Never say never: Great Grandma sealed to two men in temple

[Guest]

Never say never: TBM Great Grandma sealed to two men in temple

I didn't even know that was possible until I just saw it with me own two eyes.

She was sealed to her first husband five years after they had a civil marriage, in 1886.

He passed away in 1889. She remarried in 1898 to another Mormon hunk, and had their marriage solemnized in 1924 in the Logan temple (both marriages were solemnized there actually.)

She didn't divorce husband #1 because she was widowed.

Apparently the church may have had differing standards then what was considered acceptable.

But I have never heard of this before today, that a woman could be sealed to more than one man at the same time.

[_AmyJo]

I spoke to perhaps the last living granddaughter of my great grandmother earlier this evening, to see if she knows if the obituary was accurate (for 2nd husband.)

She said she wasn't sure! She grew up with these ancestors, and was 12 when my great grandmother died.

She knows great grandma's greatest love was her first husband. Her 2nd husband loved her dearly, but had to take that in stride, because she had a pretty high bar for him when they got married to follow.

They were sweethearts too. It was his making her laugh that won her heart. They were married for over 50 years.

She was lucky in love not once, but twice in her lifetime.

If there is life after death which I believe there is, the family circle will just be a little bit wider than it might've been with her first family. She had two sets of children, one with each man.

I wonder if there were laxer standards back then (almost 100 years ago,) than there are today ... regardless, my half-cousin didn't even know about it when I asked her today. She knows for a surety great grandma would not have had her temple sealing to her first husband annulled. She loved him too much to have done that.

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm not sure off hand the official policy on your particular issue, but you DO know that people ARE married in the Temple for "time" only don't you, not only for Eternity?
For example in such cases in which the spouse is already sealed to someone else.

[_AmyJo]

I'm not sure off hand the official policy on your particular issue, but you DO know that people ARE married in the Temple for "time" only don't you, not only for Eternity?
For example in such cases in which the spouse is already sealed to someone else.

This may be what my great grandma did w/her 2nd husband.

Her first husband was the great love of her life. With him though she was married only 7 years. The other one more than 50. We know for a fact she and great grandpa were sealed several years after they married.

She's buried w/husband #2. She had four children with each man. And 12 years between marriages. He was very good to her also, like the first one had been. She was poor in worldly things, but blessed in matters of the heart.

[_Tator]

Since women are basically a possession of the man, like cattle, this will create quite a dilemma for Saint Peter at the Golden Gate. Perhaps he will have to pull a King Solomon judgement call and have the woman split in half and let each husband have a half, kind of like a side of beef.

Sounds gross and I am sorry no offense to you or your grandmother Amy. It just seems that this temple stuff is such poor theology that the possible scenarios just plain get strange in my mind.

[_AmyJo]

Since women are basically a possession of the man, like cattle, this will create quite a dilemma for Saint Peter at the Golden Gate. Perhaps he will have to pull a King Solomon judgement call and have the woman split in half and let each husband have a half, kind of like a side of beef.

Sounds gross and I am sorry no offense to you or your grandmother Amy. It just seems that this temple stuff is such poor theology that the possible scenarios just plain get strange in my mind.

It is strange, when it comes to those celestial sealings. My own parents were temple sealed and then later divorced, but not a temple divorce. They both remarried jack Mormons.

When they died, I had spiritual signs from each of my parents and step-parents that they were together as husband and wife (of the step parent,) not to each other.

I believe God's word in the Bible over what Mormonism teaches, that whatsoever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatsoever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. That pretty much sums up my visions, or signs, however best to describe them of my parents communicating to me after they'd crossed over to the other side.

[_AmyJo]

Since women are basically a possession of the man, like cattle, this will create quite a dilemma for Saint Peter at the Golden Gate. Perhaps he will have to pull a King Solomon judgement call and have the woman split in half and let each husband have a half, kind of like a side of beef.

Sounds gross and I am sorry no offense to you or your grandmother Amy. It just seems that this temple stuff is such poor theology that the possible scenarios just plain get strange in my mind.

It is strange, when it comes to those celestial sealings. My own parents were temple sealed and then later divorced, but not a temple divorce. They both remarried jack Mormons.

