Why a sealing cancellation and then a temple clearance?

[Backroads]

My fiance and I plan on being married in March. He has been married before. After that divorce, the sealing was cancelled. We've only been engaged a month, and a couple of weeks ago he began talking to his bishop about what we needed. Yesterday morning, he texts me, furious about needing a temple sealing clearance now. He needs a letter from his ex, and he was rather upset that he needs all of this when the other sealing was cancelled and he is temple-worthy.

He's calmed down since, and is filling out the forms, but that does make me pose the question of why another clearance is needed even after a sealing was cancelled several years ago. It seems that this is fairly recent church policy, and we would like to know the reasoning behind it.

[ryanh]

why another clearance is needed even

This isn't "another" clearance. He never has applied for nor received a clearance to be sealed post cancellation of a sealing. The cancellation his ex applied for and received had nothing to do with your fiancé’s re-sealing. It is a misunderstanding to try to connect the two.

[Maureen]

My fiance and I plan on being married in March. He has been married before. After that divorce, the sealing was cancelled. We've only been engaged a month, and a couple of weeks ago he began talking to his bishop about what we needed. Yesterday morning, he texts me, furious about needing a temple sealing clearance now. He needs a letter from his ex, and he was rather upset that he needs all of this when the other sealing was cancelled and he is temple-worthy.

He's calmed down since, and is filling out the forms, but that does make me pose the question of why another clearance is needed even after a sealing was cancelled several years ago. It seems that this is fairly recent church policy, and we would like to know the reasoning behind it.

The sealing cancellation is requested by the woman and the sealing clearance is requested by the man. If there was a sealing cancellation just after the divorce, it would have been requested by his ex-wife; usually because she was planning on getting married and wished to be sealed to her new husband. The sealing clearance your fiancee is applying for is to get official approval from the first presidency to be sealed again to another woman, yourself.

M.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Maureen
corrected a sentence

[Backroads]

Thank-you both, this is very informative.

[rameumptom]

Why must we all think that a temple cancellation or even a temple recommend should come very easily? The event is a very important and sacred one. Given that one temple marriage ended in divorce, it is important for the Church to ensure those involved are actually ready the second time around, before approving the next sealing. We really do not want to see those sealed in the temple divorce at all, but if we must have them, we should do what we can to make them rare. Especially the second time around.

This should teach your fiancee the importance of the sealing, and that we should not take it for granted. His anger in this is misdirected. The Church did not fail his first marriage nor him, even though it may not have been his fault, either. The Church is ensuring that those who enter the temple and make sacred covenants are prepared to do just that. But also to ensure they will keep those covenants and keep them sacred.

[Backroads]

Why must we all think that a temple cancellation or even a temple recommend should come very easily? The event is a very important and sacred one. Given that one temple marriage ended in divorce, it is important for the Church to ensure those involved are actually ready the second time around, before approving the next sealing. We really do not want to see those sealed in the temple divorce at all, but if we must have them, we should do what we can to make them rare. Especially the second time around.

This should teach your fiancee the importance of the sealing, and that we should not take it for granted. His anger in this is misdirected. The Church did not fail his first marriage nor him, even though it may not have been his fault, either. The Church is ensuring that those who enter the temple and make sacred covenants are prepared to do just that. But also to ensure they will keep those covenants and keep them sacred.

Thank-you. This is wonderful advice. And yes, I was telling him that I doubt the First Presidency sits around trying to think of ways to make his life difficult.

[MarginOfError]

Thank-you. This is wonderful advice. And yes, I was telling him that I doubt the First Presidency sits around trying to think of ways to make his life difficult.

Of course not...that's what they call bishoprics for

[Guest finesseindia]

Finesse is a manufacturers, suppliers & exporters of Wedding Gowns, Veils, Wedding Dresses, embroidery material, Applique and Brooch and Haute Couture in India.

[az85296]

I have to disagree with the fact that the First Presidency is making sure that the couple isn't making a mistake now that this is the second time he will be sealed. If this were true, whey doesn't the church put that much effort and questioning into the first marriage/sealing? Especially since 50% of marriages are ending in divorce in the first place. Also, the process of receiving a cancellation or clearance does take a rediculous amount of time, and I believe it is due mostly to clerical processes. sorry - but true.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I've heard of this offending other men. One gentleman in our Ward was angry that after his divorce of many moons ago was over and he wanted to get married again. He was also temple worthy and angry he had to drag up all the other stuff from his past, from years ago. I don't fully understand the rationale although there have been insights above.

One thing's for sure -- this isn't the only policy that rankles people. The one-year-waiting period before going to the temple if you get married civilly first is an issue for people with non-member families -- and it invokes similar feelings of frustration because the administrative reasons aren't always fully clear, or compelling enough to justify the harm it can do to non-member family relationships.

