Leaderboard

I'm a heartless jerk, which is why I've always been baffled by the notion that all of the cousins and friends and youth leaders and anyone else who might have had a bond with the bride and groom need to be invited to the ceremony. Here's a really simple solution. Grandparents, parents, and siblings of the bride and groom are all invited to attend with their spouses. Everyone else, we'll see you at the reception.

No, he didn't. He could have told the truth. And he could also have stopped drinking coffee.

...................

That's a loophole big enough for a Star Destroyer.

Just_A_Girl and I were married in that same room--largest sealing room in the SL Temple. I was from out-of-state, she was local. Her parents each have seven siblings, most of whom were married and had current recommends. I have no extended family in the state who were LDS--just parents, three siblings and wives, two cousins, and three or four family friends. I think by design LDS sealings are supposed to be relatively intimate affairs (and bear in mind, the larger the sealing room, the fewer sealing rooms--and therefore fewer weddings or proxy sealings--can be performed in a given hour); and most Mormons who have been through a temple and actually seen the sealing rooms should get that and not be at all offended if they aren't on the guest list--especially if, like Just_A_Girl, they come from one of these huge Mormon uber-families with thirty to forty cousins per side. :) My other suggestion: This isn't your problem; it's your daughter's and her fiance's. Step back and relax--there are few joys in life better than just breathing deeply, smiling sweetly, and saying "gee, that's quite a problem. How do you plan to handle it?"

'70s all over again, but probably worse. Pathetic losers. I should feel compassion and pity, but I feel only disgust.

I feel it's legitimate. I know some people who are too (what's the word??) to consider anything from Deseret Book, especially fiction to be worth reading. One of my Relief Society presidents was that way. Oh well. Her loss. Are you talking about Deseret Book as a store or as a publisher? I can get some LDS books cheaper at Seagull Book and Amazon. But for the most part, with, their Platinum program, I have gotten so many free books that overall it's been worth it to shop at DB. LIke Pam, I read at least 20 times more books not from Deseret Book. Curious. Why do you ask?

The idea of a "tea party" as a general matter doesn't offend me or anything; but it frankly smacks of Babylon-envy. Can the Young Women do a "wine tasting" with various grape juices? Can the Young Men do a "kegger", as Pale asks? Can the Elders' Quorum have a "bachelor party", so long as the "stripper" ends her show with a one-piece swimming suit firmly in place? People will do what people will do, and I try not to judge too harshly. But from the standpoint of planning an official, Church-sponsored activity; it strikes me that we should recognize that certain customs are so inextricably tied up with activities that are beyond the scope of our covenants that--at least on a community wide basis--we simply have no business trying to adapt those customs into our own Zion culture.

Funny how when I listen to the Prophets and other leaders so that I can "Follow them" They tell me to read/study/ponder/search/feast upon the scriptures. Pray sincerely... Serve others as Christ would etc. etc. etc. To build that personal relationship. And then when I hear those who like to try make the case that we "Follow blindly," or "prophet worship" their answer to what we really should be doing... is exactly the message I have been hearing from the Prophets and the other leaders all along. So to me the message of the "Don't follow blindly" and "Don't prophet worship" when you get right down to what they think we should be doing goes right back to everything the prophets have been trying to teach us. (aka follow the prophets) Now I grant the possibility that some members say "oh we have a prophet but they are saying the same thing over and over and over again... so I will do what I want until the prophet gives me something new then I will jump right in and go to it." ... But in all honesty I can't call that mindset "Following the prophet" in any meaningful sense. It does sound like prophet worship in the sense that they don't think they need to do anything and the prophet will "save them". However I know our prophets and leaders are very much against that kind of mindset. So I can hardly say that is an idea encouraged by them

