or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › LDS/Mormon Support Only Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LDS/Mormon Support Only Thread - Page 23

post #441 of 628
If a man, once sealed in the temple, wants to be sealed again (and the first wife is living) he has to get a letter from her. It's not called a 'cancellation' it's called a 'temple clearance' but he still has to have it. Not only did DH's bishop make sure he had one, but that morning at the temple right before the wedding they asked to see our marriage license AND our temple clearance.
It IS a hassle, and frankly I'm shocked that any priesthood leaders (or temple sealers) would let it slip through the cracks for your friend... The thing is that a civil divorce does NOT break a temple sealing. So you can be divorced all you want and you can re-marry civilly no problem...but if you want to be sealed you HAVE to do the paperwork to get the prior sealing broken. Sortof like you can be married and be separated and living with someone else, but you can't actually get married again until you do the paperwork to break the first one...

ETA
I *know* for a fact that the paperwork goes through Salt LAke and the office of the president--I can tell you a story about ours.
I think i know which friend you're talking about...perhaps she misunderstood the question when you asked her? If it's who I think it is, I trust her to be honest...but I also know the facts on this since I've been there! Perhaps this has not always been the policy? I dunno...I just knwo that we had to do the paperwork, and that getting a letter from DH's ex was part of it (and two years later when SHE wanted to get sealed, he had to write a letter for her as well). In both cases, the letter went to the bishop, not to the former spouse...so perhaps your friend never actually saw the letter and didn't realize there was one or whatever?
post #442 of 628
AM I THE ONLY MORMON IN CALIFORNIA WHO'S NOT GOING TO VOTE YES ON PROP. 8?

AHHHHHHHHH!!!!
post #443 of 628
Let me clear this up before it gets out of hand. My first marriage was NOT a temple marriage. I think there was a miscommunication there. However, I have had siblings and a good friend who had first marriages be temple marriages and when they got their sealings cancelled (or cleared, whatever word you want to use ), they wrote a letter requesting it, but did not have 'permission' from their ex spouses. Perhaps their cases are different from other cases because in all of these cases the ex's were either abusive, not in good standing with the church. or were excommunicated. Either way, them's the facts of what happened.

And yes, if a priesthood authority told me or asked me to do something that didn't seem right, I would absolutely ask to see the church policy or where the commandment from the prophets were.
post #444 of 628
Oh, my post had nothing to do with anything here...

I just had a huge meeting in church about this issue and it made me want to bang my head against the wall.
post #445 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talula Fairie View Post
Oh, my post had nothing to do with anything here...

I just had a huge meeting in church about this issue and it made me want to bang my head against the wall.

Those are generally very frustrating for me, also!
post #446 of 628
Thread Starter 
I don't think anything was getting out of hand, but now I'm back to the idea that it is something I don't like but I trust there is a reason for it and that someday I will understand what that is.

What is Prop 8?
post #447 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by alisaterry View Post
I don't think anything was getting out of hand, but now I'm back to the idea that it is something I don't like but I trust there is a reason for it and that someday I will understand what that is.

What is Prop 8?

Oh, I meant it lovingly.. Prop 8 is a referendum on gay marriage, IIRC.
post #448 of 628
Thread Starter 
Has a recoomendation on how to vote come down from the First Presidency, like last time?
post #449 of 628
Well, the recommendation from the First Presidency last time was that we should let our representatives know how we felt about the very important bill. It did not, as so many people seem to think (not saying you did or didn't) tell people to vote for the bill or tell there representatives to vote for the bill. I can't seem to dig up the letter on LDS.org, but I'm sure someone else will!
post #450 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebarnes View Post
Well, the recommendation from the First Presidency last time was that we should let our representatives know how we felt about the very important bill. It did not, as so many people seem to think (not saying you did or didn't) tell people to vote for the bill or tell there representatives to vote for the bill. I can't seem to dig up the letter on LDS.org, but I'm sure someone else will!
The letter I heard told us to spend our "time and means" passing prop 8. They didn't just say "vote with your conscience."

This article is pretty clear:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...on-of-marriage

I am seriously thinking of leaving the church over this. I am furious.

Not sure where today's talk came from. I think the stake but again, I don't know for sure. I think in California this is a Big Deal. I have a friend in Utah who didn't even know this stuff was going on until I told her.

