Sealing Cancellation Letter

[Backroads]

If there are blessings associated with the sealing (which is the reason often given to divorced women why they should remain sealed to their ex-husbands until they are ready to be sealed to another), then dissolving the sealing would deprive the man of those important blessings and protections, which is not merely unfair but spiritually damning. It is not petty to desire the blessings God has promised us.

So why isn't the Church tougher on this and require ex-wives to wait for the ex-husband to remarry?

[Vort]

So why isn't the Church tougher on this and require ex-wives to wait for the ex-husband to remarry?

I don't know. Is that true? Does the Church dissolve sealings over the objection of the not-yet-remarried husband? If so, that suggests one of (at least) two possibilities:

1. The counsel to women to remain sealed to their ex-husbands until they get remarried is undoctrinal and merely the uninformed, uninspired opinion of those specific leaders.

2. God, or at least his Church, values women more than men.

I doubt the first and disbelieve the second.

[Backroads]

I'm wondering if the Church gets sick enough of divorces we might see such an idea enforced. I still must admit, I find it slightly unfair (and in reverse, if an ex-husband must wait for his ex-wife to remarry to even request a sealing clearance) but I also strongly believe it would be one of those things eventually worked out.

[Backroads]

I don't know. Is that true? Does the Church dissolve sealings over the objection of the not-yet-remarried husband?

I don't think it should, but I don't think anyone has suggested that objections should usually be overruled. The concern is that a sealing can't be dissolved even if permission on both party's account was given.

[Just_A_Guy]

2. God, or at least his Church, values women more than men.

I don't think the policy difference would indicate this anymore than the priesthood ban indicates that God values non-blacks more than blacks, or that the current restriction on doing temple work for Holocaust victims means He values non-Jews more than Jews.

[Vort]

I don't think the policy difference would indicate this anymore than the priesthood ban indicates that God values non-blacks more than blacks, or that the current restriction on doing temple work for Holocaust victims means He values non-Jews more than Jews.

The difference is that it was always explicitly stated that no blessings in eternity would be denied (for example) blacks who were not allowed to participate in Priesthood ordinances. But the reason given to women for keeping their sealings is exactly that: so that they can enjoy the blessings and protections afforded by the covenants.

I suppose you might respond that God wants to offer those protections to his divorced daughters but not to his divorced sons, but that doesn't mean he loves the sons less. Not sure how to respond to this except to say I suppose that's possible, but it doesn't seem very likely to me.

[Just_A_Guy]

The difference is that it was always explicitly stated that no blessings in eternity would be denied (for example) blacks who were not allowed to participate in Priesthood ordinances. But the reason given to women for keeping their sealings is exactly that: so that they can enjoy the blessings and protections afforded by the covenants.

I suppose you might respond that God wants to offer those protections to his divorced daughters but not to his divorced sons, but that doesn't mean he loves the sons less. Not sure how to respond to this except to say I suppose that's possible, but it doesn't seem very likely to me.

What do you make of God's practice of holding males, but not females, accountable for the blood and sins of their generation?

(Not driving towards any point in particular; just interested to hear your thoughts.)

[Vort]

What do you make of God's practice of holding males, but not females, accountable for the blood and sins of their generation?

(Not driving towards any point in particular; just interested to hear your thoughts.)

I have no great insights into that. For some years, I have been toying with a model of celestial relationships and duties that has men as the external-facing element and women as the internal-facing element. Like any other model, such a vast oversimplification can bear no more than a passing resemblance to reality, but it might explain many of the seemingly unequal features of God's expectations, and perhaps even provide insights into the personality differences between the sexes.

[garryw]

So why isn't the Church tougher on this and require ex-wives to wait for the ex-husband to remarry?

I dont know, but...

1. women can give birth and men cant. Therefore, it seems to mathematically maximize the number of people BIC, you want the woman sealed at all times, and preferably to the biological father. Not sitting around waiting for the ex.

2. men have more responsibility to "find" and "propose". So if a man is single, in our culture, he can persue courtships more readily.

3. going back to the birth topic, women are not fertile as long as men, therefore they get priority.

just wild speculation with a touch of reason.

[classylady]

As long as the divorced woman has not been excommunicated or had her name removed from the Church, any subsequent children she would have would still be considered BIC (born in the covenant), even if the child was born out of wedlock. Perhaps, it's to allow the children to be BIC? If a man has a child with a woman that has not been sealed, the protection of being BIC does not pass from him as it does with the woman. Just making a guess here as to why it may be frowned upon to get a sealing cancellation for a woman before she remarries.

Our Bishop has told my husband and me that the Church is not as strict as it once was about a man or woman asking for a sealing cancellation prior to the divorced wife getting remarried. He says there is a new procedure coming out for sealing cancellations. We shall see what it is since my husband is requesting a sealing cancellation from his ex wife. This is not a sealing clearance he is asking for, because he is already sealed to me. He is requesting a sealing cancellation. The Bishop told him, "Why didn't you ask for this years ago?" Well, DH was under the impression that he shouldn't, because his ex hadn't gotten married in the temple. I'll let you know what happens.

