Cancelation of sealing, how long does it take?

[LeSellers]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not weighing in on the larger discussion; but Alma 30:25 is a direct quotation from a diatribe of Korihor the antichrist.  I'd be careful about citing that particular verse for doctrinal purposes. 

Was it Brother Brigham who said we'd take truth, even from Satan? The Accuser told Adam that eating the forbidden fruit would make him (and us) as Gods, knowing good and evil. Then God corroborated that truth-to-mask-a-lie when He said, The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

A false premise (Ye say [we are guilty] because of a fallen parent) does not require a false conclusion. Korihor was right for all the wrong reasons.

Lehi

Edited May 26, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not weighing in on the larger discussion; but Alma 30:25 is a direct quotation from a diatribe of Korihor the antichrist.  I'd be careful about citing that particular verse for doctrinal purposes. 

Well, there goes my faith. Back to atheism I go. 

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

A false premise (Ye say a we are guilty because of a fallen parent) does not require a false conclusion. Korihor was right for all the wrong reasons.

Lehi

A child may not be guilty for the sins of its parents; but it certainly has to live with the consequences of certain sins committed by the parents.  That's the concept Korihor was really trying to undermine--especially as it applied to the doctrine of The Fall--and it's a concept that I would venture to guess has some bearing in yours and Gator's current discussion.    

Edited May 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

Here's a temple situation for you (note I have this third hand--temple worker told my MiL who told me).

Parents attend daughter's sealing and marriage. Parents, long-time members, have no recollection of sealing ceremony... just receiving endowment and then going home.

[Backroads]

Here's a temple situation for you (note I have this third hand--temple worker told my MiL who told me).

Parents attend daughter's sealing and marriage. Parents, long-time members, have no recollection of sealing ceremony... just receiving endowment and then going home.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Here's a temple situation for you (note I have this third hand--temple worker told my MiL who told me).

Parents attend daughter's sealing and marriage. Parents, long-time members, have no recollection of sealing ceremony... just receiving endowment and then going home.

But I assume the sealing was in church records?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Here's a temple situation for you (note I have this third hand--temple worker told my MiL who told me).

Parents attend daughter's sealing and marriage. Parents, long-time members, have no recollection of sealing ceremony... just receiving endowment and then going home.

But I assume the sealing was in church records?

[Backroads]

6 hours ago, Eowyn said:

But I assume the sealing was in church records?

Me too. I figure such a thing couldn't be that hard to verify. My MiL was telling the story and I was wishing she had more details. I quickly lumped into the category of "Temple Urban Legends" but I do enjoy wondering about such things.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2016-05-26 at 9:58 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Is anyone else a little bothered by the notion that (hypothetically, of course--I don't know the details of the individuals mentioned in the OP) a good and faithful Latter-Day Saint can be posthumously deprived of the blessings of his temple sealing just because his surviving wife decides she likes someone else better?

I guess this is one of those "the Lord will work it all out" scenarios.

Even without that though a person can say at judgement day that after experiencing a life together with their spouse they would rather not be with them for eternity and end it then.  If you want to be with your spouse forever, make sure your marriage is a good and your bond is strong.  Don't just take it for granted that they are stuck with you forever, they aren't.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2016-05-26 at 10:37 AM, NeuroTypical said:

I'm with JAG.  All it takes to get a sealing cancelled, is for that marriage to be "not great"?

I mean, I'm hoping LDM was going for understatement here.  Because otherwise, a lot of us folks who are trying hard are sunk.

 

That how my father in law described it.  I wasn't asking for details.  Bottom line is she doesn't want to spend eternity with him.  She'll have to give her reason in her request for cancellation.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2016-05-26 at 2:01 PM, MormonGator said:

 I know in the Catholic church it matters if it was a valid marriage in the first place. IE-Rudy Giuliani got an annulment because it turns out his first "wife" was actually his second cousin. So it was like the marriage never happened in the first place. 

Does that matter too with a cancelled sealing? IE-turns out that one person entering into the marriage was 17, or already married or something?

Of course I trust the judgement of the first presidency 100%, just asking. Nothing more. 

With Catholic theology, you can get a divorce, but if you marry somebody else after that you are an adulterer, so Catholics have a strong preference for getting annulments instead if they can.  That way they are free to marry again. 

