"Christians" obtaining the Celestial Kingdom

[The Folk Prophet]

@Traveler Until you give me a straight yes or no answer to the yes or no question I asked I'm not going to continue this nightmare of poor communication with you. To make it even easier, I'll quote the question again:

 "If you mean to say that each of us knew whether we'd be in the Celestial Kingdom or not...well do you? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're tying to say?"

"Once again I ask: Are you saying that you believe that we knew before we chose to come to earth which kingdom we'd end up in?"

Yes or no?

[The Folk Prophet]

dup

Edited March 17, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What does verse 25 say then?

It says lies are of that wicket one who was a liar from the beginning.  See below for what your posts _seem_ to be saying.  IMO, D&C 93:24-25 are defining truth, not the possession or understanding of truth.  Just because I only have a mortal portion of truth, does not mean it's not truth - were that the case, everything the church teaches would not be truth, because they don't teach everything there is to know (that being impossible for mortals, and contrary to the concept of learning - if it could all be dumped in at once, there would be no learning, just a switch flipping).  But the church teaches truth - despite not knowing all of it - we only know the portion the Lord has chosen to make generally known right now.

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

You say that revelation is not how light and truth is learned.

He never said that.

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I submit that through the power of the Holy Ghost is the means by which truth is revealed - not in part but in full.

So unless I'm omniscient, I've never received revelation from the Holy Ghost?  Because that's what it sounds like you're saying in recent posts - unless you're omniscient, whatever you know is not the truth - if you know a portion of the truth, you don't have the truth, because it's less than "all".  Now it seems highly improbable that this is what you mean to say, but it's important for you to know that this is what it _seems_ like you're saying - so that you can think of new phrasing to get across whatever it is you really mean to say.

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe that those that followed Satan did so by choice in the full light of truth.  They were not forced at any point nor were they lied to

...um, except by him who was a liar from the beginning...  And how could he be a liar if everyone knows everything (omniscience) already?  The power of a lie is in the deception, but one cannot be deceived if one knows the truth.  They chose knowing full well they'd be miserable?  I doubt it.  God didn't have to withhold anything from them give them all knowledge for them to make an informed choice - omniscience was not required to make an informed choice - but I am certain they had sufficient knowledge to make the choice they made.  (I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with that, which is fine by me.)

Further, if we were omniscient, we would have been by definition omnipotent, so why would we have needed God?  What was stopping us from mortalizing and immortalizing ourselves?  (Again, trying to point out that this is what it sounds like you're saying, and it doesn't make sense, so I'm hoping it's not what you mean to be saying.)

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

How can there be free will (agency) without the full light of truth?

So no mortal has free will (agency)?  Because no mortal has "full light of truth" - we're learning it line upon line, precept upon precept - in other words in parts at a time.

Edited March 17, 2016 by zil
clarify "withhold" statement - see redline/strikeout

[The Folk Prophet]

52 minutes ago, zil said:

So no mortal has free will (agency)?  

This is Traveler's view, per previous discussions, as I understand it. He believes that references to agency in the scriptures are "sarcastic" (I believe that's the word he used).

And yet he's confused why I contend that his ideas are not core LDS teachings, thinking, what the prophets have taught, etc.

After all -- you can't find any quotes anywhere from any prophets that say the discussions of agency in the scriptures are not sarcastic. That proves it, right?

[zil]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is Traveler's view, per previous discussions, as I understand it. He believes that references to agency in the scriptures are "sarcastic" (I believe that's the word he used).

And yet he's confused why I contend that his ideas are not core LDS teachings, thinking, what the prophets have taught, etc.

After all -- you can't find any quotes anywhere from any prophets that say the discussions of agency in the scriptures are not sarcastic. That proves it, right?

If that's really what he's trying to say, then to continue this thread is pointless and all but the insane should abandon it.  

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, zil said:

If that's really what he's trying to say, then to continue this thread is pointless and all but the insane should abandon it.  

I have secretly known that I am insane for many of the conversations I engage in here for quite some time now.

[emi]

This is part of why many Christians don't consider Mormons Christian.  They feel the power of Christ's atonement is diminished when us being reunited with Christ again relies on us being LDS and undergoing specific ordinances.  