Our ward is calling everyone in the ward asking them to come on a walk to pass out pamphlets so that we can hopefully convince others to pass Prop 8. And yes, Prop 8 is the proposition that bans gay marriage.
post #451 of 628
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsr...e-sex-marriage

Yep, I just was able to dig up the letter that was sent to you guys. It is different than the letter sent out about DOMA last year. I still think this was left up to you. You were asked, not commanded. It is in the same vein that I feel fine about not vaxing my kids, even though the First Presidency 'urges' us to. I for one, am always going back and forth on these amendments to marriage. I would never vote for a national amendment,
post #452 of 628
I dunno man.

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

If that's not telling us how to vote....I really don't know what would be. It seems pretty clear, to me.

I love the church. I've had such a great experience with it in every other way except this. I just don't know what to do
post #453 of 628
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talula Fairie View Post
I am seriously thinking of leaving the church over this. I am furious.
The scriptures and prophets modern and old are very clear about how Heavenly Father feels about homosexuality and how it fits into the plan of salvation.

Since this thread is for support for members who are trying to live the gospel, it would be best if you move your comments to the other monthly LDS thread (I assume it is still ongoing?) which is designed for this type of discussion.

I am sorry this is such a struggle for you and hope you understand.
post #454 of 628
Thread Starter 
I would like to add, however, that Orson Scott Card wrote a wonderful article about how even apostles belong to different political parties, so if you do vote your conscience, it is not something that needs to separate you from the Church.
post #455 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by alisaterry View Post
The scriptures and prophets modern and old are very clear about how Heavenly Father feels about homosexuality and how it fits into the plan of salvation.

Since this thread is for support for members who are trying to live the gospel, it would be best if you move your comments to the other monthly LDS thread (I assume it is still ongoing?) which is designed for this type of discussion.

I am sorry this is such a struggle for you and hope you understand.
I really don't understand.

I want to make it clear that I am trying to live the gospel.

I don't view this particular issue as having anything to do with how HF feels about homosexuality or how it fits into the plan of salvation. I view this as a legal issue, not a church issue. I don't understand why we can't just say "we do not recognize these unions" and leave it at that, the same way we don't recognize them in the other countries that the church is active in where they are legal.

I am sorry and disappointed to learn that my comments are unwelcome here. I won't be commenting to this thread again and will remove my subscription.
post #456 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by alisaterry View Post
I would like to add, however, that Orson Scott Card wrote a wonderful article about how even apostles belong to different political parties, so if you do vote your conscience, it is not something that needs to separate you from the Church.
You're right. I have decided as of late *not* to leave. Honestly, I do still love the church and that will not change.
post #457 of 628
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talula Fairie View Post
I really don't understand.

I want to make it clear that I am trying to live the gospel.

I don't view this particular issue as having anything to do with how HF feels about homosexuality or how it fits into the plan of salvation. I view this as a legal issue, not a church issue. I don't understand why we can't just say "we do not recognize these unions" and leave it at that, the same way we don't recognize them in the other countries that the church is active in where they are legal.

I am sorry and disappointed to learn that my comments are unwelcome here. I won't be commenting to this thread again and will remove my subscription.
This thread was started so that we could be free from debate and criticism of the Prophet, First Presidency and Apostles, official church programs and gospel doctrine. If you want to discuss something outside of those parameters, then unsubscribing is the right thing to do.

Please respect the purpose of this thread - we're not all perfect and we don't all completely understand some things, but we don't want negativity.
post #458 of 628
I was hoping to get support. You know, so I'd be less negative.

Unsubscribing now. Have a nice day.
post #459 of 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talula Fairie View Post
I really don't understand.

I want to make it clear that I am trying to live the gospel.

I don't view this particular issue as having anything to do with how HF feels about homosexuality or how it fits into the plan of salvation. I view this as a legal issue, not a church issue. I don't understand why we can't just say "we do not recognize these unions" and leave it at that, the same way we don't recognize them in the other countries that the church is active in where they are legal.

I am sorry and disappointed to learn that my comments are unwelcome here. I won't be commenting to this thread again and will remove my subscription.
I'm not sure if you'll get this if you've unsubbed, but just wanted to add that I absolutely understand where you come from on the legality issue. This is why I am up in the air about how I will vote in the future. However, if a commandment came down from the Prophet, then I would follow it, and pray for understanding. That is why I am glad they haven't done it yet, because it would be a struggle to accept that I am being told how to vote politically. But in the end, I do believe the prophet is called of God and that if he misuses that calling, he will be accountable, not I.
post #460 of 628
Thread Starter 
I don't have a problem with anyone not liking a part of the Church. I already mentioned I don't like something. I just don't want to have to read about how the Church should change, because it shouldn't.


There's a fine line between being upset about a Church policy and criticizing the First Presidency for that policy.

Again that's why there are two LDS threads, is it not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Spirituality
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › LDS/Mormon Support Only Thread