NOM

Does anyone know why a woman needs to cancel her temple sealing if she chooses to remarry in the temple after her husband she was previously sealed to becomes deceased? While the man does not?

From the April 2022 handbook of instructions:

38.4.1.3
Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

Women. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the husband dies, the woman may not be sealed to another man unless she receives a cancellation of the first sealing (see 38.4.1.4).

A living woman who is not currently married or sealed to another man may be sealed to a deceased husband. If the marriage ended in divorce, see 38.4.1.2.

A living woman who is currently married may not be sealed to a deceased husband without First Presidency approval.
See chapter 28 for information about performing ordinances for a deceased spouse.

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may be sealed to another woman if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a seal- ing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see 38.4.1.2).

A living man may be sealed to a deceased wife. If the marriage ended in divorce, see 38.4.1.2. Before being sealed to a deceased wife, a man must receive written consent from his current wife if he is married.
See chapter 28 for information about performing ordinances for a deceased spouse.

I’m trying to have an intelligent conversation with TBM in laws who work in the temple weekly but don’t seem to know their own rules.

It's a plural marriage issue.

If I'm not mistaken, a woman can only be sealed to ONE man at a time, whether he is living or dead. She cannot be sealed to more than one man at a time, whether living or dead. Period. In order to be sealed to a different man other than her first sealing, whether he is living or dead, she would have to have her first sealing cancelled.

A man can be sealed to multiple women because of the plural marriage doctrine. He can be divorced from a woman in this life but in Mormon doctrine she is still sealed to him in the eternities. She's his no matter what unless a cancelation of that sealing takes place.

Is this answering your question?

Thanks Pale for the response.

It answers the question but creates more.

That means that polygamy is still a part of the doctrine despite the efforts to distance. Makes sense considering D&C 132 is still around.

The conversation I was having came to an abrupt end when the ladies shut it down stating that God wouldn’t make them have to participate in eternal polygamy.

I believe that Palerider is correct here.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:02 am It answers the question but creates more.

That means that polygamy is still a part of the doctrine despite the efforts to distance. Makes sense considering D&C 132 is still around.

Yup.

Yes this is a direct reflection of the still very much alive doctrine of polygamy. I find it fascinating that the handbook here simply cites other sections of the handbook rather than the actual source of the doctrine, D&C 132. Especially given that other parts of the handbook are not shy about cherry picking scriptures to support the policies laid out.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:02 am
The conversation I was having came to an abrupt end when the ladies shut it down stating that God wouldn’t make them have to participate in eternal polygamy.

Unfortunately this isn't true. If they are sealed to a man and then the wife dies and the man is sealed to another woman in this life, both women are his in eternity. Just see Rusty Nelson's example. I'm sure the previous Sister Nelson didn't figure on Rusty marrying Aunt Wendy. He didn't need to get his first wife's permission. He just did it.

Somewhere, some poor bishop is going to end up saying, "Oh don't you worry about that sister Brown.....Heavenly Father is going to make it all work out in the end. Just be faithful, trust in the Lord and keep paying your tithing. You'll be fine." Pats her on the head.....

Palerider wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:53 am

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:02 am
The conversation I was having came to an abrupt end when the ladies shut it down stating that God wouldn’t make them have to participate in eternal polygamy.

Unfortunately this isn't true. If they are sealed to a man and then the wife dies and the man is sealed to another woman in this life, both women are his in eternity. Just see Rusty Nelson's example. I'm sure the previous Sister Nelson didn't figure on Rusty marrying Aunt Wendy. He didn't need to get his first wife's permission. He just did it.

Somewhere, some poor bishop is going to end up saying, "Oh don't you worry about that sister Brown.....Heavenly Father is going to make it all work out in the end. Just be faithful, trust in the Lord and keep paying your tithing. You'll be fine." Pats her on the head.....

D&C 132 flat out says that a man can marry any woman they want and the previous wife(s) can not do anything about it. IF the wife object, they are subject to eternal punishment for not going along with it.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:02 am

That means that polygamy is still a part of the doctrine despite the efforts to distance. Makes sense considering D&C 132 is still around.
Which is why Nelson and Oaks have proudly called themselves polygamists across the pulpit.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:02 am The conversation I was having came to an abrupt end when the ladies shut it down stating that God wouldn’t make them have to participate in eternal polygamy.

I'm sure Nelson's and Oaks' wives would have said the same thing. Joke's on them.

100% related to polygamy. The LDS church has never actually abandoned polygamy--they just moved it to the afterlife.

Leadership has only appeared to distance themselves from polygamy for the sake of the public and the government.

Secretly in their minds and hearts they have merely postponed or suspended it. Otherwise they would have dumped D&C 132 altogether.

If they thought they could safely (socially/legally) return to the practice they would. The only minor change would be that it wouldn't be obligatory for women. But if there were currently married women out there who would accept it, leadership would approve those new marriages.

OK, this was a weird ending to this conversation.

Sister Ryder and I continued the conversation privately which resulted in a couple of google searches to read about this stuff including the church handbook of instructions posted in the OP.

We discussed why it was problematic then half joking half serious I told her that if I died she had my permission to request a cancelation of our celestial marriage if she found someone else later to be sealed to. I clarified that she didn’t need my permission, but having a conversation now would mean that she would never have to feel guilty or worry later. I think that meant a lot.

Then we laughed at the silliness of all the sealing rules and agreed that if there is an afterlife that god would sort it out anyway!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:07 pm...
Then we laughed at the silliness of all the sealing rules and agreed that if there is an afterlife that god would sort it out anyway!

