The way sealings work for women is quite disturbing

[_cafe crema]

Whether or not the sealing has been formally cancelled in such an instance is essentially a matter of bookkeeping. Such a sealing is already "of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead." Whether the Church has formally noted the reality of the situation is immaterial, almost anticlimactic.

Why aren't sealings automatically canceled upon divorce then? I suppose it wouldn't be immaterial for a woman who wants to get married again to have to petition to do so.

[_Inconceivable]

A friend of mine died last year. He insisted on being sealed to his second (and current) wife prior to his death (ruining her chances of being an A-list eternal investment to any other "worthy" male TBM).

During the arranging of the fun(eral), my friend's divorced (and previously sealed) wife showed up declaring her "celestial first wife" status and attempted to manipulate the event as well as benefit monetarally from his death. No kidding. She was summarilly booted, however, her argument was that she held a current temple recommend that entitled her to direct the proceedings (among other things).

This drama caused a lot of anxiety for the family. For outsiders, it's just another reason why Mormons are "peculiar" people.

What a mess.

[_Yoda]

Whether or not the sealing has been formally cancelled in such an instance is essentially a matter of bookkeeping. Such a sealing is already "of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead." Whether the Church has formally noted the reality of the situation is immaterial, almost anticlimactic.

Why aren't sealings automatically canceled upon divorce then? I suppose it wouldn't be immaterial for a woman who wants to get married again to have to petition to do so.

Dan could probably answer this better than I can. I believe that it has to do with the sealing of the children to the family...or the children that have been born under the covenant of that marriage.

For example, my parents are divorced. They have both remarried. They divorced for reasons outside the spectrum of abuse. They just had irreconcilable differences. However, they are both still sealed to each other. Neither one of them are opposed to still being sealed to each other because my brother and I are sealed to them as a family.

Their view is that it will work out in the next life the way it is supposed to.

[_Yoda]

A friend of mine died last year. He insisted on being sealed to his second (and current) wife prior to his death (ruining her chances of being an A-list eternal investment to any other "worthy" male TBM).

During the arranging of the fun(eral), my friend's divorced (and previously sealed) wife showed up declaring her "celestial first wife" status and attempted to manipulate the event as well as benefit monetarally from his death. No kidding. She was summarilly booted, however, her argument was that she held a current temple recommend that entitled her to direct the proceedings (among other things).

This drama caused a lot of anxiety for the family. For outsiders, it's just another reason why Mormons are "peculiar" people.

What a mess.

Sounds like this woman was a real b---.

It's pretty obvious why he divorced her.

Sorry that happened.

I agree...what a mess!

[_truth dancer]

Whether or not the sealing has been formally cancelled in such an instance is essentially a matter of bookkeeping.

Not really, or women would not have such a horrendously difficult time getting a sealing cancellation. We all know a man must give his permission for a sealing cancellation by his former wife.

And, if this were so, women would be under the same rules as men but such is not the case. Men do not need to have a sealing cancellation prior to a second marriage.

Women are sealed in the LDS church until there is an official cancellation. If this is just a matter of bookkeeping, they need to get more help in the COB.

Such a sealing is already "of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead." Whether the Church has formally noted the reality of the situation is immaterial, almost anticlimactic.

Immaterial? Tell that to the women who cannot get a cancellation! If it is immaterial one would think the church would not make women jump through such hoops to be free from their former husbands.

If the sealing is irrelevant if one partner is not worthy (sigh), then why must a woman wait until her former husband gives his permission for a cancellation, and why doesn't the church just let a sealing happen when a divorce takes place?

~td~

[_Yoda]

My personal feeling is that women be allowed to be sealed to more than one man, just as men are allowed to be sealed to more than one woman.

If all "assignments" are going to be worked out in the hereafter, then why not just let the sealings stand, have God work it out?

[_malaise]

This is the Church's official stand on spousal abuse. There are scriptural references included:

And before 1978 the Church didn't allow blacks to become priests. I was beaten by my Mormon boyfriend and the church elders I discussed it with were upset with me because they thought I was causing problems. The real question would be: what do they think constitues abuse? Do Muslims who beat their wives consider it abuse? No, they don't.

It most certainly does not.

Even if it doesn't, that does not imply that a covenant is broken once someone sins. Plenty of Mormons commit awful sins and still hold that their covenants are real.

Do I believe that changes need to be made to more effectively fight spousal abuse both in and out of the Church? You bet I do!

But you are simply making blanket statements about the doctrine which is incorrect.

You also need to keep in mind that the gospel does not necessarily equal "the Church".

I am sorry if you, or someone close to you, has suffered from spousal abuse. I have a close friend who is not a member of the Church who suffered from spousal abuse. It happens everywhere.

It is a horrible thing.

But the doctrine is the doctrine, and I call it as I see it.

Believe me, there is plenty about the Church that I disagree with when it comes to policy, in particular. But I won't allow a statement regarding the Church encouraging or accepting abuse to go unchallenged.

Have there been periods of time when the Church has turned a blind eye?

Yes. I have seen that happen.

Does it need to change?

Yes, and I have seen the Church take steps to make those changes. They need to make more.

[_malaise]

Not really, or women would not have such a horrendously difficult time getting a sealing cancellation. We all know a man must give his permission for a sealing cancellation by his former wife.

This

[_zeezrom]

Why not just get rid of eternal sealings altogether?

[_malaise]

I certainly do.

I believe that you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of covenant, in the Latter-day Saint conception of it.

Consider the archetypal covenant between God and human. God, in our view, will never violate his covenant. But the human co-covenanter might well, and often does. In that case, the covenant is null and void:

"I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise" (Doctrine and Covenants 82:10).

In other words, the unfaithfulness of one party to the covenant nullifies it, even if the other party is perfectly faithful.

Define faithfulness and unfaithfulness

Covenants are not automatically and mechanically binding regardless of the faithfulness and behavior of those who entered into them:

"All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise . . . are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead" (Doctrine and Covenants 132:7).

All that passage says is that the holy spirit had to seal the people who enter into a covenant, not that the have to be faithful, whatever that means, for it to be valid. I did not read the passage by McConkie that you quoted, but I will if you answer a question for me. Do you accept McConkie's authority as a general rule? If not, why?

All humans are imperfect, of course. No marriage is perfect. But surely there is a point beyond which bad behavior nullifies the marriage covenant. And surely wife-beating and spousal abuse, barring repentance and reform, is a pretty good candidate for doing so.

So if a man beats me and reforms, the covenant is still valid? What if I divorce a man who beats me, and then he reforms his behavior, and then refuses to consent to the sealing being undone? What then?

The idea that a covenant, once entered into, binds both parties no matter how badly one of them behaves and no matter how much one of them may want out of it is thoroughly foreign to me, and to my understanding of temple marriage. Whether or not the sealing has been formally cancelled in such an instance is essentially a matter of bookkeeping.

As other have noted, this does not make sense. Why would the church require women to make petitions if that was the case?