Leaderboard

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/12/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-happens-when-a-couple-gets-a-temple-divorce?lang=eng M.

If you had been brought up in England and your family was not particularly anti-monarchy then you would get it. To "Middle England" (by which I mean the conservative middle and upper-working classes) the royals are seen as a kind of extended family. People gossip/winge about them in the same sort of way they do about Uncle Jim or Aunt Jenny. (Right now Prince Andrew is the "disgraceful uncle" who's brought embarrassment on the rest of the family.) As a kid, listening to the way grown-ups talked about the royals, I sometimes vaguely felt they really were our relatives.

A question to think about, where is Zion these days? I would not say it is Salt Lake City. It has many members, but it also has a great deal who are VERY opposed to the church. I'd say the most stringently opposed and strongest contingent of those who directly oppose the Church (as opposed to simply might teach against joining it or otherwise) are in what some would call the Mormon Belt of the United States. I do not think that most people outside of that area even really care if one is a Mormon or not if they are not highly religious. On the otherhand, if they ARE in that area, it could become an issue fare more than elsewhere. In that light, where is the Zion which they will flee to, or is it figurative. If it is figurative than how will this operate in creating safety? A reimplementation of the Law of Consecration and the United Order where all those who are Members own nothing but contribute in their assigned jobs (and work and jobs were in many instances assigned) and receive as according to their needs, each in the area of their ward or stake as needed...or something else?

That's a very interesting thought, but also very odd in other ways. Most of that territory you are discussing was obtained by treaty. Thus, legally, one could argue that the territory thus was granted or given by treaty and legal treatise. However, the ethics of it could also be called into question, that when a treaty is signed under duress or under lack of ability and knowledge, is the treaty legal? The US would say that it IS legal in that they can obtain that which is legally given. However, the next thought is whether the inhabitants even had the ability to give land that they themselves claimed was not theirs to give...OR, in other instances had been claimed by them without giving the other parties or inhabitants the process to object or deny such claim? The Utah territory could be seen as both claimed by parties by force or by withholding the ability of objection to the parties that controlled that land, OR, later, by treaty to those that were under ignorance or force, OR, later...by treaty between those that claimed these lands in giving it to the US (by force one could claim). On the otherhand, when ever land is ceded by treaty ending a conflict or war, that treaty is in most instances seen as binding. A question not asked by you, but could be raised, is if the original parties ceding the land never truly legally obtained it by treaty but instead by claim and force...could they legally cede that land away again to another party that forced them to do so by treaty? I would not say it is so much as class that gave them the ideas that they legally had hold of the land, but more of force and the ability to enforce treaties of claim.

Public Christmas decorations are a pale shadow of what they used to be, because everyone is terrified of "offending" people who are not Christians. (Not that most actual Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddists and Sikhs ever are offended by them - they know that although they do live here, this is still a Christian country. It's a bunch of virtue-signalling tub-thumpers who want to make a name for themselves by demanding "inclusivity" and the kind of "tolerance" that never tolerates anything but itself.) (Yes I know that's nothing to do with employers refusing to employ Christians. I was just doing a bit of tangentially-relevant tub-thumping of my own.) But having said that, what about your man Ken Ham and his replica "Noah's Ark" in Kentucky? He refuses to employ anyone but Christians. (And when Ken Ham uses the word "Christian" he's not referring to you or me!)

It reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.. The protagonist (a fictionalized Lewis) has a dream of arriving in Heaven, where he meets his literary hero George Macdonald. While they are talking, a lady approaches them: We learn as the story goes on that Sarah Smith was a very ordinary housewife who was kind to everyone. Every boy felt like a son to her, and every girl a daughter. In our world she was a nobody, but in Heaven she is one of the "great ones".

Well, it appears that no one understands it well enough to explain it. I understand the marriage covenant. That's pretty straight forward. I believe being born in the covenant entitles the children to the same blessings that the parents have through the parents, so I assume that being sealed does the same thing in that regard. A temple marriage should be unbroken and dependable. I believe it is the ideal model of what a family should have... a father and mother who works together for the salvation of their children as well as their own. But the sealing is also genealogical, connecting the family of Adam to the family of God, parents to children down through all the generations of time. This latter sealing cannot be broken even by divorce. It is the same as blood relations. The natural parents of a child will always be the parents of that child regardless of whether or not they stay married. Divorce makes this extremely complicated and thus it is not ideal. For example, I have two stepchildren. I am not biologically related to either even though they refer to me as one of their parents. Having them sealed to me would effectively make me their parent spiritually which, I'm guessing, is as effective as a biological connection. My confusion and concern was about what happens when that spiritual connection is broken between husband and wife. From my statement, it appears that it would be the same as a biological connection between natural parents and children after divorce. They are both still the parents of the children even though the parents are not together. That being said, the children could obtain a new set of spiritual parents, if, for example, the wife married another man in the temple and had the children sealed to them. That would be discomforting. This, of course, complicates matters even more. I think it best to follow Pres Oaks' recommendation that we lean not unto our own understanding. For now, I'm happy with inaction pending further light and knowledge.

Happy Thanksgiving Folks.

Isn't it great that they will all have the opportunity to fully embrace Him, even after death?

Wish me luck! I'm off to inform the missus that I've formally adopted this title for domestic use.