Does Your Ex Have To Approve Your Remarriage In The Temple?

[rpn]

Don't I recall a different requirement for the sealing of a couple who were intimate when the part(ies) asking for the sealing had been married to others? Isn't a letter still required for that?

[rongo]

According to the handbook, people who commit adultery and then marry their adulterous partners require First Presidency approval to be sealed, and this will not be considered until after a minimum of five years. In my experience, it is by no means a given that it will *ever* be approved, even after five years. This is a very, very serious issue in the eyes of the Lord and the Church, as manifested in the policy.

[rodheadlee]

It's "their business anymore" inasmuch as the First Presidency is looking for "the whole picture" and not just one side.

My sister's husband was excommunicated (prostitutes, other really, really "out there" stuff ---- like Mark Hacking stuff, without the murder). When he remarried, was rebaptized, had his blessings restored, and wanted to be sealed to his wife, she mentioned in her letter that she didn't want to stand in his way, but needed to note that he had never paid a dime of child support. The stake president called her and told her that he had provided evidence that he was current on his child support. My sister said that is impossible, because in her state, child support documentation is all web-based. The stake president said that he had shown them the appropriate things on the web site.

Turns out . . .

He had faked the state web-site to show child support payments. Complete forgery and counterfeit. That deep-sixed the sealing, and should have led to another excommunication as well, in my opinion.

When I was a bishop, I had to solicit ex-spouse letters many times for cancellations, sealings, special situations (like men being sealed to more than one living woman, contrary to the handbook. There are exceptions to everything, and the President holds all priesthood keys, and can and does grant them). The ex-spouses deserve and need to have a say, but as has been said, if a situation is truly worthy, a disgruntled ex won't hold it up. The bishop and stake president letters are helpful in that.

That's disgusting, how do people think they are going to get away with lying and cheating before God when they are getting sealed in His House? And I can't get a TR to get sealed because i smoke, nevermind the 39 Faithful years of civil marriage to my wife and complete belief in the Church of Jesus Christ LDS, having a great relationship with Heavenly Father. It's my weakness to humble me, It works too. Nothing like being a 58 year old Aaronic priesthood holder to bring on the humility.

Edited January 25, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Stargazer]

According to the handbook, people who commit adultery and then marry their adulterous partners require First Presidency approval to be sealed, and this will not be considered until after a minimum of five years. In my experience, it is by no means a given that it will *ever* be approved, even after five years. This is a very, very serious issue in the eyes of the Lord and the Church, as manifested in the policy.

We had a couple in my ward who divorced their partners and then later married. They did not commit adultery, but both of them definitely transferred their affections from their then-sealed partners to each other, and it was clear that they were an "item". They were counseled to cut it out, and did so in public, but ... I wonder how the Lord will treat their union in the eternities. I expect in accordance with justice and mercy, but what will the outcome be? Fortunately it is not up to me.

[rpn]

To the poster who was afraid that ex wife wouldn't own the change in agreement on child support, I suggest you write a letter confirming your new temporary agreement and that you are relying on that. Also consider asking your ex to calculate her taxes both ways so you have an exact amount of the difference, in case at some later date she claims otherwise.

[Duncan]

That's disgusting, how do people think they are going to get away with lying and cheating before God when they are getting sealed in His House? And I can't get a TR to get sealed because i smoke, nevermind the 39 Faithful years of civil marriage to my wife and complete belief in the Church of Jesus Christ LDS, having a great relationship with Heavenly Father. It's my weakness to humble me, It works too. Nothing like being a 58 year old Aaronic priesthood holder to bring on the humility.

take heart! Every General Authority member of the First Council of the Seventy who lived and died prior to 1961 was a Seventy and not a High Priest. So, B.H. Roberts, Edward Stevenson, J. Golden Kimball, Rulon S. Wells etc. you know real spiritual slouches!

[telnetd]

What happens if the divorced men and women have 5 children and they are afterwards

sealed to new spouses?