I expect that if there were grounds for an annulment that those same reasons could be used to request a cancellation of the sealing.  I don't think it would automatically be canceled.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

With Catholic theology, you can get a divorce, but if you marry somebody else after that you are an adulterer, so Catholics have a strong preference for getting annulments instead if they can.  That way they are free to marry again. 

 

Well said. . Eight years of catechism classes taught me a little bit. True, I slept through many classes...

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2016-05-26 at 3:38 PM, MormonGator said:

1) My bio parents weren't married and like the book of Mormon says in Alma 30:25 a child isn't guilty for the sins of the parents, so it doesn't matter

2) You and I agree that the Catholic church on that issue is delusional and and inhumane. Even in the 1990's when Catholics found out I was :: gasp :: adopted and that my bio parents weren't married it was scandalous. I grew up Catholic. Catholic schools, weekly church, etc.   Some catholics still think lesser of offspring like myself, and my parents because my sister and I aren't "biological". It's repulsive. It turned me off from religion for a long time, in all honesty. 

Wow, Catholics up here are way different.  My son in law's parents are Catholic.  The lived together unmarried for 11 years, didn't get married until he was nearly in his teens.  Nobody cares.  Finding a Catholic that takes the Catholic position on sex, marriage, abortion etc. seriously is kind of hard.  We put our kids in Catholic schools up here since the moral environment was better, but they would do fundraising for UNICEF even after we showed them that UNICEF helps fund abortions in third world countries.  There was a bit of a controversy at my kids school in 2008 because a history teacher set up a field trip to go down to the USA to 'observe' the election process, but a big part of the trip was to actually to do volunteer work for the Obama campaign.  The parents rose up and shut that one down at least.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Wow, Catholics up here are way different.  My son in law's parents are Catholic.  The lived together unmarried for 11 years, didn't get married until he was nearly in his teens.  Nobody cares.  Finding a Catholic that takes the Catholic position on sex, marriage, abortion etc. seriously is kind of hard.  We put our kids in Catholic schools up here since the moral environment was better, but they would do fundraising for UNICEF even after we showed them that UNICEF helps fund abortions in third world countries.  There was a bit of a controversy at my kids school in 2008 because a history teacher set up a field trip to go down to the USA to 'observe' the election process, but a big part of the trip was to actually to do volunteer work for the Obama campaign.  The parents rose up and shut that one down at least.

Granted, it was the early 90's so it wasn't like the 1940's. But it was still miserable. 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2016-05-26 at 3:46 PM, LeSellers said:

I'm reminded of a Star Trek episode where Spoke underwent a time transfer of some sort and he reverted to an earlier version of a Vulcan, complete with passions and appetites. He fathered a child, and it was his shame, not the child's, he was worried about. I don't remember the outcome, but that passage is stuck in my mind.

You sure that isn't a novel?  I don't recall an episode like that.  Amok Time is a little similar in that Spock reaches the time of mating and feels ashamed of feeling desire, but he dosn't have sex with anybody, he nearly kills Kirk instead.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Well said. . Eight years of catechism classes taught me a little bit. True, I slept through many classes...

Nearly forgot, if you are a king and the pope won't give you annulment, then you have to kill your wife so you can remarry, or declare yourself equal to the pope and give one to yourself.  

[Latter-Day Marriage]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Well said. . Eight years of catechism classes taught me a little bit. True, I slept through many classes...

Nearly forgot, if you are a king and the pope won't give you annulment, then you have to kill your wife so you can remarry, or declare yourself equal to the pope and give one to yourself.  

[LeSellers]

5 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

You sure that isn't a novel?  I don't recall an episode like that.  Amok Time is a little similar in that Spock reaches the time of mating and feels ashamed of feeling desire, but he dosn't have sex with anybody, he nearly kills Kirk instead.

No, it was Nemoy Spock in a cave. I don't recall enough of the episode to identify it further, but it was the series, not  movie, and definitely not a book: I've only read one Star Trek novel (didn't like it at all).

Lehi

[Latter-Day Marriage]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

No, it was Nemoy Spock in a cave. I don't recall enough of the episode to identify it further, but it was the series, not  movie, and definitely not a book: I've only read one Star Trek novel (didn't like it at all).

Lehi

I think I found it, a bit of both actually.  The episode 'All our Yesterdays' has Spock going into the past, being helped by a woman and going primitive for a bit before returning, and there was a novel "Yesterday's Son' where Spock finds out he fathered a child with her back then.

