A man and woman are legally divorced by law, but she is still sealed to him in the temple (in some cases)

[Ouagadougou]

http://m.gazette.com/polygamy-lives-on-in-mormon-temple-sealings/article/1581885

In reading the article above, I think the church's rule to allow women to be sealed to her ex husband (following a legal divorce) is unnecessary, IMO.  If you don't want to be married to somebody in this life, then why keep the sealing for time and all eternity?  

From my understanding of this article, "a woman can petition to have her first sealing cancelled," in the event she finds a new husband.  However, if that doesn't occur, then the husband typically remains sealed to his ex wife, in addition to his new wife.  So, in a way, a man could be forced to practice spiritual polygamy, despite the fact that he was legally divorced from a previous wife; his new wife would also have to accept that he will still sealed to his first (ex) wife.  

Finally, if the "precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not know for those who are deceased," as the church's essay mentions below, why keep this pointless rule for the living?  

"Moreover, members are permitted to perform ordinances on behalf of deceased men and women who married more than once on earth, sealing them to all of the spouses to whom they were legally married. The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true

 

 

[juliann]

You would have to ask divorced people why they keep the sealings. I suspect children may have something to do with it if people aren't aware that children aren't affected by cancellations. Or are you looking for people in that situation on the board  to tell you why? 

What is your point? 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

http://m.gazette.com/polygamy-lives-on-in-mormon-temple-sealings/article/1581885

In reading the article above, I think the church's rule to allow women to be sealed to her ex husband (following a legal divorce) is unnecessary, IMO.  If you don't want to be married to somebody in this life, then why keep the sealing for time and all eternity?  

From my understanding of this article, "a woman can petition to have her first sealing cancelled," in the event she finds a new husband.  However, if that doesn't occur, then the husband typically remains sealed to his ex wife, in addition to his new wife.  So, in a way, a man could be forced to practice spiritual polygamy, despite the fact that he was legally divorced from a previous wife; his new wife would also have to accept that he will still sealed to his first (ex) wife.  

Finally, if the "precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not know for those who are deceased," as the church's essay mentions below, why keep this pointless rule for the living?  

"Moreover, members are permitted to perform ordinances on behalf of deceased men and women who married more than once on earth, sealing them to all of the spouses to whom they were legally married. The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true

 

 

It is a part of our theology and doctrine that no one will be forced to do anything in the afterlife.  So any possible answer or situation that you can come up with that involves any aspect of 'they will be forced to...' can instantly be known to be incorrect.

The LDS church believes that any sealing that remains in place after a divorce is so that all parties involved still have access to the blessings of being sealed, but it does not mean that the husband and wife will be forced to be together for eternity.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

You would have to ask divorced people why they keep the sealings. I suspect children may have something to do with it if people aren't aware that children aren't affected by cancellations. Or are you looking for people in that situation on the board  to tell you why? 

What is your point? 

That would incorrectly assume that divorced people have control over whether or not their sealing is cancelled or not. That is not always the case.

Quote

Ougadougou- Finally, if the "precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not know for those who are deceased," as the church's essay mentions below, why keep this pointless rule for the living?  

I think the point of this kind of policy is to ensure that each person who has been sealed remains sealed to someone. So if they are replacing one sealing with another it is easier to get the sealing cancelled. If it is simply a divorce and the individual also wants the sealing cancelled, without a replacement sealing, the church will not always grant the cancellation. That way the crowning ordinance of sealing is still in place for each individual and it can be figured out in the next life.

This doesn't really make sense to me but I've had to explain that to couples in the past. It's even more infuriating when someone is wanting to get married/sealed to a new spouse but they can't get the sealing cancellation from the 1st Presidency. There is a process involved that includes the individual writing letters to the 1st Presidency to formally request it and also approval to be received from the previous spouse agreeing to the cancellation.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is a part of our theology and doctrine that no one will be forced to do anything in the afterlife.  So any possible answer or situation that you can come up with that involves any aspect of 'they will be forced to...' can instantly be known to be incorrect.