Gail

[volgadon]

What happens if the divorced men and women have 5 children and they are afterwards

sealed to new spouses?

Gail

What happens if seven brothers married the same woman in succession?

[Five Solas]

What happens if seven brothers married the same woman in succession?

I know this one, volgadon!

Matthew 22--

25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

See also Mark 12, Luke 20.

Did I get it right?

;0)

--Erik

[rodheadlee]

I know this one, volgadon!

Matthew 22--

25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

See also Mark 12, Luke 20.

Did I get it right?

;0)

--Erik

That is why it is so important to get sealed BEFORE the resurrection.

[ALarson]

My ex-wife was given the opportunity to write a letter regarding her thoughts of my worthiness and remarriage. I was concerned, just as you are and asked my bishop if her letter could prevent me from getting sealed to my now-wife. I wasn't so much worried that she would say no, as I was that she would just not write a letter and hold up the process. My bishop assured me that it was a formality and that if she did not respond in a given time, my sealing would go on as planned. If her letter expressed disapproval of my worthiness, the bishop/SP would call me in and interview me about the matter and then make a call on if the claims meant anything. As I knew I had nothing to hide, I was comforted. Two years later, I am joyfully sealed to an amazing woman.

God bless you in your worthy struggle as a single dad. I wish you happiness and a worthy partner in the Lord's time!

Cheers,

Maestrophil

So, you are still sealed to your ex-wife, correct? Or did she obtain a sealing cancellation and remarry in the temple?

I only ask this because this happened to me. My wife had an affair on me and left the church (we were sealed in the temple). When I remarried, I wanted to be sealed to my current wife and was told I needed to obtain a temple sealing clearance (which I did).

What I did not realize is that I am still sealed to my ex-wife until she remarries in the temple (which most likely will not happen). The woman is the one who has to obtain the sealing cancellation and you remain sealed to each other until she does (even if a sealing clearance takes place).

I was told this is in place so that the woman is not ever left without the blessings of her initial temple sealing (until she replaces the first sealing with another one to another man).

Has this changed now?

[Five Solas]

That is why it is so important to get sealed BEFORE the resurrection.

Of course, Jesus didn't actually say what you just said. You seem to be standing His words on their head...

[Calm]

I was told this is in place so that the woman is not ever left without the blessings of her initial temple sealing (until she replaces the first sealing with another one to another man).

But the blessings of the sealing are only in effect as long as she is worthy of them and that means some may stay in place conditional on her repentance (such as her sealing to God and her children) and others do not (the broken marriage covenant). If she had broken the covenant of marriage that she had with you, that is not in force simply because the sealing hasn't been officially revoked. If she has repented sincerely, then the part of the covenant that is between her and God may be restored, but the part that is between you and her cannot be restored without your acceptance of it (imo, but this follows logically from what we are taught about the laws attached to the sealing).

[3DOP]

Of course, Jesus didn't actually say what you just said. You seem to be standing His words on their head...

Now wait...He is accepting that you can't get married after the Resurrection, and as for angels, I don't think they agree with us that they are "ministering spirits", immaterial and obviously unmarried. Then you go to St. Paul in First Corinthians and they'll point out that Paul is speaking, not the Lord, and so they just say Paul was wrong. Its pretty tough to nail them down. I made a long argument a while back for why they shouldn't just throw out Paul, but of course nobody was convinced!

Edited to add:

My argument was against someone's claim that the Catholic teaching regarding the value of consecrated celibacy is proof of apostasy. But I got into the passage in I Cor. 7 where the Apostle says that after everything is wrapped up, "they that have wives will be as though they had none".

Catholics take the position that St. Paul's counsel, being compatible with other revelations in both Testaments, is to be taken as given to us by the Holy Ghost. That he was modest enough to admit that the theology he is developing is taking God's Word a further step, does not give us the liberty to disregard it according to our view.

