Question about status of children after sealing cancellation

[Northwestcoug]

I know a woman who is married to a recent convert. She has two children, one from a previous marriage and one with her current husband. She was sealed to her first husband, who died after the first child was born.

She is now in the process of getting her previous sealing cancelled, in order to be sealed to her current spouse. During a recent meeting with the stake president, she found out that not only does she have to request a cancellation of her sealing with her deceased spouse, but also for her youngest child (the one she had with her current husband). According to the SP, even though the child is not biologically the deceased husband's, it is 'covered' under the previous sealing, since it was born while the mother was sealed to the first husband.

Needless to say, she was floored. The SP is a very straigt-laced guy. I assume he is going by the book, and following dictates from on high. Have any of you heard about this, and whether or not this is official policy?

A side issue to all this is how her current husband feels. The SP warned her that this might take 'years'. I wonder if he's overwhelmed about joining a church that tells him his biological kid has already been sealed to a dead person he's never meet. And that it will take forever to jump through all the hoops the church creates for him. I'd be pissed if I was in his shoes.

[Goatnapper'96]

I know a woman who is married to a recent convert. She has two children, one from a previous marriage and one with her current husband. She was sealed to her first husband, who died after the first child was born.

She is now in the process of getting her previous sealing cancelled, in order to be sealed to her current spouse. During a recent meeting with the stake president, she found out that not only does she have to request a cancellation of her sealing with her deceased spouse, but also for her youngest child (the one she had with her current husband). According to the SP, even though the child is not biologically the deceased husband's, it is 'covered' under the previous sealing, since it was born while the mother was sealed to the first husband.

Needless to say, she was floored. The SP is a very straigt-laced guy. I assume he is going by the book, and following dictates from on high. Have any of you heard about this, and whether or not this is official policy?

A side issue to all this is how her current husband feels. The SP warned her that this might take 'years'. I wonder if he's overwhelmed about joining a church that tells him his biological kid has already been sealed to a dead person he's never meet. And that it will take forever to jump through all the hoops the church creates for him. I'd be pissed if I was in his shoes.

I think it sounds batshit crazy. I think this is a perfect example of mormons wanting everything explained and well organized - a symptom of a lack of faith IMO. It is the same desire for nice clear cut answers that leads to the Elder McConkie's waxing eloquent on black people in the pre-existence. I don't think we know near as much about this stuff as we give ourselves credit. I think the answer is to let as many people get sealed to whomever they want and then trust that God wants what is best for all and that it will all be ok in the long run. Or the other answer is to work through the bureacratic Church how fors and if thats and still trust that God is in charge and it will all work out. Either way the trusting of God part is likely to be the thread that brings the most comfort.

[Jacob]

I can't imagine why we haven't done away with the different treatment of men and women regarding sealing rules. Makes absolutely zero sense...or worse. Both should be able to be sealed multiple times and stop worrying about which husband the kids are sealed to. Why not just say "both of them" if there is confusion and let it be sorted out if there is a life after this.

[DapperDan]

It's stuff like this that tells me God must be a bureaucrat at heart.

[Northwestcoug]

I think it sounds batshit crazy. I think this is a perfect example of mormons wanting everything explained and well organized - a symptom of a lack of faith IMO. It is the same desire for nice clear cut answers that leads to the Elder McConkie's waxing eloquent on black people in the pre-existence. I don't think we know near as much about this stuff as we give ourselves credit. I think the answer is to let as many people get sealed to whomever they want and then trust that God wants what is best for all and that it will all be ok in the long run. Or the other answer is to work through the bureacratic Church how fors and if thats and still trust that God is in charge and it will all work out. Either way the trusting of God part is likely to be the thread that brings the most comfort.

I can't imagine why we haven't done away with the different treatment of men and women regarding sealing rules. Makes absolutely zero sense...or worse. Both should be able to be sealed multiple times and stop worrying about which husband the kids are sealed to. Why not just say "both of them" if there is confusion and let it be sorted out if there is a life after this.

I agree. We certainly allow some uncertainty with God in other areas. Why is the church so dogmatic when it comes to this? Would it really hurt to relax the sealing rules? Or does the inequity between men and women sealing rules imply that the leadership still believes polygamy is a go in the next life?

