JAHS Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Let's say a man and woman are sealed in the temple. They later divorce and the man either removes his name from church records or is excommunicated. The ex wife now wants to be sealed to another man in the temple. The way I understand it is that the name removal of the exhusband results in cancelation of all temple ordinances. If that is true does the ex wife still need to get a cancelation of the sealing or was the sealing automatically canceled when her exhusband resigned? I have been getting conflicting information about this situation.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 JAHS:I would assume that it is automatic with the new Sealing. But check with your Bishop to find out for sure.
Garden Girl Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 And if there's any question the bishop should check with the temple president. I do believe the previous sealing has to be cancelled because a friend of mine at Church had to cancel her previous sealing to her deceased (inactive yet not ex'd) husband before being able to be sealed to her current husband.GG
ERMD Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 If there is a divorce and the former spouse has been excommunicated or had name removed, then his/her temple blessings have been revoked. The remaining spouse's and children's temple blessings are still in effect. No cancellation or clearance is needed for a second marriage. If the former spouse is deceased and was not active, but not excommunicated or did not have name removed, then a clearance would be necessary.
JAHS Posted June 27, 2011 Author Posted June 27, 2011 If there is a divorce and the former spouse has been excommunicated or had name removed, then his/her temple blessings have been revoked. The remaining spouse's and children's temple blessings are still in effect. No cancellation or clearance is needed for a second marriage. If the former spouse is deceased and was not active, but not excommunicated or did not have name removed, then a clearance would be necessary.OK, but if the former excommunicated spouse were to repent and be readmitted for baptism, he could have all his temple blessings restored, which would include the sealing to his former wife if the sealing had not been canceled, Right?So it seems to me that the sealing would still have to be canceled regardless of whether the man was excommunicated or not before the woman could be sealed to another.
T-Shirt Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 OK, but if the former excommunicated spouse were to repent and be readmitted for baptism, he could have all his temple blessings restored, which would include the sealing to his former wife if the sealing had not been canceled, Right?So it seems to me that the sealing would still have to be canceled regardless of whether the man was excommunicated or not before the woman could be sealed to another.I am pretty sure a cancellation is still necessary.T-Shirt
Flyonthewall Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) I don't want to derail this thread but, I have a question along the same lines...If a woman marries in the temple, then later divorces, then marries a man that has not been through the temple. They have a baby. The father is about to go through the temple for the first time(they are trying to get the first temple marriage cancelled so they can be sealed)... is the child of the 2nd husband sealed to him or the 1st husband? and if not sealed to the father, can he be? Edited June 28, 2011 by Flyonthewall
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I don't want to derail this thread but, I have a question along the same lines...If a woman marries in the temple, then later divorces, then marries a man that has not been through the temple. They have a baby. The father is about to go through the temple for the first time(they are trying to get the first temple marriage cancelled so they can be sealed)... is the child of the 2nd husband sealed to him or the 1st husband? and if not sealed to the father, can he be?The fact that the second husband (father of the child in question) has not been sealed to the wife/mother means the child is not sealed to either of them. When her first sealing is cancelled, and the currently married couple is sealed to each other, the child will also be sealed to them at the same time. Lehi
Flyonthewall Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 The fact that the second husband (father of the child in question) has not been sealed to the wife/mother means the child is not sealed to either of them. When her first sealing is cancelled, and the currently married couple is sealed to each other, the child will also be sealed to them at the same time. LehiWould the child be sealed to the father by virtue of the father being sealed to his mother? or would there be a sealing ceremony to accomplish the sealing of the child to the father?...does that make sense?