But let us suppose these sections from I Corinthians SHOULD be disregarded. It has been alleged that the practice and advocation of celibacy for both men and women who "hath his proper gift from God", is an evident sign of apostasy. I think those of you who follow my posts regularly, know that I use strong language sparingly. I think you will search a lot of posts before you will find me saying what I am about to say regarding the allegation of apostasy because of celibacy, as practiced and advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. The practice of perpetual celibacy as evidence for apostasy is preposterous.

I admit the plausibility of disregarding much of St. Paul's seventh chapter. But when we Catholics have only codified the clear teaching of an Apostle of Christ, mistaken though you might say he was, it cannot be evidence of apostasy. If Restorationists would insist upon describing such an error as evidence of apostasy, they are doing so at great expense. It seems to me that the difficulties of accusing Catholics of apostasy while exonerating an Apostle whose counsel we follow would do incalculable damage to LDS claims. Why is it okay for the Apostle Paul to believe and advocate his own counsel, but when we follow him, we are apostate? See what I mean? I think you would end up losing the Apostle Paul. Maybe a handful of you are ready for that. I think it would be disastrous for Mormons.

Edited January 28, 2013 by 3DOP

[jcake]

This is a tender subject for me, having been left by my spouse for "righteous reasons". My former spouse believed that a mistake was made in choosing me, and not marrying the wonderful person promised them in a patriarchal blessing. This was always sad for me, being pretty much unwanted. But, because my former spouse didn't have an actual affair, just dreamed of the one that they should have had, they had no trouble getting a clearance. But, I really didn't say anything about the situation, either, didn't think it would do much good. I have to hope that God will work things out in the eternities, and try to deal with things as gracefully as possible.

For those of us who don't have the chance to be loved as a spouse in this life, it is terribly sad to think it could never happen in the next.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Of course, Jesus didn't actually say what you just said. You seem to be standing His words on their head...

I think he is pointing out that on heaven, no marriages performed...they already do or do not exist.

[Tacenda]

I think he is pointing out that on heaven, no marriages performed...they already do or do not exist.

I have a wonderful friend that has suffered with heart problems, diabetes, and many other elements. She never married and thinks her only hope of marriage will be in the next life because she's been told she would get that chance in the next life if it didn't happen in this life. But according to the bible and some posts here, there isn't marriage in heaven. Even in LDS theology? She's been given a false hope of it happening. Pa Pa, I don't expect an answer but if you or others have one, be my guest! Edited January 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Even in LDS theology?

LDS in my experience generally believe all such issues will be resolved prior to the time of judgment and resurrection so that depending on how one defines "heaven", one could say that it doesn't happen in heaven, meaning the Celestial Kingdom while believing it happens in the spirit world or paradise post death, prejudgment. She certainly isn't relying on false hope as it is consistently taught that all those who don't have a chance at blessings in this life will receive them in the next life, save for those who had a full and fair chance at such blessings and rejected them.

[rodheadlee]

Of course, Jesus didn't actually say what you just said. You seem to be standing His words on their head...

That is why it is so important to have a Restoration and continuing revelation;

Jesus said in D&C 132:

15 Therefore, if a ^aman marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in ^amarriage; but are appointed angels in ^bheaven, which angels are ministering ^cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are ^aangels of God forever and ever.

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that ^acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man ^amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and ^beverlasting covenant, and it is ^csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of ^dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ^ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit ^fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s ^gBook of Life, that he shall commit no ^hmurder whereby to shed innocent ⁱblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their ^jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the ^kseeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from ^aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be ^bgods, because they have ^call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my ^alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.

[ALarson]

But the blessings of the sealing are only in effect as long as she is worthy of them and that means some may stay in place conditional on her repentance (such as her sealing to God and her children) and others do not (the broken marriage covenant). If she had broken the covenant of marriage that she had with you, that is not in force simply because the sealing hasn't been officially revoked. If she has repented sincerely, then the part of the covenant that is between her and God may be restored, but the part that is between you and her cannot be restored without your acceptance of it (imo, but this follows logically from what we are taught about the laws attached to the sealing).

Thanks for the response calmoriah and I agree.

