its_Chet

With respect, I couldn't agree less. First, we have to remember the nature of the environment. It's Temple Square. Not downtown San Francisco. Not Greenwich Village. There is a strong sense of what is acceptable and what is not in certain communities, and common sense will tell anyone what it is. Second, a peck on the cheek between a hetero couple is not the same thing as a peck on the cheek between a homo couple. The majority of the people who come to Temple Square inherently know this. Personally, my opinion is that if the homo couple had smeared dog poo all over faces, it would have been less gross than what they did. The Church has a right to ask that people not do disgusting things on its private property. The purpose of Temple Square is to provide an environment in the heart of the global LDS community for people to learn more about it and see its beauty. This is not done when people are behaving in a way that suggests they are filming the next Jack@&! or CKY movie. Third, if common sense is to be shown the door, and we decide we're going to split legal hairs over this, there is such a thing as disturbing the peace. If I went to downtown Berkeley with a bullhorn, and started reading scriptures at the top of my voice, I'm pretty sure at some point I would provoke a violent reaction. And I'd have nobody to blame but myself. Common sense would have told me to expect that. If I choose to be that insensitive of the community's sensibilities, and I provoke that communty's wrath, what happens next is my fault. If I'm not smart enough to understand that, it shouldn't keep local law enforcement or private security firms from demanding that I cease and desist. If they failed to do so, there could eventually be a riot. Of course, the citizens of Salt Lake City are not prone to riot when persecuted, but I hardly think that should count against the Church when they seek to put down a disturbance of the peace. I'm glad the Church did that. It has shown an abundance of tolerance for malcontents over the years, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Guilty as charged. Man was I embarrassed. And therein lies the difference. It's only now, years later, on an internet forum with at least some measure of anonymity, that I'm comfortable talking about it. I felt like such an idiot at the time, and still consider it to be one of my "least proud" moments. What I did was I quickly and sheepishly darted out of there after apologizing. What I didn't do was bang a drum in public about what unfair treatment I'd received and demand that the public accept my behavior. I was embarrassed about my behavior. Common sense would have told these two malcontents not to do what they did. Their behavior after the act, to me, proves they had an agenda.

I believe it was Henry Eyering who said that the great thing about the Church is that we only have to believe what's true. Sounds simplistic, but the underlying point is a valid one. We don't paint the truth with theories and interpretations, at least not outside of theoretical discussions between friends. I believe that God made Adam and Eve in His own image. Exactly how, I don't know. I don't believe He made them to look like cavemen or monkeys. I believe that every human being is a descendant of Adam and Eve. I believe they looked just like us, and that we, as His children, look just like God. Beyond that, I can only speculate. If the theory of evolution, contrary to everything I've ever been told, does not attempt to challenge these irrefutable facts contained in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is itself the ultimate truth, then I see no reason why it's not at least a possibility. That would of necessity mean that it does not challenge the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The mistake some people make is to assume that their interpretation of the Gospel is the Gospel itself.

I started out as a Thompson supporter. Then I found myself favoring Huckabee. Then I saw what Huckabee thought of my faith, and got the impression that he would, if elected, at least in some small way, feel justified in using his office to belittle the Church. Then I found out about his participation in the Southern Baptist Convention that was held in Salt Lake City in the late 90s, and that completely turned me off of Huckabee. After that, I gave Romney a second look. I had resisted considering him because I did not want to do the predictable thing and vote for the guy whose religion is the same as mine. Voting for President is more significant than an affirmation of your race, gender, or religion. I also felt uncomfortable with how I perceived he stood for issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. But when I looked into him earnestly, I found him to be something of a centrist, who has conservative views. I got the impression that he governed in Massachussetts as a centrist, putting aside some conservative views in order to serve the peoples' wishes (within reason). I also saw that on some issues, his views had began leaning more to the right than before, such as abortion. Some have called it a flip flop, I call it changing your mind after further thought. We're all entitled to do that. Sure the timing is suspicious, but I felt impressed to overlook that. Then I read about Romney's academic accomplishments. Graduating from Harvard Business and law simultaneously, and with honors in both. That's no easy task. This guy's got brains. Then I read about the time one of his business partner's daughter ran away from home, and how Romney moved his company from Massachussetts to New York, and had all the employees spend all their time putting up flyers and looking for her instead of working. I read that he lost millions in revenue while they did that. Eventually they found the girl. This guy's got a heart and soul. Then I read his speech he gave on religion. I believe it was the same one that Bytor has linked in a previous post. That speech impressed me very much, and I have been a Romney die hard supporter ever since. Enough with the unscrupulous liars. Enough with the perhaps well intentioned people seeking on the job training in the oval office. Let's elect someone who has it all, brains, morals, and a heart! Romney for President!