The LDS church believes that any sealing that remains in place after a divorce is so that all parties involved still have access to the blessings of being sealed, but it does not mean that the husband and wife will be forced to be together for eternity.  

 

Yet they can be forced to remain sealed in this life. So stating that claims of force are incorrect is itself incorrect. If a divorced couple wants to be fully separated from each other, with no further ties, yet the church requires them to remain sealed, it can be difficult for the couple or individual to deal with. They may feel that their agency is being usurped by the church.

[thesometimesaint]

Don't worry Ouagadougou no woman is gonna be forced to be married to you in Heaven.

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet they can be forced to remain sealed in this life. So stating that claims of force are incorrect is itself incorrect. If a divorced couple wants to be fully separated from each other, with no further ties, yet the church requires them to remain sealed, it can be difficult for the couple or individual to deal with. They may feel that their agency is being usurped by the church.

I think the woman has to remarry in the temple before a cancellation is granted her (maybe exceptions are made).  It was explained to me that they don't want the woman to be without the blessings of a sealing (once they've received them).

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the woman has to remarry in the temple before a cancellation is granted her (maybe exceptions are made).  It was explained to me that they don't want the woman to be without the blessings of a sealing (once they've received them).

In recent years, though, the message has come for women who never get married that they need not worry.  Remain faithful and none of the blessing in eternity will be withheld from them. 

[Calm]

Exceptions are being made in a few (actually more than a few now I think about it...edited) reported cases, but the preference is still to hold the sealing in place though every leader I have heard explain it states the sealing that is still intact is with God, not the divorced spouse.

I do think there might be a better way of doing this, of making explicit on paper the covenant between God and the individual is still in place while the sealing that relates to the marriage is not in force.  

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That would incorrectly assume that divorced people have control over whether or not their sealing is cancelled or not. That is not always the case.

I think the point of this kind of policy is to ensure that each person who has been sealed remains sealed to someone. So if they are replacing one sealing with another it is easier to get the sealing cancelled. If it is simply a divorce and the individual also wants the sealing cancelled, without a replacement sealing, the church will not always grant the cancellation. That way the crowning ordinance of sealing is still in place for each individual and it can be figured out in the next life.

 

I received a cancellation, it didn't take long at all. Last I heard, women are no longer required to have another marriage lined up. One must always factor in who the local leader is, however, as in most things. They can put up roadblocks. But I don't think blanket statements are applicable anymore when we have people even on this message board attesting to women being able to be sealed to two living men. (I know a woman who was sealed to a second living husband.)

The sealing policy, on paper, discriminates against women. But speaking from experience, when you have to apply for permission, there are liberal exemptions to "policy." 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In recent years, though, the message has come for women who never get married that they need not worry.  Remain faithful and none of the blessing in eternity will be withheld from them. 

This has been taught for eons for women in my own memory (since the sixties).  Given our culture's past insistence that it was the man who asked a woman to marry and her role was pretty passive, just saying yea or nay, not seeking out mates herself, but merely preparing herself to attract the right kind, I would be quite surprised if this wasn't something that was taught from the very beginning of sealing marriages.

Whether it was being taught to men, I don't know, but there has been a recognition since I can remember that men won't always have the opportunity to marry (I knew of several physically disable adult men I imagined to be in this situation as a kid) and they were constantly reassured that eternally they would have the same blessings if faithful.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm

[Maidservant]

This is the case with my mother (who is a single woman in her 60s) whose sealing has not been cancelled. She did ask for the cancellation, and was counseled as you say, to remain sealed until another marriage (which has never happened yet). The sealing was originally entered into in 1983 with my stepfather.  They were divorced later.  He subsequently married (for time) a woman who was sealed to her first husband (Dad and his wife were in their 80s).  Recently Dad and his wife have passed away.  My mom still lives, and still is sealed.

