Juan_P

I would file in Montana and let her work her end however she wishes. Montana is a no-fault divorce state so you only have to show that you have lived apart for more than 6 months to get a divorce decree. Shouldn't be too expensive if you do it yourself at the district court but I don't know if they let you do that.

Hmmm.... why isn't Satan and temptation a part of this analysis of why women cheat? or is it always the man's fault?

Yes, whether they divorce or not he should forgive her. But forgiveness doesn't mean that the marriage covenant, which she has already broken, will somehow continue. To me it's clear that she cheated twice with his brother -which makes things worse since he is also her brother through marriage. Now if the church considers sex with a step son as incest -requiring mandatory excomunication almost always- why isn't what this wife did not incest too, ie a much more serious sin than adultery She was the one who threw it away when she cheated the first time but here there are two known times. Plus adultery breaks the marriage covenant of 'cleave to him and none other'; its more than just illness, it's more akin to the death of the marriage. I never said that nor implied that. She should repent however the married ended when she cheated. If she wants to recover it and he is willing to try then the onus should be on her to recover what she ended in adultery. Yes however we don't necessarily invite those who have hurt us to dinner every day even if they have repented. yeah, if she desires to change. It doesn't matter what he thinks, and hopefully he wont be so naive as to wait for her for years to change. there are plenty of single women in church who are willing to be faithful and loyal to their husbands

Bill Clinton, Newt and now Herman Cain truly love that doctrine! The inactives actually help prove that we aren't a cult since they aren't forced to return nor suffer any extreme consequences for being less active imho. However there is a difference between Utah/Idaho mormons and anywhere else mormon. I travel a lot and find that outside of the Utah/idaho belt the church and the members are very different, more relaxed, happy, laid back and easier to get along with. There's something odd with members in Utah, especially out in regional and country areas. Maybe its because they are all republicans???? not sure.

He divorced in the US for the church to accept his clearance application, since you have to put a divorce date on it, but then ended up back with wife one without remarrying her etc etc. No, the church doesn't have a problem with that because it has dealt with these issues and problems since the second manifesto in 1902 or thereabouts, and they come up with alternatives during the '60 when they first had large numbers of members living defacto with the 2nd or new partner but to whom they couldn't legally marry because the country didn't have divorce laws at all ie they were technically living in adultery, so the solution back then was to marry in another country and use that certificate for both church and the Temple marriage although legally, where they lived, they were living in adultery. The history of marriages, sealings and the church internationally is very rich and varied. Today for example if someone lives in adultery with a second 'partner' they are excommunicated because there is divorce -although due to the massive costs there are also other options available there too, like just a judicial declaration of defacto relationship while the couple saves up to do the divorce, there they'd avoid church discipline. That wouldn't be acceptable at all in the US for example. Things are different around the world. Anyways we are starting to go round in circles here.

If you were my daughter I would also have issues with this and I would go as far as telling the bishop to back off, to talk to me first and then I'll talk to you. I think his methods are totally inappropriate and I would never have conducted things that way with a teen in my ward.

If you were my daughter I would also have issues with this and I would go as far as telling the bishop to back off, to talk to me first and then I'll talk to you. I think his methods are totally inappropriate and I would never have conducted things that way with a teen in my ward.

If everything was in place, then before Christmas you would have an answer but without her letter HQ will try everything possible to contact her, even writting to local leaders to try to find her if she's in Taiwan. So the time frame blows out a bit here. Hopefully she is active and they can just call her on whatever phone is on her membership record. I would still try to find her in Taiwan via internet, phone books or better use the new church directory which any clerk and bishopric member has access to on the new lds.org website, ie they can go through the membership lists ward by ward in Taiwan and hopefully find her and then call her yourself. Ask for that favor on a week night and you might get lucky. I'd be hoping for an answer before Feb next year. But it also depends on whether you had children or not and whether there was any sin involved by either party.

No, we didn't have legal divorce here back then. Plus the church lived with this situation for decades, situation where memebers were legally married to 2 living women or 2 living men. Kimball's biography, written by his youngest son, is a good source as is "David O McKay, rise of modern mormonism" and I think from memory that Quinns book also mentioned this problem in south america when divorce wasn't available. the church ws actually quite adept at getting around these marriage problems, when divorced isn't available, or a spouse does get a divorce in another jurisdiction etc. Anyways, we have kind of discussed all we could here before just repeating things don't you think.

