I submitted what I felt was an appropriate and thought provoking post to the Deseret News chat board. Unfortunately, my post was denied. So, I am resubmitting it here in the hope that it will be accepted. I have been a fan of Donny and Marie since childhood. Marie has been through a lot. So, I do not begrudge her another chance at happiness. However, I wonder if she would have been permitted to be sealed in the temple for the third time had she not been Marie Osmond. First of all, the Osmonds have contributed what has to be close to millions of dollars to the LDS church over several decades. I would also surmise that it would be very bad press for the church to deny an Osmond, especially Marie, a temple marriage. Furthermore, given their fame and wealth, I am certain they have many "connections" within the church. I am not bothered by the fact that Marie Osmond was allowed yet another sealing for "time and eternity" in the temple. However, I am wondering if that privilege would be extended to any Mormon woman that holds a temple recommend and is in good standing with the church.
... even when it may or may not be, in particular instances.
SusieQ, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about in terms of expectations, possibilities and insider-channel access to those who have the power to make such decisions.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2011 11:48AM by steve benson.
beth1218 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @SusieQ, what are your reasons for feeling that > Marie Osmond was not given special treatment?
There is no reason to give her any kind of special treatment that is against their standard policies.
She could be married for Eternity, and get it rescinded, (I don't know if she did), and she can be married for Time in the temple. As a female the LDS church only allows them to be married to one male for Eternity, but they can marry more than one man (often if widowed) for Time. It happens a lot.
I'm sure other women have remarried their 1st husband after being married to someone else in an LDS temple.
Married for time only in the temple? I've never heard of that. What is the point? I thought the point of having a temple marriage was to be sealed for eternity.
So, if Marie had stayed married to Brian Blosil, she still would have been sealed to Steven Craig in the afterlife? Is that correct? But, I must disagree with you on the idea that the Osmonds do not receive special treatment. I am sure there are many Mormon and ex-Mormon women who wanted a second (Marie has had three) temple marriage but were denied.
@ Susie Q. By the way, thank you for your prompt, second response. I appreciate the chance to speak my opinion but also to hear that of others. I regret that the Deseret News did not have the same courage nor desire.
beth1218 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ Susie Q. By the way, thank you for your prompt, > second response. I appreciate the chance to speak > my opinion but also to hear that of others. I > regret that the Deseret News did not have the same > courage nor desire.
Deseret News and other papers don't get into policy or details. They just state a few facts:where, when,why,how.
beth1218 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, if Marie had stayed married to Brian Blosil, > she still would have been sealed to Steven Craig > in the afterlife? Is that correct? But, I must > disagree with you on the idea that the Osmonds do > not receive special treatment. I am sure there > are many Mormon and ex-Mormon women who wanted a > second (Marie has had three) temple marriage but > were denied.
I don't know which husband she was sealed to. My guess is that she is sealed to her 1st husband which is now her 3rd. She could not be married to her 2nd husband for Eternity unless she got a temple divorce from her first husband. I don't know the details, but I do know, this is not uncommon. I know plenty of people who married in the temple more than one time.
Anyone can have more then one temple marriage - if they meet the requirements. Marie Osmond would not need any special treatment.
Anonymous Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marie did get a cancellation of sealing from hubby > #1 which was granted the day before she married > hubby #2. > > I don't know if she got another cancellation of > sealing from #2 before remarrying #1.
Legally, she is married to husband #1 again. It is likely, she probably asked for and received a cancellation of sealing from #2 before her remarriage to #1. That is all church policy stuff, has nothing to do with the legality of the marriages.
Do people receive special treatment in the LDS Church? Probably, but this is not unusual and she could have followed church policy without any special treatment. Many others have.
A man and a woman who were distant cousins became "close" after the death of their spouses (each married for Eternity some 40 plus years before, and now widowed), married each other for "Time" in the temple.
The marriages in the temple are legal as they comply with the state requirements (the license etc.) and there is one sentence in the temple ceremony that unites them.
The covenants made in the temple relate to Mormonism and are not legal and binding by any state or government, only the LDS Church.
Susie I'm not sure why you are stating the obvious. I may have missed it but I don't see where the legality of the unions has been brought up; the discussion has been strictly addressing the sealing for Eternity issue. Likewise I think many here are aware that one can enter the temple and be married for time but that is not the issue.
