Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m hopeful

Former spouse not being sealed when has descendants not related to LDS member

I would like to suggest a means of excluding spouses for sealing to whom the LDS member is NOT related. It's not a matter of church policy, it's a matter of respecting the dignity and wishes of the descendants of those spouses to whom the LDS member is not related. (As an example: my mother was married 3 times. She and her first husband have no living children, however, he does have living children and grandchildren from other relationships. I am a result of my mother's second marriage. Her third marriage also had NO living children. The only person to whom I would be able to actually ask for or reserve a sealing for should be my biological father, not a stepparent.)
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • 1
    I think the 110-year rule applies, since you are the close relative to your father. A close relative is defined as an undivorced spouse, the children, the siblings, and the parents of the person.

    The children should be sealed to their biological parents with the exception of some adoptions. It makes no difference if either parent is/was or are/were members of the LDS Church.

    The same is true of spouses. They should be sealed to each other, regardless of whether or not they are members of the LDS Church.

    But the 110 year rule still applies.

    "Church policy states that you may do ordinances for your own deceased spouse,​ child,​ parent,​ or sibling,​ but please consider the wishes of other close living relatives,​ especially a living spouse. For individuals born within the last 110 years, if you are related but not a spouse,​ child,​ parent,​ or sibling of the deceased,​ please obtain permission from the closest living relative before doing the ordinances. The closest living relatives are: an undivorced spouse (the spouse to whom the individual was married when he or she died),​ an adult child,​ a parent,​ or a brother or sister." (Emphasis mine.)

    My personal policy is that in the case of those persons (including spouses) who have no living close relative and were born less than 110 years ago, I leave them alone. If I have identified living close relatives and the person was born more than 110 years ago, I still leave them alone.
    • I do wish there were more like you, as I have come across several of my ancestors who have had ordinances performed and they have been sealed to spouses and children, and I have NO idea who these people are that performed them. I also found one ancestor who was sealed to the INcorrect spouse, along with being sealed to children that were born up to 52 years AFTER he died. I know good and well that back in the late 1700s-early 1800s, they did NOT know how to freeze sperm or do in vitro fertilization. But, it's all done now, and no way of correcting this because whomever did it didn't bother double checking their facts and making sure children were linked to the correct parents, or the spouse's names were correct. SMH
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Again, maybe I did NOT make myself clear? I wish to exclude the spouses of my mother's to whom I am NOT related for sealing. One of her former spouses has descendants, but I am NOT related to them. To better clarify:

    My mother, Donna J. married:
    1) Richard Herr in 1960. Divorced in 1964. (also within 110 year rule, needing permissions and I have no contact as I didn't even know he'd remarried or had children with other women after 1964).
    2) Neal Hansen in 1964 (biological father, technically NEVER divorced)
    3) Leroy Green in 1971 (stepfather, was her spouse when she passed away in 1997).

    Spouse #1 has descendants to whom I am NOT related, and I feel that they should be the ones to determine whether or NOT to seal their father to my mother, NOT me.
    Spouse #3 has no biological descendants, although he does have siblings that are still alive. He is also still living. I also know he would NEVER agree to being sealed, having lived with him for 12 years as a child and then roughly 5 years as an adult.

    The ONLY spouse I wish to request sealing to would be my biological father, Spouse #2. However, the current way of doing things does not allow me to exclude the other spouses. I would like for the FS Engineers to make this an option for ancestors who have been married more than once.
    • view 3 more comments
    • Sadly, I have already requested the ordinances, including the sealings. However, I had also included a note to FS telling them that I was NOT requesting my mother be sealed to her first husband as I am not related to him. I did not see the choice to de-select the other spouses from being sealed to my mother, which is why I posted in here (PER the suggestion of the FS support team, I might add) suggesting that there be a way of excluding other spouses to whom a person is NOT related from any ordinance, including sealing to the relation that the person is related to-- i.e., my mother and her first husband. this suggestion was supposed to BE directed towards the FS Engineering Dept., not up for a ton of discussion as to why or how I want ex-husbands of my mother to NOT be sealed to her. I might also add that this EX-husband is within the 110 year rule, so therefore I CANNOT request ordinances be done UNLESS I am a parent, child, sibling OR non-divorced spouse. I am NONE of the above to this person. I do NOT know any of his family, as he was long gone by the time my mother actually divorced him, and married my father.
    • I believe you can unselect ordinances even after you select them. Why don't you perform only the ordinances you want, then go into the system maybe a week later, after you are sure they are recorded, then try to unselected the rest. I have unselected a number of ordinances that I had reserved, even after the temple work was partially finished. I know you cannot do this if the work was assigned to a temple and a given ordinance has been printed at the temple. But I was able to unreserved all subsequent ordinances.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m FRUSTRATED AND IRRITATED
    1
    Please do NOT hesitate to ask specific questions IF you don't understand what it is I'm requesting or wanting to do. I don't have a problem answering questions. However.... on the flip side of the coin, if you don't understand and make blanket statements, I end up feeling like this:
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I understand your concern. I think though that your situation is a bit more narrow than can be interpreted for everyone in the similar condition. Maybe rather than forcing an exclusion a warning box that has to be acknowledged would suffice. Your suggestion tends to place too much burden on the relationship type being correct or supported to be enforced. I can see a number of instances where no direct blood/legal relationship can be documented yet that is the correct sealing to be preformed.
    • view 3 more comments
    • I am confused by your statement. I thought children could only be sealed if both a father and mother were on the ordinance. Can you seal to only one parent?
    • The father must be identified. The mother can be missing but not the father.