Bottom line is that I am currently sealed to 2 women since I only have a sealing clearance vs. a sealing cancellation. I guess if my ex-wife ever becomes temple worthy again, I'll just have to sort it out then. Or hopefully, she'll want to get sealed to someone else and will request a cancellation of our sealing at that time.

Thanks again.

[rongo]

When I was a bishop, we applied for sealing clearance for what would be a third sealing to living women. It was granted, but there were no cancellations involved. Everything depends on circumstances and individual situations, despite what the handbook says.

The First Presidency almost never cancels a sealing unless there is to be a re-sealing to someone else (for women).

[rongo]

Of course, Jesus didn't actually say what you just said. You seem to be standing His words on their head...

He also didn't say what you say He said, either. Those who live by "strict constructionist" can also die by it, too . . .

What He said was "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." He did not say "in the resurrection, absolutely every person who ever lived, worlds without end, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." He also didn't say "there is absolutely no marriage at all in the hereafter, for anybody ---- it simply doesn't exist." That is what critics insist is so clear in these passages in the synoptic gospels.

Who are the "they" Jesus was talking to? The first thing He said before even giving His answer, was that those posing the hypothetical scenario "do err, neither understanding the scriptures nor the power of God." That is completely consistent with the LDS interpretation of what Jesus meant: those who err and don't understand or accept the scriptures or the power of God will indeed not marry, nor be given in marriage.

And why would Jesus bring up the "power of God" when talking about marriage in the hereafter, anyway? Notice His answer: those who insist that there is no marriage "do err," and don't understand the scriptures or the power of God.

Sounds like our critics who try to use this as a proof-text, doesn't it?

[Maestrophil]

So, you are still sealed to your ex-wife, correct? Or did she obtain a sealing cancellation and remarry in the temple?

I only ask this because this happened to me. My wife had an affair on me and left the church (we were sealed in the temple). When I remarried, I wanted to be sealed to my current wife and was told I needed to obtain a temple sealing clearance (which I did).

What I did not realize is that I am still sealed to my ex-wife until she remarries in the temple (which most likely will not happen). The woman is the one who has to obtain the sealing cancellation and you remain sealed to each other until she does (even if a sealing clearance takes place).

I was told this is in place so that the woman is not ever left without the blessings of her initial temple sealing (until she replaces the first sealing with another one to another man).

Has this changed now?

No... unfortunately, the same was the case for me, and I am still "sealed" to my EX. I really don't like it, but I trust the Lord will make it right.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The First Presidency almost never cancels a sealing unless there is to be a re-sealing to someone else (for women).

I'm not certain of this. A older sister in our ward who's been divorced for about two decades recently applied for and received a cancellation of sealing, and she has no interest in marrying again. In addition, another sister in our ward whose husband left her in a situation of adultery has likewise recently applied for a sealing cancellation despite not having any plans to remarry -- supported fully by both our bishop and stake president.

[Five Solas]

I think he is pointing out that on heaven, no marriages performed...they already do or do not exist.

Hey Pa Pa--

I think you (and several others here) have abandoned the context in Matthew 22. Jesus isn't making a statement in a vacuum. He's answering a question. And the widow in the question has already had her marriage performed. Jesus isn't being asked whether there will be marriage ceremonies in heaven. Nor should anyone assume Jesus was being evasive and changed the subject in His response (thereby answering a question no one asked).

He was asked, "whose wife will she be?" (v. 28). And His answer needs to be understood in that context. The widow will not be married to any of her seven deceased husbands. Not because she wasn't properly married to begin with--but because the resurrected are "like the angels" (v. 30). It's really a lot of work for you guys to read this some other way. I suggest you throw in the towel and take it at face value.

;0)

As a side note, some say the question is based on the story of Sarah in the "deuterocanonical" book of Tobit (chapters 6 - 8 ). Tobit is a great read, for anyone who hasn't spent time with the additional books included in the Catholic Bible. For what it's worth, Martin Luther was a fan...

--Erik