Cancelation of sealing, how long does it take?

[Latter-Day Marriage]

Relax, my wife and I are doing fantastic, this isn't about us.

My father in law is a widower and he just got engaged.  The woman he is going to marry was sealed to her previous husband (also dead).  It wasn't a great marriage so she is requesting a cancellation of that sealing so she can be sealed to my father in law.  Anybody have any idea how long it takes for that kind of thing to be processed?  They are hoping to be sealed before the end of July but would expect it to take longer.  They will get a civil marriage to start with if it will take a long time.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I don't know.  I just wanted to say congrats to them.  I'm glad they've found one another.  

[Sunday21]

Very happy for them!

[NeedleinA]

I don't know the answer to this, but I do recall @classylady sharing some thoughts on this previously. Perhaps she might chime in on this?

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I don't know the answer to this, but I do recall @classylady sharing some thoughts on this previously. Perhaps she might chime in on this?

Needle stop lying. You've been married five times and have gone though this a bunch of times! 

Edited May 25, 2016 by MormonGator

[NightSG]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Needle stop lying. You've been married five times and have gone though this a bunch of times! 

You saying the Church needs to adopt the Vegas model and offer an "eternal weekend" marriage option?

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, NightSG said:

You saying the Church needs to adopt the Vegas model and offer an "eternal weekend" marriage option?

How did you know about my third marriage? Did she tell you? Remind me to hold back on alimony this month. 

[classylady]

3 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Relax, my wife and I are doing fantastic, this isn't about us.

My father in law is a widower and he just got engaged.  The woman he is going to marry was sealed to her previous husband (also dead).  It wasn't a great marriage so she is requesting a cancellation of that sealing so she can be sealed to my father in law.  Anybody have any idea how long it takes for that kind of thing to be processed?  They are hoping to be sealed before the end of July but would expect it to take longer.  They will get a civil marriage to start with if it will take a long time.

It depends on how quickly the paper work can be completed. She needs to talk to her bishop who will assist in this. She will need to write a letter stating the circumstances, the Bishop will send that over to the Stake President and then the Stake President will need to send the information in to the First Presidency. It can take about two to three weeks for the First Presidency to process the request. It took my husband's request about two weeks after the Stake President sent the request in to Headquarters. Her Bishop might be able to give her a time frame.

In the past, it was difficult for a widowed woman to received a cancellation of sealing. But, from what I hear, it has become easier. My best friend's mother-in-law requested a sealing cancellation after she was widowed. It was granted, and she was able to be sealed to her second husband. I'm not sure how long it took, but I don't believe it was a lengthy process.

[NeedleinA]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Needle stop lying. You've been married five times and have gone though this a bunch of times! 

Yeah, but not sealed to any of them, they were just pinky swears

[Latter-Day Marriage]

11 hours ago, classylady said:

It depends on how quickly the paper work can be completed. She needs to talk to her bishop who will assist in this. She will need to write a letter stating the circumstances, the Bishop will send that over to the Stake President and then the Stake President will need to send the information in to the First Presidency. It can take about two to three weeks for the First Presidency to process the request. It took my husband's request about two weeks after the Stake President sent the request in to Headquarters. Her Bishop might be able to give her a time frame.

In the past, it was difficult for a widowed woman to received a cancellation of sealing. But, from what I hear, it has become easier. My best friend's mother-in-law requested a sealing cancellation after she was widowed. It was granted, and she was able to be sealed to her second husband. I'm not sure how long it took, but I don't believe it was a lengthy process.

That's a lot faster than I expected.  They already started the process so they might be able to do as they planned.

Thanks for the info!

[Just_A_Guy]

Is anyone else a little bothered by the notion that (hypothetically, of course--I don't know the details of the individuals mentioned in the OP) a good and faithful Latter-Day Saint can be posthumously deprived of the blessings of his temple sealing just because his surviving wife decides she likes someone else better?

I guess this is one of those "the Lord will work it all out" scenarios.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

That's a lot faster than I expected.  They already started the process so they might be able to do as they planned.

Thanks for the info!

Please note that individual cases may vary...  Up  to and including being denied the cancellation

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

It wasn't a great marriage so she is requesting a cancellation of that sealing so she can be sealed to my father in law.

I'm with JAG.  All it takes to get a sealing cancelled, is for that marriage to be "not great"?

I mean, I'm hoping LDM was going for understatement here.  Because otherwise, a lot of us folks who are trying hard are sunk.

 

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm with JAG.  All it takes to get a sealing cancelled, is for that marriage to be "not great"?

I mean, I'm hoping LDM was going for understatement here.  Because otherwise, a lot of us folks who are trying hard are sunk.

 

I am not that worried about it...  You are held responsible for what you did/do... You are not responsible for what people do to you... Someone canceling your sealing after you are dead and have no say in the matter definitely qualify as something done to you...  And do you really want to be with someone for all eternity who was willing to trade you in at their earliest possible opportunity?   I would be all for taking up the Lord offer to make it right because clearly I didn't make that great of a choice to begin with.  

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And do you really want to be with someone for all eternity who was willing to trade you in at their earliest possible opportunity?   I would be all for taking up the Lord offer to make it right because clearly I didn't make that great of a choice to begin with.  

My understanding, though, is that the sealing is about much more than who one will "be with"--it entails membership in the patriarchal order, posterity and a role in the salvation of that posterity, eternal increase, divine inheritances, and becoming an heir to all the blessings of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, as well as (at least, I was taught this) the assurance that even if one's partner failed to keep their covenants; a new partner would in time be provided so long as one kept one's own portion of the covenant. 

