Sealing clearance vs Cancellation

[lizzy12]

"My understanding of this is that, a man requests a "sealing clearance" and a woman requests a "sealing cancellation". The woman needs to have her previous sealing cancelled since she cannot be sealed to more than one man at the same time while she is alive."

That was posted on the fourm under the Marriage section about sealing canceling.

This is a current topic that has been really upsetting one of my fellow Young Women, Kate.

She is very distraught that men can be sealed to a women once his wife died but a women cannot be resealed and married in the temple once the husband dies.

1) is this true?

2) Any conference talks about this?

3) How can I help Kate?

She's very lost and I see her very upset over this issue...she was crying during young women about it.

[Dravin]

The first step would be to know why she's upset about it.

[rubondfan2]

"My understanding of this is that, a man requests a "sealing clearance" and a woman requests a "sealing cancellation". The woman needs to have her previous sealing cancelled since she cannot be sealed to more than one man at the same time while she is alive."

That was posted on the fourm under the Marriage section about sealing canceling.

This is a current topic that has been really upsetting one of my fellow Young Women, Kate.

She is very distraught that men can be sealed to a women once his wife died but a women cannot be resealed and married in the temple once the husband dies.

1) is this true?

2) Any conference talks about this?

3) How can I help Kate?

She's very lost and I see her very upset over this issue...she was crying during young women about it.

Here's my take on the "sealing" ordinance... a position that I did not state in the other thread you mentioned because I didn't want to derail that thread with a larger discussion about how I look at the sealing ordinance in the temple.

First, however, I will state again that it has been my experience in recent years that "sealing clearances" are being granted BOTH to women AND men now and that the action of a sealing cancellation is seen less and less often. My speculation for the reasons why this is the case are two-fold.

One, with the high rate of divorce, the sheer number of requests for sealing clearances and cancellations with a membership body approaching 14 million must be nearly overwhelming. I would guess that the US rate is higher than in most other areas of the world, but that's another discussion for another thread. Perhaps some "efficiencies" have been looked for to contend with the numbers.

Second, is the Church's overall modification of policies and procedures related to temple ordinances over the years.

Remember when you had to have all kinds of information on a deceased person before you could take their name through the temple? Now, all you need is pretty much their name and a best guess as to a death date (that's a slight exaggeration, but not much). Why is that? Well... I've heard different reasons from Priesthood leaders, which generally fall within the realm of, "There's so much work to be done and it's more important to just get the work done because in the end, the Lord and each individual will work out the details in the hereafter." That makes sense to me and I do subscribe to that general belief.

Now, on the subject of sealings. Many of us in the church misunderstand what the sealing is all about. It is NOT spiritually chaining or handcuffing family members together to form one big giant chain of people. This is the image that I've seen so many have and I myself conjured up this image in my mind when I was a youth and into my early adulthood even. Then I received some great counsel from a Bishop once and had this confirmed by a sealer in the temple; and that is this:

The "sealing" is just an ordinance... like baptism or confirmation or Priesthood conferrence. When you are sealed in the temple, you are not actually "sealed together", but rather are "sealed" with great promises based on your agreement with the terms of the ordinance and your faithfulness to temple covenants. The whole wording is quite individualistic if you listen closely the next time you perform proxy work.

When you are "sealed" in the temple, think of it as one more "checkmark" on your list of saving ordinances that you need personally to receive exaltation.

Now, when this life is over, we will have the choice to remain with our spouse who also received that sealing ordinance right along with us and covenanted to be married for time and for all eternity. If you both spent a life together building, loving, working, sweating, crying, bleeding and serving together and grew closer together, then clearly when presented with the decision to remain a forever couple, you're probably going to say "yep! sign us up!".

If, however, in this life your marriage was filled with strife, trouble, abuse, distance, or any number of other negative factors, then you might say at that day to the Lord, "nope... no thanks, I think I'll look around for another option". The Lord is not going to say, "Well, you're stuck in this marriage forever because, by golly, you were sealed in the temple... you gave up your agency when you did that, so buck up little campers."

This is why a "sealing cancellation" is really not even necessary. Besides why would you want to "cancel" that ordinance that you received in the first place? You don't want to cancel the ordinance, you just don't want to have to be stuck with your ex spouse in the eternities, which if you think about it and given what I said above, is really a silly thing to believe the Lord would even require of us.

I hope that others weigh in on this one as well. This is just my "take" based on my own experiences (I've been divorced and so has my wife and so have members of her family) and my own conversations with Priesthood leaders inside and outside of the temple.

Edited October 26, 2010 by rubondfan2

[lizzy12]

She's upset because she sees the church as this men vs women thing. She really dislikes that women don't have the priesthood and are supposed to 'stay home and make babies"

[BenRaines]

Rubondfan, I like your explanation. Not sure it is doctrine but it does make sense. I agree that most people do not understand the "Sealing ordinance". Like it chains a family together. My daughters are sealed to their husbands. They were entitled to the benefits of being born under the covenant and of sealed parents but once they formed their own families they were sealed to their husbands.

