Juan_P

Regarding: From another blog (mormon mentality), I found this to be enlightening regarding what it means to be sealed in marriage to someone: #3: Am I sealed to my former spouse? (Capitalization used for emphasis and clarity, not for volume) You are not sealed TO anyone but God. You are sealed WITH your spouse in as far as you are legally married, participated in the sealing ordinance together, honor the covenants you have made AND choose to be with your spouse after you die. Even if you are married and sealed with your spouse, you DO NOT have to be with them in the hereafter—free agency is available to all, all the time. When your divorce is finalized, or covenants are broken, the sealing ordinance as far as your spouse is concerned is no longer valid. You do not covenant TO your spouse, you covenant WITH your spouse. When you and your spouse are no longer together, you are expected to hold your side of the bargain as an individual, which for the most part dribble down to honoring God. Anything covenant that requires a spouse to do (such as procreation) is no more And regarding children: #4: What about the children born in the covenant? Children born in the covenant are sealed with their parents no matter the outcome of the marriage. No child is barred from a parent who has been excommunicated. If either parent remarries, the children are not sealed with the new spouse unless they choose to do so at the age of 18. I guess then if the OP children do stay "sealed' to the wife and her ex due to BIC rules, then they could change that after 18? (Mormon Mentality - Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People » FAQ: Temple Cancellation/Clearance) But then the writer at MM also has some unanswered questions which to me confirms my belief that the church's sealing policies are all over the place and urgently need clarifying; maybe adding a phrase in the CHI "divorce means end of sealing" or something like it since, based on all the worthiness clauses it practically is an end to that sealing.

I personally think you are wrong in your thinking. According to the apostle Paul if the marriage is livable then you shouldn't leave because of the church. Also if she repented, which is probably what you are doubtful of imho, then that's done with. Maybe its that too many people know of her past and she feels out of place in church. Too many do gooders could be her problem too not a lack of testimony. My opinion is that you should work to make your home a heaven today, irrespective of what has happened in the past. Once it is she may well end up pushing you to go to the Temple with her. And also (personally so don't take offence at this) I'd look to see if she still has those, uhm, dancing skills still but to use in one's privacy off course. Swinging or other women would be out of the question off course. But maybe she could teach you a thing or two to spice up your intimacy? just my 2c worth off course. Good luck.

Bishops and counselors have access to Book 1 of the handbook which answers these questions. However to save some time: 1- Yes, if you petition the first presidency after all adoption and other legal paperwork is done or the children are over 21. Takes time though to do. 2- Yes, because sealed or Born in Covenat means the child has the right to eternal parentage but it doesn't necesarily mean that this child will be connected to your husband; worthyness and personal situations will determine who that child forms a family lineage with, and the Lord determines most of this in the next life.

That's correct. Handbook 1 is clear that the member must wait at least a year after rebaptism before requesting restoration of temple blessings, which is sent off to the first presidency. If approved, then an appointment is set up with a general authority, who will probably be an area authority, for the final interview and then the ordinance of restoration is done. After that you start to use garments again. Note that you will have the rebaptism date on your record and the annotation that restoration of blessings is needed until it's done. After the GA performs the restoration church offices in salt lake will delete the re-baptism date and return your record to all the previous dates, that is original baptism and confirmation dates, marriage date if applicable and so on, and there will be no mention of the excommunication or the rebaptism on your record held in a ward.

Given what Jesus taught about divorce I doubt the victim is 'obligated' to work to repair the marriage imho....therefore I agree with you that s/he is not. Remember that adultery also breaks a Temple covenant even before we consider the marriage covenant and D&C speaks of 'buffetings of satan" for persons who do this and later repent fully, all of which makes full reconciliation difficult at best of times. Also I don't think there is a mormon standard with this issue. Although the Handbook does tell leaders to not recommend divorce the Handbook itself isn't a book of commandments nor a book of standards but a guide to show leaders what they 'should' be doing. And Elder Oaks' talk on Divorce from 2004 clearly says "Bishops do not counsel members to divorce" but in the same talk, when addressing members who are already divorced said "When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it." So a Bishop could use either statements in the same interview, ie 'I can't tell you to divorce' .... 'but if your marriage is dead it is needful to have a means to end it'.... However I think the mormon culture is to avoid divorce always because we are so reliant on marriage and especially in teaching celestial or eternal marriage. It is the culminating ordinance in mormonism so it seems that many leaders tend to go as far as possible, sometimes too far, in seeking reconciliation in all cases, even in cases of abuse. Just my impression of mormon culture though....

this is strange. When general authorities come to stake conferences they will usually arrive sat morning, usually need picking up by mission or stake president, and then they actually leave on sunday afternoon for a sunday evening or night flight and they have mondays as their day off. So I don't think there is a rule like that of not travelling on sundays.