That's a good point. I believe that when we make it to the other side of the veil, things will be so different for us that should we learn something about the Gospel that might make us uncomfortable right now, on the other side of the veil we will be better able to handle it. This much I know: people who have reported visions, out of body experiences, etc., commonly report a profoundly increased ability to understand what is not observable with our five senses. For example, I heard of a woman whose furnace began leaking carbon monoxide into her home, and she had an out of body experience as a result. She looked around the house and almost instantly realized somehow what was going on. She returned to her body and managed to get a window open, got enough fresh air to give her the strength she needed, and began carrying her family members out of the house, saving their lives. I'm convinced that on the other side of the veil, we will be able to shed our superstitions, societal conventions, and preconceived ideas, and find it easier to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ more fully than we are able to in this life. I get excited when I wonder what will then be revealed to us. I look to that time in my existence with anticipation, for what I will be able to learn. Things will be different there. We will be better able to understand them though.

I don't recall who said it, and I don't have the exact quote, but I remember in recent years a General Authority plainly stated that one wife is enough for a man to have and make it to the Celestial Kingdom. I do believe that there are people who have passed on without having a proper chance to marry, and that they will be given a spouse on the other side of the veil. I believe there are people whose spouses will not be worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom, and that, rather than leaving the Celestial spouse high and dry, Heavenly Father will give them a spouse. It may be that in some of those cases Heavenly Father might assign a woman to a man who already has one or more wives. It's not impossible. But I think enough men have died without getting married that it shouldn't be considered a common scenario. I believe it would happen just like Just_a_Guy says: the idea would be discussed between the man and whatever wives or wife he already has, and the woman's consent would be necessary. For that matter, so would the man's. Anyway, that's my understanding of how it has worked on this side of the veil, and I see no reason why it would be different on the other side. But like I heard the General Authority say, "one wife is enough".

Awesome Hemidakota! Thanks a bunch!!