 

Random thought- mainstream Christians say we're not Christians for the same reason that we LDS people don't believe that the FLDS are Mormons.  

 

One other thing that bothers me is that the church teaches that families can only be together if they're LDS.  Our church is the only church that I know of that teaches that families will be eternally separated by God.  

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, emi said:

1) This is part of why many Christians don't consider Mormons Christian.  They feel the power of Christ's atonement is diminished when us being reunited with Christ again relies on us being LDS and undergoing specific ordinances.  

2) Random thought- mainstream Christians say we're not Christians for the same reason that we LDS people don't believe that the FLDS are Mormons.  

3) One other thing that bothers me is that the church teaches that families can only be together if they're LDS.  Our church is the only church that I know of that teaches that families will be eternally separated by God.  

1) No.  Not really.

2) No.  Not really.

3) Since when?

Explanation:

1) The reason they don't consider us Christians is a long and evolving story.  True, they keep coming up with reasons to exclude us.  But that is more of a "gatekeeper" mindset which has evolved because they found out that the earlier reasons to exclude us weren't true.  Now, they just zone in on those doctrines that are decidedly different and use them as a wedge to differentiate us.

2) We have a defined canon of doctrine with a central leadership that determines the interpretation of said canon.  It's a top - down faith with those appointed as judges.  We even list those items which constitute apostasy.  FLDS decidedly go against such.  For other faiths, they really don't have anything like that.  

A better parallel would be to compare us to Catholics who actually differentiate Roman Catholic from other forms of Catholicism and Orthodox churches.  Generally, when we say "Catholic" we mean Roman Catholic.  When we say "Mormon" we mean SLC headquartered LDS.

3) Since when?

[emi]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) No.  Not really.

2) No.  Not really.

3) Since when?

Explanation:

1) The reason they don't consider us Christians is a long and evolving story.  True, they keep coming up with reasons to exclude us.  But that is more of a "gatekeeper" mindset which has evolved because they found out that the earlier reasons to exclude us weren't true.  Now, they just zone in on those doctrines that are decidedly different and use them as a wedge to differentiate us.

2) We have a defined canon of doctrine with a central leadership that determines the interpretation of said canon.  It's a top - down faith with those appointed as judges.  We even list those items which constitute apostasy.  FLDS decidedly go against such.  For other faiths, they really don't have anything like that.  

A better parallel would be to compare us to Catholics who actually differentiate Roman Catholic from other forms of Catholicism and Orthodox churches.  Generally, when we say "Catholic" we mean Roman Catholic.  When we say "Mormon" we mean SLC headquartered LDS.

3) Since when?

Right, there are various reasons that they do not want to consider us Christians.  But that is one that I have heard multiple times.   

If you think about the other side of our "families can be together forever" teaching, isn't it true that this means some families can't?  Families can only be together in the celestial kingdom   Doesn't that mean that other families will be separated in other kingdoms and won't actually be a family unite?  This will actually be the case for a huge portion of humanity if the okay families that will exist and be together are the ones who have done the correct LDS ordinances  

 

[Guest]

I've responded in the new thread.  So as not to continue a thread jack here.

As for the "families separated from God":  Other faiths teach that if an entire family is Mormon (or any faith they don't like) they'll all go to hell.  So how's that any different?  

Edited March 20, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, emi said:

… the church teaches that families can only be together if they're LDS.  Our church is the only church that I know of that teaches that families will be eternally separated by God.

That may be true (although it really is not), but ours is the only church that I know of that teaches that any families can be eternally united by God. Your worry is woefully misplaced.

This whole topic is based on the fact that all people (Christian or otherwise) can become LDSs whether or not they were so on this earth. So their families can be together, just as ours may be, and on exactly the same bases.

Lehi

Edited March 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, emi said:

This is part of why many Christians don't consider Mormons Christian.  They feel the power of Christ's atonement is diminished when us being reunited with Christ again relies on us being LDS and undergoing specific ordinances. 

The trouble with that argument is that the sort of "reuniting with Christ" that traditional Christians imagine, is extremely similar to our perception of the Terrestrial Kingdom.  In Mormon theology, the Celestial proceed on to a plane of existence that traditional Christianity adamantly denies exists; whereas all those Christians who reject Mormonism--and Mormons who fail to keep a Celestial law--end up getting exactly what they've always said they wanted.