When they died, I had spiritual signs from each of my parents and step-parents that they were together as husband and wife (of the step parent,) not to each other.

I believe God's word in the Bible over what Mormonism teaches, that whatsoever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven. And whatsoever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. That pretty much sums up my visions, or signs, however best to describe them of my parents communicating to me after they'd crossed over to the other side.

As for my great grandmum, we know she loved her first husband fiercely. He was the great love of her life. I don't see how time, death, or space would change that. Her second husband was devoted to her and they had more years together.

So would her eternity with either man be based on quality or quantity of years on earth? Maybe they'll have shared custody. Hahahaha.

She was the time traveling great granny I wrote about in my other thread in the Celestial forum. She came to me when I was a young child, at night, like she was part of a traveling group with others. She didn't come alone, but she was the only one I was able to observe.

From what physicists know of time travel, it is possible to go forward, but not backwards in time. She came forwards to me in pioneer clothing. Not heavenly garb. Like she'd come from an earlier era to pay her visit. Maybe she was given a vision of the future showing I would be her great grandchild nearly 50 years later to put a tombstone on her first husband's and baby girl's graves? In 127 years he and her baby girl went without a tombstone until I came along this past May to find they had none.

It became my summer project to get them both a fitting memorial to their lives and to honor their memory. :)

[_Corsair]

This is an interesting story because it still affects Mormons today. I have some friends in my stake who are dealing with this right now. The wife was a young widow who was pregnant with a child when her first husband died in a car accident. She subsequently discovered this underground association of young LDS widows who are effectively unable to marry in the temple because most believing, temple worthy young men want the blessings a temple sealing which they cannot get with a temple sealed widow.

But my young widowed friend did get married to a great guy a few years later. He is a convert with non-member parents. So he is functionally unable to be sealed to her and technically he entirely lacks the blessings of being sealed to anyone. They are civilly married, of course, and have a couple more children together.

They tried going through all sorts of official channels to get some kind of sealing to no avail. This included a number of emotional phone calls to the office of the First Presidency. Their stake president is a genuinely kind man and a friend of mine. He was tasked to give them the final decision that their sealing would not take place.

Technically, the children from the second husband are still sealed to the first husband. While they are not happy about this status, their own married relationship remains quite strong. However, their membership status in the LDS church may be taking a hit after the ecclesiastic struggles they have gone through.

[_AmyJo]

This is an interesting story because it still affects Mormons today. I have some friends in my stake who are dealing with this right now. The wife was a young widow who was pregnant with a child when her first husband died in a car accident. She subsequently discovered this underground association of young LDS widows who are effectively unable to marry in the temple because most believing, temple worthy young men want the blessings a temple sealing which they cannot get with a temple sealed widow.

But my young widowed friend did get married to a great guy a few years later. He is a convert with non-member parents. So he is functionally unable to be sealed to her and technically he entirely lacks the blessings of being sealed to anyone. They are civilly married, of course, and have a couple more children together.

They tried going through all sorts of official channels to get some kind of sealing to no avail. This included a number of emotional phone calls to the office of the First Presidency. Their stake president is a genuinely kind man and a friend of mine. He was tasked to give them the final decision that their sealing would not take place.

Technically, the children from the second husband are still sealed to the first husband. While they are not happy about this status, their own married relationship remains quite strong. However, their membership status in the LDS church may be taking a hit after the ecclesiastic struggles they have gone through.

Well it's no wonder they'd be having ecclesiastical struggles after their children being sealed to her first husband, when the second one is their father. That's just ridiculous!

My half-cousin told me (or someone who is more familiar with temple practices than I am,) that my great grandma could've just gone through with her second husband, without taking out a sealing of temple marriage to him. So he could've gotten his endowments with her by his side, even though they didn't actually have a temple sealing per se.

Although on the church FamilyHistory site, it does say they had a second marriage ceremony years after their first civil one, at the temple nearest their home. It was the same temple she'd been sealed to her first husband after they were civilly married, years before.

That was in 1923 (the second temple marriage event.) Who knows how much the temple ceremonies have changed in the intervening years? You'd think if it was the "one true church" that truth would be everlasting and not subject to the whims of whoever's running the show in a given era....