So many great people have already posted here, I can't believe nobody's said this yet. I would take this as an opportunity to teach your children about some of the beauty of our religion. The SBC makes occasional trips to Salt Lake City where they have a convention, hand out anti-Mormon literature, and make what we might consider feeble attempts at proselytizing. They are probably responsible for more anti-Mormon propaganda these days than any other organization. You'll never find pamphlets in an LDS Church that describe how evil another religion is, but I saw them when I used to go to Church of Christ. Our missionaries don't make the ridiculing and derision of other faiths a part of their teaching, but I've seen on various denominations’ official websites all kinds of that type of thing directed right at us. When a Protestant Church in Salt Lake City (can't remember which one) was about to have to close its doors because it was out of money, the Church stepped in and donated money to it. This may be because the Church knows how it feels to teeter on the financial brink, as a result of mobocracy driving innocent Saints out of their homes and Temples time and again. Joseph Smith once said "The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves." Contrast this with the story I heard from a member of my ward who said that during his mission two missionaries in a nearby area were dragged from their beds in the middle of the night and one of them was nearly beaten to death, and this was in a supposedly "civilized" country. Even in our own country, Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered by a mob that was partly composed of ministers of Protestant sects, and we've already seen Joseph's attitude toward those of other religions. I say this not to boast of how much "better" we are, but I make no apologies for the supremacy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the marvelous effect it has on the soul, or my testimony that it has been correctly taught in this dispensation only through the ministry of Joseph Smith Jr., those he ordained, and their successors. In other words, the Church is true, and by its fruits will you know it. And while the Church teaches the reality that there is one God we worship, and thus one true religion, we also teach that every last one of Heavenly Father's children will be given the chance to hear it and accept it before being judged. And the Church also teaches that rather than "going to hell", those who refuse to accept the Gospel when they have had a proper chance (according to God's terms), will be assigned to a lower kingdom that could in a way still be considered part of Heaven. And the Church teaches that we will be judged for what we have done, good or bad. We will be accountable for our own sins, rather than admitted to the Celestial Kingdom on the simple basis of membership in the Church. And the Church teaches that our fate is not set in stone, that if we wish to shed our sins and draw near to Heavenly Father, we can repent and cleanse ourselves from the blood of this generation. I am as far from ashamed as one can be of the Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. We teach, believe, and know such beautiful things. I would remind your daughter of them, and encourage her to view persecution as a sign of the Church's authenticity. Persecution is not the hallmark of a Prophet of God. The leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn't engage in that behavior. This is how your daughter can know that she is where she needs to be. I don't know if it will be enough to comfort her at her age, but I'd give it a try. If you're interested in diplomacy, you might tell your neighbor that you and your daughter were unaware the hymn would be found offensive to them and that you have instructed her to not sing hymns on their property ever again. If they're reasonable people, I think this will cause them to quietly reflect in a moment of private introspection at some later point in time. At least it might get them to ease off the defensiveness a bit. In the end, persecution is something we have to be willing to endure, if it is permitted to measure our faith. In such circumstances we must do all we can to see that our faith measures up.

I'm comfortable defining myself as a Christian. The way I see it, that term fits us in the Church of Jesus Christ better than it fits any other religion. By the simple virtue of our doctrine, we know Him better than virtually anyone outside the Church. I don't say that to boast, but the better we understand the character and nature of Heavenly Father and the Savior, the better we can serve Them and know Their will. The way I see it, the true Church of Jesus Christ was taken from the earth due to apostasy in the last dispensation (as with every dispensation before), and every "Christian" religion that has come along since has claimed authority it does not have. While I don't begrudge them for considering themselves Christians, I believe the Saints of any dispensation have first right to the title "Christian". I think it's something we share with them, rather than something they might share with us. When someone asks me if I'm a Christian, I respond in the affirmative without any hesitation. They usually ask me next which Church I go to, obviously expecting me to name a Protestant denomination or perhaps Catholicism (some Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians). To that I respond "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A lot of people assume it's a Protestant Church they never heard of. I suppose some might consider this to be deceptive. Though my answers are all true, they may not be 100% forthcoming. I choose to disregard the superstitions and misconceptions that divide us. I don't claim to not be a Christian because I genuinely consider myself to be one. I say "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" because I prefer that over "Mormon". Mormon was the name of at least two Prophets we know of, as well as a body of water which was used for baptism in or near the land of Nephi, and of course there is the Book of Mormon, so named by Moroni, in honor of his father, who abridged it from the records that had come before. There is no dishonor in the name Mormon, but to use it as a religious term, to me, is belittling to the Savior, who commanded that the Church should be named after Him. Plus, the term "Mormons" is mostly the result of those who scorned the Church in the early days of this dispensation, and I have no wish to validate that. If, in a conversation with someone, they can accept me as a Christian, I suspect they are at least slightly more inclined to accept or at least tolerate my beliefs. At least they'll know that's how I see myself: Christian. If they want to argue against that, they'll have to come up with something rather than just silently rest upon their own prejudice and assumption. Regardless, my testimony bares out that I am a Christian in the true sense of the word.

I haven't read much of Hugh Nibley's stuff. Mostly I've seen him in BYU programming. Listening to him can be difficult, but only because he has such a vast wealth of intelligence and tries to express it in such compressed periods of time. It's kind of like hooking a talking doll up to a car battery. I think I'd greatly benefit from reading what the man had to say rather than hearing it. I hear that's just the way the man was, that he was just driven to learn and study like that, and it comes out in how he tries to teach, very rapidly. I read and enjoyed his critique on Fawn Brodie's anti-Mormon book, which reminds me; I've never heard of Hugh Nibley described as a critic of the Church until now. I've heard him called an LDS apologist, but never a critic. Could it be that maybe he didn't shy away from things that tend to challenge the faith of weaker people? I've heard B.H. Roberts was like that. Is that the case? Of course, in the end, all that really matters is our testimony, and if we have one, unanswered questions can wait. If we don't have one, the answers don't matter anyway.