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Would the child be sealed to the father by virtue of the father being sealed to his mother? or would there be a sealing ceremony to accomplish the sealing of the child to the father?...does that make sense?The first sealing applies to the children born into that marriage. Since the father is not the one sealed to the mother, the child is not sealed to him. A second ordinance, typically the sealing where the new couple are sealed to each other, would be necessary to seal the child to his mother and his father. (Technically, there are two ordinances, the one for the parents, and a second one for the child, but the one follows the others immediately, so it can easily be mistaken for the same ceremony.)Lehi
T-Shirt Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Actually, that is not correct. Since the sealing of the first marriage has not been cancelled, the child born in the second marriage is considered to be born in the covenant of the first marriage and is sealed to the women and her former husband. Temple blessings are not denied to the child as a result of its parents sins. The sealing of children are not changed at a later date, if the new marriage is sealed in the temple. I suppose, in the future, after all parties are dead, it would be possible to seal the child to the second marriage.Best,T-Shirt
Xander Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Let's say a husband dies after getting killed by a drunk driver. Before his death he has five children. He lived his life faithfully to his family and to the Church. He was sealed to his wife and children in the temple.A few years after his death, the mother decides she wants to remarry. She also decides that she wants to be sealed to her new husband.Question: Can she?
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Actually, that is not correct. Since the sealing of the first marriage has not been cancelled, the child born in the second marriage is considered to be born in the covenant of the first marriage and is sealed to the women and her former husband. Temple blessings are not denied to the child as a result of its parents sins. The sealing of children are not changed at a later date, if the new marriage is sealed in the temple. I suppose, in the future, after all parties are dead, it would be possible to seal the child to the second marriage.\I don't see it that way. What support for this do you have?Lehi
JAHS Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 Actually, that is not correct. Since the sealing of the first marriage has not been cancelled, the child born in the second marriage is considered to be born in the covenant of the first marriage and is sealed to the women and her former husband. Temple blessings are not denied to the child as a result of its parents sins. The sealing of children are not changed at a later date, if the new marriage is sealed in the temple. I suppose, in the future, after all parties are dead, it would be possible to seal the child to the second marriage.Best,T-ShirtI think people might worry too much about which parents their children are sealed to. In the long run it doesn't really matter. When we are sealed we are actually all sealed to the one big patriarchal order of God's family in the Celestial kingdom. Perhaps the most important sealing is the one between husband and wife. That is the person who you will spend eternity with and have eternal increase with.
Flyonthewall Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I think people might worry too much about which parents their children are sealed to. In the long run it doesn't really matter. When we are sealed we are actually all sealed to the one big patriarchal order of God's family in the Celestial kingdom. Perhaps the most important sealing is the one between husband and wife. That is the person who you will spend eternity with and have eternal increase with.It seems very odd to not be able to seal a child to his father, rather to have him sealed to someone who is not even a part of his life. There must be more than you are saying because it does matter who children are sealed to...otherwise the family unit doesn't mean much
Xander Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) Let's say a husband dies after getting killed by a drunk driver. Before his death he has five children. He lived his life faithfully to his family and to the Church. He was sealed to his wife and children in the temple.A few years after his death, the mother decides she wants to remarry. She also decides that she wants to be sealed to her new husband.Question: Can she? Edited June 28, 2011 by Xander
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Let's say a husband dies after getting killed by a drunk driver. Before his death he has five children. He lived his life faithfully to his family and to the Church. He was sealed to his wife and children in the temple.A few years after his death, the mother decides she wants to remarry. She also decides that she wants to be sealed to her new husband.Question: Can she? You already know the answer to this. What is the "gotcha" going to be this time?
Flyonthewall Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 You already know the answer to this. What is the "gotcha" going to be this time?Most likely it is my statement of: "... rather to have him sealed to someone who is not even a part of his life".This is not the same set of circumstances as I laid out so it cannot compare.
Xander Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 You already know the answer to this. What is the "gotcha" going to be this time?What's wrong, questions making you uncomfortable again? Maybe if you actually engaged these discussions instead of taking it upon yourself to be the designated deflector, you'd learn something.I don't know what's so threatening about this question. I'm genuinely curious how people here would respond. I've heard different answers and it already looks like people are disagreeing on other questions related to the Temple sealings. But this is one that really bothered me.I don't know why everyone wants to avoid it. It happens more than you think.