So, a conventional Christian who makes that allegation is making it from either a) ignorance, b) disingenuity, or c) a frankly juvenile obsession with being Number One (or at least, Better Than The Mormons) throughout the eternities.

Quote

One other thing that bothers me is that the church teaches that families can only be together if they're LDS.  Our church is the only church that I know of that teaches that families will be eternally separated by God.  

I think there are a couple of things going on here, actually.

First--and I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but it's my perception, so take it for what you paid for it--the early 19th century converts to Mormonism who heard about eternal marriage/eternal families, seem to have considered it a very novel idea.  My understanding is that the traditional Christian position was something along the lines of that in the eternities, people have no individual identities--they are all part of a single mystical union with the Lord Himself.  The idea of being together with--or separated from--one's loved ones, simply didn't compute.  What's the point of talking about physical proximity, when we all coexist as a single entity that may or may not even have a corporeal form? 

Even now, you'll still find a number of Christian clerics who insist that there is no marriage in the eternities.  But the notion that the same sociality that exists here will exist in the hereafter--and that of course we will be with our loved ones!!!--seems to be gaining currency in orthodox Christian circles; and that strikes me as a relatively new development that is perhaps even, in part, a response to Mormon discourse on the matter.  At any rate, I think the Church has been a little tardy in adjusting its rhetoric to address the rapidly emerging Christian consensus.

Second--the scriptures and truly authoritative prophetic statements about eternal families tend to focus on what happens if we do get temple-sealed, not on what happens if we don't.  Certainly, a lot--maybe even the majority--of Mormons tend to draw a negative inverse conclusion; and that in turn permeates our teaching at the local level.  But frankly, I don't think it's right.  Barring a couple of anonymous Church manuals produced by the correlation committee; I see very little authoritative support for the notion that non-sealed families, or families whose members end up in different kingdoms, are "eternally separated" from each other--certainly no more than I have been "eternally separated" from my earthly parents just because I moved out of their home.  Marketing aside, I rather think that temple sealings don't really create eternal family relationships--they elevate them.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, emi said:

This is part of why many Christians don't consider Mormons Christian.  They feel the power of Christ's atonement is diminished when us being reunited with Christ again relies on us being LDS and undergoing specific ordinances. 

The trouble with that argument is that the sort of "reuniting with Christ" that traditional Christians imagine, is extremely similar to our perception of the Terrestrial Kingdom.  In Mormon theology, the Celestial proceed on to a plane of existence that traditional Christianity adamantly denies exists; whereas all those Christians who reject Mormonism--and Mormons who fail to keep a Celestial law--end up getting exactly what they've always said they wanted.

So, a conventional Christian who makes that allegation is making it from either a) ignorance, b) disingenuity, or c) a frankly juvenile obsession with being Number One (or at least, Better Than The Mormons) throughout the eternities.

Quote

One other thing that bothers me is that the church teaches that families can only be together if they're LDS.  Our church is the only church that I know of that teaches that families will be eternally separated by God.  

I think there are a couple of things going on here, actually.

First--and I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but it's my perception, so take it for what you paid for it--the early 19th century converts to Mormonism who heard about eternal marriage/eternal families were very well versed in conventional Protestantism of the day; and they seem to have considered eternal families to be a very novel idea.  My understanding is that the traditional Christian position was something along the lines that in the eternities, people have no individual identities--they are all part of a single mystical union with the Lord Himself.  The idea of being together with--or separated from--one's loved ones, simply didn't compute.  What's the point of talking about physical proximity, when we all coexist as a single entity that may or may not even have a corporeal form? 

Even now, you'll still find a number of Christian clerics who insist that there is no marriage in the eternities.  But the notion that the same sociality that exists here will exist in the hereafter--and that of course we will be with our loved ones!!!--seems to be gaining currency in orthodox Christian circles; and that strikes me as a relatively new development that is perhaps even, in part, a response to Mormon discourse on the matter.  At any rate, I think the Church has been a little tardy in adjusting its rhetoric to address the rapidly emerging Christian consensus.  Our missionaries still proclaim eternal families as if it's a strange, new, and uniquely attractive doctrine; and their predominately-Christian audience is increasingly shrugging and saying "well, duh!!!"

