Question on Sealing Cancellations

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t think sealings were in effect for those who have resigned from the church. 

True, ever since they took out the “Get into Celestial Free” card away for those who have faithful parents. Now I actually have to work out my salvation with fear and trembling like the rest of the filthy peasants. Le sigh.

Edit: This is a joke. I do believe the sealing ordinance conveys benefits both in this life and the next just not that one anymore.

Edited July 12, 2018 by The Nehor

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, ever since they took out the “Get into Celestial Free” card away if you have faithful parents. Now I actually have to work out my salvation with fear and trembling like the rest of the filthy peasants. Le sigh.

And yet for those of us who have resigned...we think we will see our parents anyway...really...but I don't want to live with them!!🤤

[theplains]

On 7/11/2018 at 5:04 PM, bluebell said:

Actually, if a woman wants to get sealed again, she does have to have her first sealing canceled.  Though there have been a few exceptions made, it's the church's policy that woman can only be sealed to one man at a time.

Does the church have a policy as to the maximum number of women a man can be sealed to?

Jim

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

Does the church have a policy as to the maximum number of women a man can be sealed to?

Jim

Maybe you should ask Heber Kimball. 😉

[Stargazer]

On 7/11/2018 at 9:33 PM, jkwilliams said:

I have a good friend who has been out of the church for a number of years. His brother has also left the church, but his two sisters are active members. The one thing they all agree on is that their mother is abusive and has always been so, to the point where the four siblings have distanced themselves to varying degrees from her. My friend tells me their father was a good man who did his best to protect his children from their mother, who was abusive to him, as well. Their father was, from everything I have heard, an exemplary man who served faithfully in the church in many callings, including as bishop. He passed away a few years ago, and my friend's mother has since remarried, to a man she met in her ward.

Last week, the four siblings received letters from their mother's bishop, saying that she was petitioning the First Presidency to have her sealing to their father cancelled so she can be sealed to her current husband, and the bishop wanted the children's input into the decision. My friend contacted the bishop to ask whether she was alleging any specific grounds for the cancellation, and he said he wasn't at liberty to discuss the reasons. So, my friend wrote a letter back saying that what his mother wants to do with her sealing is up to her, but he would not condone any accusations that called into question his father's faithfulness and character.

He asked me if a posthumous sealing can be cancelled without specific grounds for the cancellation, and I said I had no idea. So, I'm asking if anyone here knows.

I do not know much about this, but there is a frequent poster here whose wife was previously sealed to someone else, who was deceased, and she obtained a sealing cancellation so they could be sealed together.  He would be a better source for this information anyone else posting here.  I cannot remember for sure who that was, but I have two candidates in mind.  I hesitate to mention their screen names, because I am not now sure if this information was put out in a public post, or in a PM to me that I subsequently deleted (because of space limitations). I shall PM this to you, and you can possibly contact them about it.  

[Calm]

JKW, I asked some bishops and they shared experiences where cancelations were granted, including one where the request didn't discuss the first marriage at all, but only focused on the second marriage.  So it appears that while significant justification must be provided by the applicant (something more than just "I want it this way now") and approval with their rationale must also be given by the bishop and SP, it does not have to inherently include a black mark against the first husband.  So cancelation shouldn't be seen like a divorce where some sort of blame gets attached for the separation.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, theplains said:

Does the church have a policy as to the maximum number of women a man can be sealed to?

Jim

Not that I know of. 

[J. Stap]

This is a pretty complex set of issues.  I deal with most of them, along with the historical development and various beliefs, teachings, and practices over time in ch. 2 of The Power of Godliness. I know that sounds a bit spammy, but there is so much that it would be impossible to condense into a comment.

[Calm]

What post are you responding to?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What post are you responding to?

I think he's responding to the entire thread.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, J. Stap said:

This is a pretty complex set of issues.  I deal with most of them, along with the historical development and various beliefs, teachings, and practices over time in ch. 2 of The Power of Godliness. I know that sounds a bit spammy, but there is so much that it would be impossible to condense into a comment.

You're right this sounds a bit spammy, and it might be better if you were to take some substantive part in the discussion rather than post what amounts to an advertisement.  

