never made in the first place?

There's something called divine judgment. It's not unique to Latter-day Saint belief.

Why should a parent never get to see the child in the afterlife, even though the parent kept all promises THEY made? The child never promised anything, and therefore should not be subject to the oaths of the parents, right?

First of all, I'm not sure that your assumption that the parents will never see the child in the afterlife is even true,

But the idea that family ties don't continue into the life to come is not some Mormon innovation. (How many marriages or families are depicted in Dante's Divina Commedia?) Mormon theology reacts against that idea. It didn't invent it.

[_Scottie]

Personally, with as many thorny and sticky questions that sealings/forever families (or non-families if you don't obey), it would seem prudent that the brethren ask for further light and knowledge on the subject so that faithful LDS know the rules of the test they are taking.

And, no, I don't believe "ask for yourself" applies.