Buzzard Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 It's not to solve an argument, but to pass along to someone I was discussing this with on another internet forum that is not related to LDS doctrine. He was married in the temple but his wife committed adultery and married the man she cheated on him with. Her new husband subsequently joined the church , they were married civilly, and now she has been rebaptized and informed her first hubby that they are working toward the goal of being sealed in the temple.I remember a quote by President Kimball, but have not been able to find it, to the effect that if someone committs adultery while in a temple marriage and marries their adulterous partner, they are not to be allowed to be sealed to their new partner-ever. I also remember President Kimball used the phrase "Worlds without end" at the end of this pronouncement.Is anyone familiar with this quote and able to direct me the source?Thanks for any help anyonce can give me.
Calm Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 I don't know about the quote, but IIRC (it's been about 6 months since I read this section) according to the CHI it is possible for them to be sealed, though IIRC they have to have been married at least 5 years (think that was it, but it could be longer) before starting the process and I believe it has to be approved by the First Presidency.
Matthew J. Tandy Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 And the first spouse has to consent.
The Nehor Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 And the first spouse has to consent.No, the first spouse is consulted. They don't have veto power.
ERMD Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 I don't know about the quote, but IIRC (it's been about 6 months since I read this section) according to the CHI it is possible for them to be sealed, though IIRC they have to have been married at least 5 years (think that was it, but it could be longer) before starting the process and I believe it has to be approved by the First Presidency.Not just the First Presidency, but the President of the Church.
Duncan Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 this must be new because I knew a guy years ago who's wife cheated on him with a guy from their ward and he was saying that if that new couple wanted to get married in the Temple they wouldn't be allowed to and this was late '99
Matthew J. Tandy Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 No, the first spouse is consulted. They don't have veto power.You are probably right. I am likely conflating it with bpastism for people under 18.
Calm Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 this must be new because I knew a guy years ago who's wife cheated on him with a guy from their ward and he was saying that if that new couple wanted to get married in the Temple they wouldn't be allowed to and this was late '99I remember it being not allowed as well, so perhaps it has changed.
Buzzard Posted February 14, 2012 Author Posted February 14, 2012 I emailed an old high school classmate who runs an apologetics website, and he found this speech by Hartman Rector: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/IssuesInReligionAndPsychotherapy/article/viewFile/330/308The entire article is very thought provoking, but the relevant passage is on page 11. Basically, if references the fact that the church does have a policy that says you cannot ever be sealed to your partner in adultery if you were married in the temple at the time, says that any exceptions had to be approved by the president of the church, and Elder Rector states that President Kimball had said that he was not making any exceptions. This might be as close as I get to finding the actual quote by President Kimball.
Recommended Posts