Just sayin'.

[J. Stap]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:14 PM, Stargazer said:

Just sayin'.

Fair enough.  A friend pointed this discussion out and I only had time for a quick comment.  But I agree, it isn't great.

There really are a lot of issues at play, and they interact in complex ways: perseverance of sealings, the ramifications of WW's 1894 revelation and LS's "fix" to lingering post-manifesto problems, the persistence of palgyny in Mormon cosmology.  Perhaps interesting to this discussion is the idea which arose in the mid-twentieth century that sealings don't actually seal you to a person, but convey the promise of sealing blessings, which persist despite divorce or, in the case of sealed children, even cancelled sealings of parents. The "blessings of eternal parentage" is still normative.  The idea that deceased women could be sealed to more than one man to whom they had been married to while alive developed in response to computer algorithms and the extraction program, and wasn't a universal option until the late 1980s.  I imagine that things will continue to evolve as the details of life are genuinely complex, and not always readily processed through the policies currently in place.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, J. Stap said:

Fair enough.  A friend pointed this discussion out and I only had time for a quick comment.  But I agree, it isn't great.

There really are a lot of issues at play, and they interact in complex ways: perseverance of sealings, the ramifications of WW's 1894 revelation and LS's "fix" to lingering post-manifesto problems, the persistence of palgyny in Mormon cosmology.  Perhaps interesting to this discussion is the idea which arose in the mid-twentieth century that sealings don't actually seal you to a person, but convey the promise of sealing blessings, which persist despite divorce or, in the case of sealed children, even cancelled sealings of parents. The "blessings of eternal parentage" is still normative.  The idea that deceased women could be sealed to more than one man to whom they had been married to while alive developed in response to computer algorithms and the extraction program, and wasn't a universal option until the late 1980s.  I imagine that things will continue to evolve as the details of life are genuinely complex, and not always readily processed through the policies currently in place.

I loved your book. My bishop has it so I'm going on memory. I'm wondering if we are moving back into something closer to the cosmological priesthood to accomodate women without having to ordain them to the priesthood.

I also appreciated your acknowledgement of the polyandry passage in D&C 132. 

[J. Stap]

Thank you very much, juliann.

[strappinglad]

And we criticize Joseph for floundering around with polygamy when first introduced. Humans will always try to find exceptions. " but what if " . Vanity. Unless sealed by the Holy Spirit , all sealings are void in the eternities. They all come with a huge IF .

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, J. Stap said:

Fair enough.  A friend pointed this discussion out and I only had time for a quick comment.  But I agree, it isn't great.

There really are a lot of issues at play, and they interact in complex ways: perseverance of sealings, the ramifications of WW's 1894 revelation and LS's "fix" to lingering post-manifesto problems, the persistence of palgyny in Mormon cosmology.  Perhaps interesting to this discussion is the idea which arose in the mid-twentieth century that sealings don't actually seal you to a person, but convey the promise of sealing blessings, which persist despite divorce or, in the case of sealed children, even cancelled sealings of parents. The "blessings of eternal parentage" is still normative.  The idea that deceased women could be sealed to more than one man to whom they had been married to while alive developed in response to computer algorithms and the extraction program, and wasn't a universal option until the late 1980s.  I imagine that things will continue to evolve as the details of life are genuinely complex, and not always readily processed through the policies currently in place.

My late wife had been sealed previously to her first husband, but his infidelity got him excommunicated, and then he divorced her.  They had seven children.  When I came along, she requested a cancellation of the sealing, which was granted by President Kimball.  In the letter conveying to her word of the cancellation, Pres. Kimball addressed the issue of the children who had been sealed to them, stating that the cancellation did not affect their rights to eternal parentage, regardless of what happened to their parents in this life.  This apparently comforted her ex, who despite his infidelity and other problems, still loved his children and hoped for some kind of blessing.  And it's entirely merciful, for how could God not be a respecter of persons if you could lose your blessings just because someone not under your control screwed up?  I mean, this kind of thing happens on earth all the time, and so it goes, but in eternity one expects a better outcome!