True; it's very difficult to discuss these matters over a forum like this one but we keep trying. Yeah, I don't think we will be "stuck" with anyone. However Sealings stay in place until they are cancelled by the person through sin or the Lord through his prophet. I don't get that impression; sealings are a different, higher action and ordinance. e I agree. Note that in another post or section I was just about the only one recommending that the man move on because his wife didn't love him, and was cheating on him. I agree that obsessing is wrong but the doctrine is clear and I can't or don't think it changes because some spouses come up short in the marriage sealing. Same thing. Your government lets our sealers marry legally. In most of latin america that is not the case, government ignore completely all clergy, including catholic priests. Yeah, in Great Britain and Holland and others. Their laws require public ceremonies so mormon couples marry for life in a mormon chapel, sign the paperwork at the chapel, and then travel to the Temple and do it all again with a sealer ie marry for time and all eternity, as the prayer reads. In most of latin america people actually legally marry in a Registry office and then later 'by church' as they say, either a catholic, protestant or Temple in our case. Off course! yes, everyone everywhere has to do the paperwork and sign it. In new zealand they do the sealing first and then sign the paperwork after. doesn't really matter how but the church is allowed to 'marry' people, or the Temple pres can oficiate to marry people but the legal marriage certificate is the state one not a church one off course. I don't know why you made this point?

Could be confusing , should be: "So his divorce in another jurisdiction didn't break the covenant nor did they need to remarry again" (full stop). And you he was married to two different people in two different jurisdictions, as was the norm for separated couples who would've divorced in latin america during the '60-'mid '80s roughly, when most countries started to allow divorce to some extent. Remember that the Phillippines onlly allowed divorce recently so there the problem lasted longer, as Elder Oaks briefly mentioned in his talk on Divorce back in '05 or '06 odd.

There's a lot here, most I agree with you, some not. ie true no one will be forced to live with someone they wanted to divorce and don't like, nor forced to be sealed to someone who abused them. The millenium will inevitably fix up many of these situations because there may not be time or opportunity here in mortality due to kids or illness or other problems. However some I know is incorrect. A civil divorce is irrelevant when it comes to Temple marriages. What happens in the US, Canada and some other nations is that the state government accepts the Temple ceremony as enough for a legally binding marriage but it isn't vice-verse with the church since in countries where the Temple marriage isn't accepted members are actually married twice, civil before the government authority and temple before god. Remember that the reason for the second manifesto was because men still married via Temple only on the high seas or in Mexico to avoid the civil marriage and its laws. So no, you don't need to be civilly married to live the sealing coveanant, they are two different concepts and laws. Not if that reconcilliation is in the millenium. Then, the sealing done in mortality will be the marriage by default. And women can be sealed to all the husbands they had on earth so that the children can be sealed to both parents, in geneology, where necessary. The assumption is that the woman will then stay with only one husband but the sealing lines and family lines need to be established all the way up to Adam and Eve, so sealing women to many husbands may be the only way to accomplish this. Yes, but there is repentance and change. Repentance is the key. Also note 132:19 one can commit any sin except two and, if one repents, still enter exaltation ie eternal marriage after going through the spirit world and then the millenium. Also note 132:7 'all covenants, contracts, oaths, vows, performances, connections ..or expectations' end at death if they are not entered and sealed by the Holy spirit. To me that means that a divorce granted by a civil court will also end at death unless there is an accompaning cancellation by the appropriate authority ie First Presidency done either in mortality now or later during the millenium, which will also be on earth. singles also covenant that. But no if they are still sealed we wouldn't discipline them but tell them to go get a civil marriage somewhere but they wouldn't be breaking God's law of chastity since they are married for God. Look, up until very recently, the church had to accept some similar cases because there wasn't divorce in most of latin america. So what members did to 'get sealed' was to go to a neighboring country and marry there, while still married legally to someone else in their home nation ie commit bigamy, because there was no divorce, and then use that neighbouring country's marriage to go to the Temple and be sealed for time and all eternity. Then they'd return home where they are still legally and lawfully married to someone else but sleeping with someone else, the second spouse. It was a problem for the church, pres Kimball complained many times about how intransigent government officials were (in his bio based on his diaries) regarding divorce, but they couldn't do anything so had to accept the status quo. The church required that civil marriage certificate, from a neigboring country, to avoid any legal hassles with the host nation although it was just sybolic and not very legally binding. Sealings are never 'restored' only the blessings of a sealing can be restored. Yes, most men have a mistaken view of the sealing ordinance. It isn't a 'possesion' thing as some think. The couple has to work to reach exaltation. however the issue was the woman who's husband married someone else and wanted to be sealed to her. He will be able to eventually but the first will still have access to all the blessing from her sealing even if she divorced him, unless she has it cancelled and marries someone else. but off course no one will be forced to spend eternity married to someone they don't like or want, hence the purpose of the millenium, to fix up these issues and others like geneology, and prep for the celestial kingdom. True, D&C 132 makes that clear too. Every ordinance depends on the Spirit recognizing it and giving testimony of the correctness of it. A marriage in the Temple and its sealing is no different. The Spirit does have to 'seal' the ordinance as you say. . Yeah, I remember only one widow being granted a cancellation and she was then sealed to her second husband. But its rare. I remember a few more who applied but were denied for being widows. The First Presidency decides this and only they can say if there's a criteria (doubt it) or its just the revelation in each case (more likely) And as above, today in geneology we frequently seal women to all the husbands they had in life so that the children can complete their lines. But the doctrine is that she will be with only one husband in eternity. OK . True , agreed. True. Agreed Well....no. There are innocent victims of divorce too. I know one couple where the man walked out, divorced and remarried civilly overseas, had a baby girl and then asked for a clearance. It was denied based on the first wife's letter, who wanted reconciliation. Once he found out that the prophet didn't approve a clearance and why, he left his second wife and daughter, returned home and reconciled with his first wife and they are still together. This happened in the mid '90s. So his divorce in another jurisdiction didn't break the covenant nor did they need to remarry again (so maybe its a bad example ) No, law of chastity is for any recognized marriage, before God or before the government only as the basic unit of society. However, try asking a convert couple what the 'feeling' was or if there is a difference when having sex as just a civilly married couple or a temple married couple. Those I have heard talk about this issue say that intimate relations are different, more pure, after the sealing ordinance. Why? I don't know but it does tell you something about the differences between civil and temple marriages. He does care. It's the basic unit of society. But a Temple marriage is a different thing altogether and can't be broken just by a civil divorce because its the wrong authority. I think I've written too much now. I hope it clears up where we disagree and where we agree. I think the main issue is that for you a divorce ends things for a celestial couple; I say its a different authority and it doesn't end everything just suspends a few minor things for a while but not forever necessarily and there is time for change. The millenium should always be kept in mind when discussing eternal matters, such as Temple marriages, since it is there were we will do the final preparations for the celestial kingdom. One judgement happens then. The main one will be at the end of the millenium, which in the Temple is symbolized by talking to the Lord at the veil. Plus in several places in D&C the Lord says "whether in life or in death, it is the same for me" , meaning that there are some chances to change for some people in the spirit world too especially people like soldiers who die young in battle or teens who drown accidently,they also need chances to change and be tested and progress even if they are in the spirit world.

