I heard a third-hand report that a divorced man wanted to cancel the sealing to the first wife. As time moved on, the man was excommunicated. After a while, the bishop where he lived came to him and asked him to reconsider his sealing cancellation, counseling him not to do it. Doesn’t an excommunication cancel the sealing?
It brings to mind high-profile cases where a spouse gets excommunicated. Since Kate Kelly is excommunicated, does her sealing to her husband get cut already, even though her husband has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the Church? Lavina Fielding Anderson has been excommunicated for over 20 years, but continues to attend LDS Church services, and her husband is still a member. With two people involved in a sealing, how is the sealing affected by both spouses when one is exed?
Wheat & Tares 
My understanding is that the sealing is inert, but not cancelled. The sealing would be reactivated if the excommunicated member is rebaptized and has their temple ordinances restored (ie, without a sealing ceremony).
After a cancellation, the only way to reinstate that sealing would be to perform the ordinance again.
I was just listening to John Dehlin’s interview of Brent Metcalf at Mormon Stories. Brent explained this very scenario. He was exed, and then the bishop tried to persuade him not to cancel his sealing to his first wife. (He was remarried.) I thought it sounded like a rather strange conversation (and so did Brent.)
Apparently excommunication doesn’t remove all your covenants!
How would all these questions look different if the person resigned rather than excommunicated? different or exactly the same?
Men do not have the ability, generally, to cancel sealings. Excommunication or sealing clearances do not affect the faithful spouse’s covenants in any way.
Resignations from the Church are the same as excommunications.
Your question is answered clearly in Handbook 1. You might want to visit with a member of your bishopric.
I don’t know the answer, but I can guess. I suspect that the member’s electronic data file has to tagged to indicate a memo is attached to the membership file. The memo, which is scanned and attached to the membership file, is a memo prepared by a COB employee to the first presidency whether to approve or deny a request for sealing cancellation, and if approved and signed, will be scanned and attached to the electronic file. A membership record tagged with such a memo will be amended to remove the sealing ordinance information from active ordinances to cancelled ordinances, and the member will be tagged as “single” so that if they want to get sealed again, the temple will be able to approve their request. In order for the memo to get to the first presidency, it has to originate with the local bishop and SP, who make a recommendation of action. the office staff of the first presidency take an initial stab at the recommendation, usually remanding it to the local leaders due to some deficiency, which may or may not be explained. If the local leaders send it back with corrections that satisfy the office staffers, they will prepare a cover memo with the packet for final review by a first presidency member, who initial the memo on either the approved or denied line. The local leaders are asked to prepare their own recommendation along with letters from both parties to the sealing explaining their reasons for the cancellation request to go with the cover memo to the first presidency office for approval.
Since an excommunication isn’t performed or pronounced or voted on or ratified or done by someone with sealing authority in most cases (i.e., a bishop or stake president), they have no authority to undo a sealing.
Joel, what did you just say?
Assuming I even half understood you correctly, the OP was about excommunication, not divorce.
IDIAT, most of us aren’t planning excommunication, so why would we ask a member of the bishopric? Since you seem to have access, what does the handbook say?
I listened to another podcast about Malcolm Jeppsen. In the early 1990s, apparently he was the Seventy in charge of screening these cancellation letters for the First Presidency.
Is there such a thing as excommunication for the dead? 🙂
No.
If you listen to the words in a “sealing” in the temple, a husband and wife are not sealed to each other. They are pronounced “married” for eternity but they are not “sealed” to each other. Rather, divine blessings are sealed upon each of them. Those blessings are conditional upon individual faithfulness.
So two things happen in what we call a temple sealing (which, technically we should more accurately call it “a marriage in a temple”):
Two people enter into and are pronounced in a marriage set on a course to last through eternities. And future blessings are sealed upon the husband and the wife.
To formally undo the all those blessings sealed upon you and also undo the marriage in the sight of God pronounced upon yourself you may request a “cancellation of sealing”.
According to what is said in the temple, to undo the future blessings sealed upon you, you must be unfaithful to God. Excommunication is usually due to perceived unrepentant unfaithfulness to God. If you have, indeed, been unfaithful to God, and wish not to continue on the path you started when you had those blessings pronounced on you and you want to formally acknowledge that wish you can request a “cancellation of sealing.”
Side note: Interestingly, you may also request it if you wish to undo that sealing of blessings and try to start over on that path again with someone other than your former spouse.
If your spouse has been unfaithful to God (whether that unfaithfulness resulted in excommunication or not and regardless of whether or not he or she requests a “cancellation of sealing”), he or she will be undoing his or her own blessings, but not yours. Those future blessings sealed upon you are still sealed upon you. That should answer the question you pose.
Likewise, if your spouse is unfaithful to God he or she will not be undoing any of the blessings pronounced upon your children when you were “sealed”, even if you are given a “cancellation of sealing”. Stake presidents get letters from the first presidency asking them particularly to assure children of this fact when it happens in their family.