One thing to realize is that sealing is an order of the Priesthood.  Can you be cancelled from the Priesthood once you've received it except for transgression?  No.  My mother has not transgressed (I mean, not to a grave level), so her promises cannot be broken.  She still has those promises from God, and he is bound.  She still has the right to exercise her Priesthood of her order.

My situation is slightly different.  I am a widow and sealed to my husband.  We never divorced in life, but neither am I particularly interested in spending eternity with him (let's see).  (On the other hand, I am also not interested in breaking up our family for our children's sake.  I am grateful to be parents with him.)

Even though I do not now enjoy my husband's companionship (or on this side at least) and I do not have a future hope for a marital relationship, I nevertheless draw upon the sealing power on a daily basis to preside and function in the home.  'Mother' actually IS a priesthood, btw.

Sealing is the highest order of the priesthood***, and you cannot be ejected from it from the Lord's side if you are faithful.

 

***that we have in the mortal realm at this time

Edited May 2, 2017 by Maidservant

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Exceptions are being made in a few reported cases, but the preference is still to hold the sealing in place though every leader I have heard explain it states the sealing that is still intact is with God, not the divorced spouse.

I do think there might be a better way of doing this, of making explicit on paper the covenant between God and the individual is still in place while the sealing that relates to the marriage is not in force.  

I agree. And, more specifics regarding the sealing to the children would be helpful too.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

This has been taught for eons for women in my own memory (since the sixties).  Given our culture's past insistence that it was the man who asked a woman to marry and her role was pretty passive, just saying yea or nay, not seeking out mates herself, but merely preparing herself to attract the right kind, I would be quite surprised if this wasn't something that was taught from the very beginning of sealing marriages.

Ok.  I just know it's a message that has been shared in recent years and had not heard it before.  If it's always been there so be it.  I might, one day, look into it and see all the comments since the beginning of the Church. 

[Maidservant]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

 (I know a woman who was sealed to a second living husband.)

I am so unutterably grateful to hear this.

[JulieM]

There are also "sealing clearances" (vs. a "sealing cancellation").  It all gets confusing...

[katherine the great]

31 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

 

From my understanding of this article, "a woman can petition to have her first sealing cancelled," in the event she finds a new husband.  However, if that doesn't occur, then the husband typically remains sealed to his ex wife, in addition to his new wife.  So, in a way, a man could be forced to practice spiritual polygamy, despite the fact that he was legally divorced from a previous wife; his new wife would also have to accept that he will still sealed to his first (ex) wife.  

 

 

This makes me think of my own parents.  My mom and dad had a somewhat rocky relationship, but my mom really loved my dad and wanted to be married to him.  My dad, on the other hand, wanted out.  When dad married his third wife he wanted to be sealed to her so they went through the onerous process mentioned in the article where they send a letter out to the first wife and let her reply.  Mom was devastated, discussed her feelings thoroughly with her Bishop and never ended up replying to the letter.  It was incredibly painful for her.  She didn't want a divorce and she most certainly did not want her sealing cancelled.  She never remarried and I believe my dad went through with the sealing to this third wife and they had two children together.  To my knowledge, my dad's sealing to my mom remains intact.  The interesting part though is that now, thirty years after their divorce, my mom and dad are both single and are great friends.  They even occasionally attend the temple together.  Their affection for each other and the commonality of shared experiences and having children together is an enduring bond between them that my dad was unable to predict at the time.  And although there is no romance between them, I think they are both glad to be sealed to one another.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

This makes me think of my own parents.  My mom and dad had a somewhat rocky relationship, but my mom really loved my dad and wanted to be married to him.  My dad, on the other hand, wanted out.  When dad married his third wife he wanted to be sealed to her so they went through the onerous process mentioned in the article where they send a letter out to the first wife and let her reply.  Mom was devastated, discussed her feelings thoroughly with her Bishop and never ended up replying to the letter.  It was incredibly painful for her.  She didn't want a divorce and she most certainly did not want her sealing cancelled.  She never remarried and I believe my dad went through with the sealing to this third wife and they had two children together.  To my knowledge, my dad's sealing to my mom remains intact.  The interesting part though is that now, thirty years after their divorce, my mom and dad are both single and are great friends.  They even occasionally attend the temple together.  Their affection for each other and the commonality of shared experiences and having children together is an enduring bond between them that my dad was unable to predict at the time.  And although there is no romance between them, I think they are both glad to be sealed to one another.