Second--the scriptures and truly authoritative prophetic statements about eternal families tend to focus on what happens if we do get temple-sealed, not on what happens if we don't.  Certainly, a lot--maybe even the majority--of Mormons tend to draw a negative inference from these statements; and that in turn permeates our teaching at the local level.  But frankly, I don't think it's right.  Barring a couple of anonymous Church manuals produced by the correlation committee; I see very little authoritative support for the notion that non-sealed families, or families whose members end up in different kingdoms, are "eternally separated" from each other.  I mean, have you been separated from your parents just because you no longer live under the same roof--and maybe even live in different states?

Dated marketing/proselytyzing aside, I rather think that temple sealings don't really create eternal family relationships--they elevate them.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Second--the scriptures and truly authoritative prophetic statements about eternal families tend to focus on what happens if we do get temple-sealed, not on what happens if we don't.  Certainly, a lot--maybe even the majority--of Mormons tend to draw a negative inverse conclusion; and that in turn permeates our teaching at the local level.  But frankly, I don't think it's right.  Barring a couple of anonymous Church manuals produced by the correlation committee; I see very little authoritative support for the notion that non-sealed families, or families whose members end up in different kingdoms, are "eternally separated" from each other--certainly no more than I have been "eternally separated" from my earthly parents just because I moved out of their home.  Marketing aside, I rather think that temple sealings don't really create eternal family relationships--they elevate them.

Well Doc&Cov 132 verse 17 implies it strongly, if not outright saying so:

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Lehi

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I see very little authoritative support for the notion that non-sealed families, or families whose members end up in different kingdoms, are "eternally separated" from each other

You mean other than D&C 132?

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You mean other than D&C 132?

I assume you're referring to Verse 17's description of the non-celestial existing "separately and singly", as angels?

I don't think verse 17 requires me to read "separately and singly" as "existing perpetually in a state of solitary confinement, having no interaction with any other saved being".  If it did, then we'd have to deal with all those scriptural accounts where people saw angels--multiple angels--together.  Before sending angels to minister jointly, or sing in some heavenly choir, does God make them fill out some sort of affidavit swearing, under penalty of perjury, that they never knew each other in life; and thus we aren't running the risk of un-sealed people having interactions?  Because that just seems . . . vindictive.   

No, I think verse 17 applies to the marital relationship specifically--if you aren't sealed, you aren't part of a marital relationship and you are therefore separate and single in that sense.  You are not, however, a bastard or a pariah.

Consider for a moment--if sealings are necessary for physical proximity in the eternities, then why aren't siblings sealed to each other?

Edited March 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I assume you're referring to Verse 17's description of the non-celestial existing "separately and singly", as angels?

I don't think verse 17 requires me to read "separately and singly" as "existing perpetually in a state of solitary confinement, having no interaction with any other saved being".  If it did, then we'd have to deal with all those scriptural accounts where people saw angels--multiple angels--together.  Before sending angels to minister jointly, or sing in some heavenly choir, does God make them fill out some sort of affidavit swearing, under penalty of perjury, that they never knew each other in life; and thus we aren't running the risk of un-sealed people having interactions?  Because that just seems . . . vindictive.   

No, I think verse 17 applies to the marital relationship specifically--if you aren't sealed, you aren't part of a marital relationship and you are therefore separate and single in that sense.  You are not, however, a bastard or a pariah.

Consider for a moment--if sealings are necessary for physical proximity in the eternities, then why aren't siblings sealed to each other?

Why assume when I highlighted those very words?

No one has ever said that those who are not exalted will be in solitary confinement, and all the other claptrap you imagine. But they will not be families. They will not have the "same cordiality we enjoy" with their families that Joseph told us about. They are single and separate, just as, if I were in away from home in a huge city, I'd have to eat dinner alone because while I'm far from alone, I am separate and single.

As for siblings, they are sealed to each other through their parents, just as anyone who will be sealed is sealed to everyone else who is sealed. Sealings are not solely about husbands and wives. Sealing join the entire family of Adam into a single unit, what I call a "net" where each of these ordinances is a knot, and the whole thing is one entity: I'm sealed to my brother, and he to his wife who is sealed to her parents, and they to their, who were sealed to their other children, and thence to your parents and to you.