This is where most believers end up in reality: "It will all work out in the end."

Which means: "Deep Down" they don't truly believe MORmON doctrine.






( Yes, I understand typing "Deep Down" is a completely useless cliché that is constantly used on both sides of "the argument." )

The purpose of women is popping out babies and spirit babies. One woman with 3000 men would take a long time to populate a planet. One man with 3000 women would fill it up quickly. Besides women don't have the strength to take charge and make decisions. They belong on pedestals, below men.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:02 am Does anyone know why a woman needs to cancel her temple sealing if she chooses to remarry in the temple after her husband she was previously sealed to becomes deceased? While the man does not?

RR,
You've already received some great answers, but there are two different actions here.

There are temple sealing cancellations.
And....there are temple sealing clearances.

If a couple who has been sealed in the temple, divorces and the husband remarries in the temple before his ex-wife (and she is still living), then he has to get a temple clearance from his ex-wife (not a cancellation). The ex has to write a letter (sent to the first presidency through her bishop) explaining why they divorced and stating that her ex-husband is current with all of his court ordered payments, etc.

Then he receives a sealing clearance and can go ahead and be sealed in the temple to his new wife. This does not cancel the 1st sealing and he is still sealed to his ex (and also his current wife).

There is only a cancellation of the sealing, if the ex-wife remarries in the temple. Letters have to be written again and submitted, then a cancellation of the sealing takes place.

I was told it is done this way because the leaders do not want the woman (ex-wife) to be without her sealing blessings.
Apparently, they don't care if the man is without his sealing blessings (if the woman remarries in the temple first).

But as others have stated, it's really about polygamy.


***********************

Thanks for clarifying Allie.

When I was a ward clerk there was a couple going through the letter writing process. The bishop had to tell them a few times that their temple cancellations were denied. He seemed clueless as to any form of explanation. “Sorry, I don’t know. The first presidency needs more information and wants us to write another letter.” It was frustrating to them and the bishop. It seemed like another form of power and control.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:52 am Thanks for clarifying Allie.

When I was a ward clerk there was a couple going through the letter writing process. The bishop had to tell them a few times that their temple cancellations were denied. He seemed clueless as to any form of explanation. “Sorry, I don’t know. The first presidency needs more information and wants us to write another letter.” It was frustrating to them and the bishop. It seemed like another form of power and control.

You are exactly right! I highly doubt any member of the first presidency ever even sees these letters, but they make you feel like you need approval from the Prophet himself (who prays about it).
I suspect that there is someone in the church office building who is assigned to read and respond to these letters. It's all about power & control, IMO.

It is much more common now for the cancellations to be approved, but some are still put through the ringer for whatever reason the leaders choose to give.
Of course, the clearance for the man is almost always given as long as he's current with his child support (which becomes part of the temple recommend interview anyway for a divorced man with minor kids).

The leaders do seem to want to punish the woman more or cause her to feel more guilt. At least she's allowed to keep her temple recommend now.
Until the early 90's, it was church policy to confiscate the wife's temple recommend when a couple separated....but not the husband's.
Go figure



*****************

AllieOop wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:34 am...
It is much more common now for the cancellations to be approved, but some are still put through the ringer for whatever reason the leaders choose to give.
...

The ability to "obtain" a cancellation waxes and wanes over the years, depending on the First Presidency - and who knows who else amongst the board of directors, COB, CAB employees. I don't know what kind of roulette to call that.

I know people who jumped through hoops for years to get a cancellation, and I know people who didn't have an issue whatsoever - even when the ex-wife had no plans to be re-sealed.

There's also a lot of nepotism/who-you-know on the inside when it comes to these polygamous/clearance/cancellation matters also. ( As with everything related to LD$-Inc. )




Its a complete Cluster-Fluff. Yeah... That's what I'm trying to type.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:57 am There's also a lot of nepotism/who-you-know on the inside when it comes to these polygamous/clearance/cancellation matters also. ( As with everything related to LD$-Inc. )




Its a complete Cluster-Fluff. Yeah... That's what I'm trying to type.

Yup! You summed it up nicely

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:52 am Thanks for clarifying Allie.

When I was a ward clerk there was a couple going through the letter writing process. The bishop had to tell them a few times that their temple cancellations were denied. He seemed clueless as to any form of explanation. “Sorry, I don’t know. The first presidency needs more information and wants us to write another letter.” It was frustrating to them and the bishop. It seemed like another form of power and control.

My wife's friend had a difficult time getting the First Pres. to release her from her sealing to the man who cheated on her, got caught, got divorced, and a year later got sealed to the woman who he had committed adultery with, all the time remaining sealed to the woman who was desperately trying to unseal herself from him.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:20 pm

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:52 am Thanks for clarifying Allie.

When I was a ward clerk there was a couple going through the letter writing process. The bishop had to tell them a few times that their temple cancellations were denied. He seemed clueless as to any form of explanation. “Sorry, I don’t know. The first presidency needs more information and wants us to write another letter.” It was frustrating to them and the bishop. It seemed like another form of power and control.

My wife's friend had a difficult time getting the First Pres. to release her from her sealing to the man who cheated on her, got caught, got divorced, and a year later got sealed to the woman who he had committed adultery with, all the time remaining sealed to the woman who was desperately trying to unseal herself from him.

Yeah, I knew a man who was still sealed to all fives wives he cheated on. Each time he cheated, he would “repent” by divorcing the wife with two babies and marrying the latest bimbo. And the church didn’t see that repeating the same sin 5 times was not repentance.