T-Shirt Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 \I don't see it that way. What support for this do you have?LehiChurch Handbook.T-Shirt
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) What's wrong, questions making you uncomfortable again?I have never been uncomfortable with some one asking a question, let alone to make me uncomfortable "again". What I know of you is that you rarely ask a question to actually find more info out. You are always trying to find fault with the church and find fault with what we believe. And you act like you are so above us in your knowledge of things LDS. Maybe if you actually engaged these discussions instead of taking it upon yourself to be the designated deflector, you'd learn something. Maybe if you asked a question with good intent then you might receive and good response.I don't know what's so threatening about this question.Nothing is threatening about the question its self. What the issue is is past history with the person asking it.I really tire of the worn out line from certain critics that the LDS people are afraid to learn. What rot gut that is. I'm genuinely curious how people here would respond. I've heard different answers and it already looks like people are disagreeing on other questions related to the Temple sealings. But this is one that really bothered me.And there you have it folks, this one really bothers Kevin and he is going to make sure we all know how much it bugs him. I don't know why everyone wants to avoid it. It happens more than you think.I have no intent to avoid it.As a sign of good will, I will answer it. Past policy has dictated that women cannot be sealed to more than one man. In recent years this has changed. I can't wait to see your "dimensional" response to this answer. Edited June 28, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Church Handbook.Knife Edge. Okeh, so what are the words?Lehi
rpn Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Logically, she has to seek cancellation. For one person cannot cancel the blessings that belong to a faithful other person. His sealing was cancelled. But hers was not.
Xander Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 I have never been uncomfortable with some one asking a question, let alone to make me uncomfortable "again". What I know of you is that you rarely ask a question to actually find more info out. You are always trying to find fault with the church and find fault with what we believe. And you act like you are so above us in your knowledge of things LDS.Your feelings of inferiority do not translate to me feeling superior. I don't. Your psychoanalysis of what and why I'm asking does nothing to further discussion. In fact, it does quite the opposite.Maybe if you asked a question with good intent then you might receive and good response.So what you're saying is that you've been reduced to false judgment and psychoanalysis.Nothing is threatening about the question its self. What the issue is is past history with the person asking it.My "history"? Look, if you're upset with me being here, then take your compalint to the mods. I didn't ask to come back. I was invited weeks ago and just decided to register again because a few discussions interested me. If you must, go ahead and start a thread warning the forum of the big bad wolf, just to get it over with so you don't have to pollute every single thread I'm in with these diversionary tactics. I'd love to see just how much you think you know about my "history." You know nothing, and your aggression towards me can easily be explained by your hatred for all "covenant breaking" apostates. Pahoran calls us "traitors", so that can't be good.I really tire of the worn out line from certain critics that the LDS people are afraid to learn. What rot gut that is.Not LDS people in general, just you and whoever else responds the way you choose to do. Please don't insult the Mormon community by suggesting they all act like you. And there you have it folks, this one really bothers Kevin and he is going to make sure we all know how much it bugs himLast time I checked, this forum was for "dialogue," not lecturing. What is wrong with me expressing a concern over something such as this, especially when it is a topic already established? I'm not starting these topics, I'm only commenting on them, but I do stay on topic. I think you guys are just upset because you know I'm no pushover Evangelical who is going to let every thread be reduced to a contest over who can quote the most Bible passages. If you didn't feel my comments were potentially threatening, you and a few others wouldn't be acting as self-designated chaperones for those who don't see the wolf in sheep's clothing. Isn't that about right?As a sign of good will, I will answer it. Past policy has dictated that women cannot be sealed to more than one man. In recent years this has changed. As an act of good will? You want credit for answering a simple question?I can't wait to see your "dimensional" response to this answer.So what you're saying is that the woman can be sealed to both men?
Ares Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Your feelings of inferiority do not translate to me feeling superior. That is out of line. Last time I checked, this forum was for "dialogue," not lecturing.Good advice. Please do so yourself. Everyone- keep the personal remarks and analysis of each others behavior out of the threads. If you don't like someones tone then report it or disengage or both!
Recommended Posts