Stormy Waters wrote:The moral of the story is that God wants you to stay with your abusive spouse no matter what.
Try to not confuse "God" with "the church".
Now that's an excellent point. We become very accustomed to blaming God for his Prophets failure to follow instructions.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Tobin wrote:Perform community service instead. I believe you'll get closer to God doing that then doing temple work for a thousand holocaust Jews anyway.
She can still do temple work. What she's barred from is being a temple worker. There's a big difference there.
Yes, it's a bigger slap in the face. Get divorced from your husband, whatever the reason, and you will be punished.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Do you know if this is policy or was this was up to the discretion of a church leader?
Would this decision have been taken if the leader were female I wonder....
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
harmony wrote:Try to not confuse "God" with "the church".
Fair enough. But this is a really terrible message to send to people who looking for an out to an abusive relationship. That they've done something worthy of punishment.
just me wrote:I discovered yesterday that if you get a divorce you cannot work at the temple for 5 years.
There is apparently a woman who is divorcing her abusive husband and has been told that she cannot come back to work at the temple (as a temple worker, not as a patron) for the next 5 years.
Does this apply to divorced men as well? Is this something new?
After my divorce (about 10 years ago), my husband was called to be a temple worker (within only months of the divorce being final).....until his church court was held and then he was released.
I was also asked to immediately turn in my temple recommend (even though I was still "temple worthy") and my husband was told he could keep his. However, my Bishop learned that this policy had changed a couple of years earlier (automatically having the woman turn in her recommend upon separation or divorce).
just me wrote:I discovered yesterday that if you get a divorce you cannot work at the temple for 5 years.
There is apparently a woman who is divorcing her abusive husband and has been told that she cannot come back to work at the temple (as a temple worker, not as a patron) for the next 5 years.
Isn't now the time when this woman needs these blessings the most?
Actually, this has been the rule since at least the 1996 Handbook, but it is within the context of calling a prospective temple worker; the language is silent as to whether it applies to one who is divorced after having been called as a temple worker. Here is the language in the current (2010) Handbook 1 (p. 24):
To be considered for a calling as a temple ordinance worker, a member must: ...
2. Not have been divorced within the past five years, unless the divorce occurred before the member was baptized. ....
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
just me wrote:I discovered yesterday that if you get a divorce you cannot work at the temple for 5 years.
There is apparently a woman who is divorcing her abusive husband and has been told that she cannot come back to work at the temple (as a temple worker, not as a patron) for the next 5 years.
Does this apply to divorced men as well? Is this something new?
After my divorce (about 10 years ago), my husband was called to be a temple worker (within only months of the divorce being final).....until his church court was held and then he was released.
I was also asked to immediately turn in my temple recommend (even though I was still "temple worthy") and my husband was told he could keep his. However, my Bishop learned that this policy had changed a couple of years earlier (automatically having the woman turn in her recommend upon separation or divorce).
Similiar situation to that of a friend of mine. She was told to turn in her TR, while her High Councilman husband kept his. She was not allowed to attend her daughter temple wedding, while her HC ex-husband was. And neither of them had done anything wrong... they just couldn't stand to live together anymore.
I'd have handled things differently, but she's one of the world's sweet people, and well.. I'm a Queen B.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Tobin wrote:Perform community service instead. I believe you'll get closer to God doing that then doing temple work for a thousand holocaust Jews anyway.
She can still do temple work. What she's barred from is being a temple worker. There's a big difference there.
Not that big of a difference. One takes a ride in the industrial amusement park of Mormonism known as temple work. The other runs the ride. Both would be better off and get closer to God by serving their fellow man instead and stopping all this non-sense at this point. It certainly wouldn't hurt; it might cause people to think better of the Church; and I don't think people would be complaining about their dearly departed being baptized.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:Not that big of a difference. One takes a ride in the industrial amusement park of Mormonism known as temple work. The other runs the ride. Both would be better off and get closer to God by serving their fellow man instead and stopping all this non-sense at this point. It certainly wouldn't hurt; it might cause people to think better of the Church; and I don't think people would be complaining about their dearly departed being baptized.
It's a huge difference. And if you were Mormon, you'd know that.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.