Sealing Cancellation Request

[pam]

Thanks ryanh for that. I truly do appreciate that comment.

[its_Chet]

I dont think she can be accused of doing wrong, as she did not know he was manic.

What?????

Leaving him for another man isn't wrongdoing?

I thought Vort was exaggerating about gender bias on this site, but I'm beginning to believe he wasn't.

[ryanh]

Chet, as one that has felt gender bias here at times, I didn't see that as one of them. Perhaps my perspective is different because I understand what it is like to live with someone that has mental illness - esp undiagnosed mental illness. Even if you DO know what is driving the behavior, it can be more difficult to put up with than most people will ever understand in this life. And when it is undiagnosed/unknown, it is incredibly difficult. I dare say there are very few that are able, or to be expected, to be fully faithful under such circumstances.

To expect a woman or man, to not be tempted to leave a marriage when their basic needs are not being met is unreasonable IMO. We are faliable mortals. We all have our limits to what we can deal with. Bottom line, I didn't see Maya's post as gender biased, simply a comment on a specific situation.

[Hemidakota]

Concur...

[ryanh]

I think I recall some opinions shared that the divorced wife should not attend the temple because she sought divorce.

Another from Elder Oak's April 2007 Conference address:

In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

Thank goodnes for the mercy of the Lord that divorced people are not expected to live the remainder of their lives lonely and companionless. Rather, He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law.

[MarginOfError]

What?????

Leaving him for another man isn't wrongdoing?

I thought Vort was exaggerating about gender bias on this site, but I'm beginning to believe he wasn't.

I think Maya was referring to a woman whose experience I shared. She divorced her husband, remarried, and the subsequently found out her first husband was manic depressant. It was the mental illness that was likely the culprit of a lot of their marital problems. You can read the whole post here.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/23225-sealing-cancellation-request-5.html#post389192

I don’t think Maya was referring to the woman in the original post. Correct me if I’m wrong, Maya.

[zzyxz]

Thank goodnes for the mercy of the Lord that divorced people are not expected to live the remainder of their lives lonely and companionless. Rather, He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law.

True, one is not required to live the higher laws, but imagine the kinds of blessings one would recieve if they did adhere to higher laws when they weren't required or asked to. The Lord promises blessings when we obey the law that the blessing is associated with (D&C 130:20-21). If we want to get Celestial blessings, we have to follow Celestial laws. Settling only for a Telestial law will never get us a Celestial blessing. "For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory" (D&C 88:22). Now, with this mortal life being only a drop in the bucket of the eternities, while one might not be expected to live the standard of a higher law, consider the blessings one might recieve if they did nonetheless.

[ryanh]

Humm. Trying to fit that one in with the teaching of the parables of the prodigal son, and the laborers in the vineyard. See Elder Talmage's explanation of those two parables in Jesus the Christ.

Settling only for a Telestial law will never get us a Celestial blessing.

Never? Really? Are we living the law of consecration right now? Since we aren’t, are we all damned in that we can never be exhalted? I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with the context that reference is being applied.

The Atonement is the key, not our attempts to save ourselves.

[pam]

I think I recall some opinions shared that the divorced wife should not attend the temple because she sought divorce.

Another from Elder Oak's April 2007 Conference address:

Thank goodnes for the mercy of the Lord that divorced people are not expected to live the remainder of their lives lonely and companionless. Rather, He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law.

Once again ryan I find myself thanking you. I think this has been my gripe with numerous posts in the past and on other threads. There appears to be a certain stigma attached to those that are divorced which are contrary to our Heavenly Father's thoughts on the subject.

Thank you for finding and posting that quote.

[zzyxz]

Are we living the law of [fill in any higher law here] right now? Since we aren’t, are we all damned in that we can never be exhalted? I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with the context that reference is being applied.

Yes, I am saying that we are damned - to a degree. If we don't do what's required of a Celestial glory, we damn ourselves to something less than a Celestial glory. If you've been in the mission field, I'm sure you came across more than one Born Again Christian that claimed all we have to do is confess belief and we're saved. While belief in Jesus is the right place to start, if you don't do the works, you will be damned. You gotta do more than just believe. Same with Celestial laws. To get Celestial, you gotta do more than just Telestial and/or Terrestrial; you gotta do Celestial. If you only do the Telestial laws, you can't abide a Celestial glory. If you want to try and invalidate D&C 88:22, good luck with that.

The Atonement is the key, not our attempts to save ourselves.

