LDS Temple Marriage Questions

[Chris-WA]

1. Can a temple-married man remarry in the temple if his first wife dies? If so, does he have both wives in heaven?
2. Can a temple-married woman remarry in the temple if her first husband dies? If so, does she have both husbands in heaven?

 

[jim1130]

1. Can a temple-married man remarry in the temple if his first wife dies? If so, does he have both wives in heaven?

1. Can a temple-married woman remarry in the temple if her first husband dies? If so, does she have both husbands in heaven?

And I want to know why a non-Mormon cannot attend a Mormon wedding even if the non-Mormon is the mother, father, etc. of either the bride or groom?

 

[Tmaque]

1. Can a temple-married man remarry in the temple if his first wife dies? If so, does he have both wives in heaven?

1. Can a temple-married woman remarry in the temple if her first husband dies? If so, does she have both husbands in heaven?

1. Yes he can remarry unless the new wife was sealed to someone else first. If he marries both he will have both in the Celestial Kingdom.
2. No, she may not, and consequently will not have two husbands in the next life.

 

[Tmaque]

jim1130:

And I want to know why a non-Mormon cannot attend a Mormon wedding even if the non-Mormon is the mother, father, etc. of either the bride or groom?

Because LDS temple marriages occur in the temple, and you must be a practicing worthy LDS to enter the temple…period. I know one couple that had a civil marriage so everyone could attend, and were sealed in the temple later. However, the LDS Church discourages this.

 

[Chris-WA]

1. Yes he can remarry unless the new wife was sealed to someone else first. If he marries both he will have both in the Celestial Kingdom.

1. No, she may not, and consequently will not have two husbands in the next life.

Wow! I guess you could say that the Mormon church still practices a form of polygamy since they are willing to seal multiple wives to a single husband.

 

[ben_dy]

Chris-WA:

Wow! I guess you could say that the Mormon church still practices a form of polygamy since they are willing to seal multiple wives to a single husband.

Come on, Chris, you knew that, didn’t you? D&C 132 is alive and well in the celestial kingdom… just not to be practiced here on earth for the present time. How could you populate a planet with spirit children (although I understand, now, that ‘children’ is a misnomer and that all spirits who make the transition from the spirit world to a tabernacle on this world are ‘fully developed’) with just one wife?

 

[LittleDeb]

1. Yes he can remarry unless the new wife was sealed to someone else first. If he marries both he will have both in the Celestial Kingdom.

1. No, she may not, and consequently will not have two husbands in the next life.

This is accurate according to my research although I would like to point out an exception. If the Prophet breaks the seal to the first husband a woman can remarry in the Temple.

Where it really gets interesting though is that any children of the original couple (born in the covenant) are still attached to husband and wife in the Celestial Kingdom. I don’t understand how that works though. No disrespect intended but when it was explained to me it sounded a little like co-parenting after a divorce. The children, in heaven, spend ‘time’ with each parent.

To me it seemed like they were imposing rules on God. I was bothered when I found out that only a woman had to go through that process of getting the seal broken. But then, I believe in “till death do you part,” so I don’t embrace eternal marriage in the first place.

 

[majick275]

In LDS belief system the children are always sealed to the father.

 

[DeeAnn]

Actually, it’s the reverse. The children are always sealed to the mother.

 

[LittleDeb]

DeeAnn:

Actually, it’s the reverse. The children are always sealed to the mother.

That was what I understood too. It was explained to me that the ‘seal’ was to both parents but the child was attached to the mother. That was why it seemed like some sort of co-parenting thing. Mother has custody but father gets visitation. The strangest part for me was that since this was supposed to occur in heaven and these were supposedly grown children, it seemed so strange that these ‘rules’ were imposed in the first place.

The idea of eternal marriage seems inherently flawed for these precise reasons. But then I am coming at marriage from a sacramental perspective, not some “union of flesh in heaven” perspective. It seems very strange to me that a woman would be demeaned to share her wifely duties in heaven with other women. From a Catholic perspective, widowed spouses are reunited in heaven but in much more of an “eternal friendship” than a sexual union.