That's why the Brethren do not readily grant Temple divorces to people who've divorced (un)civilly: that sealing is still in place because it holds each of them in the net. Only when they are getting sealed to a new spouse, when a new knot is tied in the net, does the old sealing get rescinded.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Why assume when I highlighted those very words?

Because I was replying specifically to TFP, not to you (I should have acknowledged your post separately, and my apologies for that; but yours and TFP's points seem to be substantively identical). 

Quote

No one has ever said that those who are not exalted will be in solitary confinement, and all the other claptrap you imagine. But they will not be families. They will not have the "same cordiality we enjoy" with their families that Joseph told us about. They are single and separate, just as, if I were in away from home in a huge city, I'd have to eat dinner alone because while I'm far from alone, I am separate and single.

If I'm understanding you properly, then agree with the vision you present.  But I disagree as to whether the bulk of the church membership acknowledges the possibility of contact in the eternities between un-sealed family members.  I think a lot of Church members live in mortal fear that if they don't make it to the temple, then after death they will never "be together" ever again.

Quote

As for siblings, they are sealed to each other through their parents, just as anyone who will be sealed is sealed to everyone else who is sealed. Sealings are not solely about husbands and wives. Sealing join the entire family of Adam into a single unit, what I call a "net" where each of these ordinances is a knot, and the whole thing is one entity: I'm sealed to my brother, and he to his wife who is sealed to her parents, and they to their, who were sealed to their other children, and thence to your parents and to you.

That's why the Brethren do not readily grant Temple divorces to people who've divorced (un)civilly: that sealing is still in place because it holds each of them in the net. Only when they are getting sealed to a new spouse, when a new knot is tied in the net, does the old sealing get rescinded.

Lehi

The children are sealed to the parents, yes; and I agree that that's the impetus behind the Church's reluctance to dissolve temple sealings.  But my take on the sealing ceremony, based on its own text as well as the church leaders who have spoken extensively on the issue; is that (other than marriage) the sealing bond is primarily vertical, not horizontal, in nature:  It grafts us into a royal line of authority through which we receive our eternal inheritances; and through which we reflect glory back on those forbears whose legacy of righteousness made us, to some degree, what we ultimately became. 

But, we would not say that two women sealed to the same husband are not sealed to each other; and I'm not convinced that two children sealed to the same parent are sealed to each other either.  It strikes me that the primary benefit of being sealed to the same parents, would be to reinforce the the bonds of affection that already exist.  Perhaps you could flesh your perspective out a bit more?

Edited March 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

17 hours ago, emi said:

Random thought- mainstream Christians say we're not Christians for the same reason that we LDS people don't believe that the FLDS are Mormons.  

Because Mormons are polygamist child and teen sex abusers who get our compounds raided and leaders convicted for sex abuse of minors, and we marry our cousins so often that mormons have the world's highest incidence of fumarase deficiency?

No, I don't think that's right...  I mean yes, there are some professional critics of the LDS church who have made that exact case, in their books and radio interviews and whatnot, but they're hardly "mainstream Christians".  They're businessmen with an axe to grind and a buck to make.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Just_A_Guy -- I don't think that the predominant thinking is that those who do not make the Celestial Kingdom will be forever in solitary confinement. I expect there are some few who might think so, but my guess is that if you polled the membership at large that such a view would be quite rare. I think the more common thinking would be like yours, but with a healthy dose of "who knows", because that is the fact of the matter. We don't really know. But where I believe there is some validity to the interpretation of "fear" concerning the matter is in the fact that being sealed to our families other than just the husband/wife connection (vertically, as you point out) exists. It is quite plain to me, and I believe to most, that the fact that we need be sealed has some meaning, even if we don't really know what it is.

It is true, in my opinion, that the whole "Together Forever" idea when applied beyond the husband/wife relationship is muddy and, honestly, with what we have revealed to us (very little) does not make much sense. And, frankly, if I were not exalted and had the choice to remain permanently in the presence of someone, I'm not sure my brothers and sisters would be the choice. I mean, I don't do so now. What a nightmare.  Don't get me wrong. I love them. Love the family get-togethers/reunions/etc. But living with them?

Of course in the Celestial Kingdom we can dispel such worries by the "we'll all be perfect" thinking...but in the Terrestrial/Telestial state? Who knows, right?

