Since God established communication with His children on earth, the priesthood and responsibilities have landed squarely on the shoulders of the men. Perhaps it’s the nature of the gender, who knows? But again, try to look beyond the roles and rules of temporal social science. Per LDS doctrine, men and women equally enjoy the blessings of the priesthood– men just happen to be its vessels. Liking or disliking the arrangement has little to do with it. But whatever happens here on this rock– whoever is sealed to who– it’s primarily crucial that they are both attached to the priesthood. I have a feeling that in more cases than expected– due to inequal devotion and/or irreconcilable differences– the Lord will sort things out later. And so it goes with the young widow in my ward.]]>
The implications of the church’s policies in this matter really can’t be denied. Either the church thinks women do not have the capacity to love different people for eternity like men do, which contradicts the church’s insistence that the genders are equal, or the church’s current policy is wrong and should be changed. Why wait for the Lord to fix something which the church can fix today?]]>
I’ve heard anecdotes that counter yours, including one from a guy in my congregation who saw the same situation in the previous ward he attended. It may just be a case-by-case thing but, as you said, it’s a frustrating scenario either way. It’s times like this when, despite policy and best counsel, we have faith that the Lord will settle it and everyone wins.
As a Latter-Day Saint, though, I believe we existed before we came to earth, as brothers and sisters, and we’ll continue to exist after this life. That said, our earthly stay is a blip of our whole existence. If we were brothers and sisters before, and we’ll remember everything after, who’s to say the family structure as we’ve understood it here doesn’t completely change again? Our parents become our brothers and sisters again, as will our children. We’ve helped each other through the mortal sphere and it’s time to move on. I’m not saying that’s doctrine, I’m just musing. I think “letting the Lord sort it all out” before we get too riled is a wise thing because I think we’re all going to be very surprised when we get over there. And delighted.]]>
Personally I don’t like that. My sensibilities tell me that the first covenant should not be broken just because the poor guy died young, nor should the second husband not be able to get sealed to the young widow.
I really think that if you’re going to accept eternal marriage at all, you have to accept both polygyny and polyandry in the hereafter. This stuff where men can be sealed to multiple women but women have to choose just one man to be with is pure bullcrap.]]>
A new couple moved into the boundaries last October. Sometime mid-February, the husband was killed on the Interstate on his motorcycle, leaving his 22-year-old wife one month pregnant. The couple had married in the temple, but I doubt a pretty young woman is going remain a widow for very long. So, the dilemma: If she meets someone else whom she wants to marry, she won’t be able to be sealed to him because the Church doesn’t cancel prior sealings just because the first husband is dead. So this second man could help raise the baby from infancy into adulthood– he/she will probably always know him as “Dad”– and he’ll spend 60 years with the woman, but she will still be sealed to the first. What’s more, the child will always be sealed to their mom and her first husband.
It just seems to me this is one of those situations that have to be worked out in the Millennium.]]>
If getting sealed will muck things up very badly then how in the world can the really complicated situations get taken care of?
I have always wondered how a sealing can still be in effect if they are married to others. If you break your covenant then isn’t the sealing void? This is one of those things that doesn’t seem to fit real well. If I break the other covenant I make in the temple then I do not receive the promised reward why is this different??]]>
Still, tall =/= tough. I’m 6’0″ and I’d have a hard time beating up Pee Wee Herman.]]>