It seems very foreign to me that a spouse who died would not want to be reuinited with their spouse and would instead have to defend their marriage territory. For me, since there is no historical, Traditional, or Scriptural reference to eternal marriage throughout the history of man-kind this seems like a glaring error on the part of those who believe it. This conflict of man can have multiples wives but woman must have one husband even in heaven seems to put women down to a point of of singular subjugation not one of mutual submission.

This one teaching was one that really cemented the idea that while the LDS people themselves are very loving and devoted to family, their theology of the family is so completely opposite the one man-one woman union of Scripture and Tradition. When LDS folks point out that God rewarded men with many wives and children I just don’t buy it. In OT writings that was how society was understood. Since Jesus himself advocated that marriage was for life only and was to be one man and one woman, I just cannot accept the idea of marriage for eternity on any level.

 

[DeeAnn]

LittleDeb:

That was what I understood too. It was explained to me that the ‘seal’ was to both parents but the child was attached to the mother. That was why it seemed like some sort of co-parenting thing. Mother has custody but father gets visitation. The strangest part for me was that since this was supposed to occur in heaven and these were supposedly grown children, it seemed so strange that these ‘rules’ were imposed in the first place.

The sealing is to both parents. Only if the sealing is broken (through divorce) would the issue even come up. And the whole scenario about “visitation” really doesn’t make much sense from an LDS perspective. Everyone in heaven will be adults, so the relationship is more of a binding together through the generations, not a little child/parent relationship.

The idea of eternal marriage seems inherently flawed for these precise reasons. But then I am coming at marriage from a sacramental perspective, not some “union of flesh in heaven” perspective. It seems very strange to me that a woman would be demeaned to share her wifely duties in heaven with other women. From a Catholic perspective, widowed spouses are reunited in heaven but in much more of an “eternal friendship” than a sexual union.

Well, I really don’t know if there will be a “union of flesh in heaven”. (That’s speculation at best, not doctrinal) But I would rather have a “husband” than an “eternal friend”.

It seems very foreign to me that a spouse who died would not want to be reuinited with their spouse and would instead have to defend their marriage territory. For me, since there is no historical, Traditional, or Scriptural reference to eternal marriage throughout the history of man-kind this seems like a glaring error on the part of those who believe it. This conflict of man can have multiples wives but woman must have one husband even in heaven seems to put women down to a point of of singular subjugation not one of mutual submission.

Well, I agree there is not much in Biblical scripture about eternal marriage. But there has been polygamy in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is clear that monogamy is the rule, unless the Lord commands it (to bring up seed unto Himself). Polygamy never was an easy doctrine for ANY of the saints (meaning the latter-day variety, not the Catholic variety) to accept. And from our perspective, I quite agree that it would seem to be putting women down in subjugation. However, what something seems to us on the surface isn’t always the reality.

This one teaching was one that really cemented the idea that while the LDS people themselves are very loving and devoted to family, their theology of the family is so completely opposite the one man-one woman union of Scripture and Tradition. When LDS folks point out that God rewarded men with many wives and children I just don’t buy it. In OT writings that was how society was understood. Since Jesus himself advocated that marriage was for life only and was to be one man and one woman, I just cannot accept the idea of marriage for eternity on any level.

There is nowhere in LDS scripture where it talks about God “rewarding men with many wives and children”. But honestly, if I were in your place I wouldn’t believe the polygamy thing either. My reasons for accepting that polygamy CAN be authorized by God in very limited circumstances are based on very subjective reasons. (The old “testimony” thing. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and he taught that polygamy was commanded at that time for certain individuals. I have also received a testimony that it is a true principal - although I really wouldn’t want to practice it myself.) I don’t expect you to believe me based on just that, but that is why I believe.

Have a nice day.

DeeAnn

 

[Chris-WA]

LittleDeb:

The idea of eternal marriage seems inherently flawed for these precise reasons. But then I am coming at marriage from a sacramental perspective, not some “union of flesh in heaven” perspective. It seems very strange to me that a woman would be demeaned to share her wifely duties in heaven with other women. From a Catholic perspective, widowed spouses are reunited in heaven but in much more of an “eternal friendship” than a sexual union.

