The way sealings work for women is quite disturbing

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure how many faithful members of the Church suffer the pangs and anguish about this issue that a few unbelievers do.

In any event, yes, the Brethren can ask. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. I have no idea. And God can answer. Or not. As he chooses.

[_Scottie]

I'm not sure how many faithful members of the Church suffer the pangs and anguish about this issue that a few unbelievers do.

In any event, yes, the Brethren can ask. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. I have no idea. And God can answer. Or not. As he chooses.

I would disagree with you. I think the angst, to one degree or another, is far and wide across believing LDS members.

I know my mother, for one, pains continually about the loss of her entire family because none of us believes anymore. A couple of weeks ago, she asked us all why she even bothers to go to church if her eternal family is destroyed anyways.

I know others who struggle with how their family will fit together in the afterlife after divorce.

And others still wonder about the untimely death of loved ones.

The best they have right now is "it will all work out".

How wonderful that we still have living prophets on the Earth today who can.... well, basically act as outdated guidance counselors. I'm sure glad I have them to tell me not to get into debt, stay away from porn and to be a good family man.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Dan,

Once again -- perhaps you're over-eager to view me as uncaring and sexist -- I think you're missing my point, which was that such a sealing, if the woman wants out of it, will be a dead letter in the life to come. She will not be forced to be the wife of someone she despises.

No, I was not suggesting you are an uncaring sexist, not at all. I do think suggesting the issue is about poor bookkeeping minimizes it, because I know it is a difficult and painful situation for many, many women in the LDS church.

I may have missed your point but I think you missed mine too... or maybe I didn't make it well. (smile)

My point is not that a woman will be shackled to an abusive husband in the next life but that she cannot get married in the temple for time and eternity unless the abuser gives his permission to unshackle her from him in this life.

If a divorced woman wants to remarry a man in the temple, she cannot do so unless her former husband gives his permission. It doesn't matter if he was abusive, cruel, an infidel, Xed, or in prison... the woman is at his mercy.

This is what I find cruel and unusual punishment, (smile)!

Seriously, I find it a lot more than a bookkeeping issue.

If a divorced woman is not allowed to marry her new husband in the temple, what is she going to do in the next life? I know, I know... God will take care of it. Still, if this is the case why create such unnecessary cruelty for women? I know, I know, to test their faith. (sigh)

And, what of the children born to this couple? They will be sealed to the woman and her first husband. The poor dad is going to spend eternity without his children? OK, I know, God will take care of it. :-) Regardless, the children will grow up knowing they are not sealed to their father. What is up with this?

It just all seems so messy, chaotic, and unnecessary.

~td~

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would disagree with you. I think the angst, to one degree or another, is far and wide across believing LDS members.

I know my mother, for one, pains continually about the loss of her entire family because none of us believes anymore.

But that, as I tried to point out, isn't unique to Mormonism.

Mormonism didn't invent the idea of divine judgment.

Many if not most religious parents whose children have gone off the rails -- whether they become drug addicts or prostitutes or violent criminals or simply lose faith and cease to practice the faith -- worry about the eternal status of those children. It has little to do, in the first analysis, with the peculiarly Mormon practice of sealing.

Those who don't believe in an afterlife, of course, lack that concern. But I don't envy them their lack. To me, it would be rather like envying a fellow who isn't going to have to worry about paying his taxes next year . . . because he's in a coma and terminally ill with leukemia.

A couple of weeks ago, she asked us all why she even bothers to go to church if her eternal family is destroyed anyways.

I would respond that, even in her situation, the reward is going to be wonderful beyond all comprehension.

But I don't even necessarily buy into the belief that her eternal family has been irrevocably destroyed. There is a very hopeful element of the eternal family doctrine, which holds that faithful parents will be able, in some way, to save even wayward children. It's little emphasized, but it's there.