I have never read where sisters are supposed to "Stay at home and make babies"

Ben Raines

[Dravin]

She's upset because she sees the church as this men vs women thing. She really dislikes that women don't have the priesthood and are supposed to 'stay home and make babies"

What are your thoughts above that? You would be the one talking to her so it is probably best to work from the point of your understanding. The thing is in situations like this scriptures and the like don't usually get people all that far unless the audience is receptive somehow. Particularly since if she feels the Church is sexist (which by some dictionary definitions I suppose it is) your scriptures and most of your conference talks (but not all) will be coming from men and the ones that aren't can be written off as being trapped by the system.

I have never read where sisters are supposed to "Stay at home and make babies"

I think it's the bitter restating of this (and other similar statements):

Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

[lizzy12]

well, i was quoting her. I believe its a womens divine role to be nutrtoring to her kids. And, i'm okay with not holding the priesthood- I get all the blessings that come with it.

And, I actually would love the opportunity to stay home and take care of my children once I have them...I love kids and like the whole 50's idea..women and the kids and making the dinnner...husband at work ect....

[Dravin]

Oh, I figured you were quoting her. I was just pointing out to Ben that's it is a rephrasing of statements.

So, if you tell her you gain access to all the blessings of the priesthood anyway and that being able to stay home would be a blessing what is/would be her response to that?

[martybess]

Isn't it true that one reason why men can be sealed to more then one women is because during the millennium there's going many more righteous women who need the priesthood blessings of the sealing ordinance and it would be unfair for women to hog up the righteous men leaving no one for some sisters?

[Wingnut]

Isn't it true that one reason why men can be sealed to more then one women is because during the millennium there's going many more righteous women who need the priesthood blessings of the sealing ordinance and it would be unfair for women to hog up the righteous men leaving no one for some sisters?

No, it's not true. If you think that it is, please provide documentation of such a statement from a General Authority -- preferably an Apostle -- in a doctrine-appropriate setting in which that statement is made.

Point is, the above sentiment is Mormon Mythology, nothing more.

[martybess]

No, it's not true. If you think that it is, please provide documentation of such a statement from a General Authority -- preferably an Apostle -- in a doctrine-appropriate setting in which that statement is made.

Point is, the above sentiment is Mormon Mythology, nothing more.

I have no quotes, just my own wonderings. I did not hear it or read it anywhere. Do you have any that say otherwise to help clarify this for me?

[Wingnut]

No I don't. However, with the supposition you made (and especially the wording you chose), the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, I don't have to prove something is false, just that it isn't true.

(Kind-of like how "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "innocent.")

[Seanette]

For me, the whole "waah, women don't hold the priesthood" bit is basically telling God, "You're all wrong about how Your church is organized, and you need to get with fashionable human philosophies!"

There's a lot we don't yet know about how the eternities function, but we do know that mortality is preparing us for that, and if you honestly believe this is God's true church and that He is actively involved in leading it via chosen leadership, then I consider it way out of line to tell God He's wrong about how His church works because it doesn't agree with our mortal whims.

[martybess]

No I don't. However, with the supposition you made (and especially the wording you chose), the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, I don't have to prove something is false, just that it isn't true.

(Kind-of like how "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "innocent.")

I did not say it was true, nor that I believed it. I asked a question.

[martybess]

For me, the whole "waah, women don't hold the priesthood" bit is basically telling God, "You're all wrong about how Your church is organized, and you need to get with fashionable human philosophies!"

There's a lot we don't yet know about how the eternities function, but we do know that mortality is preparing us for that, and if you honestly believe this is God's true church and that He is actively involved in leading it via chosen leadership, then I consider it way out of line to tell God He's wrong about how His church works because it doesn't agree with our mortal whims.

I have noticed it seems to be the younger women who do not yet feel secure. It kind of bothered my wife 30 years ago when we were first married. But now she has totally changed her thinking on it and now jokingly says: "Go ahead take as many of us as you think you can handle. The more you take on the less I will have to do. And don't come crying back to me when they all have PMS at the same time." LOL The point being she now feels secure in our marriage, with her whole and calling as Matriarch. Plus one of us men is enough for her.

[Seanette]

I have noticed it seems to be the younger women who do not yet feel secure. It kind of bothered my wife 30 years ago when we were first married. But now she has totally changed her thinking on it and now jokingly says: "Go ahead take as many of us as you think you can handle. The more you take on the less I will have to do. And don't come crying back to me when they all have PMS at the same time." LOL The point being she now feels secure in our marriage, with her whole and calling as Matriarch. Plus one of us men is enough for her.

Huh? I wasn't talking about polygamy (which I consider a historical note, but not relevant to the present workings of the Church), I was talking about feminist demands that the Church extend priesthood to women to conform to their philosophy without regard to the Lord's greater knowledge of what we need to learn here to be ready for the eternities.

As I said, demands that the Church alter its doctrines (priesthood, gay "marriage", etc.) to accord to worldly philosophies are to me telling God that He is wrong and needs to be corrected in how His Church is run. That or it's a claim that the Church is not being run by God, but by mortals who are just being mean to the "oppressed" types demanding those changes.

