Second Marriage / Sealing Cancelation

[JDBBAB]

I am getting married a second time and would like to know why I have to wait a year (after our civil ceremony) to get sealed?

My fiance and I are both divorced with 2 kids each. We are both still sealed in the temple to our former spouses. However, neither one of our ex-spouses are active in the church and both committed adultery more than once during the marriages. I have been with my fiance for 9 months. He is an amazing, temple-worthy man and I am temple-worthy as well. Neither one of us are bitter towards our exes. In fact, we both have a pretty decent relationship with them.

About a month ago, shortly before we became engaged, I met with my bishop to inquire about what needed to be done so that I could be married in the temple to my fiance because I wanted to start the marriage off right. My bishop is fairly new to his calling so he pulled the handbook out and started going over the sealing cancelation process. I then asked him how long he thought the process might take. He didn't know, as it has to go through the First Presidency. I left his office feeling like he was almost encouraging me to get married civilly. Well, fast-forward 6 weeks, and we have, indeed, decided to have a civil ceremony. My fiance's family is from out of town, we have very busy lives with active children, and we simply needed to plan (which just wasn't possible if we were to wait for sealing clearance and sealing cancelations on both our parts). I was a little discouraged, but at least we could move forward with our lives. Now, according to the Handbook, we have to wait for an entire year (from our civil ceremony date) before we can be sealed (even though we are both temple-worthy). We've inquired about why this is the case, but no one including our bishops can give us an answer.

This is frustrating to me because a woman can't even apply for a cancelation without the name of another person to whom she plans to be sealed in the temple. Well, I have that man and, after much pondering and prayer, I am certain I want to be sealed to him, and I am anxious to start my life with him. Why do I feel like I'm being punished for having a civil ceremony? If it were up to me, I'd do it in the temple the right way. But it ISN'T up to me.... it's up to my bishop, my stake president, the first presidency AND my ex-husband (who has to submit a letter explaining his feelings on the cancelation). Can someone please give me any insight into this?

[Jennarator]

This is exactly what I am going thru, only fast forward. We have been married now a year and are working on the sealing.

I mean same, both have two kids, wanted to get sealed right off, but couldn't plan since no one would say how long it takes all of that.

I know you have most likely heard this before, but this brought a little comfort to me. In the great scheme of things, all will be worked out.

I know exactly how frusterating it is. I didn't want my kids to think it was ok to marry civilly then go thru the temple, later, but we didn't want to wait for what could be (and is turning out to be) a very long process. Our ex's are both not active in the church, both cheaters, but they have not responed to the requests the bishop has made. Well, mine finally did, but I have yet to know if he wrote lies or what, he said he was going to make it impossibe for us to get sealed.

I am glad I didn't wait. There's a chance I would still be waiting.

After discussing it with my (now) husband and bishop, we decided it would be best to marry civilly, as to not risk the chance of "slipping up" and loosing out temple reccomends. Not that we were on that road, but we were both married before and it could happen.

My advise, pray about it, talk to your fiance, you two decide if you want to wait or marry civilly. I think each couple needs to decide that themselves.

For us it was to NOT wait, you will get your own answer.

Suggestion? Not put yourselves at risk of slipping up, wether that means don't be alone togther, or don't wait for the wedding, or set up boundries, that's up to you and the LOrd.

Good luck!! So glad you found a great man!!

[Guest]

I am getting married a second time and would like to know why I have to wait a year (after our civil ceremony) to get sealed?

My fiance and I are both divorced with 2 kids each. We are both still sealed in the temple to our former spouses. However, neither one of our ex-spouses are active in the church and both committed adultery more than once during the marriages. I have been with my fiance for 9 months. He is an amazing, temple-worthy man and I am temple-worthy as well. Neither one of us are bitter towards our exes. In fact, we both have a pretty decent relationship with them.