Some good points here. From a Catholic perspective, there is no marriage in heaven because in heaven, we exist eternallly as brothers and sisters of our Heavenly Father. In heaven the purpose of marriage, which is to bring forth children in a loving family, no longer exists. “Eternal friendship,” though, doesn’t really do justice as a term for our heavenly relationships. Our intimacy in heaven with God and others will far exceed what was shared imperfectly on earth between husband and wife.

Besides, Christ Himself tells us in Matthew Chapter 22 that there is no marriage in heaven. The Sadducees, who don’t believe in the resurrection, ask Christ which of seven brothers who were married to the same woman on earth will be married to her in heaven. Christ says that none of them will be because there is no marriage in heaven, but we are instead like the angels, who do not have spouses.

This one teaching was one that really cemented the idea that while the LDS people themselves are very loving and devoted to family, their theology of the family is so completely opposite the one man-one woman union of Scripture and Tradition. When LDS folks point out that God rewarded men with many wives and children I just don’t buy it. In OT writings that was how society was understood. Since Jesus himself advocated that marriage was for life only and was to be one man and one woman, I just cannot accept the idea of marriage for eternity on any level.

No one can deny that polygamy existed in the Old Testament, but whether or not it was the will of God is the real question. I think it can be shown that polygamy was a lesser form of marriage than monogamy. Polygamy and concubinage (word?) also tended to get the old testament practioners into a lot of trouble.

 

[Chris-WA]

DeeAnn:

Well, I agree there is not much in Biblical scripture about eternal marriage. But there has been polygamy in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is clear that monogamy is the rule, unless the Lord commands it (to bring up seed unto Himself). Polygamy never was an easy doctrine for ANY of the saints (meaning the latter-day variety, not the Catholic variety) to accept. And from our perspective, I quite agree that it would seem to be putting women down in subjugation. However, what something seems to us on the surface isn’t always the reality.

But honestly, if I were in your place I wouldn’t believe the polygamy thing either. My reasons for accepting that polygamy CAN be authorized by God in very limited circumstances are based on very subjective reasons. (The old “testimony” thing. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and he taught that polygamy was commanded at that time for certain individuals. I have also received a testimony that it is a true principal - although I really wouldn’t want to practice it myself.)
DeeAnn

I’ve heard this from LDS before. They don’t personally feel comfortable with the idea of polygamy but believe it’s a godly principle since it was practiced in the Old Testament and was supposedly given as revelation to Joseph Smith. I would offer another explanation however. Could it be that personally feeling uncomfortable with polygamy is your conscience telling you that polygamy is inherently wrong? Then your intellect takes over forcing you to accept polygamy because if you don’t, you must reject Joseph Smith as a true prophet. So now there is this struggle between your conscience and your testimony of Joseph Smith, and somehow you must suppress your natural sense of right and wrong in favor of accepting something contrary to natural law.

 

[LittleDeb]

DeeAnn:

The sealing is to both parents. Only if the sealing is broken (through divorce) would the issue even come up. And the whole scenario about “visitation” really doesn’t make much sense from an LDS perspective. Everyone in heaven will be adults, so the relationship is more of a binding together through the generations, not a little child/parent relationship.

Thanks for the response and welcome to the boards.

I appreciate your straightforward response. The only clarification I would like to say is that breaking the seal is not a temple divorce. The breaking the seal I was referring to was in the case of a widowed woman. To marry again in the temple the Prophet must break the seal to the deceased husband. I found it frustrating that only a woman had to go through this kind of ordeal. A man can be married in the temple to as many women as he is (legally) allowed during his lifetime. He can be widowed and remarry without any hassle. As another poster said, this shows to me that polygamy is alive and well in the LDS Church.

I have many LDS friends who have tried to justify polygamy in their own minds and to me. As Chris-WA said, since it seems to be a lesser form of marriage from Old Testament times, I would not hold anyone who promoted it to be a prophet of God. I agree with the same thing you said though. Just because I don’t believe it, I don’t expect you to change just on my word. That was a refreshing response. Again welcome to the boards.

PS. To Chris-WA: Thanks for your response too. I chose “eternal friendship” because of a similar phrase in the Mass. I agree, it doesn’t quite do it justice but expresses a little of the perspective. During this lifetime I have a husband. If one of us died and the other remarried we would all be eternal friends in heaven.