Well.....if we only look at mortality then maybe, but still its by a different authority and power plus a sealing actually marries for time and all eternity and then at the end 'seals' the ordinance, so a civil marriage and a marriage done in the Temple are different things. If you read the ordinance card in any Temple, if they let you, you will see that it is clearly a separate marriage to a civil one. But what I'd say you're ignoring is both time in the spirit world and the millenium. Yes she does have to become worthy first before the spirit world but, if she does during her lifetime, D&C 132 promises exaltation to her who was sealed. And then if they reconcile in the spirit world or millenium, then they will default back to the sealing done here on earth and wouldn't need another wedding or sealing. Remember that there will be marriages performed during the millenium here on earth. If she became worthy now but they don't reconcile then you have two people who have access to some of the sealing blessings but wont be a married couple and then again, during the millenium that will need sorting out. However the sealing will still be in force and current if they are both repentant and worthy then. Look, even when an adulterer repent fully a general authority will only 'restore the blessings of the sealing' because that sealing is still in force. That person, excommunicated and rebaptized doesn't need to go back to the Temple for a new endowment or a new sealing. It may be that she will marry someone else, and has every right to do so, but it could also be that she stays sealed to this divorced husband. one of the ppl? people? No, if the wife dies and the man remarries and is sealed to that second wife, then you have a man with two wives in heaven. Women will only have one husband unless the revelations/doctrines changes and we go back to polyandry days. I disagree. Pres Hinkley introduced the clearance for men because they saw that some men were divorcing one woman one week and then getting sealed to a second the next week, the implication being that they were dating the second wife before the divorce was final. That's why there is a clearance process for men now, ie because some seemed to be abusing the system and they want to make sure everything is OK with the first wife too. the triangle example I agree with in general but the clearance was done for another reason. And it could change any day if rumours from HQ are correct because they are becoming now somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of applications for cancellations and clearances. -Oh, I forgot the example about divorce/sealing. Say you have a divorced couple who were sealed before and decide to remarry each other again, then the marriage date changes on their record but the same sealing stays in tact and nothing changes nor do they require a new 'sealing' for that second marriage because the divorce was just by a civil authority which God doens't always recognize.