The "revelation" actually begins at verse 4. Verses 1-3 are editorial commentary. To hint that the WoW was entirely optional for the first 80 years of LDS history would be quite erroneous. Adherence to the WoW was announced to be a prerequisite for church office in the Nauvoo period. Before that, one of the grounds for David Whitmer's excommunication was violation of the Word of Wisdom. Adherence to the Word of Wisdom was also a major emphasis in the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s. Granted, it was not uniform; but per Alexander's Dialogue article the Church was well on a trajectory towards enforced compliance even before those nasty Prohibitionists reared their heads in American political life. The historical record actually works against you on this one: The rumors of his [Talmage's] smoking originated in a remedy prescribed by a doctor, who believed that at one point Talmage was headed toward a nervous breakdown. He typically worked himself to exhaustion; in fact, one apocryphal story, holds that he told a mission president that sometimes his head hurt so much from studying that he would wrap it in wet towels to relieve the pressure. In 1896 Talmage presided over Latter-day Saints College, worked on The Articles of Faith, taught a heavy course load, and delivered lectures and completed various other [p.xxxiii]church assignments. He also suffered from insomnia and constipation. He noted in his journal that it had been reported to the First Presidency that “the moderate use of tobacco would have a good effect on me.” They told him, “We give you this rather as an instruction than as counsel” to take up smoking. Talmage subsequently found “that a good cigar produced a marvelous quieting of my over-wrought nerves.” As medicine, this prescription was in keeping with the spirit of the Word of Wisdom, and Talmage did not prolong his use of it. (Source) So: Talmage smoked, for a time, in the late 1890s, for medical reasons, with the knowledge and approval--in fact, the suggestion--of his priesthood superiors. He then, at some point, stopped, was called to be an apostle in 1911, and lived until 1933. Granted; but prophets exist because humans have a rather interesting tendency to do whatever the heck they want and claim it came from God; and prophets kind of serve as a useful check against that propensity. Caution, and the primacy of individual revelation, is certainly warranted; but this "except I see a sign from heaven I will continue to believe that the prophet is full of horse doodie and I will gleefully proclaim that position to all and sundry" is very much contrary to the spirit of the Restoration. Read the GIvenses however you wish: Their writings betray no veiled suspicion of or open contempt for the LDS prophets, and their theology boils down to something a whole lot more complicated than "do as you will and claim you got it straight from God". I agree with you; but (and maybe I'm just jaded) in the context of this discussion, the history you have cited seems to have been deployed to suggest that enforced compliance with the WoW is actually contra the Lord's will for the Church at the present time. We should not conflate the Lord's mercy and leniency in the face of our current weakness, with some sort of approval of our weakened state and authorization to continue wallowing in our weakness in perpetuity. People who lived in past generations will be judged on the light and knowledge available to them, and their diligence in living in accordance with that light and knowledge. As will we. Ah, yes . . . the old "only people who think like I do have really reasoned about it--the rest of you are unthinking sheeple!" routine. I think what you meant to say is that we do not have a canonized, written record of such revelation. Because it's a heckuva thing for someone who's so big on personal revelation, to pronounce himself the final arbiter regarding which Mormons--and even which prophets--have, and haven't, had one.

I know on a strictly local level, my stake has been pushing back on the whole idea that the actual ordinances are a "family event" They are a priesthood event to which close family and friend are invited. The family event can be held after (or before I guess) in a place more suited to such.

Still not seeing what relevance this has to your grandfather's lying to obtain a temple recommend. I assume that, if Elder Talmage smoked, his quorum president knew about it. If he did not and if Elder Talmage lied to his leader to gain a temple recommend, then Elder Talmage will answer to God for his lies. The fact is that your grandfather did not "have to" lie. He could have shown integrity and told the truth, letting the chips fall where they may. Or, better yet, he could have given up his coffee.

It really isn't a democratic system. But it isn't an all-must-consent system either. Those with they keys to set apart a person to the calling in question have the ultimate say in the matter. On a local level, if a person were to oppose the sustaining of a bishop, the stake president would meet with the dissenter to determine the reason behind the opposition. The stake president then has to decide if the reasoning is strong enough to prevent the sustaining ("that man had an affair with my wife last week") or not ("he wouldn't help me install my surround sound system, so he must not understand the meaning of service.") If the stake president sees no reason to put a halt on the sustaining, the bishop may be sustained over the objections of the few. In the case of the president of the church, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve would hear out the opposition. If he felt there were a valid cause not to sustain the prophet, and he could gain the support of the entirety of his Quorum, then the Quorum of the Twelve could move not to sustain the prophet. Such an action would likely precipitate excommunication of the prophet, however, and would probably require a very grievous and substantiated case for opposing the sustaining.

I agree with MOE. A variation on his idea is: Start with parents, grandparents, and siblings (including spouses) of the bride and groom. If there's still room, consider adding aunts and uncles, and also nieces and nephews (assuming there are any temple-attending nieces and nephews for a young couple being sealed). I am guessing that's all you'll get, and that cousins would push the number too high; if not, add cousins. All others can congratulate the couple at the reception.

I've had a couple of friends go through Cedar Fort publishing company. They publish a lot from LDS members.

Yes I like the content that is published through Deseret Book. If I am wanting to read a book from one of our General Authorities or others within the church, that's where I would go. I disagree immensely that most members would only purchase books if published by Deseret Book. The ratio of my book buying experience is probably 20-1. The one being from Deseret Book. I think Deseret Book focuses on those things that would be uplifting to read. Whether fiction or non fiction.

It may be that in the New Testament era Greek philosophy had an out-sized influence on Christian writings. Today I would suggest that therapy does. So much religious teaching seems geared to comfort and re-assure. Now those are both quips. There is great value in philosophy and psychology. However, they ought to serve our understanding of God, not guide it.

It seems like more and more that opinions is what everyone has and is entitled to... a Judgement is what a person gets accused of when they share an opinion that someone else does not like...

Technically, the bishop has the right to inspiration and to deny a temple recommend based on nothing but said inspiration, and to grill anyone he feels so inspired to grill on said revelation, regardless of your defensive posturing.

You two need therapy. You need to find and discuss better ways to express your frustrations with each other. What you describe in your post seems like serious communication problems, and you should really get those evaluated.

Uhh - what about buying or making some skirts? They're very versatile and I'm sure you could find the right size at a decent price or make ones that are simple and easy. Just tossing that out there.

omega, this is not about drinking coffee. This is about lying to obtain a temple recommend.

Elder Packer goes into more detail in his book The Holy Temple, but you can get started with this excerpt in Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple.

Yet again, I ask: So what? You claimed your grandfather was forced to lie. This is false. Your grandfather chose to lie. He could have told the truth and spared his integrity. He could even have stopped drinking coffee. What Elder Talmage did or did not do is utterly irrelevant to your grandfather's deceitfulness.

I don't think that Duff questions the authority of the Prophet, I maybe wrong and he can correct me if I am. What he is saying is that our religion has more nuance than what we hear in Sunday school, and what we indoctrinate our kids with in primary

I agree with Carlimac on this one. I used to think as most posting on this thread - that marriage should be more intimate. One of my daughters changed that for me when she was married. It was not just the sealing she wanted everyone at the endowment session to take place prior. Understanding that what takes place at the temples has eternal symbolism my daughter and her husband invited everyone - family, including grandparents, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cozens and also friends and others meaningful to them. The invited group filled an entire session. Entering the Celestial room that filled with family and friends was an experience I will never forget. There were my parents,brothers and sisters along with our children and nephews and nieces and friends - as well as the same from the grooms family. There was a lot of pressure on certain individual to not be the only not temple worthy ones - and that pressure made differences in lives. It was spiritual and a miracle. I realize that the temple is not to become a production and lose focus on the sacredness of a marriage. I realize that such things can happen as many want to make some kind of statement that is not in line with the spirit of what is taking place at the temples. But all that should not distract from those committed to and dedicated to this great time of restoration and work being done - including the work being done in the temples. I do agree that every effort should be done to accommodate those worthy to be there that ought to be there being able to be there.

My spouse has never, ever been on my speed dial.

I know of no other churches that link the sacrament, communion, or eucharist to the rite of baptism. I know of no scripture that (ancient or modern) that directly link the two covenants. I am not familiar with anything in Joseph Smith's teachings that present the sacrament as a renewing of covenants. So I think this is where the question is coming from (because I'm certain I've heard it taught in General Conference within the last 5 years). Now, if you have some quote or citation to answer or move the discussion along, that'd be great.

I was carpooling with Paul this morning (Jesus was copiloting another car) and I asked him what he thought about Mormons having "tea" parties. He said it was "lawful" but "not expedient".

(I apologize for being rather blunt here). A temple sealing is about two people coming tighter for eternity. It is a highly intimate sacred affair. It is NOT a giant party (that's what the reception is). Rule of thumb: if a person is not on your speed dial, they don't have to be in the sealing room.

We will probably never know what was discussed because that is not information that would be put out publicly.

Surely no one here thinks they can claim to me a member in good standing of any organization... If they willingly and willfully defy what that organization requires to be a member in good standing. No matter what historical events they might try to cite about how the organization has changed it requirements in the pass. And just as surely no one here on this site which is dedicated and focused on being good members of that organization... Should expect to be supported in running counter to the requirements that organization currently has.

Granite Publishing and Distribution is also LDS-oriented and stays pretty orthodox. They're based out of Orem. Seagull was set up as a retail distributor for Covenant products--they were both started and, for a long time, owned by the Kofford family, and were both sold to Deseret Book in 2005 or so. I last visited a Seagull about 3 years ago and was frankly appalled at their lack of selection.

My formal response to this is "Meh." But I do object to this guy's template letter of opposition (for those who wish to oppose without attending Conference); he only provides a template for males!

Your husband needs a sleep test for the sake of at least ruling out sleep apnea. People with sleep apnea die younger than their counterparts without apnea, even when adjusting for any comorbid conditions. Worse than that, they have worse quality of life in that shortened life span. If he won't go for it, then kick him out of the room. Make him sleep elsewhere. His decision to torpedo his health and quality of life shouldn't torpedo yours too.

Don't necessarily have to agree with everything a politician has done or said to agree with the importance, and points of what was said in a particular speech.