 

[DeeAnn]

Chris-WA:

Some good points here. From a Catholic perspective, there is no marriage in heaven because in heaven, we exist eternallly as brothers and sisters of our Heavenly Father. In heaven the purpose of marriage, which is to bring forth children in a loving family, no longer exists. “Eternal friendship,” though, doesn’t really do justice as a term for our heavenly relationships. Our intimacy in heaven with God and others will far exceed what was shared imperfectly on earth between husband and wife.

Besides, Christ Himself tells us in Matthew Chapter 22 that there is no marriage in heaven. The Sadducees, who don’t believe in the resurrection, ask Christ which of seven brothers who were married to the same woman on earth will be married to her in heaven. Christ says that none of them will be because there is no marriage in heaven, but we are instead like the angels, who do not have spouses.

I totally respect your opinion and how you interpret Matthew 22. I would probably interpret it that way if I were in your position. You have probably heard the LDS response, but I will post it again just in case.

D & C 132:
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage•; but are appointed angels in heaven•, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

LDS believe that there is no “marrying nor giving in marriage” in heaven (used as a verb), however, those who were sealed in this life will still be married in the next. I really don’t want to argue the point, I just wanted to post the LDS perspective.

No one can deny that polygamy existed in the Old Testament, but whether or not it was the will of God is the real question. I think it can be shown that polygamy was a lesser form of marriage than monogamy. Polygamy and concubinage (word?) also tended to get the old testament practioners into a lot of trouble.

When polygamy is not commanded by God (as is the case today) then I agree with you completely. I do believe, however, that God can, and has in the past, commanded it, and in these cases it is not a sin.

Enjoying the conversation.

DeeAnn

 

[DeeAnn]

Chris-WA:

I’ve heard this from LDS before. They don’t personally feel comfortable with the idea of polygamy but believe it’s a godly principle since it was practiced in the Old Testament and was supposedly given as revelation to Joseph Smith. I would offer another explanation however. Could it be that personally feeling uncomfortable with polygamy is your conscience telling you that polygamy is inherently wrong? Then your intellect takes over forcing you to accept polygamy because if you don’t, you must reject Joseph Smith as a true prophet. So now there is this struggle between your conscience and your testimony of Joseph Smith, and somehow you must suppress your natural sense of right and wrong in favor of accepting something contrary to natural law.

Chris,
I think LDS are not comfortable with the idea of polygamy because it is considered a sin if it is practiced today. I think they also feel uncomfortable because of our society in general and it’s perception of polygamy I think you bring up a good possibility for why someone might feel uncomfortable about polygamy, but for me, that is not the correct explanation.

I know the following is “not provable” and “not arguable” and I don’t expect you to change your mind based on it. But it is the truth in my situation.

I have studied the issue of polygamy over the years. As I’ve read about those who initially practiced polygamy in the early LDS church, their stories are very similar. When introduced to the practice, they were abhorred by it. Didn’t want to practice it. This includes the men, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. But as a female, I have been more interested in the women’s stories. Many of them rejected the principal initially, but when they asked the Lord in private prayer, the answer was to practice polygamy.

This is very similar to my experience. Of course, I don’t expect to have to practice polygamy and I wasn’t given an answer that I would have to. But I was given a peaceful assurance that the church as a whole (Not individually, because I knoew there were those who abused it.) was following the Lord’s directive when it taught polygamy over 100 years ago.

Having said that, I have no problem with you continuing to believe that my conscience is telling me polygamy is wrong and that Joseph Smith is deluded. If the situations were reversed, I would be thinking the same thing.

Have a nice day!

DeeAnn

 

[DeeAnn]

LittleDeb:

Thanks for the response and welcome to the boards.

I appreciate your straightforward response. The only clarification I would like to say is that breaking the seal is not a temple divorce. The breaking the seal I was referring to was in the case of a widowed woman. To marry again in the temple the Prophet must break the seal to the deceased husband. I found it frustrating that only a woman had to go through this kind of ordeal. A man can be married in the temple to as many women as he is (legally) allowed during his lifetime. He can be widowed and remarry without any hassle. As another poster said, this shows to me that polygamy is alive and well in the LDS Church.

