You are right i every thing you said except that the rules have changed now a woman can now be sealed to more thatn one husband. In my case my grand mother was sealed to my grand fateher at the insistance of my mother and her sisters, but she wanted to be sealed to her 3rd husband whom she loved dearly and now is dead. So now she can go get sealed to him. I hope this is a helpful. Jackie Durfee_Lynda@tmac.com wrote: > 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