It was sarcasm....joke.....but you don't get that either...

Why in the world would you want a source if you have my word?? aint nothin' more powerful than words!!! Actually all you need to do is read the section, from ver 1 to at least 10 to clear things up. Can't be clearer than that.....

Yeah, i thought this was obvious. Fermentation is a natural process too in the rotting of fruit so can't be very pure per sé Or maybe 'pure wine' was actually moonshine in Missouri????

"It says that barley is good for making mild drinks" yeah...pure beer! we are saying the same with different words. "At the time of the revelation most people would understand that to mean that beer was okay" yes, what I said too, until the brethren realized the alcohol was the problem so they outlawed it, this was before Grants time by the way. What pres Grant did was add the basics of the WoW (don't drink alcohol, smoke, tea & coffee) to the Temple questions but left out most of the WoW like fruits in their seasons or meat sparingly etc that part is still up to the individual to do.

But it then qualyfies it as 'pure wine' of the grape vine AND of your own making..never mentions water, that's a latter unwritten change.., but we've been over this now a few times and it seems you don't want to read what the scripture actually says, so it getting to be pointless now.

If she becomes Temple worthy again and if that sealing remains in tact, then it will remain in the next life even if the couple decide to live apart. This because polygamy, or celestial polygamy, is still viable in the next life according to D&C 132. Only the practice in mortality has been discontinued since the two manifestos. I would also encourage her to move on and find someone else. However it isn't correct to say that she can't return to the Temple until the seal is broken. If she goes to church, repents of whatever there is to repent, pays tithing etc they will give her a recomend again and she will enter the Temple as a woman still sealed to your husband although not in practice or not as a living together couple. I think we are mixing issues here. A man can't break or cancel a sealing, he can only obtain a clearance to be sealed again to someone else ie you here Also you need to be very careful with the paperwork in seeking a clearance. I know of a similar case where the ex wife was excommunicated but they denied the clearance based on her written letter accusing him of domestic violance. However the couple reapplied 4 years later and then they were granted the clearance. Again he can't 'break the seal'. she can repent and go to the Temple with her husband, even be sealed to him after seeking a cancellation but that's up to her to sort out separately. Note women optain cancellations while men optain a clearance Children will always be sealed to their biological parents unless they are adopted or some other conditions listed in the handbook are met, like they reach 21 and wish to be sealed to their step parent (going by memory here but the list is clear in the handbook) However to be sealed to parents means that they are in a line going back to Adam and Eve -which obviously isn't complete yet- and they have access to certain blessings like eternal parents so it isn't that critical who they are sealed to. If his biological mother isn't worthy to be in that line someone else will take her place like a step mother or a grandparents. By the way if the boy is 17 now, well then he decide for himself what influence his mother has on his life if sealed or not.

Yeah, that's a good document. Holy Spirit wouldn't go near a drunk person. With us, D&C 89 promises what are really fruits of the spirit: And shall find wisdom and great treasures of dknowledge, even hidden treasures; apart from benefiting for generally better health and "walk and not faint" ie today drive a car and not be charged with DUI or worse cause an accident.

It says so in the text. Its obvious: That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. 7 And, again, astrong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies. Pure wine would be something different to the just 'wine' mentioned in 5. ie pure is straight from crushing the grapes to service without any additives or allowing fermentation. Word 'pure' is the key I'd say

That's correct. Pure beer would be ok but industry today only sells beer with alcohol so the brethren added beer to the banned substances WoW speaks of around 1920's odd. Before that several brethren argued that beer was OK. (I'm going by memory here but the history is freely available) Again, the problem was the alcohol. And today most studies back up this view, since wine is good for the heart due to substances that come from the grap like resvaratrol, but one has to drink in moderation due to the problems alcohol brings. Things like Wisky and Vodka are obviously bad in any quantity. Beer comes in a distant second to wine due to the good from the barley and wheat but again must be taken in moderation due to the alcohol it contains.

source: D&C 89:6

Well, the Lord could be referring to pure wine which is alcohol free for the first 24 hours. Grape juice is made differentlly so it isn't pure wine. I don't agree with you that the WoW will come to an end next dispensation because there is nothing writen to support that point of view.