DiscussMormonism.com

I was thinking about this recently and I realized how many problems it must create for LDS women. If your husband beats you, and you divorce him, then you are still sealed to him, and are unlikely to have it cancelled without another sealing lined up. That's all kinds of messed up.

That is why Nu Skin, Inc. has come out with their line of Celestial Goo Gone™ spray and lotion, to help you escape those unwanted sealings.

Face it, l-dsinc does not consider women anything more than property. Useful property at times, but in spite all their blather and whining - still just property.

Women are able to get out of relationships when they become God or even when they become a priestess. When they get that power (on their own accord, by the way), the rude guy better run like hell.

malaise wrote:I was thinking about this recently and I realized how many problems it must create for LDS women. If your husband beats you, and you divorce him, then you are still sealed to him, and are unlikely to have it cancelled without another sealing lined up. That's all kinds of messed up.

Yep, so long as the LDS church continues to keep these ridiculous not to mention cruel rules, they demean and degrade and diminish women.

I have a TBM loved one who was in an extremely abusive relationship, (yes, reported it numerous times and no the priesthood holder was not even so much as reprimanded), finally got a divorce and cannot get out of the sealing. This guy STILL considers her his wife even though the divorce has been final for years. It is CRAZINESS!

And, of course if he marries again, he will be a polygamist in terms of LDS doctrine.

Yeah, seriously messed up!

Whenever LDS church leaders, (and their PR team), issue a statement that they do not practice polygamy, I cringe due to the misleading and disengenuous report.

~td~

Seems to me like sealings are only effective if the person believes in them. They are a means of controlling the members, and just like the closed temple marriage rules, the rules need to be updated. But... the Brethren are more concerned with malls and money.

The sealing is a covenant. If all parties are not living up to that covenant, it is null and void. Obviously, if a man is abusing his wife, he is not living up to that covenant. In God's eyes, the covenant is null and void, no matter what any piece of paper says.

Having said that, I do think that it should not be so difficult to get out of a sealing, particularly with abusive circumstances.

liz3564 wrote:The sealing is a covenant. If not all parties are living up to that covenant, it is null and void.

What do you mean, living up to it? Your stance on this is not orthodox and would not be considered doctrinal by most orthodox Mormons. There is a reason many divorced women have to appeal their sealings to the first presidency after divorce.

Obviously, if a man is abusing his wife, he is not living up to that covenant. In God's eyes, the covenant is null and void, no matter what any piece of paper says.

Are you a Mormon? This is not Mormon doctrine.

Having said that, I do think that it should not be so difficult to get out of a sealing, particularly with abusive circumstances.

You are wrong.

malaise wrote:

liz3564 wrote:The sealing is a covenant. If not all parties are living up to that covenant, it is null and void.

What do you mean, living up to it? Your stance on this is not orthodox and would not be considered doctrinal by most orthodox Mormons. There is a reason many divorced women have to appeal their sealings to the first presidency after divorce.

Obviously, if a man is abusing his wife, he is not living up to that covenant. In God's eyes, the covenant is null and void, no matter what any piece of paper says.

Are you a Mormon? This is not Mormon doctrine.

Having said that, I do think that it should not be so difficult to get out of a sealing, particularly with abusive circumstances.

You are wrong.

Yes, I am a Mormon, and I am not wrong. You are.

When was the last time you went to the temple?

Covenants are binding based on commitment. That is doctrine, sweet cakes...like it or not. And, yes, I will CFR when I have time later today. In the meantime, I'm sure that BC, Simon, Nehor, or Dan Peterson could easily beat me to it.

My view is not unorthodox in this standing.

I have no argument with you that it is difficult to get out of a sealing. If you read my post, I even stated that fact. I also stated that it should be changed. THAT view is probably non-orthodox, but my statement regarding covenants is not.

Also, why don't you answer MY question, since I answered yours. You have skirted it numerous times on the board.

ARE YOU Mormon???

What is your relationship with the Church, and who are you to tell me that I don't know the doctrine of my own faith?

liz3564 wrote:
Yes, I am a Mormon, and I am not wrong. You are.

When was the last time you went to the temple?

Covenants are binding based on commitment. That is doctrine, sweet cakes...like it or not. And, yes, I will CFR when I have time later today. In the meantime, I'm sure that BC, Simon, Nehor, or Dan Peterson could easily beat me to it.

My view is not unorthodox in this standing.

I have no argument with you that it is difficult to get out of a sealing. If you read my post, I even stated that fact. I also stated that it should be changed. THAT view is probably non-orthodox, but my statement regarding covenants is not.

Well, it depends on what you mean. The official view of the Church seems to be that sealings remain valid after divorce in the majority of cases where a woman does not remarry another Mormon man, which is why men have new sealings added if they remarry-the old sealing is still valid. So I do not think that the fact a man was abusive to his wife means that the sealing is invalid. In fact, I think that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and McConkie would tell you that a man has the right to discipline his wife.

Also, why don't you answer MY question, since I answered yours. You have skirted it numerous times on the board.

ARE YOU Mormon???

not anymore