True on the Atonement, but the Atonement is more than just belief. If we're hoping that the Atonement is some kind of pixie dust that will get sprinkled on us in the Spirit World and we'll magically be teleported right into the Celestial Kingdom, I think a lot of mormons are in for a serious reality check in the next life. My take on the Atonement is that when we get to that point that we will have the opportunity of a full application of the Atonement, we'll be presented with the question "What more could you have done?" 2 Nephi 25:23 states "after all we can do", not "just as much as we want to do". Edited August 13, 2009 by zzyzx

[ryanh]

If you want to try and invalidate D&C 88:22, good luck with that.

Where did that come from? I said I wasn't comfortable with the context in which it was being applied, not that I choose my scripture ala-carte. In fact, not choosing my scriptures ala-carte means that I must fit 88:22 into the context of all the other revealed word, and in doing so, I come to a conclusion other than what you are presenting it as. Did you go check Elder Talmage’s discussions of the parables? How about the linked article of Elder Oaks? Those are just two of many reasons I can’t agree with the way you applied 88:22. Evidently, "cannot abide" does not automatically mean "live fully now in the current circumstances".

Zzyzx, in the context of this thread, your recent posts seem to be insinuating just what Pam is speaking of - that there are many LDS that don't understand the situation of divorce and the way that the Lord will treat that, that they end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. The divorce is unfortunate. It doesn't damn an individual. IMO the judgment of the divorced as deserving less blessings is not only inaccurate (again, seek an understanding of Jesus’ parables), but a stumbling block to one’s own progression.

Yes, having served a mission in the south, I’ve had more than my fair share of discussions with radical only-need-to-confess-name individuals. I’ve also run across quite a few LDS (including myself for many years) who were on the opposite end of the spectrum, and are unable to see how merciful our Savior will be. Too many of us get caught up on popular LDS culture and don’t ponder it for ourselves. I’m comfortable that the truth is in between the two radical spectral ends. See Believing Christ for a concise source discussing the various aspects.

[Moksha]

I thought Vort was exaggerating about gender bias on this site, but I'm beginning to believe he wasn't.

Perhaps even compromising the sanctity of The Man and his Helpmeet's roles as well!

[its_Chet]

Chet, as one that has felt gender bias here at times, I didn't see that as one of them. Perhaps my perspective is different because I understand what it is like to live with someone that has mental illness - esp undiagnosed mental illness. Even if you DO know what is driving the behavior, it can be more difficult to put up with than most people will ever understand in this life. And when it is undiagnosed/unknown, it is incredibly difficult. I dare say there are very few that are able, or to be expected, to be fully faithful under such circumstances.

To expect a woman or man, to not be tempted to leave a marriage when their basic needs are not being met is unreasonable IMO. We are faliable mortals. We all have our limits to what we can deal with. Bottom line, I didn't see Maya's post as gender biased, simply a comment on a specific situation.

I know a little something about living with someone who has a mental illness as well, but I think my point may have not been made very well.

I don't recall seeing anything in this thread about RealDeseret having a mental illness until now. Let me know if it's in here and I just forgot about it or missed it, but it sounds A LOT to me like Maya was just throwing the accusation at him.

And let me just state here and now, with all due respect to whomever it concerns, that I think that when a person says something unfairly critical, mean, etc. about someone who is the victim in a situation like this, it is simply unacceptable behavior for a human being, let along a Latter Day Saint.

I know there are people out there who like to blame the victim, and I think it's despicable. If we are going to take it upon ourselves to pass judgment, can we at least direct it toward the antagonist?

Or perhaps Maya genuinely feels that RealDeseret has antagonized his ex-wife into leaving him and finding someone else (and not necessarily in that order). Perhaps she feels RealDeseret's ex-wife is justified for what she did prior to her alleged repentance and desire to go to the Temple to be sealed to the man for whom she left her husband.

My concern about gender bias comes from seeing someone with what appears to be a feminine user name blaming RealDeseret for his wife leaving him for another man, on the basis of an allegation of of mental illness, (for which I have yet to see any foundation).

If I'm missing something here, please connect the dots. So far, it just looks to me like a woman is fabricating a charge of mental illness against a man she doesn't know, to excuse his ex-wife (whom she also doesn't know) in leaving him for another man.

As I said before, none of us know the whole story, but if we're going to go by what is revealed in this thread so far, everything I've read indicates that RealDeseret had a wife who left him for another man and now wants to be sealed to that man in the Temple, and RealDeseret is clinging to the hope that if he refuses to give his consent he will be able to remain sealed to his ex-wife in the Celestial Kingdom, contrary to her present wishes. I think we can all agree that won't happen.