About a month ago, shortly before we became engaged, I met with my bishop to inquire about what needed to be done so that I could be married in the temple to my fiance because I wanted to start the marriage off right. My bishop is fairly new to his calling so he pulled the handbook out and started going over the sealing cancelation process. I then asked him how long he thought the process might take. He didn't know, as it has to go through the First Presidency. I left his office feeling like he was almost encouraging me to get married civilly. Well, fast-forward 6 weeks, and we have, indeed, decided to have a civil ceremony. My fiance's family is from out of town, we have very busy lives with active children, and we simply needed to plan (which just wasn't possible if we were to wait for sealing clearance and sealing cancelations on both our parts). I was a little discouraged, but at least we could move forward with our lives. Now, according to the Handbook, we have to wait for an entire year (from our civil ceremony date) before we can be sealed (even though we are both temple-worthy). We've inquired about why this is the case, but no one including our bishops can give us an answer.

This is frustrating to me because a woman can't even apply for a cancelation without the name of another person to whom she plans to be sealed in the temple. Well, I have that man and, after much pondering and prayer, I am certain I want to be sealed to him, and I am anxious to start my life with him. Why do I feel like I'm being punished for having a civil ceremony? If it were up to me, I'd do it in the temple the right way. But it ISN'T up to me.... it's up to my bishop, my stake president, the first presidency AND my ex-husband (who has to submit a letter explaining his feelings on the cancelation). Can someone please give me any insight into this?

In the USA, people (first time married or not) have to wait 1 year after a civil ceremony to get sealed in the temple.

In the UK, people can get sealed at the temple right after the civil ceremony.

The difference is this: In the UK, religious marriages are not considered legal. Only civil marriages are legal. Therefore, there is no avenue for any couple to get married and sealed at the Temple and it be considered legal - therefore, the sealing and the legal marriage are separate events in separate venues.

In the US, a marriage done in a nationally recognized religious setting is legal. Therefore, the ideal is to get married AND sealed at the Temple. Not following this ideal signifies that something was amiss, therefore, the 1 year wait is given for the Bishop to discern the qualifications of the couple to enter into the sealing ordinance.

This is the same as when somebody fails to tithe and their temple recommend gets revoked. When you do start paying tithes, you don't get your temple recommend back immediately. Although there is no guideline on how long before the bishop can give you a temple recommend, he does give you a certain period of time (my bishop did 6 months) to make sure you continue to pay tithing before he issues a new recommend.

Make sense?

[Maureen]

I found this:

A person may not receive a temple recommend until one full year has passed following baptism and confirmation. If a couple is civilly married and then decides that they wish to be sealed in the temple, they must wait one year from the date of their civil marriage to be sealed. This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Church Procedures

Since you and your fiance need to go through the sealing clearance and cancellation procedures, maybe this restriction can be waived, since you have no control over how long it will take.

M.

[Jennarator]

I found this:

A person may not receive a temple recommend until one full year has passed following baptism and confirmation. If a couple is civilly married and then decides that they wish to be sealed in the temple, they must wait one year from the date of their civil marriage to be sealed. This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Church Procedures

Since you and your fiance need to go through the sealing clearance and cancellation procedures, maybe this restriction can be waived, since you have no control over how long it will take.

M.

Perhaps....tho I have never heard of that. When we asked about that, he said that waiting for the clearences to go thru was an option, even tho we had to wait, so that was "us choosing."

I don't know if that can be interpreted differently from one bishop to another. Worth asking, I would say. The worst that could happen is your bishop says no, best (and what we hope for) he interprets it as Maureen, and it happens faster.

[Maureen]

Perhaps....tho I have never heard of that. When we asked about that, he said that waiting for the clearences to go thru was an option, even tho we had to wait, so that was "us choosing." I don't know if that can be interpreted differently from one bishop to another. Worth asking, I would say. The worst that could happen is your bishop says no, best (and what we hope for) he interprets it as Maureen, and it happens faster.