Well they won't be anonymous if they oppose and are invited to meet with I'm assuming President Packer since he is the President of the 12. When those opposed the sustaining of President Kimball they were invited to meet with President Hinckley who was president of the 12 at the time.

I do check out Deseret Book first before going to Seagull. Many times (at the downtown SLC location) you can find many books with a limited number of signed copies by the author which I think is kind of cool. The last one I purchased was signed by President Monson.

I like Deseret Books. I buy books from them and other publishers. I read mostly Church History books. If I like the book I will buy it. I don't look at the publisher when doing so.

Uh, Jesus? Is this some kind of trick question?

Sounds like an attempt to justify to me. Does Heavenly Father love you when you drink coffee or tea? Yes. Is he unhappy about it? Yes.

I think the Word of Wisdom was mandatory from the start but not taken seriously by the saints. Some of the first questions when asked for entering the Temple was....Do you obey the commandments. Then as time went on they got more specific. I don't agree with you about God not caring if you don't obey the word of wisdom. I think he does care

It is one thing to reject a suggestion to put a flag up, but quite another to pro-actively remove it. This is not sophistication, global-mindedness, or inclusion--this is the kind of anti-Americanism that permeates some sectors of the Left. Dinesh D'Souza's latest documentary, America--Imagine a World Without Her, does an excellent job of highlighting the grievances various academics have against us, and why they are wrong. I highly recommend it.

Like most blessings this is also likely predicated on people following Gods will.

This is from my own experience, take it as you will. I pretty much grew up in the LDS Church. Both my parents are obedient followers and many of my siblings are. I've been active and inactive on and off, but officially resigned at the beginning of the new year, and I am feeling the difference. I'm not so quick to refer to myself as an atheist but I currently do not believe there is a god or gods. The idea that there might be something greater out there, though, is something I'm open to. Anyway, this new outlook on life has made me more aware of my Mormon friends and Christian friends in general. I used to not mind so much when people would post on my Facebook religious or spiritual memes, but now, it's kind of annoying and even a bit offensive, especially since I have "come out" about my religious status. From time to time, I'll get religious friends raising a brow when I share my views on social issues, and while some have the decency to respect my opinion, others are quick to point out that it is not god's way. (They forget I do not believe in god or gods.)

I see no problem with this. Communing with nature and all that God has provided can be a huge spiritual uplift and benefit.

I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in for what it's worth. I fully understand and support the Church's position in its statement regarding homosexuals and job and housing discrimination. However, the statement was not an acceptance of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. I do believe that attending a homosexual wedding is an implied statement (intentional or not) of support for something that is an abomination in the sight of God. I realize that if it is a homosexual relative getting married, you feel you are supporting the relative, but, again, it still is an implied statement of support for homosexual marriage in general. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not necessarily because both cities were entirely homosexual; they were not. It was that homosexuality, along with other gross sexual sins were completely accepted by everyone except for one family. It was accepted as normal by everyone. Remember that sexual sin is the absolute worst thing you can do and still not go to outer darkness. It is the grossest of sin next to the shedding of innocent blood and denying the Holy Spirit. Homosexual sex is just as gross a sin as is heterosexual pre or extra marital sex. Each is just as bad as the other. I am against a man and woman having an unmarried sexual relationship just as much as I am against homosexuality. I condemn both just as strongly. (I keep repeating myself, but I can't help it) The Supreme Court has taken up the issue of homosexual marriage. I have no doubt that it will be upheld in a 5-4 decision making it the law of the land. As it is, a near supermajority (60%) of Americans believe that homosexuality should be accepted. When SCOTUS approves it in June, watch out, because I believe it will be the straw that broke the camel's back. God won't be happy; not just because of the legalizing of homosexual marriage, but because sexual sin (homo and hetero) is so commonly accepted as normal, just as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jesus did indeed eat with publicans, sinners, and prostitutes. I'm guessing that Jesus never encouraged the publicans to ruin widows, congratulated the sinners on their sins, or sat in the prostitutes' bedrooms. I am still not sure where I stand on this issue, and I may not know until and unless I'm confronted by the situation. But apples-to-Buicks comparisons don't help.

I'm fairly certain that no one has said this, or even implied it. My concern, for example, in attending or not attending such an event is less about my own state as an apostate or not (though I expect there is a concern for some along the lines of "We first endure, then pity, then embrace"), and more about what I stand for, who I represent, which way I face, and what message I am sending to others, including my loved ones. I'll happily eat lunch with a gay friend or associate any time. Going to their wedding is, simply, a different matter.

The child, relative, friend, etc., who responds to a moral stand by calling another hateful and intolerant is engaging in manipulative bullying, plain and simple.