I missed the part where it's his fault, or where he said anything about having any form of mental illness. It appears to me that he's being charged with it out of thin air, and pardon my saying so, but that just sounds sexist to me. And I'd be saying the same thing if the tables were turned.

RealDeseret deserves compassion, support, and encouragement to let go. He does not deserve ridicule and blame.

I apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings with what I've said, but I don't have much patience for perceived sexism. Being a man doesn't make anyone less of a child of God, but occasionally I get the impression that some people in the Church would disagree, and it makes me very glad that I already have a testimony.

[its_Chet]

I think Maya was referring to a woman whose experience I shared. She divorced her husband, remarried, and the subsequently found out her first husband was manic depressant. It was the mental illness that was likely the culprit of a lot of their marital problems. You can read the whole post here.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/23225-sealing-cancellation-request-5.html#post389192

I don’t think Maya was referring to the woman in the original post. Correct me if I’m wrong, Maya.

Ah.....

That's different. Good point.

In that case, I apologize to Maya.

Edited August 18, 2009 by its_Chet
forgot to apologize to Maya

[its_Chet]

Perhaps even compromising the sanctity of The Man and his Helpmeet's roles as well!

I make no claim to be the brightest light bulb in the chandelier, so could you explain what you mean by that to me?

[beefche]

Chet, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you look at Maya's post, the post right before hers is a quote from Margin of Error in which he discusses someone he knows that was married to a man, divorced him, met another and married, then found out her 1st husband was manic. Maya was responding to that post. To me, it is apparent that is what she's talking about since no one has said anything about the OP being manic.

[its_Chet]

Chet, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you look at Maya's post, the post right before hers is a quote from Margin of Error in which he discusses someone he knows that was married to a man, divorced him, met another and married, then found out her 1st husband was manic. Maya was responding to that post. To me, it is apparent that is what she's talking about since no one has said anything about the OP being manic.

This has already been brought to my attention and I already acknowledged it.

[kestrel35]

I was sealed in the temple 20 years ago about four years after we were sealed there were lots of misunderstandings and we separated and divorced. He said he didn't want the divorce but he signed all the papers and never showed up in court to contest anything. He remarried, civially the same year our divorce was final. I remarried 8 years later to a non member. My marriage is ending because I decided to go back to church after being in active for the last 17+ years and my husband doesn't want to be married to some one in the LDS Church. now my ex has re-surfaced in my life. He says he is very unhappy in his marriage and that he has never stopped loving me and since my marriage is ending he wants to get back together when both of our divorces are final. In the last 17 years my ex has become very inactive he smokes and drinks and doesn't attend church. He and I never had children and we both have children from our current marriages. His wife is not intersted in the church either and is in fact very anti-mormon. So what do I do? Do I try to keep my civil marriage from ending or do I let it end and then go back to the spouse I was sealed to? The reason my ex and I got in contact is because I've been thinking about applying for a cancellation of our sealing if and when I want to be sealed to someone else. Or do I let my marriage end and not go back to my spouse but hold out for someone who honors his priesthood and obeys God's commandments. I've tried to find answers and I've prayed about it numerous times, but either I haven't gotten an answer yet or I haven't realized what the answer is. I'm not sure what the church views are on this issue. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!!

[Gatorman]

Well, that sounds like a lot. First, you have to look to the marriage you are in. Decide if you want to save that. If you do, work on that. You can not worry about the previous one as part of that decision. So, there is only 1 question right now. Can you save your current marriage?

[kestrel35]

My husband has not mentioned the divorce in about a month, but I did just have surgery so I think he is waiting until I'm completely recovered to bring it up again. I highly doubt there is anyway to change his mind and I'm not sure if I want to. I would love to come home on Sundays after church and not have my spirtualness destroyed because the TV is blaring and every other word out of his mouth is a swear word. He scoffs and rolls his eyes when he sees me or our daughter reading the scriptures or doing any activity that has something to do with the church. She as decided she wants to be baptized and he is not happy about that, but he told her it was her choice. So to answer your question the only way I think it could possibly be saved is if I quit going to church and become inactive again and I'm not willing to do that and I think that would only be a temporary fix, I think in a year or two we would be back to the same spot. He has already filled out divorce papers he is just waiting to file until we are caught up financially after I had to take so much time off for my surgery. I hope this makes sense it is a confusing situation.

[randoman]

After reading all of these posts, 11 pages worth, I see quite a large misunderstanding about the sealing ordinance of marriage. Eternal marriage only becomes effective and "sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise" after a life of faithful and loving commitment to your spouse and the Lord. I see people make a big mistake.

