sealing cancelation?

[Juan_P]

Is there a contradiction here with this story?

M.

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.

[Juan_P]

ok juan_p.... lol this is just getting muddy (as in unclear not spiteful).

True; it's very difficult to discuss these matters over a forum like this one but we keep trying.

I think what is being missed is when things are worded wrong there is a perception of claim or being stuck with another person.

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.

Which is the impression given when someone says the sealing of divorced ppl is in effect.

I don't get that impression; sealings are a different, higher action and ordinance.

So if there is someone that is obsessing over an ex that has left them, left the church, moved on to a new relationship, whatever they are wasting their time.

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.

The govn't does recognize the sealers (or temple pres) as having the legal authority to marry and thus they can sign the legal documents needed for a civil marriage.

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.

In countries where the couple must fill out the civil paperwork outside the temple and then go and do the sealing ceremony that is because there are laws about marriages needing to be public not because they recognize the church sealings more or less.

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.

If we had just gone and done the sealing and not sent the legal paperwork back to the state then the state would not see us as married.

Off course!

If the paperwork got lost we would not have been able to show our sealing certificate as proof of marriage, there is a different form you fill out that you take back to the temple pres and they sign saying they witnessed you marry on the date

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?

[Juan_P]

There is a contradiction. He was legally married to 2 living women, which the church does not support. I would suspect the rejection of his desire to be sealed had more to do with that than her wanting reconciliation. .....He didn't have to be remarried because he was never divorced*. He could have just as easily properly divorced the first wife, gotten that in order and then reapplied for the sealing to the second.

*if the country he was married in recognized the over seas divorce and it was properly filed with the courts then he would have been divorced. The man just didn't fill out all paperwork properly.

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.

[Maureen]

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.

OK, so why did the story start by saying:

I know one couple where the man walked out, divorced and remarried civilly overseas...

Did he divorce his first wife, remarry, leave his 2nd wife and reconcile with the 1st? If he divorced his 1st wife and then they got back together without remarrying, wouldn't the LDS church see a problem with that?

M.

[Juan_P]

OK, so why did the story start by saying:

I know one couple where the man walked out, divorced and remarried civilly overseas...

Did he divorce his first wife, remarry, leave his 2nd wife and reconcile with the 1st? If he divorced his 1st wife and then they got back together without remarrying, wouldn't the LDS church see a problem with that?

M.

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.

wouldn't the LDS church see a problem with that?

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.