This headline very quickly caught my attention, and here's why: Years ago, when my wife and I were still courting within the frame of a long distance relationship, we met up in Salt Lake City on one of our get togethers, and went to Temple Square, which I do every chance I get. We were sitting in the Tabernacle, and kind of forgot about everything else around us. I'll just say it, we were kissing for some time. Next thing I know, a sister missionary was sitting in front of asking us to take it outside because they were trying to share the Gospel with some visitors to Temple Square, who were staring at us. She was VERY tactful and polite, and I was VERY embarrassed. I don't know if I apologized enough, but I tried. Color me naive, but my first thought when I saw the headline was that it was hetero kissing. I was just remarking to my sister in law yesterday how I came across a blog written by a member of the LAPD, who is also a member of the Church. He says that he was part of a team that was stationed near the LA Temple during the protests, to make sure it didn't become a riot. He was with a group of police who were watching the protest and one of his group said "I hope they jump the fence and burn that place down." Yes, that was a member of the LAPD who said that. I suppose nothing should be shocking now. But for me it is. PS: Hats off to PrisonChaplain, he nailed it.

I don't have to explain any further, but in order to be properly understood it would be necessary. It's only unnecessary because I'm dropping it.

I revised my last post to you four or five times before posting it. I can see now that I should have revised it another four or five times still. Sorry about that. Some points just don't come across very well in print, I guess. At least that's my experience. Your last post was absolutely correct, with the points you raised about the value of women. I certainly don't want to sound mysogynistic or bitter without reason, and I can see now how I might have. Don't take it the wrong way if I don't try again to better explain my situation. I'm dropping this issue, and I think we're all going to be better off as a result. God bless

I obviously have not explained the situation adequately. Of course, now I'd rather not, seeing how well it's worked out so far. I hope you'll understand. I was only trying to express approval and support for something positive that was said, and illustrate the need for that kind of opinion. Not my finest hour, but my point, when correctly understood, is very much a valid one. I'll leave it at that.

You might have misuderstood me. I did acknowledge that Prophets are just men, and are imperfect. But if I have to err, I'd rather err on the side of thinking more of them than I should rather than less. You've been through the Temple, right? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. I'm not knocking anyone outside the Church. I used to be outside the Church. Almost all my relatives are outside the Church. I just didn't want to get as close to a particular line as this thread was heading. Still not comfortable going there.

Interesting point you raise about restitution. And a valid one, no doubt. I find myself wondering, "Did forgiveness come because the Savior knew the restitution would follow? If He knew it would not follow, would He have forgiven then?" Who knows? Not me. Do you really think RealDeseret's holding a grudge? I can't say one way or the other, but I get the impression that he just wants his wife back. Of course it's obviously not going to happen, and he'll be happier when he accepts that, and he'll certainly be happier if he relies on the Savior to take that pain away, but I have a hard time finding any room to blame him. Not that you mean to do so. It still strikes me as odd to applaud the supposed (perhaps reasonably so) repentance of his wife, yet consider him at fault for not getting over it. Not to be critical of you, that is. I don't know the whole story, and I'm finding my opinion to be less credible in light of such good points from everyone else, especially Margin and Rameumpton. I'm going to defer now.

Consider yourself cordially invited to find out what you're talking about first, and criticize me second. You never know when that high horse of yours is going to buck. You don't know me, you don't know my wife, you don't know our situation. You don't know who's forgiven who for what and when. There's much you don't know. Spare us the pontificating. If you insist on throwing stones, improve your aim first.

Thanks for the perspective Margin. You brought a lot to the table that it had been lacking. I can't argue with a Bishop and Stake President's stamp of approval by participating in this. But it sure is cold, to just send the guy the form like that. I repeat that we don't know the whole story (which is just as good a case for us not knowing if the ex-wife has truly repented as it is that we don't know that she hasn't). We don't know if any olive branches were ever extended to RealDeseret, but I would loudly proclaim that he deserves them. If I were his ex-wife's Bishop, I would personally come to RealDeseret's house and visit with him about this. I'd explain to him, if it were indeed the case, everything you've mentioned. I'd make it absolutely, crystal clear that she is not getting off scott free for ruining his life up to this point, that she had genuinely repented (again, assuming that is in fact the case), and above all, I'd offer him all the consolation and sympathy I have to give, and any help in letting go that I could. I would do all I could to see to it that he is not made to bare the consequences of her mistake while she gets everything she wants as though she did nothing wrong. What a slap in the face! Would support for RealDeseret be more his Bishop's jurisdiction than her Bishop's? Absolutely, but if I had my fingerprints on this train wreck, you can bet your garments I'd want to do everything possible to comfort the man, to let him know that just because his ex-wife's Bishop and Stake President have decided that she is eligible to have her first sealing revoked, it doesn't mean that they in any way blame him, or feel that his marriage is not sacred. If we heard his ex-wife's side of this, maybe she'd say that she's tried to apologize to him, that she's tried to tell him that she just doesn't have it in her to love him the way he deserves to be loved, and that while she has matured and repented to the best of her ability, she still feels so profoundly incompatible with him that it would not be in the interest of either one of them for them to get back together. We don't know the whole story, so maybe she's done this. If she hasn't, I'll bet you my right kidney that her repentance is incomplete, regardless of what she's gotten her Bishop and Stake President to believe. Given their level of involvement in this, as Margin suggests, I would have to assume that they know something we don't. Bottom line, RealDeseret needs to not be made to pay the price for his ex-wife abandoning him and if she has genuinely repented, than she will have made some sincere and compelling effort to apologize to him, even if she can't find it in herself to return to him. She made the mistake. RealDeseret should not be the one to pay the price for it. Before I congratulate his ex-wife on her repentance, I will first be convinced that he has been shown the consideration in this matter that he deserves.

No offense, but the fallibility of a Prophet is a hard sell with us. True they are mortal men and imperfect, but we know they'd be removed out of their place if they tried to lead us astray. We also believe that the Savior prefers to reveal His will through a Prophet whenever possible.

True, but our repentance is a necessary factor in that equation. Without it, we cannot expect to be forgiven. The mistake many people make is to assume that membership in the "right club" or mere acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is sufficient. It's only the beginning. Repentance is an undeniable part of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. We owe it to Him, given what He had so suffer on our behalf, to do all we can to make amends with those we harm. And how can we have charity if we do not? I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Just wanted to make sure we're clear on how incredibly essential repentance is.