      When I return from my extended trip "out west" I hope to visit the county and research the county records and possibly even hospital records if the child was born in a hospital. But I am not holding my breath.

      The last resort is to find out if the grandparents assumed the role of guardian over the mother and child.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m Hopeful you find your the right answers and make the right decision.
    Linda Every body Reads and understands the policy differently. we all try are best to live by it, here is the Best advice of all. Pray about it.
    • I feel very strongly about this, and feel that I have been brought here to show that an automatic sealing of a woman to EVERY husband she's ever had (or a man to EVERY wife he's ever had) should NOT be up to the biological child of just one spouse. It should be up to the biological child of each spouse, should one exist.

      To break it down even further:

      My grandmother was married to L. J. at age 14, and had one child when she was age 18 with this husband. They then divorced, and when she was 19, married my grandfather, with whom she went on to have 8 children. L. J. went on and remarried, having 4 additional children. His children, without consulting my grandmother's other 8 children's descendants, went ahead and SEALED her to L. J. How do you think that makes my mother's brothers and sisters descendants feel??? I know I wouldn't be very happy about it.

      This is a matter of NOT stepping on the toes of people to whom you are NOT related, but yet your ancestor may have been married to their ancestor at one point in time.
    • I can understand your feelings because my father has been upset that his stepmother's children sealed her to my grandfather after they both had died. However, I know that the sealing is only valid if both people accept it.

      Your grandmother and LJ had a child who needs to be sealed to parents. When I come across a couple who had children and then divorced, I seal the two people to each other so the children can be sealed to them. That may have been what LJ's descendants were thinking when they sealed your grandmother to LJ. That child needs to be sealed to someone.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    "After all, if you were the descendant of my mother's first husband, and while doing family research, discovered their marriage, and also discovered NO living offspring from that marriage, but noticed or discovered that my mother and your father were sealed as husband and wife, what would your reaction truly be?? You can't tell me that you'd be overly pleased or happy to find your father sealed to a woman that you most likely didn't know about growing up."

    It would not bother me at all. I would think that a close relative (if the 110-year rule was involved) had requested the sealing. It could easily have been someone close to that other spouse was involved. It is their right to have that work done.

    If everyone is outside the 110-year rule, and there are no living close relatives of any of the people, then I would have all the work done. I am not the judge of whether the work should be done or not, even when a divorce is involved. We have been repeatedly told (as a temple worker) that the Lord will straighten it all out in the hereafter.

    I am in my 70s and personally, if work has been done and that work has met the requirements for submission and completion, then it is not mine to judge anything, but to be thankful that the work has been done.

    But taking this further, I do have a relationship to the other spouses and I do have a relationship to the children. It may not be biological, but the relationship is what the law where I live declares.

    The siblings are half-siblings to me. The only time that would not be the case would be if the unrelated spouse had children from an unrelated spouse other than my parent, but even then, there is a relationship -- Whether I like it or not. In those cases, they are step-siblings. and I do live in that kind of a situation. One of those step-siblings is a person that I detest for various reasons, but that does not change the matter of our legal relationship.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepfamily for a simplified explanation of how these relationships work.

    The only thing that matters as far as having the work done, is the work adheres to the policies of the Church. As I stated before, if there are close living relatives involved and I am not a close living relative, I will not perform any work for the unrelated persons. That is my personal policy and one that I use because I have plenty of related persons who need their work done and were born more than 110 years ago.
    • As far as stepping on toes of people to whom you are not related, you are related to any of the offspring of your biological parents (either or both), and that includes their step children (of both or either biological parent).

      If you do not do the work, that is fine. How you feel about doing this kind of work is up to you, but it does not establish Church policy.

      If you have a problem with Church policy, then you need to take it up with your Priesthood leaders.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 4
    We perform temple ordinances for all the husband/wife spousal relationships that existed in mortality. If two people were married and later divorced (no matter the reason), we provide the ordinance of Sealing to Spouse. There are blessings that each individual may receive in that sealing ordinance if they keep the associated covenants. We don’t know their current state of worthiness and obedience as they are learning in the spirit world. They have to have all their ordinances in order to progress. They still have agency. They can reject the ordinance. They can accept the ordinance. They don’t have to sealed to the other spouse if they don’t want to be. They cannot exercise their agency to accept the ordinances of the temple, if the ordinances are not performed for them. It is our responsibility to perform the ordinance and their responsibility to accept it.

    When teaching about the work in the spirit world, Ezra Taft Benson taught this: “The work we are performing here has direct relationship to the work over there. Someday you will know that there are ordinances performed over there, too, in order to make the vicarious work which you do effective. It will all be done under the authority and power of the priesthood of God.” - Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Sao Paulo Brazil Temple, 26 February 1979, in Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pp. 252-253.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Some seem to think that physical gospel ordinances can only be done here in this life on earth; however, let us remember, resurrected personages have physical bodies too. Resurrected beings do not live in the spirit world, they have progressed to a physical world, a world without human mistakes.
    • view 4 more comments
    • This comment was removed on 2018-07-09.
      see the change log
    • btw, i only was referring to perfect beings performing work in a perfect way, in their perfect world including ordinances which Elder Benson speaks of. Thanks
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated