Sorry, Arlene. I haven’t gone through any of that stuff, but it sure sounds aggravating.

On a, perhaps, less significant issue, I think “who you know” can matter. Generally that doesn’t bother people, but it is a shame nonetheless. I suppose a whole slew of unknowns could be excellent mission presidents, for example, but if the “right” people don’t know you from Adam, you aren’t going to get called.

On a different note about temple sealings: is there a maximum? At some point, for example, would people say, “I think you gave it a good try x# of times, best of luck in the afterlife.” I do think it makes a difference that Marie was re-marrying one of her husbands, not a brand new guy.

annegb, my heart goes out to you.

So she remarried the first guy? I’ll be, that is an interesting thing.

It condemns us when we have favorites — we are choosing them over God.

I’m reminded of the parable of the two workers, one who was hired early in the day, and the other was hired later in the day, and both got the same amount of money for that day’s work.

ESO, good word. Aggravating. I’m not going to chain myself to the gates of the temple over it, but it bothers. The difference it SHOULD make is they got divorced once, and remarriages rarely make it. I give this marriage less than a year.

Angie, I think you’re right about the friendship. I guess no matter what organization you’re in, there’s an inner circle. Wonder if there’s one in heaven. You’re also right about keeping your eye on the Savior.

Stephen, back at ya. :)

Book, I hate that scripture.

Paul, :). Not worth it. I achieved a certain local notoriety writing opinion columns for the local paper. It wasn’t as much fun as you’d think. Everybody has terrible experiences in their life. On a scale of one to ten, not getting my way was about a two. A minor, although insensitively handled, inconvenience. But the perceived attitude toward “the little people” really gets to me. It’s like how for decades in my ward, women weren’t allowed to give the opening prayer in church. It gives the message that God is too a respector of persons.

But, bottom line, life isn’t fair.

And, while I’m mad about this, I wish Marie Osmond the best. She deserves happiness. I don’t think this is it, but you never know. Like I said, remarriages just don’t make it. There’s a reason they got divorced the first time. It’ll rear its ugly head.

It can be worse when the marriage breaks up a second time. She’s still pretty deep in the grieving process and in my experience, you reach out for any comfort.

“So many of the rules that govern the lives of most Mormons, putting doctrine aside, are incredibly arbitrary.”

Amen.

Sorry for your loss and frustrations.

It sorta bugs me that people in gov’t positions get priority seating in General Conference…

Re: taping weddings and funerals.

There’s no rule that says weddings or funerals have to be in the chapel.

When you’re married in the chapel, it’s not a “church wedding”, it’s a civil ceremony done by civil authority, even if it’s performed by the bishop. There’s no priesthood authority used, and it’s not a priesthood ordinance.

Same thing with funerals. There is no priesthood ordinance or ceremony for a funeral. The only thing close is a dedication of the grave, and even that’s 100% optional.

So if you want to record video of a wedding or a funeral, just don’t have it at an LDS chapel. Have the wedding ceremony at a commercial reception/dinner venue or hall, get anyone who is licensed by your state to perform marriage ceremonies (justice of the peace, or anyone with a Universal Life Church ordination who has a state license), and have the funeral at the funeral home, and get whoever you darn-well please to conduct, officiate, and speak.

Your standing in the church is no different if you get married at the Moose Lodge by a justice-of-the-peace versus getting married in the chapel by the bishop. They are both identical as far as civil law, and as far as priesthood goes, because both are _not_ priesthood ordinances.

I would definately write the brethren about it. I am divorced and was told I can’t get my sealing cancelled until I want to get married again. The best wedding have ever been to was held in the Gym, I can’t believe anyone didn’t think of it before! you eliminate all the rigamarole. I needed some fast offering assistance once just once to pay my child support until my new job was starting and I couldn’t get it because my son lives outside of our ward boundaries so my totally inactive ex spouse would have to ask for it. I wrote Bishop Keith McMullin and I told him that I don’t recall Jesus ever saying suffer the little children unless they live outside of ward boundaries.he wrote back but nothing he said was of any benefit. I don’t pay fast offerings anymore, I donate to world vision. It is hard to see through the church imposed fog sometimes.

Yup, forgiveness over permission is usually the best solution.