It's not in mine. Sounds like what you're going through right now is questions are being raised so that you can get the knowledge you've been promised. And I mean true knowledge, about how some of the seemingly "bad" things that have happened in Church History, when you dig deep enough, have an explanation that will allow you to retain your testimony. Kind of like when we learn that at least some of the plural marriages performed in the 1830s and 1840s were platonic and strictly for Celestially dynastic purposes. I've found that there's always an explanation behind everything. Sounds to me like the reason this is all happening is to refine your testimony, to try it by fire. You're suffering life's disappointments, you're being harshly treated by members of the Church in leadership positions, and you're being tempted to give credence to the miscalculations, lies, and misunderstandings of the critics of the Church. I'd hate to have to deal with all of that at the same time, and I'm sure you deserve consideration for it, in spite of the incorrectness of such criticisms. But I'm thinking that if you can remember how it feels to have the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and all the other blessings that the Gospel of Jesus Christ brings you, and to know that it's because you're a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ, which was restored through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith Jr. (thereby marking him and all his successors as true Prophets of God), then when the trials come, you'll have faith strong enough to endure. So it may hurt if your EQ President is unsympathetic and uncaring, or if your Bishop and Stake Pres don't seem to have the patience to help you out of this situation instead of reinforcing the negative ideas you're having about the Church, at least you can remember that the Gospel is true, and your relationship with God will not suffer. In the final words of David W. Patten, "Whatever you do else, Oh do not deny the faith." Also, I'm thinking that your Patriarchal Blessing is giving you notice that perhaps you may in the future be called to serve in a leadership position. I know it doesn't come right out and say that, but I infer the distinct possibility. Anyhow, given your experiences with your EQ Pres and others, you'd be well trained on how to succor the needs of those you serve, having seen how NOT to do it. You'll have a keen understanding how it feels when someone in a leadership position doesn't have sufficient empathy for others. You'll also learn how to help people who are losing their testimony, because you'll have passed through that fire and come out in one piece. You'll know how to answer the questions, how to reinforce the weakened faith. But most important, you'll know how to do it with genuine kindness and love, because you'll know what needs to be done and how it feels when it's not done that way. I know this may sound unreasonable, or like I'm simplifying something that is actually very difficult, but I strongly encourage you to avoid being critical of those that have been called to serve in leadership positions. I don't know if you've been through the Temple yet or not, but we are taught in the Temple that "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed" is very serious business and something we really want to avoid doing. That's not to say that imperfect people don't get called as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc. I've heard lots and lots of stories about such a thing. But if we allow the imperfect actions of an individual to represent, for us, the entire Church and the Gospel that only it teaches, then we stand in danger of cutting the threads that link us to God, as well as anyone else to whom we might confide our doubts. This has very harmful consequences for us in the next world. I can't claim to know how it feels to have an insensitive or errant Bishop or Stake President, but I hope if I did, I could continue to feel as I do now. And the way I feel is that I am unwilling to let the flaws of another person cause me to harm myself. I will not start flirting with women at work if my wife hurts my feelings, for example. That would only be punishing me for what she did to me. If revenge is that important to me, why would I inflict the damage upon myself? That's what I would effectively be doing in such a situation, despite the illusion of temporary comfort. Never hurt yourself. Never harm your own testimony. Stay as far as you can from the writings of those who are critical of the Church. They are all either unfamiliar with what they claim to understand, or partly so, or they do understand and they're lying. They're all misled, and regardless of their intentions, are misleading others. Sounds like you've got reserves of spiritual strength. Build on that, friend. Build your testimony with the help of the Holy Spirit. Seek after peace and confidence, and any other manifestations of the Holy Spirit that you have encountered in your life when things were going right and made sense. Avoid anything, no matter how harmless it may appear (like, for the time being, the official History of the Church), if it brings you doubt, depression, anxiety, nervousness, creepiness, emptiness, fear, or anger. The Holy Spirit will lead you in the right way for you, which ultimately will be the “iron rod”, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed to us through the Apostles, Prophets, and Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Savior has your back. Rise and endure. Be strong. You can do it.