Waiting for the clearance and cancellation to get approved is an option? That's what your Bishop said? That's seems strange to me; unless I'm understanding this incorrectly.

M.

[estradling75]

Waiting for the clearance and cancellation to get approved is an option? That's what your Bishop said? That's seems strange to me; unless I'm understanding this incorrectly.

M.

Waiting to do what it takes to get sealed first was an option.. yes.

While it might not have been explained to the OP very clearly the options where

Wait for the cancellations and clearances to happen and then get sealed or..

Marry civilly and wait for the cancellations and clearances to happen or a year which ever takes longer.. then get sealed... they chose the later

Edited May 12, 2011 by estradling75

[Vort]

I am getting married a second time and would like to know why I have to wait a year (after our civil ceremony) to get sealed?

Ah, the joys of a lay ministry!

What I write here is unauthoritative. That's true for all of us, of course, but it's ESPECIALLY true for me. I have no direct experience in this area, and am drawing on general knowledge and the experience of family and friends.

The immediate answer to your question is: You can't marry civilly and then get sealed because the Church authorities have said that you can't. Obviously, this begs the real question: Why is the policy as such?

It seems to me that the Church's policy is designed to underscore the importance of the sealing by making sure that it's not done as a sort of afterthought: "Oh, well, now we're married, let's make sure we get sealed, too." Rather, the sealing is the important ceremony. To make this explicit, the Church says that if you're going to get married civilly, you need to prove your marital commitment by waiting a year before receiving the blessings of being sealed.

Of course, that's just my opinion, not an official statement.

This is frustrating to me because a woman can't even apply for a cancelation without the name of another person to whom she plans to be sealed in the temple.

I have been told that this is designed to be a protection to the woman. The sealing itself provides protections, or so I am told. A man might be sealed simultaneously to more than one woman, but a woman (I am told) cannot be sealed to more than one man, or at the very least not more than one living man. So to insure that the woman enjoys the protection of her sealing covenant, she remains sealed to her divorced husband until such a time as she can make that sealing covenant with another.

This has application in another context that seems very unfair to the man, and was more common when polygamy was being lived. I have been told that the "rule" with respect to children being born in the covenant is: The children "follow" the mother. That is, if the mother is sealed to a man, any children she produces (whether or not they were fathered by the woman's husband) are born in the covenant of the woman and her husband. But the children that a man produces are not sealed to him unless he is sealed to the mother to whom that child is born.

So if a woman is sealed in the temple, divorces, then marries another man civilly, and that couple has a child during their "waiting year", that child is born in the covenant of the woman and her ex-husband, and NOT in the covenant of his or her actual father. If I were that second husband, do you suppose I might not be totally pleased by this turn of events?

Why do I feel like I'm being punished for having a civil ceremony?

Because you have chosen to feel that way.

In saying that, I'm not trying to bag on you or even criticize you. It's important that you realize and "own" how you feel. No one else is "making" you feel any way -- not the Church, not your bishop, not the general authorities. You alone are responsible for your feelings.

The policy is what the policy is, and the practices are what the practices are. Your reaction to them is totally yours, however. Sealing is not denied you; rather, you are being offered a choice. You can marry now in a civil ceremony and then wait a year to be sealed to your husband, or you can start the process of having your previous sealing cancelled (however lengthy that process may be) and then be sealed as soon as that clears. No need to get upset about it; no one is saying that one choice is right and the other wrong. Either choice is probably good, so your task is to determine which is better. And undoubtedly, one of those choices IS the better choice. But no one here is qualified to make that determination. That is between you, your fiance, and God, with input (if you wish for it) from your bishop.

Hope that offers you some perspective.

[Guest]

I found this:

A person may not receive a temple recommend until one full year has passed following baptism and confirmation. If a couple is civilly married and then decides that they wish to be sealed in the temple, they must wait one year from the date of their civil marriage to be sealed. This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Church Procedures

Since you and your fiance need to go through the sealing clearance and cancellation procedures, maybe this restriction can be waived, since you have no control over how long it will take.