I know others who struggle with how their family will fit together in the afterlife after divorce

Divorce is, no question, a mess. In this life, too. And not just for Mormons. The Mormon dimension adds a wrinkle, but we have faith that it will all work out. (I know that that bothers you. But, if I may say so, that's the difference between somebody who trusts in an inconceivably wise, powerful, and loving Person and one who doesn't.)

And others still wonder about the untimely death of loved ones.[/QUOTE
Again, nothing remotely unique to Mormonism.

In fact, Mormonism has some unique comfort to offer on that score.

The best they have right now is "it will all work out".

That's rather an exaggeration, of course.

But faith that it will all work out isn't a bad thing. I find it preferable, by a long shot, to confidence that my untimely-dead loved one has ceased to exist, that I will never see my loved one again, and that the accident, disease, or crime that ended my loved one's life has had the last word.

How wonderful that we still have living prophets on the Earth today who can....

. . . testify, as Joseph Smith did, that "all your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection"!

I do, indeed, find that wonderful.

well, basically act as outdated guidance counselors. I'm sure glad I have them to tell me not to get into debt, stay away from porn and to be a good family man.

I'm sorry you find that advice "outdated."

From my vantage point, I think it's still very, very relevant, and that a great deal of pain and suffering would be avoided if more people took it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

suggesting the issue is about poor bookkeeping. . . . Seriously, I find it a lot more than a bookkeeping issue.

A metaphor. Nothing more than a metaphor.

If it distracts you, forget it.

she cannot get married in the temple for time and eternity unless the abuser gives his permission to unshackle her from him in this life.

I have never been involved in such a case, and would have to consult with people who know the policy in order to be able to comment intelligently on the matter.

I know, I know, to test their faith. (sigh)

If you know that this is the reason for the alleged policy, you know very much more than I do about it.

[_The Nehor]

My point is not that a woman will be shackled to an abusive husband in the next life but that she cannot get married in the temple for time and eternity unless the abuser gives his permission to unshackle her from him in this life.

If a divorced woman wants to remarry a man in the temple, she cannot do so unless her former husband gives his permission. It doesn't matter if he was abusive, cruel, an infidel, Xed, or in prison... the woman is at his mercy.

This is what I find cruel and unusual punishment, (smile)!

In my experience this is not true. You don't need the ex's permission. The leadership of the Church does request input from both parties before granting a cancellation but the Brethren can cancel a sealing even if the ex-husband says they should not get a cancellation.

[_Pahoran]

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.

But women don't "have such a horrendously difficult time getting a sealing cancellation." Unless you think filling out a form and writing a letter is a "horrendously difficult" ordeal.

Actually looking at the issue with a little less femino-narcissism would reveal that it is actually men, if anyone, who "have such a horrendously difficult time getting a sealing cancellation." As in, a man cannot get a sealing cancellation. His ex-wife has to seek it.

We all know a man must give his permission for a sealing cancellation by his former wife.

In that case, "we all know" something that isn't true. The ex-husband's agreement certainly makes the process run more smoothly, but a sealing cancellation can still be obtained over his opposition.

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.

Which is why they cannot get one. At all. No matter how badly they want one. Even when the ex-wife is harassing the ex-husband and the new wife with spiteful remarks about "he's still sealed to me!"

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.

And so are men. But you don't hear us whinging about it.

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.

"Jump through such hoops." Fill out a form and write a letter. That's your idea of "jumping through hoops."

Got it.

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?

Perhaps because in a world where there are things more important than "validating someone's feelings," or whatever the psychobabble of the day is, it might just be conceivable that solemn covenants made in sacred places actually matter. They certainly matter to us, even if they don't matter to you.

Let us consider a case that you might be able to understand: A man and a woman are married in the temple. The man (of course) turns out to be a swine (of course) and the woman (of course) is 100% blameless (of course.) I'm sure you find such a scenario perfectly believable, if not the only believable one.

According to LDS doctrine, the husband, having broken his covenants, is unable to claim the blessings that are promised therein; the wife, having been true to her covenants, is entitled to all of the blessings. It is understood that a more worthy and acceptable man -- to her -- will be found to take the place of the errant ex-husband.