[kapikui]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

No, it was Nemoy Spock in a cave. I don't recall enough of the episode to identify it further, but it was the series, not  movie, and definitely not a book: I've only read one Star Trek novel (didn't like it at all).

Lehi

All our Yesterdays.  Season 3 Episode 23. A planet's sun is about to go nova.  The entire population escapes into the planet's past, each in to a different area and era. McCoy and Spock accidently get sent back in time to some sort of ice age. Kirk tries to follow but goes back to a 1600's like era.  

Long story short, Spock reverts to a pre-Surak Vulcan, falls in love with a woman who had been sent there as punishment.  It is never said outright, but strongly implied that there was reproductive activity.  In 1969 it wouldn't get more explicit than that on television.  Spock goes back shortly after falling in love, and so never has time to find out if there is a child involved. 

There are two non-canonical followup novels Yesterday's Son and Time for Yesterday.  They were about the offspring of that particular coupling.  Spock goes back in time to find his son after reviewing the history of the era on the Guardian of Forever from The City on the Edge of Forever.  

And yes I do know far too much about this. 

[Maureen]

On 29/05/2016 at 8:17 PM, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Nearly forgot, if you are a king and the pope won't give you annulment, then you have to kill your wife so you can remarry, or declare yourself equal to the pope and give one to yourself.  

Or you can make yourself Supreme Head of your own church, annul your marriage or divorce your wife, make your legitimate daughter illegitimate and remarry in hopes of that longed for male heir. ?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

On May 29, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Even without that though a person can say at judgement day that after experiencing a life together with their spouse they would rather not be with them for eternity and end it then.  If you want to be with your spouse forever, make sure your marriage is a good and your bond is strong.  Don't just take it for granted that they are stuck with you forever, they aren't.

Sure, but if we really believe the bond as to the couple is already non-binding, then why is it so necessary to get the formal cancellation?  The widow doesn't need a new sealing; she doesn't even need for the old one to be dissolved; and even if she does get a new sealing, in the scenario you describe it would be a polygamous one (or is she trying to get your father-in-law to cancel his sealing to your deceased mother-in-law, too?  If she were--would you be OK with that?)

Moreover, this notion of "your spouse wouldn't be wandering if you had been treating her right in the first place" is just plain incorrect.  Women (and men) can, and do, unilaterally dissolve their marriages even when the other spouse is living celestially.  Brigham Young understood this:

Quote

 I say to my sisters in the kingdom, who are sealed to men, and who say, "We do not want this man in eternity if he is going to conduct himself there as he does here" —there is not the least danger in the world of your ever seeing him in eternity or of his seeing you there if he proves himself unworthy here. But if he honors his Priesthood, and you are to blame and come short of doing your duty, and 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 if you find the fault was in yourself and not in him. But if you are not at fault, be not troubled about being joined to him there, for no man will have the privilege of gathering his wives and children around him there unless he proves himself worthy of them.

I have said a number of times, and I will say again, to you ladies who want to get a bill of divorce from your husbands, because they do not treat you right, or because you do not exactly like their ways, there is a principle upon which a woman can leave a man, but if the man honors his Priesthood, it will be pretty hard work for you to get away from him. If he is just and right, serves God and is full of justice, love, mercy and truth, he will have the power that is sealed upon him, and will do what he pleases with you. When you want to get a bill of divorce, you had better wait and find out whether the Lord is willing to give you one or not, and not come to me. I tell the brethren and Sisters, when they come to me and want a bill of divorce, that I am ready to seal people and administer in the ordinances, and they are welcome to my services, but when they undertake to break the commandments and tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something. I tell a man he has to give me ten dollars if he wants a divorce. For what? My services? No, for his foolishness. 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 done so when 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. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying—"We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other," &c. It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law. It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this. There is a law for you to be obedient, and humble and faithful.

--Journal of Discourses 17:115-120

 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

I wouldn't say it's non-binding, it's just not permanent until the holy spirit of promise validates it and that won't be until judgement.  If a woman begins the process by being sealed to one man, she can't also start that process with another man unless the first one is canceled.  My father in law is not seeking a cancellation of his sealing, that is not required and he did have a good marriage with her.  My mother in law was amazing.  If he was even considering that, his kids and I would be all over his case about it.

I agree that some spouses get dumped when they have done nothing to deserve it, but if somebody mistreats their spouse they certainly encourage them to leave when they have a chance.  My point was you can't assume that because you were sealed in the temple that you have a guarantee of being together forever no matter how you behave.