Okay, first thing we all have to do is remember that we don't know all the details of this situation that RealDeseret has told us about. And that is what we're talking about, rather than the hypothetical situations and somewhat similar real life situations that have been mentioned. We're talking about RealDeseret's circumstances. Here's what we know so far: His wife left him, apparently for another man. She initiated and got a civil divorce contrary to his wishes. Now she wants to have their Temple sealing dissolved so she can be sealed to the other guy instead. RealDeseret still wants to be married to her. He tells us he did not break his covenants or abuse her in any way, and we are left to conclude that she left him simply because she got bored, found something "better", or whatever. None of us have the right or the responsibility to judge what should happen here, and none of us know the whole story. Maybe even RealDeseret doesn't know the whole story. Maybe the woman who left him doesn't even know the whole story. All I'm saying is that in this particular situation, it doesn't seem right that a man could be robbed of his wife through no fault of his own, and that is what it sounds like may possibly happen here. If the ex-wife gets RealDeseret's sealing to her revoked, that will satisfy the demands of mercy for her, certainly. And yes, Heavenly Father is a merciful and forgiving God. But what about the demands of justice? We in the Church know that they too must be met, and we know that lip service to the Savior is not sufficient. And furthermore, what about mercy and compassion for RealDeseret? Sadly, I've seen little discussion of that in this thread. Margin of Error makes a good point, inflammatory avatars aside. Sometimes full restitution is not possible. It would be a mistake to assume I did not know that, though it is a valid point that bore mentioning. The question one has to ask is, was an attempt at full restitution made toward RealDeseret? Maybe getting his wife back is impossible at this point, but do we know if that's even been tried (on her part)? I can tell you that based on what I've heard so far, if I were the ex-wife's Priesthood Authority, I would ask her for a VERY good reason why she felt she deserved to be able to have another person's sealing dissolved against his will. I would ask her if she had made any attempt to apologize or reconcile with her first husband. I would ask her if she had tried to heal the pain she has caused him. I don't see in this thread that it seems to matter to anyone but RealDeseret, and that's simply tragic. If judgment were mine, and I'm glad it's not, I would tell the ex-wife that she is free to choose for herself whether or not to marry the other man for time only or reconcile with her first husband, but I'd refuse to dissolve RealDeseret's sealing. After all, given how she's failed to honor her first Temple Marriage, why should she be given another? Again, based on what I know so far, it sounds like He's done nothing to warrant having his wife taken from him. And that said, it sounds like no matter what happens, RealDeseret is going to have to look for another wife. He deserves better than what he's gotten so far, and it doesn't look like his ex-wife is even sorry for the pain she's caused him, much less willing to remedy it. Regardless of what happens, RealDeseret is going to have to start all over again, and find someone who will treat him right and honor a Temple Sealing to him. Maybe the ex-wife has fully repented and maybe she hasn't. I cannot say and neither can anyone else here in this thread. But if she has fully repented, than that would of necessity mean that she has done all within her ability to make things right by RealDeseret, that she has tried to heal the pain she has caused him, and that she has at least considered returning to him. There is no place in the laws and ordinances of the Gospel for flaking on your spouse in the way it appears that RealDeseret’s ex-wife did. If she has thought long and carefully about returning to him and realized that she just doesn't have it in her to love him the way he deserves to be loved, through no fault of her own, than it's entirely possible that she could have fully repented without returning to him. One would hope she would explain this to him if that were the case. I would caution anyone against dismissing her obligation to honor her Temple covenants. Some might say “the heart wants what the heart wants”, but that is generally the cop out of those who don’t regard the law of chastity. On the other hand, I’ve heard a General Authority say in General Conference that you should not only pray to marry a spouse you will love, but to love the spouse you marry. Again, we don't know the whole story here, and none of us are fit to judge. RealDeseret, you have my utmost sympathy. I hope you find someone else to treat you the way you deserve to be treated, because I don't think your ex-wife will ever do that. I'm confident that there's a different woman out there somewhere who will make you happier than your ex-wife ever could. You'll be in my prayers. You may have to let your ex-wife go, not because she deserves to be free to be sealed to another man, but because you deserve to be free of someone who cares so little about the pain she’s caused you. If you do let her go, it will be your reward, not hers. She will still answer for what she’s done to you, if she hasn’t yet. You can’t make her love you. Heavenly Father can’t even make people love Him. It’s not your fault. If she gets her way, it doesn’t mean you did something wrong. In the end, you WILL come out ahead.