There is another one too -- people who have had records annotated or been divorced are often prevented from holding certain leadership callings like Bishop, for example. I know one gentleman that is really frustrated by that one.

[MarginOfError]

I have to disagree with the fact that the First Presidency is making sure that the couple isn't making a mistake now that this is the second time he will be sealed. If this were true, whey doesn't the church put that much effort and questioning into the first marriage/sealing? Especially since 50% of marriages are ending in divorce in the first place.

The point is to slow it down. But probably not by as much as happens. (addressed below) However, the fact that the person has already once broken a covenant that was intended to be eternal and is considered by some to be the greatest of ordinances makes the First Presidency a little hesitant to just allow sealings and their dissolutions willy nilly.

Also, the process of receiving a cancellation or clearance does take a rediculous amount of time, and I believe it is due mostly to clerical processes. sorry - but true.

However, a lot of the slow down is most likely caused by clerical error and not following proper procedure. In a recent training meeting, the First Presidency stated that 80% of the questions they field are answered in the handbooks. That means somewhere near 80% of their time is spent handling things for which their time could be better used.

I'll agree, however, that we could do a little more to ensure that people understand the gravity of their decision and what they're about to do. I like the idea of pre-marital consultations. Now if only we could think of a good way to do that.

One thing's for sure -- this isn't the only policy that rankles people. The one-year-waiting period before going to the temple if you get married civilly first is an issue for people with non-member families -- and it invokes similar feelings of frustration because the administrative reasons aren't always fully clear, or compelling enough to justify the harm it can do to non-member family relationships.

Again, the policy exists to help people understand how serious the ordinance is. Ideally, a couple that is sealed civilly should receive focused effort to teach them about sealings and their significance before they go to the temple.

There is another one too -- people who have had records annotated or been divorced are often prevented from holding certain leadership callings like Bishop, for example. I know one gentleman that is really frustrated by that one.

People whose records have been annotated are restricted from callings that work with youth and children. This is because the standard annotation marks that there has been a

charge of abuse against the person and putting him in contact with children or youth could put those groups at risk of further abuse and the Church in a dangerous legal predicament. If someone is irritated that he or she can't hold a youth calling with an annotated record, that's too bad. Annotations aren't given out lightly.

The First Presidency also has a general restriction against men being bishop when they have been married less than 5 years. They actually have a long list of ideal qualifications that the stake president works with while recommending candidates. A person who was divorced a long time ago but is currently in a stable marriage can still be a bishop, but the stake president would have to be willing to recommend him against the guidelines. It's been known to happen.

[Backroads]

Another question... (has absolutely nothing to do with my situation, but I was curious about).

Part of the clearances and cancellations is getting a letter from the ex-spouse. What happens if the spouse refuses to send in a letter? Is that just a "too bad so sad" situation where this person who is no longer sealed to anyone is therefore not allowed to be sealed to anyone ever again? Does that mean that the new intended spouse either has to end the relationship and find another one that will allow a temple marriage? Are two temple-worthy people expected to live in civil marriage, never allowed to be sealed to one another just because someone decided they wanted to be spiteful and not send in a letter?

And yes, I realize that worthy people will never be denied eternal blessings, but in the aforementioned case do these people have to wait to the next life to receive those blessings?

The point is to slow it down. But probably not by as much as happens. (addressed below) However, the fact that the person has already once broken a covenant that was intended to be eternal and is considered by some to be the greatest of ordinances makes the First Presidency a little hesitant to just allow sealings and their dissolutions willy nilly.

I have a question on the broken covenant. In my fiance's situation, it was his ex-wife who decided to break her temple covenants, which lead to the end of the marriage. So I understand that yes, the First Presidency doesnt' want to do anything willy nilly, but I guess I don't understand why someone who is "temple divorced" has broken a covenant when it was the other partner who committed a sin or demanded the divorce. Could you clear that up?

Edited December 28, 2010 by Backroads
Added another question

[ryanh]

No, they will not be denied. It will simply mean the process will take longer to complete. Attempts will be made to contact the spouse, and give them opportunity to respond. But, if they choose not to respond, the process can go forward.

[Backroads]

Okay, my dear fiance is now freaking out that his ex will say a whole bunch of nasty things in the letter (mind you all, I've heard both sides of the story, I've actually spoken with the ex's sister) and his temple clearance will be denied because of this.

I don't think there's anything severe than can be said in the letter by any stretch of the imagination knowing as much information as I do, but are severe claims ever further investigated, or is it all on he said/she said? Can someone actually lie in a letter and prevent their ex-spouse from going through the temple again?

[Guest DeborahC]

I hadn't thought about this before I read this post. I'm divorced (was married in the Temple) and if I wanted to remarry, if they'd have to contact my ex, he'd have a fit. His new wife certainly doesn't want to hear from the Church! It could cause problems in THEIR marriage, which would be a shame. He and I have been divorced over 15 years... why stir up "stuff" now?

