Unfortunatly, (actually it depends on the situation, I guess, sometimes it may a fortunate) the Church is granting more "Temple Divorces" It isn't as un-heard-of as it once was. The Temple work for those of us living (to do for ourselves) and those anscestors that have passed is a corner stone of the LDS Church . To simplify it, what we are encouraged to do is create a chain unbroken throughout our families. In the perfect world, when we get our lineage all the way back to Adam and Eve and so has everyone else we have a complete family of the world that is bonded together for eternity. I love that thought! The whole "name of the game" is to let no link go unhooked, or it is not a complete chain. Members of the Church are also encouraged to keep personal and family journals to pass on to our children and their children. It is a record of our time here on Earth. I enjoy putting together not only the cold, hard facts of my anscestors, but their lives and experiences as much as possible. Holly in SLC, Ut ---------- > From: Durfee_Lynda@tmac.com > To: HANDCART-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re:[HANDCART-L] Married for time only vs. Married for eterni > Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 7:32 AM > > I hope this information below is correct, based on my experience working with > pioneer records and temple work. I'm sure someone will let me know if it isn't. > > The terms "time only" and "time and all eternity" refer to temple > marriages/sealings. Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances will > insure that family members will be reunited in Paradise (heaven). One of these > is the "sealing" ordinance, where children are joined to parents and husbands to > wives. When an LDS couple is married in the temple, they are sealed to each > other for "time and all eternity," not "till death do us part." While a > husband can be sealed for all eternity to more than one wife, a woman can be > sealed for all eternity to only one husband (during her lifetime). If she > remarries after death or divorce of the first husband and was sealed to that > husband, she can be sealed for "time only" to the second husband ( i.e., for > their lifetime, like "till death do us part"). This is quite common among > elderly Mormons who remarry after the first spouse dies. There are exceptions > when there were children in a marriage, and there are some temple "divorces" to > break the seal (very rare). > > Now, to the specific example of your ancestors. The wife's first husband > probably died, and wasn't a church member or died before they could be sealed > together while he was living. Assuming the second husband was LDS, it would > have been logical for her to be sealed to the second husband. The date of the > second marriage/sealing was 1855. This marriage/sealing would have taken place > in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City (the SL temple wasn't completed until > 1893). At some time, the wife was sealed to her first husband for "time," > possibly much later by proxy. Were there children in the first marriage? The > parents would have to have been sealed to each other for the children to have > been sealed to the parents. Sometimes, a woman's children by a first marriage > were sealed to her and the second husband. This required special permission. > > Nowadays, when ordinances are done by proxy (for deceased individuals), the > families are sealed naturally (i.e., husbands and wives to each other, children > to natural parents), even when the parents divorced. It's up to the individuals > to work it out on the other side. When we perform ordinances for deceased > persons, we don't always know if there was a divorce, or whether the couples > want to be together in the hereafter!! But it's their choice. > > I have a female ancestor (not LDS) who was sealed to both her first and second > husbands by proxy. As her surname on the second marriage record is that of her > first husband, it is not immediately obvious she is the same person. I have > recently discovered that the "several children who died young" by the first > husband have names, recorded on a tombstone next to the wife's parents, so now I > will perform the "sealings" for these babies. My ancestor is the only child by > her second marriage. > > It was very common for families to take out their ordinances (endowments and > sealings) within a year of reaching the SL valley. Although these sealings are > recorded in the IGI as marriages (off the EH rolls), they often "ratified" > marriages that had already occurred. This is particularly true of British and > Scandavian Saints. So, if any of you are puzzled at a marriage that occurred in > SL after several children were born, now you know why! > > I hope this has answered your question. > > ____________________Reply Separator____________________ > Subject: [HANDCART-L] Married for time only vs. Married for eternity > Author: genealogy@v-wave.com > Date: 6/15/98 6:46 AM > > In some information I recently received it stated that someone in my family > had been "married for time only" to her first husband, but married "for > eternity only" to her second. (The second marriage was in 1855 in Salt > Lake City) > > Can anyone explain this? > > Thanks > > Donald & Janice > > Searching for: JESSOP, SANDERS, CROUCHER, BOND, > GOODFELLOW, STABLES, LEES, STEWART >