Cancellation of Sealing Question

[FunkyTown]

Hey Fin,

I understand what you're saying. I empathize, even: "What God has joined, let no man pull asunder".

However, this is what his wife wants. He wants to spend eternity with this wife, which means 'In sickness and in health, in happiness and super-crazy self-esteem issues'. Even if he can't, it's in his best interest to show that he is willing to move heaven and earth to let her know she's the only woman in his life.

It's not about cancelling the sealing. Not for him. For him, it's about showing his love for his wife and showing her what he is willing to do for her.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think what Finrock is saying is, the sealing is a three covenants in one. There's the covenant between the man and the wife, and also covenants between each party and God. Even if the relationship between man and wife is dissolved, the relationship between each individual and God still exists and (conditionally upon their faithfulness) each party remains an heir to the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Ex-husband has no right to demand his ex-wife be cut out of the fulness of the Abrahamic covenant merely because his recent-convert wife a) doesn't quite understand what the temple ordinances mean, or b) harbors suspicions that ex-husband would resume a relationship with ex-wife at the earliest opportunity.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

You're absolutely right, JAG - She has no right to demand that. She does have a right to decide if she's willing to marry someone sealed to another and potentially end up sharing that man for eternity. Is she willing to risk it?

If not, then they would need to part their ways. Is he willing to push her to that point that she makes a decision on if she's willing to or not?

If he's willing to allow her the option to leave him because she wants a man to herself, then by all means.

You're right: She has no right to demand it. However, she is. What now?

[Wingnut]

WHOAH! I can't understand the hostility towards his girlfriend, who's only been in the church for a year and a half.

It's not hostility. It's logic.

Here's what she thinks, 'Sure, I'll have him all to myself now, but what about after death? Could this girl sneak in? What would happen then?'

Clearly, as has been pointed out, she doesn't understand the sealing ordinance. What's more, she doesn't even understand the surface points of it: if he is sealed to her, he's sealed to her. Being residually sealed to someone else doesn't mean he is less sealed to her.

You're absolutely right, JAG - She has no right to demand that. She does have a right to decide if she's willing to marry someone sealed to another and potentially end up sharing that man for eternity. Is she willing to risk it?

And that's her choice. He doesn't have to seek out the cancellation. For the benefit of his ex-wife, I would advise him not to.

[Utahguy1980]

This forum is useless... I didn't come here to find out that my girlfriend was selfish, ignorant, or unchrist like... The problem with the church is several members here that make assumptions and gloat their gospel knowledge. The fact that she hasn't been in the church that long doesn't mean she is selfish it means that she is still learning. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Shame on all of you that have made that assumption.

[MobyMule]

This forum is useless... I didn't come here to find out that my girlfriend was selfish, ignorant, or unchrist like... The problem with the church is several members here that make assumptions and gloat their gospel knowledge. The fact that she hasn't been in the church that long doesn't mean she is selfish it means that she is still learning. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Shame on all of you that have made that assumption.

I agree with you. I think what your gf is feeling is natural and she should be looked on with compassion. Which is why I shared with you my experience. As I said you will do better by praying about it as a couple and learning to feel the spirit together as a couple. As a couple go to your leaders and be specific with your issues. Let them know you are working to have the spirit to be with you. No person here or church leader can recieve personal revelation for you. Only you can recieve that. And as a a couple your both can know what the Lord would have you do. Do the things to bring that into your life together as partners.

[FunkyTown]

It's not hostility. It's logic.

Clearly, as has been pointed out, she doesn't understand the sealing ordinance. What's more, she doesn't even understand the surface points of it: if he is sealed to her, he's sealed to her. Being residually sealed to someone else doesn't mean he is less sealed to her.

And that's her choice. He doesn't have to seek out the cancellation. For the benefit of his ex-wife, I would advise him not to.

That's true. Not cancelling the sealing would benefit his ex-wife.

So it's a choice between doing what's best for his ex-wife or what would set his wife-to-be at ease. He has clearly chosen differently than you would have. And if I were in his situation, I would choose the same.

She has already stated she doesn't want to be with him for eternity. Let her have her wish and let his current spouse feel special.

[annamaureen]

This forum is useless... I didn't come here to find out that my girlfriend was selfish, ignorant, or unchrist like... The problem with the church is several members here that make assumptions and gloat their gospel knowledge. The fact that she hasn't been in the church that long doesn't mean she is selfish it means that she is still learning. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Shame on all of you that have made that assumption.

I agree with this. I feel like some people here are making her out to be this bad, selfish, petty, insecure person who wants to steal blessings from the ex-wife... but put yourself in her shoes. She's only been active for a year and doesn't understand every single aspect of the sealing. All she knows is that sealing = marriage. She's probably heard a bit about polygamy. She's wondering, "what if somehow I end up sharing him in the eternities?" There's nothing wrong about that. It's a perfectly normal thing to assume, if you're in her situation. What she needs is to speak with a bishop and study the gospel and learn more about the sealing; not for the OP to dump her because she's "obviously a bad person."