Well, there is an exception. After both parties are dead, the children (or someone else) can perform a vicarious sealing on the woman and her 2nd husband.

I have many LDS friends who have tried to justify polygamy in their own minds and to me. As Chris-WA said, since it seems to be a lesser form of marriage from Old Testament times, I would not hold anyone who promoted it to be a prophet of God. I agree with the same thing you said though. Just because I don’t believe it, I don’t expect you to change just on my word. That was a refreshing response. Again welcome to the boards.

I agree that polygamy can “seem” to be a lesser form of marriage. And today I would fight to keep polygamy illegal, because unless it is practiced by “good” men and women who have been commanded of God to do so, it is a sin. And as I’ve stated, the Book of Mormon clearly states that it is the exception, not the rule.

PS. To Chris-WA: Thanks for your response too. I chose “eternal friendship” because of a similar phrase in the Mass. I agree, it doesn’t quite do it justice but expresses a little of the perspective. During this lifetime I have a husband. If one of us died and the other remarried we would all be eternal friends in heaven.

DeeAnn

 

[majick275]

DeeAnn:

Actually, it’s the reverse. The children are always sealed to the mother.

I have to disagree here. While it is correct to say that LDS doctrine claims that children are sealed to their parents, it should be noted that it is a priesthood ordinance and thus is centered on the priesthood holder. The wife AND the children are sealed to the husband/father. The Man may (under certain conditions) be sealed to additional women and thus their children. A woman who remarries after a husbands death (assuming temple marriage and worthiness) and has children with the new husband should know that those children are sealed to her deceased husband.

Here is an informative LDS link to what happens in case of divorce : library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/NewEra/1975.htm/new%20era%20december%201975.htm/qampa%20questions%20and%20answers.htm

The LDS belief is that exalted men will have their own kingdoms where their worthy spouses and children may dwell. The speculation is that these exalted men may visit any “sealed” children who only qualify for lesser kingdoms and may also visit their exalted sons who obtain their own kingdoms.

The Temple ceremony makes it clear that the women (who are queens and priestesses to their husbands) are not part of the creation or or ongoing administration of said “kingdoms”.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

The Temple ceremony makes it clear that the women (who are queens and priestesses to their husbands) are not part of the creation or or ongoing administration of said “kingdoms”.

maj,

Now I’m confused - I thought that a wife (queens, priestesses, whatever) would play a role in the creation of new kingdoms in that they would be the bearers of the sprit children? Isn’t this where the figure(s) of the ‘Heavenly Mother’ and ‘Heavenly Parents’ come into play?

One thing that I did not know and only found out from an article I’m reading now is how women in the early LDS church had some similar priesthood duties as men such as anointing of the sick. All of those perks, and a number of others, were gradually taken away as polygamy was abandoned.

So what’s the scoop?

 

[majick275]

Yes exalted women will bear spirit children in LDS beliefs. That is the extent of their role in the next life.

You bring up an interesting point. JS had a “council of fifty” that was intended to provide “temporal” leadership over the kingdom of God on earth. He placed a high degree of importance on the wives of these men being taught priesthood ordinances and “assisting” their husbands in their stewardships. There was a similar ecclesiatical group known as the “holy order” composed of many of the same people. It is here that we see women being given a more active role in priesthood ordinances. There are accounts of these women anointing with oil and then their husbands “sealing” the anointings. There are also accounts of these women being given the authority to anoint and bless other women, particularly for childbirth. You are correct in that most of this has “gone away” since the polygamy days. The last vestiges exist in the temple today where women perform the initiatory ordinances for other women and perform parts of the endowment for other women. The little known “second anointing” also involves women performing a portion for their husbands. Women participate with men in the “true order of prayer” in the Temple ceremony as well. (although the must be veiled first) Women in LDS temples are sealed to be queens and PRIESTESSES to their husbands in the next life. However nothing beyond the birthing of spirit children has been claimed from this. The Temple ceremony itself covers the creation and initial instruction of man and clearly does not show a role for any “heavenly mother(s)” in any of that.