Still...it strikes me that there has to be some meaning to the sealing and the principle of being sealed and the importance of eternal families (parent/child) beyond the idea that we're merely practicing in this life for the parent/child relationships we'll maintain as exalted parents with spirit children. I don't know what that meaning is, but I don't think it's unreasonable to presume there is some meaning therein.

[Traveler]

Just a thought - who is more likely to be in the Celestial Kingdom?

Someone that was LDS, paid tithing, held a temple recommend, did their home teaching (or visiting teaching) most months, did their callings but like the Levite and Priest in the parable of the Good Samaritan - they neglected those in need and expected to be exalted at the final day. 

Then someone that made many mistakes and struggled with many things, tattoos, piercings, drug problems, never went to any church but had compassion on those in need then at the last day then humbled themselves before G-d and begged for mercy and forgiveness.

My point? Anyone that humbles themselves – accepts the ordinances and pleads for forgiveness – as I understand – will, according to their desire be Celestial.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Just a thought - who is more likely to be in the Celestial Kingdom?

Someone that was LDS, paid tithing, held a temple recommend, did their home teaching (or visiting teaching) most months, did their callings but like the Levite and Priest in the parable of the Good Samaritan - they neglected those in need and expected to be exalted at the final day. 

Then someone that made many mistakes and struggled with many things, tattoos, piercings, drug problems, never went to any church but had compassion on those in need then at the last day then humbled themselves before G-d and begged for mercy and forgiveness.

My point? Anyone that humbles themselves – accepts the ordinances and pleads for forgiveness – as I understand – will, according to their desire be Celestial.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Just a thought - who is more likely to be in the Celestial Kingdom?

 

Someone that was LDS, paid tithing, held a temple recommend, did their home teaching (or visiting teaching) most months, did their callings but like the Levite and Priest in the parable of the Good Samaritan - they neglected those in need and expected to be exalted at the final day. 

 

Then someone that made many mistakes and struggled with many things, tattoos, piercings, drug problems, never went to any church but had compassion on those in need then at the last day then humbled themselves before G-d and begged for mercy and forgiveness.

Factually...neither is as likely as the other.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

My point? Anyone that humbles themselves – accepts the ordinances and pleads for forgiveness – as I understand – will, according to their desire be Celestial.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 

[tesuji]

Regarding the original post, the main point here is that Christ will judge. I think he will judge us according to how well we lived according the knowledge and light that we have. It's very possible that many Mormons will not go to the Celestial Kingdom, and many non-Mormons will. 

Christ condemned people in his day who thought they were chosen because they were born into a certain lineage or had a greater knowledge of God. In the D&C it says the elect are those who "hear my voice and harden not their hearts." He didn't say the elect are people who were baptized Mormon.

I am a Mormon, and I have know many non-Mormons who were much better people than I. I hope I will always remember that and be humbled by that fact. 

If I have been blessed by having the gospel, then my responsibility is even greater to live up to that, or I will receive the greater condemnation.

[classylady]

On March 21, 2016 at 8:12 PM, LeSellers said:

 

That's why the Brethren do not readily grant Temple divorces to people who've divorced (un)civilly: that sealing is still in place because it holds each of them in the net. Only when they are getting sealed to a new spouse, when a new knot is tied in the net, does the old sealing get rescinded.

Lehi

This was the common procedure for some time, but now, women may request sealing cancellations prior to getting remarried. And, they will most likely be granted. The same applies to men. Men and women may request a sealing cancellation from an ex-spouse, even if no remarriage for the ex-wife has occurred.

My husband requested a sealing cancellation from his ex-wife over 34 years ago, and was told at that time from the First Presidency that it wasn't necessary (denied). Then, about three years ago when talking to our Bishop and he mentioned that he wished his temple sealing to his ex-wife could be cancelled. Our Bishop, asked "why haven't you requested a sealing cancellation?", and my husband replied, "I didn't think I could". And he explained how he had tried over 30 years ago to have it done. Our Bishop then told my husband that it was much easier to have temple sealings cancelled, and that he would assist my husband in getting it done. Once the paper work was sent into the First Presidency from our Stake President, my husband received the sealing cancellation within two weeks. I also know that Backroads' husband and his ex-wife had their temple sealing cancelled prior to his ex getting remarried.