A man and woman are legally divorced by law, but she is still sealed to him in the temple (in some cases)

[juliann]

38 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I can relate my experience here for another view of a real situation.  I was divorced from my ex-wife in 2009.  I met my current wife in 2010 and we got married in December of that year.  We requested a cancellation of my previous sealing.  I was granted a clearance to be sealed to my current wife, but denied a cancellation with the explanation that the first presidency does not like anyone to be a 'floater' without being sealed, and that is what would become of my ex-wife if I was granted a cancellation.  

It bothered me and my wife that I was sealed to the ex, but the explanation that has been shared here was shared with me too, namely that I would not have to be sealed to anyone I did not want to be sealed to in the eternities.  My wife and I went on like this for a few years, and it finally got to the point where my wife was just really angry about it, and I was not really happy with it either.  I wrote the first presidency explaining that we had tried our best, and it wasn't working - it was damaging our current relationship, and keeping us from being able to truly forgive and move on.

Within a few weeks, I received a letter from the first presidency granting the cancellation.  I assume they contacted my ex-wife regarding the matter, but I was not informed if they did.  She never mentioned it to me.

It was relieving for my wife and I to not bear the burden of trying to wrestle with that 'dichotomy'. 

I'm very happy for you. We can't continue to credibly tell one woman she will have all blessings in the eternities if she is righteous and then turn around and tell her she must be chained to a painful sealing or she won't. 

This was the reason that a second sealing was granted to the woman I know, BTW.  Part of the problem has been that we have been limited to what individual bishops may think or know. With the internet, that is changing. I'll bet almost nobody knows that women are also being granted second sealings. You have to know to ask. 

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

Because repentance is a real thing.  Yes, you may not want to be married to some abusive/cheating/sinful person.  But what if that person totally repents, is reborn, and is totally Christ-like?  

Then he would be a stranger to me. And I would prefer another stranger. It is agency. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

 I'll bet almost nobody knows that women are also being granted second sealings. You have to know to ask. 

I have only heard of this from yourself and Calm.
So I have to ask, do you think sealings are all valid, or only some?
We have discussed why I think polyandrous sealings are doctrinally questionable.  You have made your feelings about polygynous only sealings abundantly clear.
A lot of people have issues with Jane Manning's sealing as a servitor.

So, will all sealings be honored because of the authority used, or will God only honor the sealings he approves of?  What sayest thou?

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have only heard of this from yourself and Calm.
So I have to ask, do you think sealings are all valid, or only some?
We have discussed why I think polyandrous sealings are doctrinally questionable.  You have made your feelings about polygynous only sealings abundantly clear.
A lot of people have issues with Jane Manning's sealing as a servitor.

So, will all sealings be honored because of the authority used, or will God only honor the sealings he approves of?  What sayest thou?

Agency trumps all. God is not going to tell me who to be sealed to and I suspect that is why the Holy Spirit of Promise has to be called in to seal the deal. 

Quote

I have only heard of this from yourself and Calm.

When three of the instances I know of are from this board alone, I'd say that is a reliable indicator. If I, as one individual, know of 3 instances from long time posters and one from personal acquaintance, what does that indicate about the prevalence?  This isn't something that people shout from the roof tops, in fact, in my letters from SLC I was asked not to speak of the exemptions I was granted. (When you remarry the cancellation is self-evident, of course, as well as the other exemption for anyone who knows my situation.)

Edited May 3, 2017 by juliann

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We know the words spoken in a sealing ceremony.
If they were given by revelation from God we know enough to know that there are sealings for husbands and wives and sealings for children and parents and they are not the same.
If they didn't come from God then why are we bothering with them.

Well in addition to one assuming it is revelation, one would also have to assume revelation is given word for word.  It doesnt' seem to be that way.  There's too much room for personal prejudice, and blinding bias to make it all fit so neat as you describe, in my mind. 

[rongo]

48 minutes ago, juliann said:

That was my experience. My SP was a neighbor, he was my advocate. I try to imagine my doing this now when I've only seen the SP in a recommend interview. That letter would be very different, I think. 