Another interesting situation and complication of all of this.  I'm more and more convinced sealing doesn't quite work the way we think it should. 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet they can be forced to remain sealed in this life. So stating that claims of force are incorrect is itself incorrect. If a divorced couple wants to be fully separated from each other, with no further ties, yet the church requires them to remain sealed, it can be difficult for the couple or individual to deal with. They may feel that their agency is being usurped by the church.

I see a distinction where you probably don't (which is fine).

I don't see a relationship that exists only a paper as being something either party is forced into.  Since there is no consequence to it (no actual relationship at all and exists in word only), i see the relationship as irrelevant as either or both parties want it to be.  

I have heard of women who felt that being sealed to the spouse was too emotionally damaging to deal with and they were allowed to have the sealing cancelled without being sealed to someone else.  I can certainly imagine why that would be emotionally necessary if a spouse was abusive in any way.

I'm guessing that some of the church's pushback on just canceling sealings when divorces happen has to do with the sacred nature of the sealing and the covenants made in regards to it, coupled with how the number one reason for divorce seems to be 'we don't get along anymore' (irreconcilable differences).

While I think there are very valid reasons for those covenants to be severed, it makes sense to me that the process to sever them be taken incredibly seriously.  

Edited May 2, 2017 by bluebell

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 approval to be received from the previous spouse agreeing to the cancellation.

I don't think presenting it as "approval" is accurate.  The idea is to receive input from the exspouse about the relationship, imo, to ensure that past sinful behaviour has been truly repented of and current behaviour is templeworthy.

Nor is the response required if an effort to contact has been made and one can reasonably assume the exspouse declined to respond.

Whether or not the exspouse likes the idea is irrelevant from the reports I have heard.  I know of at least one case where they wanted the person to  remarry so alimony wouldn't have to be paid and it wasn't approved likely based on the report of the previous marriage and I have seen over the years quite a few have reported their spouses or they tried to stop it, but it proceeded.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

 

Even though I do not now enjoy my husband's companionship (or on this side at least) and I do not have a future hope for a marital relationship, I nevertheless draw upon the sealing power on a daily basis to preside and function in the home.  'Mother' actually IS a priesthood, btw.

Sealing is the highest order of the priesthood***, and you cannot be ejected from it from the Lord's side if you are faithful.

 

***that we have in the mortal realm at this time

Beautifully stated. Women operate with the authority of the priesthood for callings, per Elder Oaks. Officiating at home is a calling, in my opinion. So it isn't only a mother's priesthood.

 

6 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I am so unutterably grateful to hear this.

I was quite surprised to hear from a bishop poster who confirmed it (he knew of two divorced women sealed to a second husband) and I believe there is a female poster who has two sealings. This is a relic of the past. Since we are all sealed to all spouses after death, I fully expect this hurtful policy towards women to change. If it will "all work out" it can all work out with everyone sealed to everyone in life as well as in death. 

[juliann]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 There is a process involved that includes the individual writing letters to the 1st Presidency to formally request it and also approval to be received from the previous spouse agreeing to the cancellation.

Not true. I was told my ex did not agree. Nor would they always be able to track down exes.  I'm pretty sure the purpose of contacting the ex is to make sure they aren't hiding something. Like my friend whose ex had a criminal background and pretty bad behavior. They didn't give him a sealing clearance.  

