<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Temple Sealers	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://askgramps.org/temple-sealers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://askgramps.org/temple-sealers/</link>
	<description>Moral answers to everyday concerns, curiosities, and uncertainties.  Gramps considers all questions on all topics from all sources.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 03:31:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Douglas Self		</title>
		<link>https://askgramps.org/temple-sealers/#comment-35721</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Douglas Self]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2017 16:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askgramps.org/?p=9527#comment-35721</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Waitaminitt,...if divorced MEN are precluded from being called as a temple sealer, does this imply that the inability to serve in such a capacity is removed if the man remarries (hopefully in the temple)?  Likewise, are divorced sisters precluded from any temple callings?  I&#039;ve never heard of such a proscription.
This is a case more of a PRACTICE rather than a DOCTRINE.  Put simply, is the Church lacking for qualified brethren to perform temple sealings that have been married to their &#039;one and only&#039; for &#039;time and all eternity&#039;?  It appears not.  It&#039;s true that some brethren are put in situations where they haven&#039;t been &#039;guilty&#039; of anything, but must seek a divorce (from an adulterous or violent wife, for example), or, in some cases, as no family court will force their wife to live with them, regardless of circumstance, the man has no say if his wife wants a divorce.  This isn&#039;t a presupposition of &#039;fault&#039;, it&#039;s a PRACTICE that avoids the appearance of any &#039;evil&#039;, even if the respective brother is obviously spotless.  Just &#039;roll with it&#039;, the Lord knows what He&#039;s doing, and doesn&#039;t ask for mine opinion nor yours as to what&#039;s &#039;fair&#039;.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Waitaminitt,&#8230;if divorced MEN are precluded from being called as a temple sealer, does this imply that the inability to serve in such a capacity is removed if the man remarries (hopefully in the temple)?  Likewise, are divorced sisters precluded from any temple callings?  I&#8217;ve never heard of such a proscription.<br />
This is a case more of a PRACTICE rather than a DOCTRINE.  Put simply, is the Church lacking for qualified brethren to perform temple sealings that have been married to their &#8216;one and only&#8217; for &#8216;time and all eternity&#8217;?  It appears not.  It&#8217;s true that some brethren are put in situations where they haven&#8217;t been &#8216;guilty&#8217; of anything, but must seek a divorce (from an adulterous or violent wife, for example), or, in some cases, as no family court will force their wife to live with them, regardless of circumstance, the man has no say if his wife wants a divorce.  This isn&#8217;t a presupposition of &#8216;fault&#8217;, it&#8217;s a PRACTICE that avoids the appearance of any &#8216;evil&#8217;, even if the respective brother is obviously spotless.  Just &#8216;roll with it&#8217;, the Lord knows what He&#8217;s doing, and doesn&#8217;t ask for mine opinion nor yours as to what&#8217;s &#8216;fair&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