Surviving widows have a way to be "sealed" to a new spouse without locking their deceased spouse out of those covenants--they can marry for time only, ask to have someone ensure that the sealing is done after all parties are dead (which the Church permits), and trust that "the Lord will work everything out".  But instead of trusting the the Lord herself, a wife in this sort of scenario insists on unilaterally severing her dead husband from his covenant, renders her children with him (if any) theological orphans, and demands that they, not she, trust in God for a satisfactory eternal resolution to be made at some future date.  If she claims to have suffered some sort of trauma due to something her deceased husband did to her in life, and this is necessary for her healing--OK, then, I guess.  But otherwise, a widow's acting in such a way strikes me as remarkably short-sighted and selfish, if not outright spiteful. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My understanding, though, is that the sealing is about much more than who one will "be with"--it entails membership in the patriarchal order, posterity and a role in the salvation of that posterity, eternal increase, divine inheritances, and becoming an heir to all the blessings of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, as well as (at least, I was taught this) the assurance that even if one's partner failed to keep their covenants; a new partner would in time be provided so long as one kept one's own portion of the covenant. 

Surviving widows have a way to be "sealed" to a new spouse without locking their deceased spouse out of those covenants--they can marry for time only, ask to have someone ensure that the sealing is done after all parties are dead (which the Church permits), and trust that "the Lord will work everything out".  But instead of trusting the the Lord herself, a wife in this sort of scenario insists on unilaterally severing her dead husband from his covenant, renders her children with him (if any) theological orphans, and demands that <i>they</i>, not she, trust in God for the restoration of those covenants at a future date.  If she suffered some sort of trauma at his hands in life, and this is necessary for her healing--OK, then, I guess.  But otherwise, a widow's acting in such a way strikes me as remarkably short-sighted and selfish, if not outright spiteful. 

And she will have to deal with the consequences of that short shortsightedness...

While such an act will force the living children (and Dead spouse) to rely on Christ to make things right... that is a safe bet... Unless your faith is weak (in which case that is what you need to work on)

[mdfxdb]

As little as 3 weeks.  As much as 2 months.  They can always say no.  It's not up to us.

[Just_A_Guy]

22 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And she will have to deal with the consequences of that short shortsightedness...

Naturally.  I'd just be disappointed to see the Church aiding and abetting that kind of shortsightedness, that's all.

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Naturally.  I'd just be disappointed to see the Church aiding and abetting that kind of shortsightedness, that's all.

That is why they have to fill out paperwork and answer questions on why.... Plus Revelation..

Although in the end it will still come down to agency

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Please note that individual cases may vary...  Up  to and including being denied the cancellation

 I know in the Catholic church it matters if it was a valid marriage in the first place. IE-Rudy Giuliani got an annulment because it turns out his first "wife" was actually his second cousin. So it was like the marriage never happened in the first place. 

Does that matter too with a cancelled sealing? IE-turns out that one person entering into the marriage was 17, or already married or something?

Of course I trust the judgement of the first presidency 100%, just asking. Nothing more. 

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I know in the Catholic church it matters if it was a valid marriage in the first place. IE-Rudy Giuliani got an annulment … So it was like the marriage never happened in the first place. 

Any children of such a marriage are then made instant bastards. Not a great result of such a humane action.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Any children of such a marriage are then made instant bastards. Not a great result of such a humane action.

Lehi

1) My bio parents weren't married and like the book of Mormon says in Alma 30:25 a child isn't guilty for the sins of the parents, so it doesn't matter

2) You and I agree that the Catholic church on that issue is delusional and and inhumane. Even in the 1990's when Catholics found out I was :: gasp :: adopted and that my bio parents weren't married it was scandalous. I grew up Catholic. Catholic schools, weekly church, etc.   Some catholics still think lesser of offspring like myself, and my parents because my sister and I aren't "biological". It's repulsive. It turned me off from religion for a long time, in all honesty. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

My bio parents weren't married and like the book of Mormon says in Alma 30:25 a child isn't guilty for the sins of the parents, so it doesn't matter

Once you were adopted, you were no longer illegitimate, which does not say anything about you, but speaks volumes about your bioparents. As you cite: the child is not responsible for the sins of his parents.

I'm reminded of a Star Trek episode where Spoke underwent a time transfer of some sort and he reverted to an earlier version of a Vulcan, complete with passions and appetites. He fathered a child, and it was his shame, not the child's, he was worried about. I don't remember the outcome, but that passage is stuck in my mind.

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You and I agree that the Catholic church on that issue is delusional and and inhumane. Even in the 1990's when Catholics found out I was :: gasp :: adopted and that my bio parents weren't married it was scandalous. Some catholics still think lesser of offspring like myself, and my parents because my sister and I aren't "biological". It's repulsive. 

It is repulsive, indeed.

The bastardy I referred to is a "Catholico-spiritual" type, not physical. And, fortunately or unfortunately, being a bastard has no effect on the child (so his parents don't suffer any ignominy, either). We need to bring back shame as a societal pressure to conform to intelligent restrictions on sexual immorality, on all forms of immorality, to be consistent.

Lehi

Edited May 26, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Once yu were adopted, you were no longer illegitimate, which does not say anything about you, but speaks volumes about your bioparents. As you cite: the child is not responsible for the sins of his parents.

 

We agree again. It bothered me a great deal growing up but now I don't really put much thought into it. I feel sorry for kids growing up in orthodox Catholic communities because they might have to deal with some of the same stuff I did. I know that sounds very victim like but it is what it is. 

[Just_A_Guy]

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

. . . and like the book of Mormon says in Alma 30:25 a child isn't guilty for the sins of the parents, so it doesn't matter

Not weighing in on the larger discussion; but Alma 30:25 is a direct quotation from a diatribe of Korihor the antichrist.  I'd be careful about citing that particular verse for doctrinal purposes.