Hmmm... I'll have to mull this over...

[Backroads]

Okay, so I met with the bishop today. Apparently my view of everything ALSO gets to go to the first presidency, which I think is wonderful.

[MarginOfError]

I have a question on the broken covenant. In my fiance's situation, it was his ex-wife who decided to break her temple covenants, which lead to the end of the marriage. So I understand that yes, the First Presidency doesnt' want to do anything willy nilly, but I guess I don't understand why someone who is "temple divorced" has broken a covenant when it was the other partner who committed a sin or demanded the divorce. Could you clear that up?

It's just standing policy that the First Presidency review all these cases. They can't possibly know the specifics of each instance, which is why the rely heavily on the recommendation of the stake and ward leaders.

[Gwen]

they know that ex's often have the worst and an unrealistic view of folks when they read the paperwork. i think they take it all into consideration.

Okay, so I met with the bishop today. Apparently my view of everything ALSO gets to go to the first presidency, which I think is wonderful.

how is your view taken into consideration? did the bishop explain it? did he ask you to write a letter or is it just what the bishop says that will be sent? i ask because i've been through the sealing clearance process with my husband and no one cared what i thought. looking back i think it's one thing about the system that is horridly flawed. if that's changed it would be great to know.

[UrbanFool]

It's just standing policy that the First Presidency review all these cases. They can't possibly know the specifics of each instance, which is why the rely heavily on the recommendation of the stake and ward leaders.

Oh my goodness! That's got to be hundreds every day. How could they keep up with that?

[Backroads]

My bishop told me that he was required to write up a letter for the first presidency that included not only a report of my temple worthiness but my view on my fiance and his former marriage. He said he needed to put in that letter if I thought he was worthy of the clearance.

[Jason100278]

I was baptized in 2005.  My wife and I were civilly married in 2007.  We had to wait to go to the temple for a year before sealing.  I wasn't upset about this.

 

what I am upset about is her drug addiction and our divorce because of it. 10 months exactly after the divorce was final she died of a drug overdose.

Fast forward 5 years and no one mentions I need a sealing clearance letter to be sealed to my future wife.

i do not agree with the church wanting to bring up all that happened in that marriage.  

It's not fair to my late wife to have all that brought up again.  It's not fair to my future wife to hear how I was hurt and scared. It's not fair for me to have to not only tell it but also relive it.

[person0]

32 minutes ago, Jason100278 said:

It's not fair to my late wife to have all that brought up again.  It's not fair to my future wife to hear how I was hurt and scared. It's not fair for me to have to not only tell it but also relive it.

Welcome Jason, glad to have you in the forum!

Forgive my blunt response, but I am absolutely confident that if the Church and its doctrines are true and your late wife is in the spirit world right now, she doesn't care one bit.  She would have no qualms about fairness on this issue at this point in her eternal sojourn.  As it pertains to your future wife, I would say it's pretty reasonable to lay it all out on the table and to have complete honesty, even if it's painful.  I have seen too many marriages fail directly related to lack of full disclosure and understanding up front.  I'm sincerely sorry that you may have to recall painful times in your life, but because it is required by the Lord's Church, I know the Lord will sustain you in this endeavor and will strengthen you to be able to endure.

[Jason100278]

My future wife and I have discussed most of the marriage.  She knows there were things that happened on my wife's part that could require a sealing cancellation vers a sealing clearance.

We have discussed this.  But what happened should be between my future wife, God and me. The church shouldn't be able to have an opinion.  

Edited March 22, 2018 by Jason100278

[Just_A_Guy]

“Cuter”?  I’m gonna assume that’s a typo.

With all due respect, if I’m coming to the Church demanding that it administer certain ordinances to me; then it seems I’m in kind of a poor position to try to dictate to the Church what is or isn’t its business. Either God sanctions the ordinance, which case He also sanctions the prerequisites the Church has established; or else He doesn’t, in which case you need not concern yourself with any of this.

I’m sorry this is painful; but as you know temple sealings are kind of a big deal.  To the extent that a prior sealing failed, there’s a difference between “burying” versus “processing” the inevitable pain that goes along with that sort of experience; and I don’t think it’s out of line for the Church to take some measures to ensure that you’ve processed it in a productive way.  

Edited March 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 12/13/2010 at 5:55 PM, Backroads said:

Thank-you. This is wonderful advice. And yes, I was telling him that I doubt the First Presidency sits around trying to think of ways to make his life difficult.

Also, they have a responsibility to protect the sanctity of the temple.  If the divorce happened because he broke his covenants in some way, they have to ensure there has been proper repentance before permitting him to make a new covenant.  The process is there to ensure the past has been dealt with property.  Even if his ex was dead he would sill need a clearance.  If a man has his wife die and there was no divorce, he doesn't need a clearance to be sealed to another woman.