Hemidakota Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 Never heard it ever be mentioned before this. Thanks.
Iggy Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 my point is i think making someone wait a yr to find an ex spouse that obviously doesn't want to be contacted is foolish. there should be a point in which the bishop can say we can not find this person and you move on with your life. It wasn't the Bishop or even the Stake President who was waiting for the ex to respond- it was the First Presidency.With my husband and myself, we were in no great rush for the sealing. We were married, and we knew that we would be sealed and that it would happen in God's time, not ours.
Hemidakota Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 checkerboy, are you planning on getting married soon??Ditto
Charlyc Posted August 7, 2009 Report Posted August 7, 2009 The more I read about members experiences with re-sealing, the more I dislike the brethren's handling of this issue. It's just one big mess. They changed in the '70s the practice of getting a clearance from the first presidency for a temple recommend after divorce and its about time they changed the sealing policy after divorce and just let people get sealed to the new spouse without all this bureaucracy and hassles. After all they are supposed to judge what sinful behavior is and divorce is just the end of a marriage, not a sin.
Wingnut Posted August 9, 2009 Report Posted August 9, 2009 They changed in the '70s the practice of getting a clearance from the first presidency for a temple recommend after divorce and its about time they changed the sealing policy after divorce and just let people get sealed to the new spouse without all this bureaucracy and hassles.That cheapens the sealing. It makes it seem no different than a civil marriage. You can just do and undo. The way things are now may be inconvenient, and there may be a lot of red tape to go through, but it shouldn't be an easy process.After all they are supposed to judge what sinful behavior is and divorce is just the end of a marriage, not a sin.Divorce is sometimes brought on by sin, and when it is, they should be involved.
Moksha Posted August 9, 2009 Report Posted August 9, 2009 Could any of this rather lengthy process be expedited at the Temple of Elvis in Las Vegas?
Guest missingsomething Posted August 9, 2009 Report Posted August 9, 2009 there are countless threads on this... but you will not find a ton of info on church sponsored sites like lds.org for a reason.... each case is so specific. but lds.org has some great articles on blended families....
Charlyc Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 That cheapens the sealing. It makes it seem no different than a civil marriage. You can just do and undo. The way things are now may be inconvenient, and there may be a lot of red tape to go through, but it shouldn't be an easy process.Divorce is sometimes brought on by sin, and when it is, they should be involved.That inconvenience mostly hurts the majority who are innocent, those abandoned by spouses or been cheated on, who eventually get back on their feet and try to remarry. Its the final kick in the guts -kick that comes from that cold church bureaucracy! They have to chase up a former spouse for his letter, and then explain their own marriage, re-visiting painful memories, plus a bishop, stake presidents and clerks like me find out about all this dirty laundry; its all scanned and kept on file forever, for any GA to see years down the track. Now up until today nothing has leaked but what if one it does? Now if you thought that it cheapens the sealing you should also make it more 'expensive' when one marries the first time? you only need one bishop and one stake presidents approval to be sealed the first time round so that actually gives you the true value of a sealing. Plus GAs make it clear that a marriage needs to become 'celestial' to actually make that sealing relevant which in a case of divorce it clearly could never be. Actually instead of not cheapening the sealing what it does is punish the divorced, even those innocent in divorces, since all go through the same grinder to get permission to remarry.Most of the guilty never return to church, they say that maybe one in ten excommunicated actually return. Anyway that disciplinary counsel is permanently listed to a members record -the info general authorities only see and some church employees- so if that formally excommunicated wants to remarry that could be considered then, leaving the innocent spouse out of it. Divorce may be brought on by sin and because of that bishops and stake presidents can and do become involved when it happens or the information comes out, and the 1st presidency wants it that way. Doing it all again when you re-marry is just picking at healed scares and even maybe bringing back the issues of that first marriage into the second marriage when they are better off dead and buried.
pam Posted August 10, 2009 Report Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) This thread was started 6 months ago and I"m sure checkerboy has gotten the answers he has needed by now. As missing stated..there are many other threads about this same issue. Therefore I am closing this one. But please keep in mind that this forum site isn't the place to voice negative opinions on Church administration and the why's of way something is done. Edited August 10, 2009 by pam
Recommended Posts