Sealing Cancellation Request

[beefche]

Sorry this all sounds very melodramatic, I really didn’t intend for it too, this just really was bugging for some reason. It flies in the face of everything I’ve been taught about eternal marriage and free will and the atonement.

That's because it DOES fly in the face of eternal marriage, free will, and the atonement.....

[Vort]

I do believe he was just using this as a hypothetical situation to make a point.

On the contrary, MoE wrote:

Now, enough with hypotheticals. Let's discuss a real situation.

Then he made the point by rattling off leadership positions as proof of the second husband's greater apparent worthiness than the first.

[pam]

Ahhh then I stand corrected Vort. I missed that part.

[pam]

Sorry this all sounds very melodramatic, I really didn’t intend for it too, this just really was bugging for some reason. It flies in the face of everything I’ve been taught about eternal marriage and free will and the atonement.

It's contrary to everything I've been taught as well.

[ploomf]

I'm glad I'm not the only one Pam. I've been sitting here all day thinking, have I just not been paying attention the entire time I've been in the church or what? Not really a nice feeling.

[pam]

No you have it right. And to ask foreverafter for some references that support HER way of thinking would be a waste of time. But I would think Heavenly Father's plan is much more loving than the way she describes it. Personally to me, it would be hell, to have to remain in a marriage that I was totally miserable in. I'm glad we have agency and if faithful, can have happiness in another relationship that is righteous and valid in the eyes of our Heavenly Father.

[ploomf]

I agree pam. None of us are perfect, we all make mistakes. In a perfect world there would be no divorce. But this world isn't perfect. People change, things go wrong, and sometimes a marriage just can't be fixed. The Heavenly Father I know wouldn't require a woman go leave a faithful and loving husband that she has a family with to go back to a man who made her miserable. What possible good would that do for anyone in this senario?

[pam]

Or even if she was the one that broke up the marriage initially due to infidelity. To me total repentence doesn't mean having to go back to the first husband in order to be fully repented. Hogwash.

[ploomf]

Yeah I don't think so either. I figure a persons mistakes are between them and God. I have more than enough problems of my own to worry about, I just don't have the energy to worry about other people repentance, if they say they have fully repented and are at peace with God it's good enough for me. I don't know what goes on in their hearts, what was happening in their marriage, what the spirit told them or their bishop, or anything. So I have no right to sit in judgment on them. Theres that whole thing about ignoring the beam in your own eye but pestering your brother about the mote in his (ok so I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't put it like that but you get the general idea )

[MarginOfError]

Why is serving in leadership positions the shibboleth of faithful Sainthood for men? I have never understood this. Illustrating a man's faithfulness in the Church invariably is done by naming off his leadership callings. What if he never serves in a leadership calling in his life? What if he faithfully attends his meetings, pays his tithing, goes to the temple, and at 60 is still "just" an elder? Ought his wife decide that she married the wrong guy, since he's clearly a loser? After all, he never held a leadership position.

I'm using MoE's post to illustrate this, but it certainly is not just him. In fact, I can find any number of general conference talks where General Authorities do the same thing. Are we to understand that the leaders of the Church are actually the very best of men in the Church, and that leadership callings are indeed a legitimate way of gauging male faithfulness? If so, does the inverse apply -- those men who never hold leadership callings are the weak and faithless of the Saints? If not, what are we to make of the constant use of leadership callings as examples of faithfulness?

You are correct, Vort, that leadership positions are not a perfect gauge of faithfulness in the Church. In this case, however, the purpose of the description was to contrast the two individuals that this woman had married. On the one hand, her second husband was a man who was active and judged to be fit and able to serve in demanding Church positions, and on the other hand, her first husband was someone who bounced in and out of activity for many years. I assure you that my intent was not to make broad strokes about the implications of holding leadership positions, but to contrast two specific individuals.

I will, however, take special note in the future not to use leadership positions to measure male worthiness, as I think that is a fair request.

[MarginOfError]

I believe she should return to her 1st husband, for that is where her real obligation is. The 2nd husband knew what he was getting into & that divorce is usually a huge sin (even children know this) & that he might be marrying a woman who might not be justified to be divorced from her husband. Depression is not always a sin & if she had been keeping her covenants to her 1st husband she never could have broken her sacred covenants to him, for she would have been too in love with him, even in a difficult marriage. The 2nd husband knew this but didn't want to think about it probably, thus as Dr. Laura says, "he knew before hand" & just didn't want to deal with reality, so now the consequences are now even bigger to deal with. And the one who would be hurt the most is the child from the 2nd marriage but still the 1st marriage takes precidence & restitution must be made as far as possible & the children will be better off in the end if the mother does whats right.

