On divorce...

[MikeWaters]

My experience on cougarguard, hearing the stories of guys who have been divorced and their subsequent experience in the church has made me sensitive to the topic.

I'm trying to make sure that I reach out to the divorced or divorcing brethren, no matter the cause or fault of the parties.

So thank you for sharing your stories. Somewhere down the line, they probably will lead to some good.

[Archaea]

It will be appreciated because men are reluctant to reach out.

[ute4ever]

In previous years, it was church policy to revoke the man's temple recommend as soon as there was a separation, no questions asked. The view was that if there was any discord in the marriage, it was the man's fault, because the women wanted nothing more than to stay at home raising babies and thinking of ways to please the man. If the marriage failed, it was because the man was unfaithful and/or abusive.

That policy has softened. They no longer automatically yank the recommend.

Presently though, receiving a sealing clearance requires the highest standard of morality in the church. On the bottom of that scale is worthiness to partake of the sacrament. Above that is temple worthiness. Above that is sealing worthiness. And above that, highest of all, is being worthy for sealing after a divorce. My stake president recently gave a speech about an increase in strictness in two areas:

(1) When a divorcee applies for a sealing clearance, sometimes now they will cancel the previous sealing even though a clearance is not granted, if the person is deemed unworthy to be resealed. (As a result, he or she is no longer sealed to anybody.)

(2) It's been widely held that those who have sexual intercourse outside of marriage must wait a year before going to the temple. Now, when a divorcee applies for a sealing clearance, he or she is given the same one year waiting period if he has viewed pornography or engaged in "heavy petting." Yes just to clarify that means if you are divorced, and you rub your girlfriend's breasts, you must wait one year from that date before being worthy of a sealing clearance.

[MikeWaters]

Easy solution. Civil marriage. rub as much as you want. Then get sealed.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

In previous years, it was church policy to revoke the man's temple recommend as soon as there was a separation, no questions asked. The view was that if there was any discord in the marriage, it was the man's fault, because the women wanted nothing more than to stay at home raising babies and thinking of ways to please the man. If the marriage failed, it was because the man was unfaithful and/or abusive.

That policy has softened. They no longer automatically yank the recommend.

Presently though, receiving a sealing clearance requires the highest standard of morality in the church. On the bottom of that scale is worthiness to partake of the sacrament. Above that is temple worthiness. Above that is sealing worthiness. And above that, highest of all, is being worthy for sealing after a divorce.

I think you've received some bad information.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Easy solution. Civil marriage. rub as much as you want. Then get sealed.

That's the most bizarre thing of all. Couples having all kinds of premarital sex, so they up and have a civil wedding and a year later it's like nothing ever happened. Signed, sealed, delivered. But for divorcees? Third base is the new home plate.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think you've received some bad information.

My stake president taught it to a priesthood body. I guess I should have asked whether he'd checked with Tex for accuracy.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

My stake president taught it to a priesthood body. I guess I should have asked whether he'd checked with Tex for accuracy.

I can't speak to how every individual priesthood leader applies the doctrine, but I'm well acquainted with the sealing cancellation/clearance process. Nothing in my experiences matches what you said.

That's not to say the process isn't individualized. Each situation is different and evaluated on its own details. But the no-questions-asked "auto-yank" of the temple recommend on the assumption of male fault strikes me as a yarn. As does your sliding scale of morality.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Tex

I can't speak to how every individual priesthood leader applies the doctrine, but I'm well acquainted with the sealing cancellation/clearance process. Nothing in my experiences matches what you said.

That's not to say the process isn't individualized. Each situation is different and evaluated on its own details. But the no-questions-asked "auto-yank" of the temple recommend on the assumption of male fault strikes me as a yarn. As does your sliding scale of morality.

It seems as though Richard Dutcher isn't the only one with an ego as large as Delicate Arch. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, you don't have an all-encompassing knowledge of every last policy in the church, past and present?

[MikeWaters]

Administration in the church is codified in the handbooks. One of the books is for public consumption. The other isn't. (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I've not looked in the private handbook (I'm not invited to). However, it strikes me as unlikely that what Ute4ever has described is actually in that handbook.

Given that his stake president said what he said, I think we could consider a couple of possibilities:
1. It is the stake president's opinion.
2. (the more likely possibility)--that he was instructed to do these things from a traveling/regional general authority in one of the leadership meetings. It's a kind of "off-the-books" administration. Which is likely regional in nature to the extent that the purveyors of it are communicating it to stake presidents and bishops. When the church leadership wants uniformity and a clear understanding about something not in the admin manuals, they send out First Presidency letters to those leaders.