The marriage sealing is an ordinance like baptism. You need that ordinance to be worthy to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. It gives you a key to unlock one of the doors to the Celestial Kingdom. IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ORDINANCE THAT TWO PEOPLE PERFORM TOGETHER. That is why even though a couple may divorce, the sealing is left in place usually so that either party may lay claim to that ordinance in the future as their worthiness allows.

THE BIG MISTAKE:

People equate that the sealing ordinance means that a divorced party will remain "eternally married" in the eternities. NOT TRUE!! Both parties may lay claim to that ordinance INDIVIDUALLY depending on their righteousness.

A marriage sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise AFTER a lifelong commitment to your spouse and the Lord is the only MARRIAGE that is sealed for time and all eternity by using that sealing ordinance as the key to unlock that door.

For those of us who have been through divorce, if you are living a righteous life, you have the key or the "sealing ordinance" necessary. The Lord will help you find another spouse to be sealed with. Once you are divorced, it is entirely up to YOU what you choose to do with that sealing ordinance key. Just like after baptism, you can go inactive or stay faithful, but the ordinance is performed. Onle the Lord can judge if you have lived worthy to use those keys. Your ex-spouses use of her keys is irrelevant to your use of the keys. Those keys don't even belong on the same key chain after divorce.

Does that help anyone?

[its_Chet]

I was sealed in the temple 20 years ago about four years after we were sealed there were lots of misunderstandings and we separated and divorced. He said he didn't want the divorce but he signed all the papers and never showed up in court to contest anything. He remarried, civially the same year our divorce was final. I remarried 8 years later to a non member. My marriage is ending because I decided to go back to church after being in active for the last 17+ years and my husband doesn't want to be married to some one in the LDS Church. now my ex has re-surfaced in my life. He says he is very unhappy in his marriage and that he has never stopped loving me and since my marriage is ending he wants to get back together when both of our divorces are final. In the last 17 years my ex has become very inactive he smokes and drinks and doesn't attend church. He and I never had children and we both have children from our current marriages. His wife is not intersted in the church either and is in fact very anti-mormon. So what do I do? Do I try to keep my civil marriage from ending or do I let it end and then go back to the spouse I was sealed to? The reason my ex and I got in contact is because I've been thinking about applying for a cancellation of our sealing if and when I want to be sealed to someone else. Or do I let my marriage end and not go back to my spouse but hold out for someone who honors his priesthood and obeys God's commandments. I've tried to find answers and I've prayed about it numerous times, but either I haven't gotten an answer yet or I haven't realized what the answer is. I'm not sure what the church views are on this issue. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!!

Hey there Kestrel

I think the most important thing to remember when making your decision is that the heart and the head don't always agree in situations like this, and since that will probably make following the Spirit a little more challenging, extra care should be taken.

It sounds like in your current marriage, your husband is making this decision for both of you; whether or not to end the marriage. If he files papers, there's not really a lot you have to decide. Of course the correct thing for him to do would be to not file, fix his inappropriate attitude toward your and your daughter's participation in the Church, and accept the Gospel himself. But it doesn't sound like that's what will happen, and there's only so much you can do about that.

I firmly believe that we shouldn't worry about anything we cannot change or control (to be clear, that's "cannot", as opposed to "will not"). To me, that is the defining characteristic of something that is someone else's responsibility, and for which they and not I will be held accountable. I encourage you to keep your focus on what you can change, and it sounds like in that department you're doing great. You and your daughter both.

As for your ex husband, it doesn't sound like he's much of an improvement to your situation. Perhaps you feel you get a lot more respect from him and are treated better, but you should probably remember that if you're not willing to leave the Church for your current husband (and you absolutely shouldn't), it may not be wise to get back with your ex husband if he is inactive. You should probably ask yourself what the chances are that your ex husband will return to the Church. Regardless, I'd encourage you to make it clear to him that the man in your future will be an active member of the Church, and that you and your daughter require that kind of support from a responsible Priesthood holder in the home.

This is really a decision that only you can make, and you and your daughter will be the ones to live with the results, good or bad. I do feel that the Lord will bless people like you who are willing to choose the Church and the Gospel over family, in the unfortunate cases where it comes to that due to the decisions that other people make. God should always come first, period. Looks like you get that.

I guess the best advice anyone can give you is don't let you heart write a check that in the future you won't be able to cash without unreasonable difficulty. Marriage is a matter of the heart, no getting around that. And that's the way it should be. Just don't let your heart talk you into boarding the Titanic.