M.

Hi Maureen, my visiting teaching companion went through this and what she told me was that they waited to be married until the cancellation and clearance went through so that they can be married in the temple, otherwise, they had to wait the year out for the sealing. She was jumping at the bit and the wait was starting to get to her but they were able to power through it (they had some problems with getting the ex-spouse to cooperate).

So, yeah, I don't think it can be waived in that manner.

[classylady]

Hi Maureen, my visiting teaching companion went through this and what she told me was that they waited to be married until the cancellation and clearance went through so that they can be married in the temple, otherwise, they had to wait the year out for the sealing. She was jumping at the bit and the wait was starting to get to her but they were able to power through it (they had some problems with getting the ex-spouse to cooperate).

So, yeah, I don't think it can be waived in that manner.

That's my understanding also--you can't get it (the time between the marriage and the sealing) waived or expedited. So, the choices are: marry civilly and then wait one year to be sealed, or get married/sealed once your sealing cancellation and sealing clearance come through. How long it takes for all the paper work to come together depends on the circumstances. My understanding is that once the First Presidency get the paper work it takes about three weeks. So, if you don't want to marry civilly first and then wait a year to be sealed, make sure the bishop gets the ball rolling with the paper work.

[Maureen]

If a couple is civilly married and then decides that they wish to be sealed in the temple, they must wait one year from the date of their civil marriage to be sealed. This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

What kind of couple wouldn't have to wait the full year? From all the responses it sounds like the rule can't be waived; if so, then why bother making the stipulation?

M.

[Guest]

If a couple is civilly married and then decides that they wish to be sealed in the temple, they must wait one year from the date of their civil marriage to be sealed. This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

What kind of couple wouldn't have to wait the full year? From all the responses it sounds like the rule can't be waived; if so, then why bother making the stipulation?

M.

Because, in the UK, the restriction does not apply due to the law of the land. Hence, the stipulation.

[Vort]

If a couple is civilly married and then decides that they wish to be sealed in the temple, they must wait one year from the date of their civil marriage to be sealed. This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

What kind of couple wouldn't have to wait the full year? From all the responses it sounds like the rule can't be waived; if so, then why bother making the stipulation?

In many countries outside the US, such as most of Europe, LDS temple sealings are not recognized as official weddings. In those cases, LDS members are allowed to marry according to the law of the land and then receive their sealing immediately afterward, usually within a week. Since LDS temple sealings are recognized in the US as legal weddings, no such special arrangement is needed.

[JDBBAB]

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts. I actually am feeling better. You're all correct... I DO have a choice. I can wait for the sealing cancelation and sealing clearance processes to be complete, or I can be married civilly, then get sealed in a year. While I don't want to wait a year, I know that the Lord knows we are doing our best, and that, as Jennarator put it... "all will be worked out". I do have faith that it will and I feel that's what the Lord wants / expects from me. I appreciate the person who said I am "choosing" to feel like I'm being punished. That sure is true. And after reflection, I realize that the Lord is not punishing me. He knows my heart and he knows that I'm doing what I can to be with a very Christlike man.

I guess I was just looking for an explanation for the 1 year waiting period. But after thinking about it, I realize, I just need to have faith that there is a reason for it. The importance of being sealed in the temple should always be emphasized and I would never want to take away from that.

[Backroads]

My husband and I recently went through the process of a sealing clearance for him:

Once all the paperwork was in the mail, the clearance was approved in two weeks.

Now, when his first wife divorced him, she did request and receive a sealing cancellation without any plans for marriage (she is currently serving a mission, actually). This strikes most people as strange, but it does prove it's possible, if not common.

I wouldn't look at the 1-year waiting period as necessarily a bad thing. I personally don't agree with it, but I won't but up much of a fight with it. We were considering a civil ceremony and would have done so, but I'm glad we got married in the temple. But I once read a blog on why civil ceremonies aren't such a bad thing. This forum gave me quite a few good thoughts on it. The sealing is what's important in the end.