Edited March 30, 2010 by annamaureen

[Just_A_Guy]

Who said anything about dumping the girl? All that's been said are that her doctrinal preconceptions are wrong, that they should be resolved through appropriate means, and that her concerns *may* be indicative of deeper issues regarding her relationship with Utahguy. It has also been suggested that the ex-wife has a covenant relationship with God that no longer concerns Utahguy, and with which he ought not to attempt to interfere.

To be sure, some of us have said things that no-one contemplating marriage really wants to hear; but I don't think anyone here was unduly harsh. For my part, if I was--then I apologize.

[MarginOfError]

Who said anything about dumping the girl? All that's been said are that her doctrinal preconceptions are wrong, that they should be resolved through appropriate means, and that her concerns *may* be indicative of deeper issues regarding her relationship with Utahguy. It has also been suggested that the ex-wife has a covenant relationship with God that no longer concerns Utahguy, and with which he ought not to attempt to interfere.

To be sure, some of us have said things that no-one contemplating marriage really wants to hear; but I don't think anyone here was unduly harsh. For my part, if I was--then I apologize.

I'm pretty sure it was more directed at me, seeing as his use of "selfish, ignorant, and unChristlike" contain two of the three descriptors I used in this post (note, I didn't used 'ignorant.' Instead, I used unforgiving). But I stand by what I said.

I also stand by the statements I've said pertaining to doctrine and policy. It's important that we make clear the doctrines in these situations because, as Elder Packer said, discussions of doctrine to more to change behavior than discussions of behavior. So while I suspect that comments about contests of knowledge are also directed at me, I still stand by my actions because we can't have effective discussions about doctrine and policy if we can't accurately tell what those are.

So again, I'll say what I said before, the girlfriend here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrines pertaining to the Sealing ordinance and should talk with someone about these doctrines.

[MobyMule]

I'm pretty sure it was more directed at me, seeing as his use of "selfish, ignorant, and unChristlike" contain two of the three descriptors I used in this post (note, I didn't used 'ignorant.' Instead, I used unforgiving). But I stand by what I said.

I also stand by the statements I've said pertaining to doctrine and policy. It's important that we make clear the doctrines in these situations because, as Elder Packer said, discussions of doctrine to more to change behavior than discussions of behavior. So while I suspect that comments about contests of knowledge are also directed at me, I still stand by my actions because we can't have effective discussions about doctrine and policy if we can't accurately tell what those are.

So again, I'll say what I said before, the girlfriend here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrines pertaining to the Sealing ordinance and should talk with someone about these doctrines.

Which is what I think everyone is trying to get them to do together. The only way she will be taught is to put herself in a position to feel the spirit and be taught. There is no doubt truth in what you say. I agree principles and doctrine are what bring change to people's lives. I just think that in order for them to open up to it they must feel love from those teaching. You can be loving and compassionate and hold true to the doctrine at the same time.

That being said we have all had the occasion where people just will not accept it for whatever reason at that time. We don't know the heart of those people. All we can do is still love them and teach at the same time and pray the spirit will touch them if they will just open up to it.

MoE I do apologize if I came across as being negative about leaders. That was not my intention. I have the utmost respect for those that serve. It is truly a sacrifice and a commitement to do so whatever that calling is. We are blessed by so many who are willing to do the will of the Lord instead of their own.

[Maureen]

This forum is useless...

Useless? The whole forum is useless? You mean you've taken nothing away from the information that's been provided in this thread? Really?

M.

[aharon]

From what I understand you cannot be sealed to another person as a guy, period. It is on your church records that you are sealed to your ex wife and so you will not get a recommend to be sealed to your girlfriend. You will have to get unsealed first before you can get sealed to your girlfriend.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the policy.

[marts1]

Your wrong

[marts1]

You may stand corrected

[john doe]

From what I understand you cannot be sealed to another person as a guy, period. It is on your church records that you are sealed to your ex wife and so you will not get a recommend to be sealed to your girlfriend. You will have to get unsealed first before you can get sealed to your girlfriend.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the policy.

Actually, a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but a woman can not be sealed simultaneously to more than one man.

[aharon]

"Actually, a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but a woman can not be sealed simultaneously to more than one man. "

Gotcha, but I think that person has to be deceased for you to be sealed to another person.

Now this is bugging me... am I right?? anybody with a Church handbook out there?

[marts1]

You may stand corrected again

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Aharon -

If you look through this thread you'll find several posts by a guy who answers to the name of "MarginOfError". He is, if I remember correctly, a currently-serving ward clerk and something of a Church Handbook junkie.

He pretty reliably sums up the Church's policy in this area.