Even Dr. Laura, who isn't even a Christian, understands the importance of the 1st marriage & often recommends leaving a 2nd marriage & going back to the former spouse if they want them back. It's usually the only way to heal the wounds of the former spouse & children. Which must come 1st before her feelings & desires or any 2nd husband's feelings. I have known couples who have done just that. And yes, it is hard but what a tangeled web divorce weaves & 2nd spouses would beware of this if they are wise.

A Prophet, Brigham Young, said, "If he honors his Priesthood & you are to blame & come short of doing your duty & prove yourself unworthy of Celestial Glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him." (BY, JD, Vol. 17, June 28, 1874) Repentance will change errant spouse's desires & feelings completely.

And thus we see the absolute insanity that follows when people stop studying the gospel in it's entirety and instead focus on pet doctrines.

[rameumptom]

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.

Perhaps the problem is in not understanding what the sealing means. The faithful person who loses a spouse to infidelity, etc., retains the blessings of the sealing, even after it is loosed. That person is still sealed to their parents, their children, and most importantly, to the household of God.

The First Presidency normally will not give a sealing cancellation within the first year after the divorce. This gives the couple a chance for reconciliation and repentance. However, if after that time period they have not reconciled, then it usually is the case that it is better to move on and try and improve things later.

The view of requiring the person to go back to the original marriage is a simplistic view on two accounts: First, it expects a perfect repentance and restitution of all things, which cannot be done in the case of infidelity. As humans, we cannot give a perfect repentance. It expects the repentant person to not only repent, but also perform additional works to save him/herself - which goes contrary to the atonement of Christ.

Second, the concept of sealing itself. The concept has evolved from Joseph Smith's day, to where we focus on the nuclear family. It wasn't always that way, though. The sealing was to bind people to the family of God and to God himself, through being sealed to righteous people. Joseph Smith had many people sealed to himself, creating a huge dynasty that was to extend not only through this life, but into the next. Many of the women he was sealed to were for the purpose of ensuring the woman was sealed to a righteous man, or to seal the family (as in the case of Kimball) to Joseph Smith. Many women and men were also sealed to Brigham Young for the same purpose.

Next, there is the concept of letting people go. Forgiving the person and letting them go is just as big a concept as the sinner repenting. Benjamin F. Johnson, a member of the Council of 50, had one of his plural wives insist on leaving him, even though he wished the marriage to continue. He counseled with Brigham Young, who encouraged him to let her go so that both of them could end up happy. I think we'll often find the counsel is good for today, also. Where we can reconcile marriages, we should. However, we need to realize that every person is at a different level of spiritual development, and most are not ready to sacrifice anything and everything by returning to the injured spouse and spending the rest of his/her life paying for their sins. The atonement doesn't really work that way. And it is just as important to forgive the sinner, so we do not sin. This includes swallowing our pride when receiving the request letter for the sealing cancellation and allowing them to move on and find their own path to exaltation. I'm glad I didn't refuse my former spouse the chance to remarry in the temple. I hope she's happy and doing what is right. Had I insisted she not be sealed, but return to me, I can only imagine we both would be miserable right now - that is reality. And that is not what eternal life is all about.

[Hemidakota]

Thank you Moe.

Ditto to both posts, MOE and RAM

[MarginOfError]

And while I’m at it, I might comment on foreverafter’s citation:

A Prophet, Brigham Young, said, "If he honors his Priesthood & you are to blame & come short of doing your duty & prove yourself unworthy of Celestial Glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him." (BY, JD, Vol. 17, June 28, 1874)

Perhaps we should read the rest of the discourse. I especially like the following quote:

“If you want a bill of divorce give me ten dollars, so that I can put it down in the book that such a man and such a woman have dissolved partnership. Do you think you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man who is a good man and honors his Priesthood - it must be a man who possesses a higher power in the Priesthood, or else the woman is bound to her husband, and will be forever and ever.” (BY, JD, Vol. 17, June 28, 1874)

So you’re correct in saying that the Lord doesn’t recognize a civil divorce outside of mortality. However, a “higher power” -- in this case, the sealing power held by the First Presidency to bind and loose in heaven and on earth -- can in fact terminate a marriage. That’s precisely what the cancellation of a sealing does. If a sealing is cancelled, the man has no eternal claim on that woman.