Edit: Our Bishop is under the impression that since Howard W. Hunter, the requests for sealing cancellations have become easier.

Edit:  My husband’s sealing cancellation to his ex-wife was granted.  In the cancellation letter from the First Presidency he was told that any children born In the covenant or sealed to their parents, as long as children remain worthy, these blessings remain secure.

Edited January 11, 2018 by classylady

[mnn727]

If there are blessings associated with the sealing (which is the reason often given to divorced women why they should remain sealed to their ex-husbands until they are ready to be sealed to another), then dissolving the sealing would deprive the man of those important blessings and protections, which is not merely unfair but spiritually damning. It is not petty to desire the blessings God has promised us.

Do you remember the part of a sealing that occurs at the Veil? (assuming you were sealed) That's the blessing the woman needs the man for.

I can not get any more explicit on a message board about the Temple ceremony.

Edited December 7, 2012 by mnn727

[Vort]

Do you remember the part of a sealing that occurs at the Veil? (assuming you were sealed) That's the blessing the woman needs the man for.

I can not get any more explicit on a message board about the Temple ceremony.

Unmarried women go through the veil.

[classylady]

Do you remember the part of a sealing that occurs at the Veil? (assuming you were sealed) That's the blessing the woman needs the man for.

I can not get any more explicit on a message board about the Temple ceremony.

If no blessings will be denied to individuals who are worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, even if they didn't marry in this life time, I look to that promise to hold true for divorced members also. If so, then why not allow a sealing cancellation if that's what the individual/s want? If we believe that we won't be forced to be with someone we don't want to be with, then a divorced woman is not going to want her ex-husband to be the one to call her forth in the next life. Supposedly, by that time she will have found another spouse.

Edited December 7, 2012 by classylady

[MarginOfError]

There is, I think, a major flaw in the reasoning of "the woman should just have to wait until the ex-husband has his own sealing in place."

Consider.

Aaron and Katie get married and sealed.

The two later decide to divorce.

Katie meets Jeremy.

Katie and Jeremy get married, but not sealed.

Katie and Jeremy have children.

Under this circumstance, Katie's children with Jeremy are sealed to Katie and Aaron*.

If Katie and Jeremy want to be sealed, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect that the children the bear ought to be sealed to them.

* This is a purely emotional argument for a few reasons, but I think that there are times that emotional arguments ought to carry some weight.

[missionary0204]

Unmarried women go through the veil.

Please define this statment a little more if you don't mind. Are you referring to just the temple? I understand that you may not be able to give me a clear answer on this site which is completely acceptable. I just want to know what you meant in this response. Thanks!

My wheels are turning.

Edit: On second thought, don't reply. I am uncomfortable with the question I asked due to its sacred nature.

Edited December 19, 2012 by missionary0204
I am uncomfortable getting an answer to this question (sacred things)

[Vort]

missionary0204, I was talking about the temple, if that helps.

[mnn727]

Unmarried women go through the veil.

That is not what I am talking about, I am talking specifically about the part of the Sealing Ceremony that happens at the veil.

It doesn't happen on Proxy Sealing's only actual (your own) Marriage Sealing.

Edited December 20, 2012 by mnn727

[classylady]

Proxy Sealings have previously gone through the veil when their endowment was done. It does not need to be the proxy husband who takes her through the veil.

[ACommonMan]

My husband's ex was able to get herself out of it without another pending marriage or anything. No one seems to have any idea how she pulled that off.

I'm guessing there were no kids. That's the part which is actually important. The sealing of a child to a parent bestows the birthright of the Celestial Kingdom onto the child. Breaking it without another sealing to pick up the pieces is a problem.

As for what to write, let The Spirit be your guide. Cancellations are granted on behalf of the First Presidency by one of the General Authorities of the church assigned to review the requests. When my wife and I petitioned Salt Lake, her ex threw several fits and refused to respond to the Bishop. He wrote directly to Salt Lake instead. When we met with Elder Jepson, he held up the letter from the ex and said, "Clearly this man does not have The Spirit. I am going to grant your cancellation."

The purpose of your response to make sure there is not something of which he needs to be made aware. If you have some knowledge that she is continuing to be immoral, let him know. Otherwise, trust that he is her judge in Zion and give your blessing. If you have kids sealed to the two of you, talk with your bishop about how that works in a cancellation and seek his understanding of what concerns are valid.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

2 hours ago, changed said:

Her new husband deserves to know why the original sealing was canceled.  

Someone in my family is married to a now-convicted sex-offender.  Their first sealing was canceled because of their issues, and the new spouse was not notified of their previous issues, or about who she was getting married to.  Just my opinion, but marriage is a very serious thing to get involved with, and I think it is only fair that any new spouse knows who they are getting married to.  