As a convert, I think I can explain to you where this guy is coming from. Not that you need to adapt to it, mind you. Just to explain some things that are not normally obvious to someone who is born and raised in the Church. Most Protestants view the Bible as being so inerrant that they believe every last tidbit of information imaginable that God wants us to know is contained in the New Testament. The fact that your brother's acquaintance disregards the Old Testament is not shocking to me. A lot of Protestants view the Old Testament as little more than a history book (for example, Gideons commonly distribute the New Testament only). They believe that Christ's ministry did away with everything that was considered Gospel in the Old Testament. They mistakenly assume that the Law of Moses fully encapsulated the Gospel up to the day Jesus was baptized. They have no understanding of what a dispensation of the Gospel is, or that there were several of them prior to Christ's dispensation (the previous one). Many Protestants also view the New Testament like directions printed out from mapquest, in that they read each verse, line by line, as if it was originally written in English, contains no metaphors or allegories, and is meant to convey its intended thoughts and message without any participation on the part of the Holy Spirit whatsoever. They believe the Bible can be read the same way one would read a cookbook. You will experience great difficulty convincing the quintessential Protestant that the Bible may have ever been mistranslated, whether intentionally by ancient heretics or accidentally by well meaning scribes, both of which happened. You will experience great difficulty getting the average Protestant to realize that the Scriptures are meant to be read by the power of God, through the Gift of the Holy Spirit, so that their full value and message can be revealed to us through personal revelation. You'll find it next to impossible to convince most Protestants that the ancient Apostles and Seventies who wrote Scripture were at times vaguely referring to doctrines with which their audiences were familiar, but Christianity at large today is not, and therefore, doctrines like baptism for the dead were known to the ancient Saints, even if they did not spell them out in minute detail somewhere in the New Testament. I'd venture to say that most of the whole world, LDS included, is unaware of how the New Testament was compiled, and how many worthy writings by inspired men may have been lost along the way. I do believe that if something was missing from the New Testament, not adequately covered by the Doctrine and Covenants, Old Testament, Pearl of Great Price, or Book of Mormon, and was necessary at this point in time for us to know, God would reveal it to President Monson and the Quorum of the Twelve. I also believe that if we read the scriptures we already have while inspired by the Holy Spirit, we can discover many important things that are not commonly known, even among us LDS. I reiterate that I am a convert. I was born Catholic. I was Protestant for a while. I have nothing but respect for Catholics and Protestants. My differences with them are exclusively doctrinal, and devoid of malice or contempt. I hope nothing I've said would lead anyone to believe otherwise, and I apologize if any non member finds what I've said offensive. I used to be a non member, and am only trying to explain the non member perspective to those who are born in the Church, and find the allegedly unorthodox doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be as natural as the sun and the rain.

Yes, you're absolutely right, but I can't seem to wrap my head around how a person can leave their spouse for someone else and singlehandedly get the sealing revoked, even though the spouse they left still wants to be married to that person. It's like punishing the abandoned spouse for the sins of the one who walked out on them. It's completely backwards to me. RealDeseret says he never abused his wife or failed to honor his Priesthood, yet she bailed on him. She left him for another man. Even if she didn't commit adultery with the other man during the 10 years since she divorced RealDeseret, she might as well have, for all the pain she's caused him. And now she wants to completely finish off what's left of their marriage so she can be free to marry another man? I cannot understand who in their right mind would allow such a thing. I'm sure if you ask the runaway bride she'll tell you she's repented, but how is that possible when RealDeseret still lives alone? Where's his restitution? Shouldn't that be part of the repentance process? If I stole something, I'd fully expect to have to restore it before my repentance was complete. Am I missing something here? I just saw a post like this last week in which the poster admitted that there was more to the story than he let on at first, though it didn't really affect how I believe the story should end. I'd venture to say that the same would apply here, if everything I've heard so far is true. So far you've impressed me, Hemidakota. So don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be testy or trying to argue. But can you explain to me how it could be the will of God for RealDeseret's ex-wife to be granted her request to have their sealing dissolved? Can you explain to me how it's possible she could have repented while RealDeseret's home remains broken? I know repentance is possible, and I know judgment belongs to God, but I am unable to imagine our Heavenly Father rubber stamping the hurt that has been inflicted upon RealDeseret. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that there's a LOT more to the story than we've heard so far.

I suppose there usually is. And I do see your point about the closer the wounder, the greater the wound. I guess both are true for me. When my wife did things that hurt me, it really hurt like the dickens, even though she's never kissed another guy since we got married, or anything beyond that. But I always find it easier to forgive her than someone else. I have an ever burning hatred of the guys she used to mess around with before we met, who stole things that belong to me and can never be replaced. Of course she was a party to that too, but I don't hate her. Maybe men are just too easy. I can't stay mad forever at the woman with whom I share my body and soul. I've tried. Just doesn't work.