[martybess]

Huh? I wasn't talking about polygamy (which I consider a historical note, but not relevant to the present workings of the Church), I was talking about feminist demands that the Church extend priesthood to women to conform to their philosophy without regard to the Lord's greater knowledge of what we need to learn here to be ready for the eternities.

As I said, demands that the Church alter its doctrines (priesthood, gay "marriage", etc.) to accord to worldly philosophies are to me telling God that He is wrong and needs to be corrected in how His Church is run. That or it's a claim that the Church is not being run by God, but by mortals who are just being mean to the "oppressed" types demanding those changes.

Yes I agree with you. I see I quoted the wrong person, Sorry. - I was commenting on the YW who may feel insecure and thus feels the way she does and makes that statement. Or she may feel insecure about herself and her roll and calling in life. In time this hopefully will change. She may not be making this statement because she wants women to have the priesthood.

Edited October 26, 2010 by martybess

[MarginOfError]

For me, the whole "waah, women don't hold the priesthood" bit is basically telling God, "You're all wrong about how Your church is organized, and you need to get with fashionable human philosophies!"

There's a lot we don't yet know about how the eternities function, but we do know that mortality is preparing us for that, and if you honestly believe this is God's true church and that He is actively involved in leading it via chosen leadership, then I consider it way out of line to tell God He's wrong about how His church works because it doesn't agree with our mortal whims.

Unfortunately, that's a pretty condescending way to address a perfectly valid and heartfelt concern. And if it were made to a young woman, it could do a lot of damage in helping her develop a testimony and staying with the Church into adulthood.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you have any that say otherwise to help clarify this for me?

Well, we know that 107 boys are born for every 100 girls. However, historically, male children have had a higher mortality rate so that by the time they reach adulthood women slightly outnumber men.

Given the common LDS view that all children who die before age 8 get a one-way ticket to the Celestial Kingdom, the idea of a surfeit of unattached females in the Resurrection doesn't hold much water. If anything, the opposite is likely to be true.

[martybess]

Well, we know that 107 boys are born for every 100 girls. However, historically, male children have had a higher mortality rate so that by the time they reach adulthood women slightly outnumber men.

Given the common LDS view that all children who die before age 8 get a one-way ticket to the Celestial Kingdom, the idea of a surfeit of unattached females in the Resurrection doesn't hold much water. If anything, the opposite is likely to be true.

Never thought of this before but if this be the case then with polygamy in effect in the next life and with some men having who know's how many wives to himself that's going to leave some men without any! JK

[Seanette]

Unfortunately, that's a pretty condescending way to address a perfectly valid and heartfelt concern. And if it were made to a young woman, it could do a lot of damage in helping her develop a testimony and staying with the Church into adulthood.

What, pointing out to her that worldly philosophies very seldom match with the Lord's wisdom is damaging and we should say, "Awww, that's all right, rebel against God's leading of His church all you want. The world's right, God's wrong"?

I get rather tired of the "coddle the precious little special snowflake and never ever tell a kid he/she is wrong" mentality. This is NOT honest or preparation for real adult life.

Reality is that God has arranged His Church as it is for reasons He understands, whether we do or not, and I do not think encouraging a teen in a formative stage to rebel against and defy that arrangement is in her best eternal interests. She may be all proud of herself here, but when she has to face God with her pride and lack of faith, it'll be a different matter.

What perspective should a teen be taught, that it's all about her, or that God in His infinite knowledge has arranged matters for the benefit of His children, including Miss "Waaah, I wanna have the priesthood!!!!", and knows best for us?

[Wingnut]

what perspective should a teen be taught, that it's all about her, or that God in His infinite knowledge has arranged matters for the benefit of His children, including Miss "Waaah, I wanna have the priesthood!!!!", and knows best for us?

Mocking her is really going to help, too.

[MarginOfError]

What, pointing out to her that worldly philosophies very seldom match with the Lord's wisdom is damaging and we should say, "Awww, that's all right, rebel against God's leading of His church all you want. The world's right, God's wrong"?

I get rather tired of the "coddle the precious little special snowflake and never ever tell a kid he/she is wrong" mentality. This is NOT honest or preparation for real adult life.

Reality is that God has arranged His Church as it is for reasons He understands, whether we do or not, and I do not think encouraging a teen in a formative stage to rebel against and defy that arrangement is in her best eternal interests. She may be all proud of herself here, but when she has to face God with her pride and lack of faith, it'll be a different matter.

What perspective should a teen be taught, that it's all about her, or that God in His infinite knowledge has arranged matters for the benefit of His children, including Miss "Waaah, I wanna have the priesthood!!!!", and knows best for us?

I think the point was that a teen's concerns should be addressed with compassion and empathy, not dismissed and ridiculed. The idea is to teach her doctrines and principles, not to give an empty charge to "man up."

[Dravin]

Mocking her is really going to help, too.

Maybe this is Seanette's version of "betimes with sharpness"?

Edited October 26, 2010 by Dravin

[martybess]

in any event, the reason is "to raise up seed"...not because there are not enough men, etc. etc.

And why is there not enough men?