In this case he says she is preparing to marry somebody else, so that seems to be an obvious reasons for wanting to cancel her existing sealing.

I agree that is somebody is planning to marry somebody who got divorced they need to know why the divorce happened.  They both have an obligation to come clean fully about all past relationships, and each one has a responsibility to find out what kind of person it is they are marrying.  It is not the job of the church to notify people about the past sins of somebody else however.

[Bad Karma]

On 12/6/2012 at 8:47 AM, mnn727 said:

No a husband holding up a cancellation is petty, especially when you consider the part of the sealing ceremony that happens at the Veil - there's just no reason for husband to hold it up.

There's LOTS of good reasons to hold a cancellation up.  For one thing, if both parties would grow up and stop acting like jezebels, that would be awesome! Maybe the husband does not WANT a cancelation of the sealing, vows and all, ya know?

It's too darned easy to get a divorce, it's even too darn easy to get a sealing cancelation. IF sealing cancelations are going to be so willy nilly easy, why even bother to get sealed? I think it should be HARDER to get cancelations, you KNEW what you were getting yourself into prior, you knew the blessings for obedience and the consequences for disobedience, and you want a mulligan? I think not. 

All this said, I am not God, I'd be lousy at it. I am also NOT church leadership for the very same reason. 

[Bad Karma]

On 12/7/2012 at 8:04 AM, mnn727 said:

Do you remember the part of a sealing that occurs at the Veil? (assuming you were sealed) That's the blessing the woman needs the man for.

I can not get any more explicit on a message board about the Temple ceremony.

I understand and agree. But yes, I follow what your saying.  

[Latter-Day Marriage]

Something to keep in mind is that a couple is not really sealed for eternity until after the holy spirit of promise ratifies it.  The temple ceremony is a requirement for that, but by itself is not enough, and if a couple have not kept their covenants, or if for some reason they do  not want to be together for eternity, the holy spirit of promise will not validate the sealing on judgement day. 

[Blossom76]

On 12/23/2017 at 4:04 PM, Bad Karma said:

There's LOTS of good reasons to hold a cancellation up.  For one thing, if both parties would grow up and stop acting like jezebels, that would be awesome! Maybe the husband does not WANT a cancelation of the sealing, vows and all, ya know?

It's too darned easy to get a divorce, it's even too darn easy to get a sealing cancelation. IF sealing cancelations are going to be so willy nilly easy, why even bother to get sealed? I think it should be HARDER to get cancelations, you KNEW what you were getting yourself into prior, you knew the blessings for obedience and the consequences for disobedience, and you want a mulligan? I think not. 

All this said, I am not God, I'd be lousy at it. I am also NOT church leadership for the very same reason. 

I agree with this line of thought, my background is Catholic, and while I don't agree with everything Catholicism teaches, I do agree with their stance on marriage.  I mean is forever really forever, or is it 'just for right now until I change my mind or life gets too hard'  That being said I did have my first marriage annulled, but that wasn't easy, I had to prove that the marriage should not have taken place at all and therefore is not binding in the eyes of God.  I don't see why getting unsealed should be any different, it should be hard, these are scared vows, which are supposed to last for eternity.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I agree with this line of thought, my background is Catholic, and while I don't agree with everything Catholicism teaches, I do agree with their stance on marriage.  I mean is forever really forever, or is it 'just for right now until I change my mind or life gets too hard'  That being said I did have my first marriage annulled, but that wasn't easy, I had to prove that the marriage should not have taken place at all and therefore is not binding in the eyes of God.  I don't see why getting unsealed should be any different, it should be hard, these are scared vows, which are supposed to last for eternity.

In cases of abuse or infidelity or abandonment or similar conditions I think that divorce (and the cancellation of the sealing) is justified and it shouldn't be hard to get.  As for other cases, God is not about forcing us to do the right thing, he allows us to make mistakes.  Just because the church cancels a sealing doesn't automatically mean that God approves IMHO, it just means that God is respecting people's agency to choose their path and there isn't some extra circumstance that would justify forcing them to stay sealed.  On judgement day they will still have to justify that choice.  The process of having to request it allows the church to discourage people from choosing that path, prevent abuse of that privilege and also to prevent a cancellation in cases where the impact on others is enough to justify doing so. 

IMHO the real important blessing that comes in mortality to those who are sealed is that God will watch over their children and shepherd them back onto the path if they go astray.  We've seen this blessing take hold in the lives of a couple of our kids.  If canceling a sealing would cause a child to be lost, that is a good reason to not allow it.

Lastly, it is better for a person to be released from a covenant they have no intention of keeping than to keep them under that obligation.  When the Southern Baptist Convention decided to have their big conference in SLC and go door to door to save Mormons, the church welcomed them and said if they turned a bad Mormon into a good Baptist it was a good thing (that's a paraphrase, not a quote).