Sethbag wrote:If a man is sealed to a woman in the temple, and they receive a civil divorce, he's still considered sealed to her, even if he remarries some other woman. But if he has sex with his ex-wife, that's now adultery. How can it be adultery if they're still sealed? And it's commonly understood in LDSdom that a sealing isn't worth jack shyte if the covenants are broken. How does the civil divorce not constitute some kind of reneging on these covenants? Why is it that the LDS church deems a sealing to still be in effect after a civil divorce? Is it just a "principle of the thing" kind of thing that wants to set up priesthood acts as being something the civil law can't touch?
It's all so stupid.
Maybe it's to punish divorcees. In the case of the woman, she can't get sealed again without a temple divorce. I thought men there were some restrictions for men who were divorced too although I think they may be different since a widower can get a second temple sealing but a widow generally can't.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Sethbag wrote:If a man is sealed to a woman in the temple, and they receive a civil divorce, he's still considered sealed to her, even if he remarries some other woman. But if he has sex with his ex-wife, that's now adultery. How can it be adultery if they're still sealed? And it's commonly understood in LDSdom that a sealing isn't worth jack shyte if the covenants are broken. How does the civil divorce not constitute some kind of reneging on these covenants? Why is it that the LDS church deems a sealing to still be in effect after a civil divorce? Is it just a "principle of the thing" kind of thing that wants to set up priesthood acts as being something the civil law can't touch?
It's all so stupid.
Maybe it's to punish divorcees. In the case of the woman, she can't get sealed again without a temple divorce. I thought men there were some restrictions for men who were divorced too although I think they may be different since a widower can get a second temple sealing but a widow generally can't.
It is because there are protections and blessings in the covenants made that outlast the marriage. I thought this was obvious.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:It is because there are protections and blessings in the covenants made that outlast the marriage. I thought this was obvious.
I would have thought being sealed to one's parents would suffice in the mean time. I can't imagine that temple sealings mean much if the couple is divorced. If those blessings and protections are so vital, then shouldn't we get people spiritually sealed (but not legally) ASAP? I also think that the covenants are hard to keep without actually being married.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
The Nehor wrote:It is because there are protections and blessings in the covenants made that outlast the marriage. I thought this was obvious.
I would have thought being sealed to one's parents would suffice in the mean time. I can't imagine that temple sealings mean much if the couple is divorced. If those blessings and protections are so vital, then shouldn't we get people spiritually sealed (but not legally) ASAP? I also think that the covenants are hard to keep without actually being married.
ASAP, yeah. Ever been interviewed by a Singles Ward Bishop? They aren't hard to keep but many of them still can be. If you're not responsible for the divorce, then what you were blessed with can stay. If you caused the divorce, you have broken them. Sucks to be you.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:ASAP, yeah. Ever been interviewed by a Singles Ward Bishop?
I did go to BYU and my last bishop was obsessed with it. One of the counselors said marriage was the main reason the church keeps BYU.
If you're not responsible for the divorce, then what you were blessed with can stay. If you caused the divorce, you have broken them. Sucks to be you.
Rarely is one party the sole cause of a divorce.
True, in which case both need to repent.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
There is no such thing. Polygamy = more than one living spouse. The church today allows concurrent sealings for time and all eternity for men and living women, which is polygamy straight up (if you consider the sealings to bind a man to a woman, regardless of civil recognition of the marriage). Having individual wives in succession is serial monogamy, not serial polygamy, plain and simple.
I see Daniel Peterson using that term, and it's simply nonsense; it just a disingenuous means of trying to make both the term and the idea more palatable or acceptable.
Strike the phrase from your vocabulary!
/pet peeve rant off
Can I stand on your soap box with you? (smile)
You are so right! For members to suggest there is no polygamy in the LDS church today is just NOT true. It is a flat out lie.
There are many men sealed to multiple women who are alive and well on this earth today.
The FLDS have one legal wife and multiple women on the side with whom they are spiritually sealed, so too with many LDS men. They may be legally married to one women but are spiritually sealed to others.
To pretend otherwise is to lie.
OK, my rant is over too! LOL!
~dancer~
I think most LDS would argue that the difference is that while there are some men that have been sealed to more than one women that they are not really considered married at all since they do not live or act like they are. A friend of mine's wife left him for another man. She was ex'd. He remarried and is sealed to his second wife. Of course he needed only a sealing clearance, not cancellation, to be sealed to his now wife. So technically he is sealed to her and to his first wife. But he does not look at it that way as she is not even a member any more nor does it look like she is coming back.
asbestosman wrote:Maybe it's to punish divorcees. In the case of the woman, she can't get sealed again without a temple divorce. I thought men there were some restrictions for men who were divorced too although I think they may be different since a widower can get a second temple sealing but a widow generally can't.
A divorced man needs to get a "clearance" to get a second temple sealing, but doesn't need to cancel the first. The divorced woman needs to essentially get her ex-husband's permission to get a new temple sealing by asking for his permission to cancel the first, then petitioning the leaders for a cancellation.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
truth dancer wrote:There is really no need whatsoever for the current practice (proxy work could more easily be done during the millennium), so when leaders find the practice destructive to their image or when enough people speak out, there will be new light and knowledge... like that which you received. ;-)
Actually, I doubt the church will be so keen to drop templework. It is my understanding that interest in geneology is one of the church's big ways of advertising itself.
They don't have to drop genealogy, just drop the proxy work that appears very disrespectful and elitist to others.
~dancer~
If one really appreciates the true motive behind it is not elitist or disrespectful at all. Though I understand how some may see it that way.
by the way, keep in mind that this practice you think so odd is primarily responsible for probably the best treasure trove of genealogical data in the world. So the world does get something back from it.