Divorce and temple recommends

[bl8tant]

I am pretty upset right now.

After reading various posts here, I found this 1976 Ensign article.

If I'm reading it right, then because my wife has filed for divorce-- something she acknowledges is her fault-- then I can't attend the temple until receiving clearance from the First Presidency, a process which can apparently take years. I'm not going to be very happy if this is true since regular temple attendance is one of the things I'm counting on to get through this process with my sanity intact.

My initial hope is that the cited article is just an ancient relic and that the current policy is different. I've reached out to my bishop and a counselor in my old stake presidency for clarification. Until then, though, can anyone with recent first-hand experience comment on whether this is really the policy?

[Gwen]

use the advanced search, this has been discussed several times on these forums. my husband had to get a sealing clearance and it was 7 months from engagement to sealing.

[Wingnut]

Gwen, I think bl8tant is referring to normal temple attendance, not sealing issues.

[Wingnut]

It's worth noting, bl8tant, that the rule used to be that if a woman's husband was not a member or was otherwise not worthy to attend the temple, that she was also not allowed to attend. Things have changed a lot.

[Gwen]

my bad and i don't think that is true anymore. i think as long as the divorce wasn't for worthiness issues then there should be no laps in time. but i'm open to being corrected. i'd talk to the bishop.

[Maureen]

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.

Dallin H. Oaks, “Divorce,” Ensign, May 2007, 70–73

I hope this helps.

M.

[Hemidakota]

I am pretty upset right now.

After reading various posts here, I found this 1976 Ensign article.

If I'm reading it right, then because my wife has filed for divorce-- something she acknowledges is her fault-- then I can't attend the temple until receiving clearance from the First Presidency, a process which can apparently take years. I'm not going to be very happy if this is true since regular temple attendance is one of the things I'm counting on to get through this process with my sanity intact.

My initial hope is that the cited article is just an ancient relic and that the current policy is different. I've reached out to my bishop and a counselor in my old stake presidency for clarification. Until then, though, can anyone with recent first-hand experience comment on whether this is really the policy?

Yes! Things have changed. As long you are worthy, you can still attend the temple. If you have any feelings of self-doubt, see your Bishop for guidance.

[bl8tant]

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.

Dallin H. Oaks, “Divorce,” Ensign, May 2007, 70–73

I hope this helps.

M.

It does indeed; I'd read that article, and even noticed the quote. It doesn't, unfortunately, spell out whether the previously-cited policy is still in force, though. Guess I'll have to wait to hear back from my bishop (who hopefully will be back in town before Sunday).

[Saguaro]

From the CHI, page 78

If a member has been divorced or legally separated or has had a marriage annulled since last receiving a temple recommend, the Bishop and Stake President may feel impressed to carefully interview the member prior to the expiration of the recommend to ensure continued temple worthiness. Events leading to the breakdown of the marriage may be reviewed. If the member has not committed a serious transgression, a temple recommend may be retained or renewed according to the usual procedure.

This is probably the first place your Bishop is going to look for an answer. Looks like as long as you're temple worthy you don't have anything to worry about. I wouldn't trust a 1976 Ensign article regarding matters of policy, a lot can change in 34 years.

[bl8tant]

THANK YOU, Saguaro! That's what I needed to know.

(update: got e-mail from my bishop quoting the same passage from the CHI and inviting me to come have a recommend interview. Yay!)

Edited June 12, 2010 by bl8tant
added update