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

This is the case with my mother (who is a single woman in her 60s) whose sealing has not been cancelled. She did ask for the cancellation, and was counseled as you say, to remain sealed until another marriage (which has never happened yet). The sealing was originally entered into in 1983 with my stepfather.  They were divorced later.  He subsequently married (for time) a woman who was sealed to her first husband (Dad and his wife were in their 80s).  Recently Dad and his wife have passed away.  My mom still lives, and still is sealed.

One thing to realize is that sealing is an order of the Priesthood.  Can you be cancelled from the Priesthood once you've received it except for transgression?  No.  My mother has not transgressed (I mean, not to a grave level), so her promises cannot be broken.  She still has those promises from God, and he is bound.  She still has the right to exercise her Priesthood of her order.

My situation is slightly different.  I am a widow and sealed to my husband.  We never divorced in life, but neither am I particularly interested in spending eternity with him (let's see).  (On the other hand, I am also not interested in breaking up our family for our children's sake.  I am grateful to be parents with him.)

Even though I do not now enjoy my husband's companionship (or on this side at least) and I do not have a future hope for a marital relationship, I nevertheless draw upon the sealing power on a daily basis to preside and function in the home.  'Mother' actually IS a priesthood, btw.

Sealing is the highest order of the priesthood***, and you cannot be ejected from it from the Lord's side if you are faithful.

 

***that we have in the mortal realm at this time

I found this quite interesting, thanks for posting it!

During 1969-71, when I lived in the UK while my father's work took him there, I found that the branch president in the town where we lived was not sealed to his wife, and it was because while she felt she could put up with him in this life, she didn't think she wanted to do so in eternity.  Eternity of course being a LOT longer than mortality!  I somehow suspect that outside of mortality things are a bit different, but whatever.

My late wife was sealed to her first husband (who was excommunicated), and we planned to be sealed in the temple as soon as possible after we were married civilly.  We couldn't wait for the sealing cancellation because there was a timing issue -- I was in the Army at the time and was about to be sent overseas.  If we weren't married before I was shipped to Germany, then it would have been a seriously difficult thing to bring her (and my new stepchildren) over -- because it couldn't be done at government expense.  As it happened, President Kimball signed the sealing cancellation on the same day we were married, but of course we couldn't know that in advance.  The letter made clear that the sealing cancellation did not affect the rights of the children. Thirty-five years later she passed away, and while I will freely admit to you that we didn't have a perfect marriage, and we had numerous personal difficulties between us, I loved her and I believe that in the end we will be together forever, and all of those difficulties will be forgotten.  It may be that in a more perfect state you will find your husband perfectly acceptable! 

On the other hand, my new wife is hands down the most wonderful woman I have ever known, and she is far more a friend and a joy to be with than my late wife ever was.  But she is sealed to her late husband, and she is mine only for this life.  I wish I could keep her, but oh well!  

I expect that everything will work out perfectly in the end.  Even if we can't see it now.

In respect of your disinterest in spending eternity with your husband, I am reminded of a C. S. Lewis quote:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, 
to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may 
one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted 
to worship

Found in Goodreads.

Edited to add CS Lewis quote.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Not true. I was told my ex did not agree. Nor would they always be able to track down exes.  I'm pretty sure the purpose of contacting the ex is to make sure they aren't hiding something. Like my friend whose ex had a criminal background and pretty bad behavior. They didn't give him a sealing clearance.  

I think you're correct about that.

My late wife's ex-husband responded to the request for sealing cancellation by agreeing and admitting that the divorce was all his fault, because of his selfishness.  He gained a degree of my respect by that admission.  But it didn't make him any less an idiot for abandoning his family.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

There are also "sealing clearances" (vs. a "sealing cancellation").  It all gets confusing...

A sealing clearance is a permission to be sealed to a subsequent spouse while a previous sealing remains valid.  A sealing cancellation is the cancellation of a sealing.