Young widows and the plan of happiness

[DrumNFeather]

Just hang it backwards facing the wall.

That's just asking for a haunting.

[Gidget]

Holy crap, everyone keep their heads on straight. I was joking with Surfah, and we are talking on the phone right now and I am trying to convince him I was just trying to get his goat, but I suck at joking and sarcasm (truly, I really do).

I have no intentions of canceling my sealing and I wish to stay with Surfah and our family forever. And ever. If my husband were to ever to die and I was ever to date again, and then ever to even reconsider marrying I would not cancel our sealing.

My goodness.

[I.J. Reilly]

get his goat

I would like to see more of this phrase. Thanks for proliferating it, Gidget.

[Gidget]

I would like to see more of this phrase. Thanks for proliferating it, Gidget.

Yeah it is some of my small town Oregonian-ness coming out I think.

And you're welcome.

[Surfah]

Holy crap, everyone keep their heads on straight. I was joking with Surfah, and we are talking on the phone right now and I am trying to convince him I was just trying to get his goat, but I suck at joking and sarcasm (truly, I really do).

I have no intentions of canceling my sealing and I wish to stay with Surfah and our family forever. And ever. If my husband were to ever to die and I was ever to date again, and then ever to even reconsider marrying I would not cancel our sealing.

My goodness.

It's all good folks. She was just kidding.

[Fiyero]

I'm sure this will make some people unhappy, since it means a man's children will technically be sealed to another man, but again, this is one of those situations where we trust the Lord will sort it out.

Without divulging any personal information in this forum, this is an issue that doesn't sit well with me. The idea that any children I would have with this gal would be sealed (given?) to her first husband.

[beelzebabette]

Without divulging any personal information in this forum, this is an issue that doesn't sit well with me. The idea that any children I would have with this gal would be sealed (given?) to her first husband.

That's fair, and I think it's good you're honest with yourself about it. If you don't think there's any chance you'll ever get over the issue, don't head down the path.

[LA Ute]

Yeah it is some of my small town Oregonian-ness coming out I think.

And you're welcome.

I grew up in Salt Lake and I still use it all the time.

[LA Ute]

Without divulging any personal information in this forum, this is an issue that doesn't sit well with me. The idea that any children I would have with this gal would be sealed (given?) to her first husband.

Quick summary of something I posted once before: My best buddy wrote to the 1st Presidency about this. He got a response from one of the 70 who was assigned to write back, with a message the 1st Presidency obviously approved. (I have seen the letter, BTW.) The answer was quite simple: Free agency is the principle underlying our entire existence. God, the Father of us all and who loves us all, is not going to force anyone to live eternally with anyone. This will all get sorted out down the road, and it will be done in a way that is consistent with will of a loving Father in heaven and a perfect plan of happiness that, after all is said and done, is perfectly fair.

I take this to mean that if a woman is sealed to a man, who then dies young, and she then remarries and lives another 60 years with another man, having children and grandchildren with him and pretty much going through mortal probation together, she is not going to find herself someday in the hereafter saying good-bye to her life-long earthly husband and reporting to the guy she was married to for a couple of years, along with all the kids she had with that second man. That would be absurd and cruel and would, as we lawyers like to say, exalt form over substance.

Just my opinion.

[venkman]

Without divulging any personal information in this forum, this is an issue that doesn't sit well with me. The idea that any children I would have with this gal would be sealed (given?) to her first husband.

My brother had the same issue. I said to him, "do you honestly think your kids you have together are going to consider her deceased first husband their father? Sealed or not? Does anyone really believe that?" His answer was no. I mean really, she was married to her first husband for four years, she'll be married to my brother for 40 years. Their kids will posthumously seal them together - who do you think she'll choose? I don't know either, but seriously, I wouldn't worry about it. It'll get sorted out.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Quick summary of something I posted once before: My best buddy wrote to the 1st Presidency about this. He got a response from one of the 70 who was assigned to write back, with a message the 1st Presidency obviously approved. (I have seen the letter, BTW.) The answer was quite simple: Free agency is the principle underlying our entire existence. God, the Father of us all and who loves us all, is not going to force anyone to live eternally with anyone. This will all get sorted out down the road, and it will be done in a way that is consistent with will of a loving Father in heaven and a perfect plan of happiness that, after all is said and done, is perfectly fair.

I take this to mean that if a woman is sealed to a man, who then dies young, and she then remarries and lives another 60 years with another man, having children and grandchildren with him and pretty much going through mortal probation together, she is not going to find herself someday in the hereafter saying good-bye to her life-long earthly husband and reporting to the guy she was married to for a couple of years, along with all the kids she had with that second man. That would be absurd and cruel and would, as we lawyers like to say, exalt form over substance.

Just my opinion.

That makes perfect sense. But it makes you wonder why they don't adjust the handbook and the sealing policies to reflect that kind of reasonable approach.

[Tex]

Quick summary of something I posted once before: My best buddy wrote to the 1st Presidency about this. He got a response from one of the 70 who was assigned to write back, with a message the 1st Presidency obviously approved. (I have seen the letter, BTW.) The answer was quite simple: Free agency is the principle underlying our entire existence. God, the Father of us all and who loves us all, is not going to force anyone to live eternally with anyone. This will all get sorted out down the road, and it will be done in a way that is consistent with will of a loving Father in heaven and a perfect plan of happiness that, after all is said and done, is perfectly fair.

I take this to mean that if a woman is sealed to a man, who then dies young, and she then remarries and lives another 60 years with another man, having children and grandchildren with him and pretty much going through mortal probation together, she is not going to find herself someday in the hereafter saying good-bye to her life-long earthly husband and reporting to the guy she was married to for a couple of years, along with all the kids she had with that second man. That would be absurd and cruel and would, as we lawyers like to say, exalt form over substance.

Just my opinion.

This is what I've been getting at the last couple of times one of these Q's has been posed.

It's very easy to find the problem cases where the policy doesn't work well. Anybody can do that. It's much harder to come up with an alternative that satisfies all those cases and still maintains some fidelity to the doctrine of what a sealing is supposed to be.

That makes perfect sense. But it makes you wonder why they don't adjust the handbook and the sealing policies to reflect that kind of reasonable approach.

Eh? That is the approach.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is what I've been getting at the last couple of times one of these Q's has been posed.

It's very easy to find the problem cases where the policy doesn't work well. Anybody can do that. It's much harder to come up with an alternative that satisfies all those cases and still maintains some fidelity to the doctrine of what a sealing is supposed to be.

Here is a simple alternative: You can get sealed to your spouse. Regardless of past history. In the case of double-sealings, God sorts it out in the end.

Why wouldn't that work?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Eh? That is the approach.

No, it's not. As your "kids sealed to former dead husband" example earlier in this thread illustrates. Not to mention a double standard for men vs. women.

[Tex]

Here is a simple alternative: You can get sealed to your spouse. Regardless of past history. In the case of double-sealings, God sorts it out in the end.

Why wouldn't that work?

Personally, I think the prospect of having two or more men and two or more women all sealed to each other is a non-starter, and quite a mess. I don't see how that's any better than the policy as it stands.