[MobyMule]

Hi Aharon -

If you look through this thread you'll find several posts by a guy who answers to the name of "MarginOfError". He is, if I remember correctly, a currently-serving ward clerk and something of a Church Handbook junkie.

He pretty reliably sums up the Church's policy in this area.

If he is a ward clerk he doesn't have Book 1 with those policies. Only Bishops and SP do.

And no the former spouse doesn't have to be deceased for a man to be sealed to another woman he has to apply for a sealing clearance though to the First Presidency. Usually this happens when a man is divorced to a former sealed spouse. It is a pretty involved process of interviews, letters from the ex-spouse and man seeking clearance. Goes to Stake President then onto the First Presidency. Sometimes it takes a few months sometimes alot longer depending on the issues involved.

Now when a man or woman is deceased they can be sealed to everyone whom they were civily married. Since this may be the only way children can get the blessings of that ordinance.

The policies are good and work. The thing to remember here is that all the what if's and different scneario's will get worked out before the Judgement. Of that I have no doubt.

[Wingnut]

From what I understand you cannot be sealed to another person as a guy, period. It is on your church records that you are sealed to your ex wife and so you will not get a recommend to be sealed to your girlfriend. You will have to get unsealed first before you can get sealed to your girlfriend.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the policy.

Read through this thread. Correct and current policies to the contrary of what you are stating have been laid out multiple times.

[Guest mirancs8]

She says she is wants to feel special. She doesn't want to leave it to chance that my ex and I won't be together... Mostly I think she is afraid of sharing me... Fact is I can hardly handle one woman let alone two! lol

OK, so I understand now. She wants to be the one and only here AND in eternity. She has no interest in sharing you... got it. You mean you can't handle 2 women?! Ow come on now...

Seriously though I can understand a woman feeling a bit odd in this situation. Imagine she really wants you all to herself and doesn't want any chance of the ex interfering in her life with you in the Celestial Kingdom. That's most likely what she is thinking but I do agree with the others when they say to have her learn as much as possible about the sealings and what it all means. Knowledge is power. The more she learns the more she will understand. That way she can make a sound decision on if she is willing or not to be married to you while you are still sealed to your ex.

To me it would be taking something away from your ex. Considering she's not remarried she obviously needs and most likely wants to stay sealed until and if she get's remarried. Maybe she can put herself in your ex's shoes though I'm sure that won't be on her list of exciting things to do:eek:. Might help her to understand or she'll look at you like you have 3 heads!

First I would go with knowledge... have her gain knowledge it might help ease her concerns. She should feel solid and confident in your relationship even if you are still sealed to your ex. By gaining the knowledge she will become more confident or she will decide it's not what she is willing to do. Unfortunately it's up to her to learn, understand, and come to a decision on what she needs to do. All you can do is teach her and be there to help her feel confident in your commitment to her. I'm sure you're doing that part already.

[MarginOfError]

If he is a ward clerk he doesn't have Book 1 with those policies. Only Bishops and SP do.

Page xiii of Book 1 outlines the distribution of Book 1. Specifically, four copies are distributed to bishoprics, and five copies are distributed to stake presidents. They are permitted to distribute the book among themselves as they see fit. I know of some wards where the bishop, clerk, and executive secretary carry a copy and the two counselors share the fourth. In my current ward, the bishop, counselors, and executive secretary carry a copy. I have a pdf I carry on a flash drive. I don't feel particularly bad about this seeing as 1) Book 1 is scheduled to be uploaded onto the Leader Resources for Stake Presidents, Bishops, and Clerks of the beta.lds.org site, and 2) my stake clerk gave me the pdf so that I could easily access the book at work and at home.

However, I'll stand behind everything else you just said. :)

[MobyMule]

Page xiii of Book 1 outlines the distribution of Book 1. Specifically, four copies are distributed to bishoprics, and five copies are distributed to stake presidents. They are permitted to distribute the book among themselves as they see fit. I know of some wards where the bishop, clerk, and executive secretary carry a copy and the two counselors share the fourth. In my current ward, the bishop, counselors, and executive secretary carry a copy. I have a pdf I carry on a flash drive. I don't feel particularly bad about this seeing as 1) Book 1 is scheduled to be uploaded onto the Leader Resources for Stake Presidents, Bishops, and Clerks of the beta.lds.org site, and 2) my stake clerk gave me the pdf so that I could easily access the book at work and at home.

However, I'll stand behind everything else you just said. :)

LOL I stand corrected. Never said I couldn't be wrong. It has been known to happen.

[MarginOfError]

LOL I stand corrected. Never said I couldn't be wrong. It has been known to happen.

Given the circumstances, I really couldn't resist proving Just_A_Guy's accusation that I'm "something of a Church Handbook junkie." In my own defense though, I'm often the first person to propose acting against policy. I just don't like being asked, "why are you not following policy?" and having to answer "I didn't know that was policy." I find it much more effective to be able to explain exactly what policies you're violating and why you're doing it.