[Jarid in Cedar]

I agree. We certainly allow some uncertainty with God in other areas. Why is the church so dogmatic when it comes to this? Would it really hurt to relax the sealing rules? Or does the inequity between men and women sealing rules imply that the leadership still believes polygamy is a go in the next life?

Yes. No one has ever distanced the church from the proclamation that polygamy was suspended.

[Joe Public]

Or does the inequity between men and women sealing rules imply that the leadership still believes polygamy is a go in the next life?

Yes. No one has ever distanced the church from the proclamation that polygamy was suspended.

This is why I think the LDS church hopes a Lawrence-v.-Texas-type decision regarding polygamy never comes. Currently, it's relatively easy to dismiss the topic without addressing it.

[Blueintheface]

I just go off the phone with the bishop who asked me to speak on Elder Scott's talk from April General Conference on the subject of Eternal Marriage. I logged on to CUF to solicit advice. Bad timing.

[Paperback Writer]

I agree. We certainly allow some uncertainty with God in other areas. Why is the church so dogmatic when it comes to this? Would it really hurt to relax the sealing rules? Or does the inequity between men and women sealing rules imply that the leadership still believes polygamy is a go in the next life?

Another possibility is that men holding power in the LDS church don't want to deal with the hard fact that a man can be sealed to his wife at a young age and then die...and the wife can then turn around and be sealed to someone else...making him a bachelor in the hereafter. I agree with the idea to allow multiple sealings for either sex with the exercise of free agency in the hereafter (people get to choose who they want to be sealed to). In my view, that's how it will work anyway...even though a couple is sealed, one of the partners may not wish to spend eternity with someone they don't really like.

[Viking]

I know a woman who is married to a recent convert. She has two children, one from a previous marriage and one with her current husband. She was sealed to her first husband, who died after the first child was born.

She is now in the process of getting her previous sealing cancelled, in order to be sealed to her current spouse. During a recent meeting with the stake president, she found out that not only does she have to request a cancellation of her sealing with her deceased spouse, but also for her youngest child (the one she had with her current husband). According to the SP, even though the child is not biologically the deceased husband's, it is 'covered' under the previous sealing, since it was born while the mother was sealed to the first husband.

Needless to say, she was floored. The SP is a very straigt-laced guy. I assume he is going by the book, and following dictates from on high. Have any of you heard about this, and whether or not this is official policy?

A side issue to all this is how her current husband feels. The SP warned her that this might take 'years'. I wonder if he's overwhelmed about joining a church that tells him his biological kid has already been sealed to a dead person he's never meet. And that it will take forever to jump through all the hoops the church creates for him. I'd be pissed if I was in his shoes.

Why would the new husband care? He's not a member and presumably doesn't believe in all of this nonsense.

[falafel]

Why would the new husband care? He's not a member and presumably doesn't believe in all of this nonsense.

the new husband is a recent convert and they are planning on being sealed.

Its like you didn't even read the post!

[Moliere]

The SP warned her that this might take 'years'.

Is no one else concerned that this lady has the ability to cancel a sealing without any input from the sealed husband? This isn't one of those "the person can choose to accept it or not" type things. This is a sealing cancellation. Seems downright odd.

[falafel]

Is no one else concerned that this lady has the ability to cancel a sealing without any input from the sealed husband? This isn't one of those "the person can choose to accept it or not" type things. This is a sealing cancellation. Seems downright odd.

[Moliere]

It was a valid concern! Can you imagine this guy sitting on Kolob watching his wife's love deteriorate after he was thinking that marriage in the temple assured him of an eternal marriage

[Northwestcoug]

Is no one else concerned that this lady has the ability to cancel a sealing without any input from the sealed husband? This isn't one of those "the person can choose to accept it or not" type things. This is a sealing cancellation. Seems downright odd.

It was a valid concern! Can you imagine this guy sitting on Kolob watching his wife's love deteriorate after he was thinking that marriage in the temple assured him of an eternal marriage

Tongue-in-cheekiness aside, the more I think about it, the more I think this could factor into why it's such an arduous process. It probably reflects on the leadership's view of the significance of sealings. It might boil down to a belief that a sealing should only be tampered with in rare instances. But if the roles were reversed, think about if the woman was deceased. How would she feel if she was about to share her sealing with another woman, since men can get sealed to others?
All the more reason to treat men and women equally with sealings.

By the way, from what I understand, this woman's first marriage was not ideal. She feels much closer to her second husband.