No, it is not true. She does not understand this doctrine. However, what do you mean by, "He divorced her, and has had his name removed from the registry." Do you mean that he has had his name removed from the records of the Church or that he just had the temple sealing undone? Either way, his sealing to his first wife would no longer be in effect. Without this being in effect, there is no sealing by which your child could possibly sealed to her. Secondly, even if that sealing were still in effect, children that you two have are not born under that covenant. So, once again, they are not sealed to her. If you to were to get married in the temple, then any children that you had together would be sealed to the two of you and not to his ex-wife. So, I would have to say that his ex-wife does not understand Church doctrine and/or is being vindictive. It is unfortunate, but there are people like that.

Hi Glenn, Thanks for you answer to my question. Does it make any difference if our baby was conceived before he removed his name from the registry? He had been divorced legally for 6 months when that happened, we were married shortly after and then he had his name removed from the registry. Then we had our baby about 6 months after his name was removed. Thanks!

Kelley, Glenn’s explanation is mostly correct, but I believe he is mistaken on one point of doctrine: that “even if that sealing were still in effect, children that you two have are not born under that covenant.” As an adoptive parent, I can assure you that this is not automatically the case. Several months before adopting our daughter, my wife and I were chosen by a birthmother that we eventually learned had been playing mind games with several couples. (She promised her unborn child to four or five different couples while never planning to place her, at all; not that that’s relevant, just emphasizing that this woman is *not* our daughter’s birthmother.) This so-called birthmother was still sealed to her ex-husband, and while the child was not his—she had been conceived out of wedlock—our social worker warned us that since a sealing was still in effect, she would be “born in the covenant” and automatically sealed to her birthmother and her birthmother’s Eternal husband. Even though the baby was the product of an extramarital union that didn’t involve the ex-husband in any way at all, the Eternal covenant between husband and wife—a sealing that was never officially annulled—remained in effect. For our part, if we were to adopt this baby and desire that she be sealed to us, we would need to petition the First Presidency, in writing, for a cancelation of sealing. However, we were also warned that said petition was *far* from a done deal. Since each of our ultimate exaltation is based on being sealed to someone—regardless of whom—the fact that she was already part of an Eternal family unit (biological paternity notwithstanding) would likely trump our human desire that she be sealed to us, instead. Regardless, the portion of Glenn’s answer that applies to you specifically is still correct. If, as you state, your husband has indeed been excommunicated from the Church (regardless of how that excommunication came about; having one’s name be removed from Church records is still technically excommunication), every ordinance performed on his behalf is consequently null and void. He is unbaptized, unconfirmed, unordained, unanointed, unendowed, unsealed, and un–anything else you care to mention. If his now–ex-wife thinks that she, the baby, or anyone else in the world is still sealed to someone that’s not even a member of the Church, she’s got another think coming. And regarding your second question, no, the time of conception is irrelevant; one is *born* in the covenant, not *conceived* therein—hence the reasoning behind all of the above. HTH!

Someone needs to grow the hell up.

It's a bunch of hogwash anyways. So don't worry about it. To answer your question though, she's totally incorrect!

No, it is not true. If your husband has resigned his membership he is no longer under covenant and children you have with him are not sealed to anyone. Any children he had with his first wife are sealed to their parents irrespective of their parents' status. Any children THE EXWIFE has, assuming she has not applied for a sealing cancellation and been sealed to a new husband, are sealed to her and to your husband. The Otter's situation isn't quite the same thing Glenn was talking about. However, the principle he discusses is correct - it matters more THAT sealings occur than to whom. We simply have faith that those who go forward and live good lives will be blessed accordingly, and trust that God's grace will overcome details in the paperwork.

My answers are based on my own understandings, opinions, and views and are not necessarily official doctrine of the church. I know a few things but not everything and could very well be wrong. Based on a post on LDS Tech Forums concerning practices of record keeping in the church (see below) it seems that a baby being automatically "sealed" to a parent in the sense that they are "born in the covenant" relies on the current sealing of the mother. So seeing as YOU gave birth to the child, the only person the child COULD automatically be sealed to is you and either your current husband (if you were sealed to him prior to the birth) or a former husband (if applicable) if you were sealed to him and never cancelled such sealing. However, in no instance whatsoever is another woman automatically sealed to your own born child. The only thing that can happen is that the mother is both not temple married/sealed and also gives the child up for adoption and the child is physically (not automatically) sealed in the temple to the new adoptive parents. Furthermore, a quick primer in plural marriage is applicable here since it is a basic principle tied to the overall existence of LDS temple sealings/eternal marriage. Men may be sealed to more than one woman and thus have children from multiple women sealed to themselves as a father, but women cannot be sealed to more than one man. Thus the only person who can have children sealed to them from more than one spouse is the father. Although plural marriage is not practiced, the doctrine and belief was never removed. Because temple marriage practices are based on doctrine, only women must get a cancellation of sealing in order to be sealed to another man; men don't need to get a cancellation of sealing to be sealed to a new wife after a prior civil divorce. However, unless he wants to chance it in the hereafter and end up with both his current wife and possibly his ex, it is wise to cancel the sealing! In any case, if your husband has actually had his name officially removed from the records of the church that in effect is the same as an excommunication and all of his LDS ordinances (baptism, priesthood ordination, temple ordinances, temple sealings/marriages) are in effect nullified. So he is not in any way shape or form sealed to his ex anymore (nor any of their children if they had any). Furthermore, under no circumstances would his ex have any claim on a child you birthed. However, if your husband had not had his name removed from the records of the church, he could claim that any future children his ex had with later civil marriages with later husbands (so long as they were not temple marriages thus requiring a cancellation of sealing for their previous marriage) then HE WOULD have some claim on those children since their sealing would theoretically be in force! But I digress, this is all nonsense anyway. The nature of covenants as believed in the LDS church is that they are voluntary. If at anytime a party to a covenant desires to break the covenant or does not live up to that covenant, it is in effect nullified anyway, the only way to renew the effect of a covenant in this case is through repentance. Thus God is not going to force people to exist in covenants they don't desire to be involved in, it is counter to the concept of free-agency and the mercy and love of God. He may give us space to try and live up to covenants if we wish, but he will not force us to live up to them. We enter them of our own free will and choice and exist in them continually under the same choice. By the sound of the question, you are probably not actively involved in the LDS faith or church so what would it matter anyway? Although, if you would like, I'm sure you and your husband could join the LDS church and eventually become sealed together with your children! Wouldn't that be great to be together as a family forever!!? http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2574&highlight=excommunicated "The Church Handbook of Instructions is quite clear on this. Being born in the covenant depends on the mother being sealed to a husband. If the child is born after that sealing, it is born in the covenant. If that child is born of THAT mother in another later marriage, it is born in the covenant as long as the mother has not been excommunicated or requested her name be removed from Church records or had her sealing canceled. If the mother is excommunicated or has her name removed or had her sealing canceled, any children born after that time are not born in the covenant. Your bishop or stake president can read this for you on page 86 of book 1 of the Church Handbook of Instructions."

the ex is totally twisted BUT she is kinda rite. the mormon church believe's in eternal life is a very long time! any marriage that takes place in the temple is called an "everlasting, eternal marriage" your man has the right in the life to come to have more than one wife and loads of children with those women if he is good and all that. in the life to come he will have the chance to be married to you and her, if you both agreed then in theory yes your child could be a step child to her, BUT only if you both wanted this. By the way 'Glen' tell the truth next time!