Certainly. When it's clear that the leaders are personally invested in it, as opposed to not really, I think that comes through in the letters.

I cannot even i

magine SLC ignoring the plea and witness of a SP, who has direct stewardship.

When they're denied, I don't think it's a matter of ignoring the counsel, but rather, on other grounds. While the SP and bishop input is crucial, I don't think the FP bases their decision 100% on that. In fact, my former SP and I have had two applications denied where we both were advocates for the party, and wrote "good" letters.

I'm not discounting the bishop, but I think the SP likely has more authority as he does in all situations.

Literally (Melchizedek vs. Aaronic priesthood office, higher rank, etc.). 

I am certain this is what makes the difference.

I know that in one application to the FP for rebaptism (after three denied ones over a ten year period), my letter was more key than the SP's. There were family letters as well, and in my final one, I asked for guidance as to when we might expect success. It had been 27 years, everyone at the local level feels very good about it, here are the family letters (including victim), etc. We are all willing to patiently submit and wait for whatever period of time is wanted, but it would sure help if we had a rough idea of how long that would be. It's hard to keep hope high when we keep getting the rug pulled out like this. Etc.(but phrased more professionally than that). A member of the Seventy contacted the SP and told him that normally there would be yet five more years, but that the FP was so moved by my letter and the family letters that they were going to require only one more year. It turns out that he was rebaptized on the day I was called as a bishop the second time around (the SP had asked to meet with me and my wife after the baptism. We assumed it would be for high council or stake auxiliary or something. Never that, a year removed from being released). 

With a recent complicated item, we have been told that there are some unwritten waiting periods other than the five year wait in the handbooks (e.g., sealings for marriages beginning with adultery, etc.). As we have had denied applications with some of these "off-the-books" situations, we have indicated that it would be really helpful if the handbook addressed some of these (we had a stake disciplinary council recommend reinstatement, and when it was denied, were told that there would be a minimum five-year wait. There is nothing in the handbook about this situation). I have a feeling that there will be something similar with a couple of pending rebaptism/restoration of blessings we will be sending Salt Lake, and it would be really helpful to know in advance if it would be denied on the first application, or if there is an unwritten five-year wait prescribed. But, you don't really find that out unless you try.  

Nobody can prove anything, of course, but in that sense SLC does "rubber stamp." How could they not...on what basis? That the spiritual leaders who actually know the person involved were both out to lunch when the spirit came by? What additional information could SLC have? A feeling? They wouldn't have any additional

information unless we are going to move this up to revelation.

That does happen, though. We had a visiting Seventy tell about a recommendation for bishop that the FP simply denied. It was a real head-scratcher, because the man was obviously qualified, experienced (not actually necessary), and worthy. The stake president was baffled and asked for clarification, and was simply told that he needed to make another choice --- that there was no reason given and that nothing should be assumed or implied. Two months after the new bishop was put in, the first choice received a promotion out of the blue that moved his family to the East Coast, and he was promptly called as a bishop there.  

So if everything is in place, the rules and criteria met, and it is refused. I would lay it at the feet of the SP.

Not in every case. In fact, as described above, I'm aware firsthand of more than just a couple of instances where the SP was an effective advocate for an action that the FP has turned down. 

[juliann]

Thanks for the info, Rongo....that is really useful.  I am, however, only talking about specific instances of sealing cancellations that don't have special circumstances you speak of. I would assume that adultery, etc., would be one of those instances HJW and I were discussing where they do block requests based on the exes feedback. 

I think what I am talking about falls under "When it's clear that the leaders are personally invested in it, as opposed to not really, I think that comes through in the letters." This is where leader roulette comes into play, or even happenstance as to where you and the SP live. Unfortunately, it isn't fair and some women suffer because of it. It is evidence that the discriminatory policy needs to be readjusted to reflect the reality of the monogamy of the Proclamation on the Family.