Now I realise that you don't believe LDS doctrine; that's quite all right. The fact is that those who seek a Temple marriage and honour their covenants do believe it. I also suspect that you regard an expression like "worthy and acceptable man" to be something of an oxymoron; if so, perhaps you can make a leap of imagination and presume for the sake of this discussion that such a thing could exist.

Now, also according to LDS doctrine, when the sealing is cancelled, it is cancelled. It is at an end, and has no force out of this life. Thus, if her sealing was to be cancelled at this point, she would not stand to inherit the blessings that relate thereto She will have abrogated the covenant, and it will no longer apply to her.

Therefore, as a believing Latter-day Saint, the wife understands that her eternal welfare is best served by leaving the sealing in place until a more worthy and acceptable man (again, please try to suspend your disbelief) comes along with a better offer. Then, with such a prospect firmly in place, she can start the process of getting her previous sealing cancelled.

Might I also suggest the following: if divorce automatically cancelled sealings, not only would that make the ordinances of salvation subject to the vagaries of secular law, it would also inevitably cause some LDS women in abusive relationships to be more reluctant to end them.

For which, in your eyes, the Church (of course) would be 100% to blame (of course).

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Inconceivable]

I'm not sure how many faithful members of the Church suffer the pangs and anguish about this issue that a few unbelievers do.

In this case, it is the women and perhaps the better men that they may marry.

20 years ago, my mother was getting married to a TBM. She had been divorced from my father for about 5 years. It took her 2 years of pleading with her bishop, stake president, 70 and finally a so-called apostle before she received "permission". In the meantime, she and her new husband were married for time in the temple where they lived. Yeah, a civil wedding in the temple (I was there, recommend in hand).

To see the suffering my mother endured while being derided (yelled at on one occasion) by particularly a stake president was very troubling to me as faithful TBM. On top of that, my father was very well connected (in the hierarchy) and an abusive man. He also just happened to be living with his BOC boyfriend at the time. I guess they still don't seal gay men to each other so why did he make such a fuss? Well, because he had the power as a sealed Mormon man to create a living hell for my mom.

Once again, what a mess.

I suppose nowdays, a woman would simply threaten the COB with a civil lawsuit and a temple cancellation would occur in short order.

[_Jason Bourne]

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



~td~

This is not totally accurate. A man who is divorced from a woman to whom he was sealed and who now desires to be sealed to another woman must obtain a sealing clearance. The procedures and questions, letters, etc are exactly the same as those for a sealing cancellation request from a woman who wants to be sealed again. For the man his former wife is asked to provide a letter opining on his request same as a former husband is asked to provide a letter when his former wife wants a cancellation.

In both cases neither is giving permission to the other spouses request. They are simply giving their opinion on the matter as well as information, if they wish to give it, that may have bearing on the FBs decision.

I do agree that a woman should be able to get a cancellation without having to wait till she may be sealed again.

[_Jason Bourne]

Once again I must emphasize that a former husbands permission for his former wife to sealed IS NOT required. The letter a the former husband provides is simply his thoughts on the request. This is the same thing a former wife provides when her ex husband requests a sealing clearance.


Also Pahoran is correct in that a man cannot invoke a cancellation of a prior sealing. Only the wife can and then only when she desirous of a new sealing. He may be remarrying. He may want to be unshackled from his ex wife. But he cannot cancel the sealing.

I have a friend whose ex temple sealed wife cheated on him many times. They divorced. He remarried in the temple after getting a clearance. But he has no cancellation. His ex wife has not remarried in the temple so she has not requested a cancellation. He would like the sealing cancelled but there is not a way to obtain one.

Last of all a temple president I know once said that the leaders want to leave a sealing in force until another may replace it because it is a required ordinance for exaltation and if say a woman cancels one without another in place her exaltation may be in jeopardy. Whether that us his opinion or official I do not know.