Temple sealings, the things that are actually sealed, are not sealings to each other. They are sealings of specific future blessings upon individuals. And those specific blessings, contrary to the Primary song, do not include a list of “who you will live with forever” or who in your family who was also sealed to future blessings will still have those sealed upon them if you chose not to receive them yourself.
A restoration of temple blessings is (like a couple of other formal covenants in our lives, including the sacrament and rebaptism) the formal recognition that, though you have been unfaithful to God in the past (which in this case has been formally recognized through excommunication) you, personally, have been repentant and are striving to be faithful to Him again and are resuming the formal covenants you made in the temple and embarking again on the path with its “sealed” blessings that you hoped to embark on they were first sealed upon you.
Correction:
To formally undo the all those blessings sealed upon yourself you may request a “cancellation of sealing”.
Cancellation of sealing does not automatically undo your marriage. To explain what I mean by that that I’d have to write an essay about legal marriage, temple marriage, celestial life, two or three sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, the difference between earthly and heavenly perspective and a host of unknown surmisings about eternities and the nature of God.
Not enough room here to do that.
MB,
You nailed it right on the head. I could not have said it better than you.
MB, I’d love to have a guest post on this topic. Email me at mormon heretic at gmail dot com if you’re interested. You bring a very interesting perspective, and I think most Mormons don’t understand the sealing (myself included) very well. I’ve always wondered why we seal parents to children, and as I recall, Guy posted about this a while back.
No too.
Handbook is simple on this matter: for the excommunicated “his or her temple blessings are revoked”; But the Sealing itself isn’t lost because only the excommunicated person loses their part of the sealing and associated blessings while the innocent person does not and must still keep those covenants, and fully expect the blessings of the sealing, which is exaltation -although they will eventually need a new husband/wife to exercise those blessing of exaltation. So the consequence for the innocent party is that they will resurrect with a fully celestial body but without a partner yet maybe (finding one in the spirit world maybe but remarrying during the millenium) whilst the excommunicated can only hope for a terrestrial or telestial body -unless they fully repent of course.
Furthermore, as a side note, the ex’d are no longer bound by covenants to God associated with the sealing and hence will not be judged for their faithfulness to them. So in that way excommunication is also an act of love from God because it releases the person from those contractual obligation (ie their covenants) without any punishment for that; or without exit fees in other words, unless one considers the terrestrial kingdom as punishment, which it is in some ways for all people there because they are separated from God forever etc….
MB:
“Correction:
To formally undo the all those blessings sealed upon yourself you may request a “cancellation of sealing”.”
I’d disagree with that in the case of the person excommunicated because with the blessings of the sealing being revoked upon excommunication, the sealing is in effect over for them, but not for the innocent party of course. And once restored they are “restored” because the sealing still in place between God and the innocent part due to the blessings for that innocent party being due still. So the excommunicated rejoins that sealing upon restoration of blessings.
And its more than semantics. In my opinion it is very real and serious and covers the highest blessings God can bestow, so because of that the first presidency doesn’t seem to want to divulge the issue too much due to the possible criticism from, well critics 🙂
All_Blacks,
I think we are saying the same thing. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Cancellations of sealings do not affect the status of sealed blessings upon innocent parties who were also, earlier, involved in that ordinance. Those cancellations only affect the person who requests them.
MB – Handbook 1, 3.6.1 is full of language stating the circumstances in which a woman can be sealed “to” a man. I know you’re focused on the language of the sealing ordinance itself but perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye. Or, the drafters of Handbook 1 don’t know what they are talking about.
Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death
Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband.
Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see the previous heading for the policy in cases of divorce).
IDIAT,
My thoughts on the wording of Handbook 1:
Handbooks are procedure manuals. They are not written from a theological point of view, but from a managerial and coordinating view under a general references to basic gospel principles (charity, etc.)
Management writers do not write with theology in mind. Their theology, therefore, is sloppy. They tend to use commonly known phrases without thinking about what they mean. They aren’t focused on meaning, they are focused on procedure. Similarly, theologians do not write theology with management and coordination in mind. Therefore their management and coordination discussions are generally vague. They are focused on truth-telling, not on details on how to manage day to day implementation of that truth.
If I want to discover gospel theology, I read covenants, theologians and the words of Jesus. If I want details on church management and organization I read the handbook.
So, if the handbook and the words of a covenant don’t seem to jive theologically, I chose the words of a covenant as the better source in questions regarding theology.
I think it’s a bit broad-brushed to say that the team of writers who wrote the handbook “didn’t know what they were talking about”. But I would say that, in their focus on management and direction, they got sloppy in their phraseology, choosing to use a very, very common (though clearly inexact) Mormon phrase while discussing a procedure.
My thoughts on the guidelines of “how many spouses a man or a woman can enter into a sealing blessing with during their time on earth”:
That will change.
Language in Handbook has remained consistent since 1998. Lots of doctrine in Handbooks 1 and 2, mostly in 2.
Effects of Excommunication or Name Removal
After a husband and wife have been sealed in a temple, if one of them is excommunicated or has his or her name removed from Church membership records, his or her temple blessings are revoked. However, the sealing blessings of the innocent spouse and of children born in the covenant are not affected.