And, of course, there are always going to be exceptions. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Thanks for the info, Rongo....that is really useful.  I am, however, only talking about specific instances of sealing cancellations that don't have special circumstances you speak of. I would assume that adultery, etc., would be one of those instances HJW and I were discussing where they do block requests based on the exes feedback. 

This is a real fear and concern for people. I tell them (and firmly believe) that the leaders' letters matter a lot more than the ex-spouse's. I see this as mainly a chance for them to give their input/version and share concerns that may not be known. But (as I've told people worried about this) where the ex-spouse is likely to write an angry, caustic letter, I believe that that actually helps the person seeking the action by comparison. So, don't worry about ____ going ballistic, misrepresenting, etc.

The process is important. My sister's ex-husband's SP called her and said that he was going to be sealed to his wife, and wanted to know her feelings on it. She said that she didn't want to stand in the way of that, and had no objection, but she thought he should know that he hasn't ever paid child support. "He provided evidence that he is current." Oh, really? In our state, it's web-based. "I know --- he showed us the web site and logged in and showed the account." 

He had forged a version of the state web site to make it look like he had been paying! Needless to say, the SP found that very interesting.  

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, juliann said:

Agency trumps all. God is not going to tell me who to be sealed to and I suspect that is why the Holy Spirit of Promise has to be called in to seal the deal. 

When three of the instances I know of are from this board alone, I'd say that is a reliable indicator. If I, as one individual, know of 3 instances from long time posters and one from personal acquaintance, what does that indicate about the prevalence?  This isn't something that people shout from the roof tops, in fact, in my letters from SLC I was asked not to speak of the exemptions I was granted. (When you remarry the cancellation is self-evident, of course, as well as the other exemption for anyone who knows my situation.)

Sorry, I meant to say in that post that I completely believe you that polyandrous sealings are happening on a limited basis.  I have no reason doubt you or Calm (or anyone else).

I will say, I am not as convinced that " God is not going to tell me who to be sealed to ."
I am still on the fence as to how we balance agency and God's will in eternal sealings or the enforcement of covenants willingly entered into.  I don't think anyone will be forced.  But they may be given a choice they don't like.

Edited May 4, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

I guess some people might be bigger people than I am and can handle such a thing better.  I felt very similar to what I would feel if someone asked me to keep a portrait of my ex-wife on my wall.  I would not want the attachment/reminder for me, and I would never want my poor wife to have to live with that reminder daily either.

Excellent analogy.  I will likely use it in the future.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

   But they may be given a choice they don't like.

Why?

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Excellent analogy.  I will likely use it in the future.

It really is. I lived with a figurative portrait of my abusive ex on my wall for years as successive bishops told me a sealing was a like a baptism and it shouldn't be broken. I knew the sealing wasn't in force without my consent but still....ick.  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, juliann said:

Quote

 But they may be given a choice they don't like.

Why?

Because God is a God of law, and agency trumps many things but it doesn't trump law.
And as you have pointed out several times already, we don't fully know or understand all the laws relating to marriage sealings, covenants, and eternity yet.
 

[Maestrophil]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Excellent analogy.  I will likely use it in the future.

Thanks, Calm!

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I meant to say in that post that I completely believe you that polyandrous sealings are happening on a limited basis.  I have no reason doubt you or Clam (or anyone else).

I will say, I am not as convinced that " God is not going to tell me who to be sealed to ."
I am still on the fence as to how we balance agency and God's will in eternal sealings or the enforcement of covenants willingly entered into.  I don't think anyone will be forced.  But they may be given a choice they don't like.

Not too sure God is into giving us a Sophie's Choice.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not too sure God is into giving us a Sophie's Choice.

I often use the example of the 1/3 part of the host.  I'll use it again.
They had their agency.  God gave them the choice to get on board with the plan of salvation.  The said no.
You know the rest.

God is compassionate.  He gives us our agency.  He provided a Savior to allow us to correct our mistakes.  He works always to bring as many of his children back as possible.
But God NEVER violates or ignores law to do it.