As I suspected, you pulled your quote out of context. When President Young made the statement you quoted, and indeed for most of this discourse, he was discussing the absurdity of civil divorce. At the same time, he was stressing the importance of striving to make our marriages work. The one thing he never did say was that the sealing power cannot be used to end the eternal bond between husband and wife. A cancellation of a sealing, granted under proper authority from the First Presidency, dissolves the eternal marriage between a man and a woman. Following that cancellation, the man and woman will have no claim on each other in the eternities. And a full and comprehensive reading of your sources would illustrate that.

[Vort]

I assure you that my intent was not to make broad strokes about the implications of holding leadership positions, but to contrast two specific individuals.

I will, however, take special note in the future not to use leadership positions to measure male worthiness, as I think that is a fair request.

I made no assumptions about your motive, as I'm sure you had no nefarious intent. And I am not actually requesting anything. My question was sincere -- though perhaps out of place and a thread derailment.

[pam]

YouTube - MormonMessages's Channel

Wow and no mention that someone has to stay with their spouse no matter what.

Edited July 8, 2009 by pam

[Moksha]

Why is serving in leadership positions the shibboleth of faithful Sainthood for men? I have never understood this. Illustrating a man's faithfulness in the Church invariably is done by naming off his leadership callings. What if he never serves in a leadership calling in his life? What if he faithfully attends his meetings, pays his tithing, goes to the temple, and at 60 is still "just" an elder? Ought his wife decide that she married the wrong guy, since he's clearly a loser? After all, he never held a leadership position.

Like what you are saying. This man's worthiness is clearly alluded to in the Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the Prodigal Son. It is almost as if these teachings of Jesus are being ignored if one thinks of worthiness as an accumulation of brownie points based on rank.

:)

[its_Chet]

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.

[rameumptom]

The demands of Justice have been paid by Jesus Christ. We can never satisfy the demands of justice ourselves.

[its_Chet]

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.

[MarginOfError]

Chet, I will address some of the things you say, but for brevity I won't quote our previous two posts.

I agree with you that we are not in a position to judge this situation accurately. That is precisely why I object to the claims that this woman could not fully repent if she were to stay with and marry her new-found (or not-so-new, as the case may be) love. As rameumptom said, the demands of justice are already paid. It is up to Christ to determine who receives forgiveness and who does not. In other words, it is up to Christ to determine who has repented and who has not.

Now, practically speaking, some of that has been left to priesthood leaders to judge, provided they hold the proper authority. Bishops and stake presidents are the most local leaders holding this authority and so it would make sense if we were to look at the elements by which they are to judge repentance. To look at this, we can look to the Church Handbook of Instructions. The principles I will mention are taken from the chapter dealing with Church Discipline, but I feel the general principles extend to any situation.

First, leaders are to consider if an action violated covenants. Those who have been through the temple are held to a higher standard, and any transgression then becomes more grievous. Next, they are to consider if the person held a position of trust or authority. They also consider if the transgressor maintains a repetitive pattern of sin. They also consider the number of acts and the number of people harmed by the actions.

Now, this is where it gets really tricky. Leaders are supposed to consider the age, maturity, and experience of the transgressor. "Leniency is often appropriate for those who are immature in the gospel" (p. 118). We might extend this to mean that a person who confesses to a sin several years later should only be judged by their spiritual maturity at the time of the transgression.

Church leaders are also counseled to take into account the time between the sin and the confession. If a person had transgressed, but over a long period of time had shown that they had forsaken the sin and was living righteously, then "confession may complete rather than start the process of repentance" (p. 118).

Lastly, leaders are taught to consider evidence of repentance. They are then given a laundry list of "evidence of repentance." These are "the nature of the confession, depth of sorrow for the sin, success in forsaking the sin, strength of faith in Jesus Christ, faithfulness in obeying other commandments, truthful communications to Church officers, restitution to injured persons,

obedience to legal requirements, and willingness to follow the direction of Church authorities" (p. 118).

So, in summary, we have to consider spiritual maturity, duration of the transgression, restitution, how long and well the person has been keeping the commandments since the transgression, and strength of testimony and faith in Jesus Christ. And it isn't a straight check list.