Children who are born to a couple after one or the other has been excommunicated or had his or her name removed are not born in the covenant. See “Status of Children When a Sealing Is Canceled or Revoked” in 3.6.2.
MB, I’d also appreciate if you did a guest post.
I remember my family history institute class at Ricks we had the sealing explained in a similar way . . . members focus *way* too much on who we are all linked to for eternity; when in reality the sealing’s number one purpose is to make us a covenant people, to link us into the ‘vast covenant family/people” of God. The purpose is to link us to God in a covenant. That’s why once you are “born in the covenant” you can’t have that status revoked, regardless of what your parents do –
My husband’s parents divorced and he was raised with his mom/stepdad. I remember him saying they were trying to find out a way to have him sealed to his step dad because his mom’s first sealing had been canceled.
Totally unnecessary – he’s BIC and in God’s covenant family….. really when we focus more on who is sealed to who we are missing the bigger picture of the doctrine of sealing.
Where’d my previous comment go? missing in action again?
Anyhow,
MB I think we agree in principle, only I don’t think that someone unworthy or not temple worthy will be granted a sealing cancellation. Pointless to do so seeing they are already making the sealing void and null via their sins.
IDAT,
I agree that the handbook is a procedure manual most of all. It tells us how to do things -like how to petition the first pres for a sealing change- or how to hold discipline councils or how to interview and what the names of callings are and so on. So although we can find some answers there, like a brief explanation what happens to the person excommunicated (can’t wear garments or pay tithes and has his/her temple blessing revoked) it still won’t tell us their later fate nor the full consequences of their sins. For that we need to turn to theology.
I think we need to be careful to claim temple blessings are revoked. I don’t think that is necessarily the case, or the bishop wouldn’t counsel an excommunicated man to avoid a sealing cancellation. Revoking would make the conversation moot.
Not sure what happened to the missing comment. I don’t see it in the spam filter.
All_Blacks,
Interesting thought. You may be right, but I don’t know if that is the case as the few cases of requests for cancellation of sealings or sealing clearances that I have been privy to have all been made by people who are committed to trying to live by gospel principles and hope marry a second time in the temple.
“claim temple blessings are revoked.”
That’s what the doctrine is….handbook also makes it clear in 3.6.1 Effects of Excommunication or Name Removal (quote) “his or her temple blessings are revoked”
However being a doctrine not often discussed and and a small section of the handbook many Bishops won’t even see it and then may mistakenly advise an excommunicated man to avoid a cancellation. Bishop do make mistakes over and over when it comes to procedures or their opinions on doctrine, even though they are usually supported both by the Lord and the church who will then work around those errors his servants make. But an excommunication, and therefore revoking all temple blessing does make the conversation moot.
Oops, previous was for MH.
MB,
I’ve done quite a few and to even submit a clearance the man needs to be both worthy and ready to remarry, ie the bride must be identifiable. They tend to be more lenient with women since a cancellation can be submitted when the women is only just active and without a prospective husband but maybe its a political correctness thing that one…
All_Blacks,
Yes. Bride identifiable and waiting in the wings in the cases I’ve been aware of.
I think that the misunderstanding of sealings leads many women who have been traumatized by a bad marriage to seek a cancellation simply because the idea of their ex-husband having any claim on them in the next life terrifies them and they feel that the only way to make sure that doesn’t happen is to cancel the sealing. There are, unfortunately, some people who perpetuate the myth that a sealing means you’re together unless it’s formally undone. It’s not true. But sometimes the compassionate and helpful thing (I prefer that to politically correct)to do to help someone move forward is to remove a perceived terrifying threat, even if the terror is unfounded.
” But sometimes the compassionate and helpful thing (I prefer that to politically correct)”
🙂 You’re a better man than me.
Exactly what I’m dealing with at the moment. My beloved ‘Snips’ is dissapointed that the Church is SLOW to move, at least according to her, in my case.
However, as mine own bishop pointed out, the Church is more in the mode of looking for reasons to say “yes” instead of “no”. What this business of readily cancelling a woman’s prior sealing but being recticent for men is the perception, whether justified or not, that a man tends to “trade in” his prior wife for a newer, sexier model. In my case, “yousa might be sayin’ dat”, since she’s two years younger (but what difference is there between 47, which she is today, and 49?). As for relative attractiveness, that’s IAW personal tastes, I suppose. Still, since I’d have divorced my ex anyway w/o the new “First Lady” in my life, it ought to have no relevance.
In most cases, the couple simply marries “civilly” (and let’s hope it’s KEPT ‘civil’) and waits out the time wherein the cancellation of the prior sealing is granted. If nothing else, that provides opportunity to prove ‘repentance’ and also to see if the new marriage will be stable. Certainly the Brethren don’t want to turn our temples into marriage mills, like Reno or Vegas, with ‘Elvis’ officiating!
Would someone please quote from the handbook to answer this question?
According to the church, are temple covenants in force when a member has his/her name removed from the membership records?