Eternal Marriage and Sealings will be no different.  We will choose to obey the corresponding laws and we will receive or reject the corresponding blessings.  God cannot do anything more than that.
We choose to enter covenants.  God will hold us to them or we will reject the blessings of the covenant.  It is possible God will give us the ability to try a covenant a second time.  We don't know the rules concerning that.
I expect God to be merciful and give us the desires of our heart.  But he will not violate a single law or break a single covenant to do it.

[strappinglad]

I wonder what %age of marriages that have taken place in the history of the world were ' arranged ' marriages. I think a great many of the Eastern marriages were/are arranged. Who did the arranging if not the parents ? In many cases the couple grew to love each other. In others they grew to despise each other. Still the marriage held for society's sake if nothing else. Our modern notion of romantic love and soul mates is quite new to historical marriages and the fact that poetry was often written about it is an indication that it was rare. What shall we do with all those arranged marriages when it comes to sealings? Now we just close our collective eyes and hope for the best. If in heaven God says to you  " here is a relationship that will be best for you, would you like to enter it ? " , you then have a choice , but it really isn't a Sophie's Choice is it?

[Stargazer]

On 5/3/2017 at 10:13 AM, juliann said:

That was my experience. My SP was a neighbor, he was my advocate. I try to imagine my doing this now when I've only seen the SP in a recommend interview. That letter would be very different, I think. 

I cannot even imagine SLC ignoring the plea and witness of a SP, who has direct stewardship. I'm not discounting the bishop, but I think the SP likely has more authority as he does in all situations. I am certain this is what makes the difference. Nobody can prove anything, of course, but in that sense SLC does "rubber stamp." How could they not...on what basis? That the spiritual leaders who actually know the person involved were both out to lunch when the spirit came by? What additional information could SLC have? A feeling? They wouldn't have any additional information unless we are going to move this up to revelation. There are enough of these things pouring in that they are signed by writing machines. 

So if everything is in place, the rules and criteria met, and it is refused. I would lay it at the feet of the SP. 

I don't have a lot of direct experience with this, but I have gotten the impression that despite the fact that the SP exercises presiding authority in the stake, the ward bishop has a great deal more authority within his ward than the stake president does.  In my time as a branch president, we had a disciplinary council whose outcome the SP was very dismayed at.  The decision was far more lenient than he expected.  Yet he let it stand (after telling me he had to pray about it).  

[Stargazer]

On 5/3/2017 at 11:44 AM, rongo said:

He had forged a version of the state web site to make it look like he had been paying! Needless to say, the SP found that very interesting.  

As a retired web programmer, I am impressed at the skill this man demonstrates!  And also impressed at his deliberate lie!

I think I could pull off something like that -- especially if the SP didn't ask to see me actually log in to a live website.  But even if he did ask -- it would be a nice challenge, and makes my hacker instincts all a-quiver!

[JAHS]

A sealing is like us doing baptisms for the dead. The dead can accept or reject it. The same with a sealing. If it is not sealed by the holy spirit of promise it can become invalid. Two people who do not love or accept each other in this life will not have their marriage sealed by the holy spirit of promise.  But anything can happen in the spirit world or during the millennium. Perhaps hearts can change and a sealing can be made valid again. 

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

A sealing is like us doing baptisms for the dead. The dead can accept or reject it. The same with a sealing. If it is not sealed by the holy spirit of promise it can become invalid. Two people who do not love or accept each other in this life will not have their marriage sealed by the holy spirit of promise.  But anything can happen in the spirit world or during the millennium. Perhaps hearts can change and a sealing can be made valid again. 

We talk about this a lot.  And it's true.
What we never seem to talk about is that God and Christ also has the option to accept or reject any ordinance or covenant made in his name.
Just because we seal (or loose for that matter) something doesn't make it valid if it's wrong.

[Thinking]

On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 at 1:53 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

figured out in the next life.

IMO this phrase is used way too much in attempting to explain what is difficult or impossible to explain.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Thinking