I say, enjoy the civil ceremony. Make it pretty and special and all those things. It doesn't have to be a bad thing. I have a friend whose wife was divorced, and they didn't want to bother waiting so long for her cancellation. They're temple worthy, will be soon getting sealed if my math is correct, but decided waiting so long wasn't worth it in their situation. So... they had a gorgeous garden wedding. It was lovely and I doubt anyone faulted them for it.

[estradling75]

There can be times where in the church the civil ceremony can get a bad rap. Too many say if its not a temple sealing then it is no good, and this is not the case.

[Maureen]

Because, in the UK, the restriction does not apply due to the law of the land. Hence, the stipulation.

In many countries outside the US, such as most of Europe, LDS temple sealings are not recognized as official weddings. In those cases, LDS members are allowed to marry according to the law of the land and then receive their sealing immediately afterward, usually within a week. Since LDS temple sealings are recognized in the US as legal weddings, no such special arrangement is needed.

Maybe it's just the wording of the stipulation but I just don't see how it applies to marriage laws in other countries.

This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

Members in the UK automatically choose a civil and sealing together because they have no choice. If that's what the stipulation is referring to I think they should re-word it.

M.

[Vort]

In e.g. the UK, living members cannot be sealed in the temple without first being married civilly. Thus, they are not "those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so." American Saints, in general, would be such.

[Guest]

Maybe it's just the wording of the stipulation but I just don't see how it applies to marriage laws in other countries.

This restriction applies only to those people who could have been married in the temple initially but chose not to do so.

Members in the UK automatically choose a civil and sealing together because they have no choice. If that's what the stipulation is referring to I think they should re-word it.

M.

I bolded some words up there...

That's the purpose of the stipulation. Because, in the UK, those people could never get married in the temple initially..... because, as you stated, they have no choice in the matter.

Therefore, the stipulation applies to those who were free to marry at the temple but, for some reason or the other (usually because they didn't qualify for a temple recommend), chose not to.

I don't know, it looks clear cut to me.

[Backroads]

There can be times where in the church the civil ceremony can get a bad rap. Too many say if its not a temple sealing then it is no good, and this is not the case.

Didn't someone on some thread mention an incident where a bishop was trying to say a ring ceremony cancelled out a temple sealing or something to that effect?

A temple sealing is a temple sealing. Everyone should reach for it.

Though whether it is at the same time as the initial wedding, that should not really be a factor.

[estradling75]

Though whether it is at the same time as the initial wedding, that should not really be a factor.

The only real reason I can see for the dislike for civil marriages is the idea that it might not progress any farther... That people might settle, or that people might simply run out of time in this life and missed the chance they should have taken.

[Backroads]

The only real reason I can see for the dislike for civil marriages is the idea that it might not progress any farther... That people might settle, or that people might simply run out of time in this life and missed the chance they should have taken.

ANd yet I see that as a rather judgemental assumption. I can see where it might be a valid view in cases of sin where repentance never happens, but I think many people just want to do what is right.

I remember reading somewhere a statistic to show that original temple weddings in the amount they are now are a relatively new thing in the church.

[Vort]

ANd yet I see that as a rather judgemental assumption.

I adjudge your judgment of judgmentalism as judgmental.

Oops, wrong thread.

[Backroads]

I adjudge your judgment of judgmentalism as judgmental.

Oops, wrong thread.

Well, who's Little Miss Judgy Judge now? Can't even judge the difference in threads!

[estradling75]

ANd yet I see that as a rather judgemental assumption. I can see where it might be a valid view in cases of sin where repentance never happens, but I think many people just want to do what is right.

I remember reading somewhere a statistic to show that original temple weddings in the amount they are now are a relatively new thing in the church.

It so is a judgmental assumption. A potentially valid concern is blown up into condemnation of the entire civil wedding idea