Weird (stupid) Sealing Policies

[_Tidejwe]

LCD2YOU's new thread reminded me of something I discovered last April/May while reading the church handbook of instructions that I'd like to discuss with some of you here as well.

In one of the discussion boards I was involved in, we were talking about sealings and relatively recent church policy changes regarding such. After having posted the official policies listed in the Church Handbook of Instructions, something caught my eye about child sealings. Let us examine what is said:

If a woman who has been sealed to a former husband remarries, the children of her later marriage are born in the covenant of the first marriage unless they were born after the sealing was canceled or after it was revoked due to excommunication or name removal.

Living children who are Born in the covenant or have been sealed to parents cannot be sealed to any other parents.

Children who are born in the covenant or sealed to their parents remain so even if the sealing of the parents is later (1) canceled or (2) revoked by the excommunication or name removal of either parent.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on these matters, and for now let us first examine an example:

Your parents get sealed in the temple, then they have you as a kid. Later they get a divorce. Your mom remarries a guy without getting the first sealing canceled yet. She has a baby with your new step-dad. The handbook says the new baby is not sealed to your step dad at all, nor will it ever be his child in the eternities, instead your mom and step-dad's new baby is actually still born in the covenant but sealed to your mom and your biological dad even though they are legally divorced and remarried...it is not sealed to the new baby's biological dad. This is inferred from the Bible where it says if someone remarries a widow, they are creating children for the first husband. In this sense, the new baby isn't your half brother/sister, being born in the covenant of your mom and biological dad's original marriage/sealing, the baby is rightfully the son/daughter of YOUR dad, not it's REAL/biological dad. WEIRDNESS.

Now, let us say that your biological parents' sealing is finally canceled by the First Presidency. It says that YOU are still sealed to both of them even though they aren't sealed to each other anymore. On top of that, now that the original sealing is broken, let's say your mom gets sealed to her new husband (your step dad) in the temple, and your biological dad also remarries and gets sealed to his new wife in the temple. That first baby your mom and step-dad had BEFORE they were sealed together....well, that baby is still sealed to YOUR biological dad, not the baby's own biological dad because it was born in the covenant of your mom's first marriage, and according to the Church Handbook of Instructions, child sealings can't EVER be broken canceled or redone....Only marriage sealings can ever be broken, canceled and redone. So your half brother/sister is stuck being sealed to a father they have possibly NEVER met...and not their own biological father they grow up with.

In other words, besides the obvious recommendation of hoping to never have to remarry in the first place…girls, if you do ever have to remarry…make sure to stick on birth control (maybe several of them) at least until your first sealing is canceled. Men, if you marry a woman who's been sealed before, you might want to make sure that first sealing of hers gets canceled before you have a baby...or her ex-husband will apparently be the REAL father of your first born for the rest of eternity...it won't be your child. :)

Personally, I think the Church Handbook of Instructions is simply BS in this case...but regardless of my own opinion, that's the church's official stance on the matter and is exactly what the Church's General Handbook says. No matter what happens, and no matter how sealings are canceled, broken, etc the sealing between you and your parents can NEVER be broken, even if the sealing between your mom and dad is directly broken. After having read what the Church Handbook says it makes one think that MAYBE traditional assumptions about the purpose of sealings MIGHT be somewhat misunderstood to some degree (even by our leaders)...especially when you take into account how God is known to play games with semantics like He did in D&C 19. Who knows.

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.

Also, what's up with Children's sealings sticking to both parents even if their own sealing was canceled? That's kind of…surprising. How/why does that work? Seems STUPID to me. A parent is sealed to two parents that aren't even sealed to each other? What the... Do our leaders even think about what these policies really suggest? Does anyone actually think them through?

~Tidejwe the NOM

[_charity]

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?

[_asbestosman]

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?

Tidejwe is fully active.

[_skippy the dead]

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?

::blink blink::

[_asbestosman]

It is interesting. I suppose it makes some sense though. I think that even though divorce implies a sin, it can be repented of. I also think that from the child's point of view, he is still a child of both parents even when they divorce. That doesn't quite explain the thing with children born into new families before a sealing cancelation though. It may be a way to assert the superiority of God's sealings over that of the laws of the land when it comes to the afterlife. Personally I think it would be nice if the ordinance of sealing was automatically annulled upon divorce, but then what I think and what God thinks doesn't always line up. Furthermore, God doesn't ever seem to ask me for my input on matters.

[_Tidejwe]

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?

Tidejwe is fully active.

Yes, I can count on one hand the number of times I've missed church in my ENTIRE LIFE (and most of those were because I was so deathly ill I really wished I would die). I'm pretty active, hold a temple recommend, served a mission, married in the temple, etc etc. That doesn't mean I'm completely blind and ignorant to the problems in the church or that I believe it to be infallible. And just because I admit the church is fallible doesn't mean I believe it has no spiritual significance or that it's all bunk either. It doesn't mean I'm just in it for "Cultural" reasons as people infer a "New Order Mormon" to mean. I'm just more realistic about things in my opinion. The church is a man-run organization in which God rarely intervenes in my opinion. I really like the ORIGINAL talk given by Elder Poleman, that expresses a lot of my feelings about the difference between the Gospel and the church. According to the D&C the church was created/built up because of our "Dead works"...man in general can't seem to do well without it. It serves a very needed purpose in many senses. I see nothing wrong with discussing the inconsistencies found in our practices and traditions. It's not like I can bring them up in Sunday school where I'd get strung up and lynched...

[_ludwigm]

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?

Tidejwe is fully active.

Yes ... I'm pretty active ... That doesn't mean I'm completely blind and ignorant to the problems in the church

Congratulations, Tidejwe.
Unfortunately, You are one of the minority. The others are silent, are shutted up or are ex'ed.

[_harmony]

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?

*sigh*

Charity, one more time: know who your audience is. You're making us look bad.

[_Tidejwe]

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?

Tidejwe is fully active.

Yes ... I'm pretty active ... That doesn't mean I'm completely blind and ignorant to the problems in the church

Congratulations, Tidejwe.
Unfortunately, You are one of the minority. The others are silent, are shutted up or are ex'ed.

You're right of course. I have always found it interesting that the church has started to silence such people by any means necessary. And perhaps this deserves a thread of it's own, but I'm reminded of Trial of Pelatiah Brown Sr. In this trial, Joseph Smith said:

I do not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.

So how have we gone from that, to the September 6? If I ever got called in for a trial, I'd certainly bring a copy of that with me just for fun. :) Might get some of the old guys thinkin a bit.

It's easy to see Joseph Smith didn't intend for things to turn out as they have in many ways, but one is being ex'd for belief and opinion. Besides the example cited above, one could read Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith Chapter 22: Gaining Knowledge of Eternal Truths

[_Blixa]

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?

Guess what? You don't get to say what other people can be interested in, or talk about or think. The LDS church, its history, doctrines and policies is as much open to critical scrutiny as anything else.