People are expressly questioning Marie's ability to be granted multiple temple divorces with probably no difficulty owing to who she is.
outofutah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Susie I'm not sure why you are stating the > obvious. I may have missed it but I don't see > where the legality of the unions has been brought > up; the discussion has been strictly addressing > the sealing for Eternity issue. Likewise I think > many here are aware that one can enter the temple > and be married for time but that is not the > issue. > > People are expressly questioning Marie's ability > to be granted multiple temple divorces with > probably no difficulty owing to who she is. > > out
In understanding Mormonism, it's important, in my view, to know how much validity the believing member places on the temple sealing covenants - which, in my experience and observation, is much more important to them than the legality of the marriage according to the state in which it was performed. The temple sealing covenant and ceremonies are placed in much higher importance to their Eternal Salvation in the Celestial Kingdom than anything else.
dr5 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But can't men be sealed to more than one wife, > therefore they could be sealed for eternity to the > 2d wife also?
Yes they can. And many are. Not so for women. This is supported by their doctrine of Plural Wives in Doctrine and Covenants 132 ( can look it up on line for content.) They don't practice it while living as it's not legal. The only place they practice it is in the covenants in the temple, which are not legal and binding.
Their was a guy in my stake that had been sealed atleast 7 times to different woman. Married and divorced constantly. He was creepy, wasn't loaded; so I guess anyone can do it over and over. It put a dent in my testimony, and made the temple marriage thing seem less special, even when I was TBM.
Yeah I met a guy at the gym here who was on his 5th marriage. I didn't think the church went for that; it's like serial dating with legal/church complications.
godesstogodless Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Their was a guy in my stake that had been sealed > atleast 7 times to different woman. Married and > divorced constantly. He was creepy, wasn't loaded; > so I guess anyone can do it over and over. It put > a dent in my testimony, and made the temple > marriage thing seem less special, even when I was > TBM.
His name wasn't Richard was it? if so, I knew him and know that his bishop warned the last couple of women and they still married him. Human beings are strange.
summer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems so ironic to me that someone would be > repeatedly married, divorced, and remarried yet > again "for time and all eternity." > > Why not try being married for a few decades first?
Yes, it's possible according to the LDS Church policies, if they are followed--and they are "worthy" by LDS standards. These temple sealings for eternity in the Celestial Kingdom are so important to the believer that they will do almost anything, in many cases, to get it "right."
Ha ha, this entire thread shows just how stupid and f'd up the church is on this whole sealing concept. The bottom line is that sealing decisions are made by some bureaucrat in the COB.. All without regard to how it impacts people. I couldn't be sealed to my wife (she was a widow) for 15 years. We sent numerous requests in but to no avail. Only after we asked a friend who was a higher up did we see any action. By the way, my kids were considered sealed to my wife's previous husband. I can't believe I put up with this crap for so long. Ended up ruining our marriage.
Why would they give Marie Osmond special treatment? If for no other reason than the fact that every article about her latest marriage mentions being married in temple, hence shining the light on their ugly money wasting monstrosities. Another celeb getting married again? Old news. A celeb getting married in a Mormon temple? More press for them.
And, Suzie, I'm not interested in your responses to me, if you remember correctly. So please don't bother. I understand your point of view by your dozen or so responses in this thread already.
I don't know if we have any way to validate whether Marie Osmond needed some kind of special treatment or not, or whether she received special treatment or not. It's possible policies can be waived.
If she did, it's of no concern to me, personally. I have seen policies either changed, or waived from time to time in the LDS Church.
One belief of the LDS Church that some forget or don't know is the belief in Modern Day Revelation and individual revelation by the current prophet/president of the LDS Church.
General core basic beliefs don't change, but how they are administered, or carried out, or performed may change, as well as thousands of policies.
Many of the current policies, as found in the CHI, for instance (where most of these kinds of things are explained) are very different than in past editions, especially going back to when I converted in 1961.
Also, even the CHI is not always held in rigid, strict compliance. There is a common policy of the notion of an individual bishop or stake president acting on their "inspiration."
As another example: when my husband was a full time student at BYU, the Honor Code, and other policies were not the same as they were when other family members attended a couple of decades later, and they are different now. One example is the statement about pierced ears (only one in each ear for women and none for men) that was added rather recently through President Hinckley that did not exist in the past.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2011 05:59PM by SusieQ#1.
My MIL is on her 3rd temple marriage. She had to get the prior 2 canceled. They would only cancel the sealing if she was engaged to the next guy. Plus the reason for canceling the sealings had to be adultery or some extreme reason like that.
OTOH, we have a family "friend" who is also on his 3rd temple marriage and is sealed to ALL three wives. No hassle for him.
goldenrule Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My MIL is on her 3rd temple marriage. She had to > get the prior 2 canceled. They would only cancel > the sealing if she was engaged to the next guy. > Plus the reason for canceling the sealings had to > be adultery or some extreme reason like that. > > OTOH, we have a family "friend" who is also on his > 3rd temple marriage and is sealed to ALL three > wives. No hassle for him. > > Uh huh.
Exactly! The LDS policy on canceling temple sealings is different for men than for women. It is different because of the doctrine found in D&C 132.