194th Annual General Conference

[Stargazer]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:27 PM, Calm said:

Ward Radio comes across to me the few times I have watched it as shock jocks and therefore, I have a hard time taking their descriptions of others seriously.  Perhaps just link to what you see as push back instead of letting others define what is push back for you?

I've tried to watch Ward Radio a few times, but their approach just doesn't appeal to me. 

[Stargazer]

On 4/12/2024 at 11:32 PM, MustardSeed said:

I think that was an easy prediction! 

If my husband leaves me and we get divorced, he can marry again in the temple eventually.  I cannot under any circumstance unless I am granted a temple unsealing by strangers who do not know me.  That  reality has put a lot of young newly single women in a very difficult category as undateable in our church.  That’s not the only challenge.  If a young single woman is sealed, her husband leaves her, and she remarries, she cannot get re sealed and the children she has with her new husband will be automatically sealed to the first husband.  That seems painful to me..  I think anyone touched by these realities would have something to say following this talk.  HE MAY BE CORRECT but there will be things people will say.  Of course.   

I know a woman who had to move heaven and earth to have her sealing broken,  by men who knew nothing of her absolute heartache in her marriage.  Women are not given many rights to those types of decisions for themselves., even though we are the ones that have ALLLLLLLL the information.   

Actually, a man must get a sealing clearance before being sealed to a subsequent spouse, unless his previous wife is deceased. A sealing clearance doesn't terminate the sealing, but is a permission to be sealed to a subsequent spouse after a divorce. According to the handbook, both sealing clearance and cancellation have the same requirements. So, yes, if you and your husband were to divorce, yes, he could be sealed in the temple to another woman, but he would have to jump through the same hoops you would have to jump through. That info is in the online handbook.

At least that is the current procedure. As far as I am aware, the requirement for a sealing clearance for a man has been a requirement for at least many decades. For the complete set of policies about this see the handbook section "38.4 Sealing Policies".

 

[Stargazer]

Elder D. Todd Christopherson's talk was really good. And it tied in really well with President Oak's talk in the October 2023 conference. Which Elder Christopherson referenced. The two talks together give an excellent overview of the Plan of Salvation, extending well into post-resurrection matters. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Actually, a man must get a sealing clearance before being sealed to a subsequent spouse, unless his previous wife is deceased. A sealing clearance doesn't terminate the sealing, but is a permission to be sealed to a subsequent spouse after a divorce. According to the handbook, both sealing clearance and cancellation have the same requirements. So, yes, if you and your husband were to divorce, yes, he could be sealed in the temple to another woman, but he would have to jump through the same hoops you would have to jump through. That info is in the online handbook.

At least that is the current procedure. As far as I am aware, the requirement for a sealing clearance for a man has been a requirement for at least many decades. For the complete set of policies about this see the handbook section "38.4 Sealing Policies".

 

Mid 90s iirc. My exbrother in law slid under the closing door to get another temple marriage when there is a chance it would have gotten denied as they were divorced for abuse, though he denied it and claimed she abused him (she kicked him in her sleep, plmd runs in the family) so who knows. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

According to the handbook, both sealing clearance and cancellation have the same requirements.

Not really since what the man wants to do is get married and the woman wants to get unmarried. The clearance will most likely happen anytime a worthy man wishes to remarry, but a worthy woman can’t do it anytime she wants to cut the tie. Most women who are not getting remarried will be denied the option. She has to get an understanding bishop or be getting remarried herself. 
 

Iow, the hoops may be the same, but the likelihood of yea is much higher for a man than a woman who wants it right away, when the kids are grown and understand her pov better or anytime besides marriage. 

Edited April 17, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really since what the man wants to do is get married and the woman wants to get unmarried. The clearance will most likely happen anytime a worthy man wishes to remarry, but a worthy woman can’t do it anytime she wants to cut the tie. Most women who are not getting remarried will be denied the option. She has to get an understanding bishop or be getting remarried herself. 

This may have been the case before (I'm not sure about the history of it), but it is not the case now. From Handbook section 38.4.1.4:

Applying for a Sealing Cancellation or a Sealing Clearance
Members of either gender may seek a sealing cancellation even if they are not preparing to be sealed to another spouse. A male Church member must receive a sealing clearance to be sealed to another woman after a divorce. (emphasis added)

Admittedly, bishops and stake presidents remain gatekeepers to the First Presidency for the submission of these kinds of requests, but how else can it be done? They, at least, tend to know both parties and the circumstances involved. 

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Iow, the hoops may be the same, but the likelihood of yea is much higher for a man than a woman who wants it right away, when the kids are grown and understand her pov better or anytime besides marriage. 

I am not as certain as you are that the likelihood of yea is higher for a man. I suppose that a sealing clearance, as opposed to a sealing cancellation, could be seen as less fraught with finality, and so from a certain point of view be easier to grant. But were I the authority, I would not regard one as more equal than the other. But that's me.

My experience with the subject has three incidents. My late wife was sealed to a man who divorced her. When it came time for us to marry, her cancellation seemed to have been approved without much delay. Her ex had been excommunicated by that point, and never rejoined the church. My current wife's first husband was a real piece of work, and they divorced. Their sealing cancellation went through without any holdups, too. There was a situation in my old ward when two couples divorced, mainly because one cross-couple fell in love with each other. No hanky-panky was involved, and so there were no repercussions from that avenue, and later they were married and then sealed to each other. Sealing cancellation and clearance, with no seeming difficulties in either case.

That last situation was ... problematic ... at the very least. In my personal opinion, they were in spiritual but not literal violation of the law of chastity. Will that sealing be confirmed by the spirit in the end? Don't know, and am glad nobody has appointed me the arbiter of such things.

I don't have access to information about the forms that need to be filled out to do either action, but I'm curious and will speak with my bishop to find out what all is required, so I know what is what. If I get any interesting information I'll post it.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

bishops and stake presidents remain gatekeepers to the First Presidency for the submission of these kinds of requests, but how else can it be done?

Do it automatically if one of the persons insists.

Would we ever say it was appropriate to force someone to stay in a marriage they wanted out of?

Edited April 18, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:11 AM, Calm said:

Do it automatically if one of the persons insists.

Would we ever say it was appropriate to force someone to stay in a marriage they wanted out of?

I agree, actually.