My 2cents worth: 1. in geneology they let a wife be sealed to all the husbands she's had during mortality so that the children can be sealed to two parents. Otherwise we would have to choose here who we seal all the children to ie mother and husband No.3 or No.2 or whatever. Presumably she will stay with the first or the one she really wants but that's a later decision she will take in the spirit world which we wont know about here on earth. 2. Rarely approved. She can have the sealing cancelled by the first presidency but I have never known a widow to have her sealing cancelled, even when it was a 26yold who was widowed after 5 weeks at 22. Rarely, if ever, approved by 1st presidency.

To start a new thread you login and go to the main 'Marriage and Relationship Advice' and there click on 'New Thread' and that's it, just type. It's easy to do and always better to start a new thread than continue an old one if the topic changes slightly. About your drama, I would always advice someone to do all they can to try and save the marriage. I'm divorced but the process was rather painful and I wish I could've avoided goning through that. But in your case he has only mentioned it recently so try new things first, go out, dates, special dinners etc to do things together but don't pressure him into anything, and do this before you suggest marriage counseling or talking to the bishop. It may not be a serious situation yet but only about frustration and/or hurt, I don't know off course but starting at the basics maybe the right place to start. best wishes.....john.

Yes, that's technically correct. One should use the set or go without. Only problem for me is that I haven't bought 'wordly' undies like boxer shorts in years.

I consider my garments, as underwear, to be sacred and private so it isn't about shame but about not publishing to the world the fact that I'm wearing these covenant clothing. By the way everyone I work with knows I'm LDS but I really dislike the myths they believe in about 'mormon magical clothing' and such. Plus there are the rashes they cause me during high temperature days, rashes I'd rather avoid. I see you are British. No where else in the world would you swim with garments on. Plus there's the heat factor and the fact that change rooms are public and open so you can't put on the garments without everyone else seeing what you are wearing -it's suppose to be a private and sacred item of clothing We finally agree! yes it is up to me and my conscience plus the Lords judgement and I really don't feel that he has a problem with me, or my stake president, that we take the garments off at home before leaving for the beach when it's a hot summers day.

Yes, really. It was part of the bishop level interview for recommends back around late 90's/early 00's, and we had a page pasted in the recommend folder to not forget to read it. This lasted about 3 years if my memory serves me well. Others who served in bishoprics around those years will surely remember too.

That isn't quite true because if I wear a white shirt or lite colored t-shirt people can see the outlines of the garment around the neck and both arms. Look at men in church in a hot day wearing only a white shirt and you can tell if they have garments on or not. I strongly disagree with this statement. A few years ago we had to read a statement from the first presidency in every temple interview specifically saying the the use of the garments should be determined, with guidance from the Spirit, by the member and not anyone else. Choosing not to wear them in overwhelmingly hot weather isn't breaking a commandment but deciding what can and can't be done. We don't wear garments to shower or at a beach or during sex (although some fanaticals argue that you should during sex), or everyday if you only have one set or if they are torn and broken. No- sleeve tank tops I can agree with but it is always my choice to make when I do or don't wear them. No, not true; had it last October and stake president also leaves them at home when going to the beach. His words were "The Lord understands". I don't think there will be a problem in two years time either since I've been doing this -not using tops in extreme weather- since the early nineties. Not true. I do wear them without alteration most of the year. I don't use them when it becomes torture to do so. I end up having trouble breathing properly when we get up in the 100's (most of my work is outdoors) plus I get skin rashes and small red dotes all over my shoulders from the garments and the heat and not using them stops the rashes and I can breath better. And I don't think the Lord minds since I can't point to any punishment or problem for not using them those days, apart from your criticism here. Plus we are talking about some days, 3 maybe 4 months in summer and usually only after midday and before dinner so it isn't that much, which is why I don't think the Lord minds. I do sleep with them on always since even if it passes 100 at night I can have a fan going or the AC.

True! Mesh has worked best for me in hot weather. However once we are over 100 I just don't use tops. It's just simply too hot to wear them plus under a typical shirt or t-shirt everyone around me would see that I'm wearing garments when they are supposed to be kept from public view. I really dislike people knowing that I'm wearing religious clothing when those people aren't a part of my religion. In the end it's between the individual and the Lord. Same happens when one has to decide where to change when heading to the beach for the day, ie at the beach or leave home without them (my choice)

The covenant is made during the endowment ceremony in the Temple. Also we used to have to read a statement from the first presidency concerning garment use which, basically, said it is something between the member and the Lord and one needs to seek out the spirit's guide when considering different situations. One should be reasonable about garment use but not fanatical. Concerning the questions I think the last time they changed was when they added the question on child support for a previous marriage, which would have been around '96 if my memory is correct. Before that there was a slight change in the 70's over non confessed sins and before that they added the word of wisdom question during president Grants time but this was all before my time so it's only what I've heard over time.

Me too, but I thought that happy ending happened in 2003 odd. Next will come news that she pregnant.....with a new round of ES stories.