Again, I agree that we aren't in a position to judge if the woman in this particular situation has repented or not. We don't know her, and we don't know her circumstances. What we do know is that she has sent the request for cancellation of her sealing to her ex-husband. She should not have that form unless her bishop and stake president had decided to recommend that action to the First Presidency and given her the form. So we can conclude that her bishop and stake president have judged that she has sufficiently repented.

What that means regarding restitution and repentance, I'm not sure. But I think a plausible explanation was offered by RealDeseret himself when he said, "She simply decided that she didn't want to be married anymore. I think more than anything it was because she was a bit immature (she was only 20) and missed her family too much." Given her age, she may not have had the spiritual maturity to fully comprehend her covenants, or she may not have had the maturity to deal with the difficulties of marriage. It's been 10 years now and she likely has matured in many ways. Depending on what's happened in the past 10 years, it is very possible that returning to her first spouse may do more harm to people than good.

Based on the circumstances, and given that her bishop and stake president have chosen to recommend a cancellation of the sealing, I can comfortably say that I think he should step aside. I would also say that if he's still struggling with this 10 years later, he needs a great deal of help in accessing the healing power of the Atonement for himself.

I do not believe that if this sealing is cancelled that RealDeseret will be unfit for exaltation if he truly has no fault in the failure of this marriage. In this whole discussion, we've talked about what constitutes sin, repentance, restitution, right, and wrong. All of that is based on the outward appearance of what we can observe. But we must remember that the Savior "looks upon the heart." Our repentance is never a matter of satisfying justice, but only a matter of demonstrating to the Savior that we are deserving of mercy. I find it unlikely that the requirements are static across individuals, or even within individuals over time.

[its_Chet]

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.

[Hemidakota]

Based on the circumstances, and given that her bishop and stake president have chosen to recommend a cancellation of the sealing, I can comfortably say that I think he should step aside. I would also say that if he's still struggling with this 10 years later, he needs a great deal of help in accessing the healing power of the Atonement for himself.

.

I concur...but puzzling is the why struggle for ten years. There is something here is not being revealed by husband.

[rameumptom]

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.

I agree that repentance is necessary. The argument is over what denotes "repentance"? Is restitution necessary?

If so, how do we explain Alma the younger and King Lamoni? Did either do restitution prior to being forgiven and brought into the presence of God? No. Forgiveness occurred when they asked/begged for forgiveness. Restitution may have occurred later, but not before they were fully forgiven.

We see this time and again in the Book of Mormon, where God fully forgives the person prior to any restitution can occur: Ammon and his brethren, the Ammonites, the father of Lamoni, the Nephites at Jesus appearance, etc. All were fully forgiven before they could anything more than ask forgiveness.

Yes, that seeking for forgiveness must be with all our heart and soul, but it did not require restitution. And it especially did not include going back to a former spouse.

As tough as this has been on the husband, he now needs to forgive and seek the atonement of Christ in his own life. If he is feeling pain after 10 years, it is because he is holding the grudge and has need of repentance. Not because he is a big sinner, but because he will not allow Christ to heal him. Pride is keeping him from have inner peace and joy, which is caused by a separation from God.

It was hard when my first wife left me, without any reason. But I needed to heal and move on, for my own sake, if for no other reason.

[its_Chet]

I agree that repentance is necessary. The argument is over what denotes "repentance"? Is restitution necessary?

If so, how do we explain Alma the younger and King Lamoni? Did either do restitution prior to being forgiven and brought into the presence of God? No. Forgiveness occurred when they asked/begged for forgiveness. Restitution may have occurred later, but not before they were fully forgiven.

We see this time and again in the Book of Mormon, where God fully forgives the person prior to any restitution can occur: Ammon and his brethren, the Ammonites, the father of Lamoni, the Nephites at Jesus appearance, etc. All were fully forgiven before they could anything more than ask forgiveness.

Yes, that seeking for forgiveness must be with all our heart and soul, but it did not require restitution. And it especially did not include going back to a former spouse.

As tough as this has been on the husband, he now needs to forgive and seek the atonement of Christ in his own life. If he is feeling pain after 10 years, it is because he is holding the grudge and has need of repentance. Not because he is a big sinner, but because he will not allow Christ to heal him. Pride is keeping him from have inner peace and joy, which is caused by a separation from God.

It was hard when my first wife left me, without any reason. But I needed to heal and move on, for my own sake, if for no other reason.

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.