I’m really sorry about that, Trish. I’d go over his head. He sounds kind of like DKL’s mission president. No way would I suffer that in silence when Marie Osmond is allowed to remarry her first husband in the temple so soon after her divorce. No way.

Sigh……I might have to throw a fit. Considering how to approach bringing this to the general authorities’ attention.

Warning, this is an apologists post.

When I was in a bishopric a long time ago (1990 to 1993 I think) I, of course, had access to the General handbook of Instructions (it has since been rewritten, as it periodically is) and the absolute rule at that time was that sealings were not “cancelled” until the person was both remarrying and they had a current temple recommend. At that time we were told not to cancel a sealing until the person was ready and worthy to be sealed in the temple to the next spouse.

With respect to photos or film: The rule (at that time) was that photos or movies were not to be taken of *any* priesthood ordinance. Nor were photos or movies to be taken within, or of, the interior of the Chapel proper (not the church building, but the interior chapel room). Since a marriage outside of the temple is NOT a priesthood ordinance (as stated above by Bookslinger) the easiest solution for non-temple marriages is to have the wedding somewhere else. And of course any temple married is not filmed no matter what.

Regarding the different set of rules for celebrities, the Church walks a fine line (as do the celebrities). The Church desires to use the opportunities to promote the Church’s image and spread the Gospel. Sometimes it works well, other times it backfires spectacularly (think BYU sports over the past 3 or 4 decades for plenty of cases of both types). For the celebrity the equation is rather interesting as well, we are taught in the scriptures that we are responsible for our actions, if a celebrity publicly screws up and damages the Church’s missionary/PR efforts as a result I suspect that they will bear some measure of eternal responsibility for the harm they cause. personally I wouldn’t want to take the risk. A similar idea applies to Church officials; Stake Presidents will get excommunicated for sins which might get a regular member put on probation or possibly dis-fellowshipped. And the process of repenting and returning will be much longer and will require approval from SLC to happen.

RE: Trish, I’m really curious: Why, if you and your husband have both been temple recommend holding members the whole time you’ve been remarried, weren’t you just sealed in the temple 20 years ago? It does seem incredibly odd that the two of you would, or even could, be issued temple recommends if you weren’t interested in being sealed earlier. I don’t quite see how that logic works? Just curious – ignore, answer, or flame as you (or anyone else) see(s) fit.

RE: Steamtrain Why didn’t you just ask the Bishop of the ward where you were living for help? It seems like that would have been an easy solution? What am I missing? Bishops are not authorized to spend money outside of their own ward boundaries except in very odd circumstances. But almost everyone lives in the boundaries of a ward or branch (everyone in the U.S. does for certain).

I absolutely agree that many of the rules we live by are totally arbitrary and that some local priesthood leaders exercise unrighteous dominion. But if one simply steps back and asks what can I do within the confines of the arbitrary rules it is usually possible to find a doable solution (but I agree not *all* of the time).

oh yeah, and as for why we had recommends. we met ALL of the criteria for getting one. there is nothing that says you have to be sealed to your spouse to get a recommend. we still have recommends. we didn’t have any issues with each other, just waiting for our children to feel comfortable with the whole thing. i do think that is an unusual stance for a mormon family to take. but i felt it was disrespectful to ignore kids feelings. i respect my kids and they respect me. we are a family unit, every vote is important. one of our children lived with his mother and was basically a convert in his teen years. he didn’t come on board with the whole sealing thing until he himself was married in the temple. my sp never bothered to ask this question. i think he just assumed we didnt want to be sealed or there are some big deep secrets were keeping from him. in any event i am so done talking to him. i cant take the insanity of it all. hoping my last bishop will soon be new sp. he thinks this whole deal is rediculous and disgusting

Trish, you can have a friend submit your temple sealing after you and your spouse are both dead. You don’t have to have previous sealings canceled to have a sealing done by proxy. It’s only when you’re _living_ that you can’t be sealed to more than one man. After a woman is dead, she can be sealed to all her legal husbands.

Trish – If you and your first husband were sealed prior to having your children, then they can’t be “re-sealed” to you and your second husband (and there’s no need for it).

My mother was sealed to my biological father, and they divorced after I was born. She and my stepfather married and then had 2 more children (born under the covenant of the 1st marriage). About 10 years after my mother’s marriage to my stepfather, her sealing to her 1st husband was annulled/cancelled (he had remarried, too) so my mother and stepfather could be sealed to one another.

The local leadership wasn’t sure about what to do with the four kids involved (again, all born under the covenant of the 1st sealing). They contacted Salt Lake and President Kimball sent a letter to my parents and the Bishop. According to that letter, there was no need to have any of my parents’ children “re-sealed” to my mother and stepfather.

Apparently (as I understand it) sealings follow the traditions of the Jewish faith and the kids go with the mother for eternity regardless of the status of the father. Additionally, the letter said the only important element was for all of us to have been born “under the covenant.” The rest will be worked out in the hereafter.

If any of your children or your husband’s children were not born under the covenant, they can be sealed to you and him so they will also have this ordinance completed for their eternal progression. But the next time you’re in the temple, listen to a sealing where children are sealed to their parents. The wording is very interesting and can clear up some questions about the need for children to be sealed to their parents.

Trish, I’d start keeping a journal. Of every possible sin. Grouchy mornings, unkind thoughts, upset stomach, bad dreams. Then, once I’d hit at least 100 pages I’d go in to make an “installment.” Tell the SP you had thought it over and wanted to be thorough, you knew it would take several visits, and then patiently and quietly start going into painstaking detail. You know, after a couple of hours he will be ready to gnaw his arm off to escape.

Then you make an appointment to come back for another couple of hours.

That should pretty much wrap it up. You should read Brigham Young on the topic of people don’t need to confess like they were confessing to things (I danced with my wife twice at the stake dance, that may have been too much — that sort of confession got going for a while). They started to plum wear him out.

If I understand correctly, a living woman can be sealed to two men at the same time, but only one of the men can be living. For instance, Molly and Peter (as living people) get sealed in the temple. Peter dies, and Molly is still living. Molly can then get sealed to her second husband, Joe, in the temple. If Joes dies, and Molly and is still living, she can get sealed again to 3rd husband if she (and 3rd husband) want.

Did I get that right?

That is what I’ve seen done.

I have to admit some people want to videotape everything. Every prayer, every two and a half minute talk, little Timmie scratching himself in primary as he waits to be called on … Some times it is hard for people to find a balance. /sigh.

I’ll have to tell you about a bishop I dearly loved, who confessed to me all he knew how to do was to tell people to love each other, and the ways that worked and failed some people miserably.

Sure wish everyone well. It can be so hard.

John, thank you for your reasoned post. You say you were told not to cancel the sealings, but only the general authorities can cancel sealings. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here.

As far as the rules for videos, my chief objection is how often the rule was bent depending on the whim of the local leader involved based on celebrity.

I don’t think your statement about celebrities holds water. I did think “oh Marie is a role model, if she got married out of the temple, think of the young lives impacted” and then I thought “what a load of crap.” Kids aren’t that stupid. It would have been an act of integrity for the church and for her to do what everybody else does. Because appearance is NOT everything and this emphasis on celebrity and appearance and church mention in the news makes us look like a bunch of media whores.

Steamtrain, something in your story doesn’t ring true for me. I don’t know what, just doesn’t sit right. I don’t feel good about fast offerings being used to pay child support.

Book, #27, you’re absolutely right about the procedure for being sealed to two spouses. Both men must be dead. And absolutely wrong about women being sealed to two men while she’s alive. Definite no-no. Men can be sealed up the ying-yang.

Paroled, you’re correct as well. Sealings of children can never be cancelled.

Stephen, see my comment to Book, above. I’ve never heard of a woman being sealed to two men at once unless she and both men are dead.

Although, good idea :) about the sins. I just love you.

The only time I really wanted to videotape a procedure was James’ funeral. Even at that, we had the audiotape and I played it over and over every day for six months and sobbed my guts out.

It’s not about it being true. I just don’t think fast offerings should be used that way. or the other ways you describe. As far as being comfortable, I wouldn’t get too comfortable. A lot of charities have similar problems. Fraud, etc. I stopped giving to the United Way here when the director took a butt-load of money.

But something about having the church pay your child support seems to defeat the purpose. It’s a small distinction, but I would suggest getting food from the church storehouse and sending the food money to your child.

Yeah there’s a way around that. You just lost inclusion in my “no fair” club.