carlimac

Pardon the intrusion, but your comment (as well as others on the idea of a "satisfactory" or "satisfying" answer when petitioning G-d is deeply fascinating to me.  Do you think it is possible that G-d gives ambiguous answers to those who inquire even after deeply important matters?
In reading the New Testament (Acts 15), there was a time that the Apostles seemed to receive an answer from G-d that was not clear or distinct but rather it "seemed good."
The occasion was in considering whether Gentiles (non-Jews) could, in fact, follow a Jewish Messiah (Jesus), and, if that was a possibility, what would that look like in practice.  I find their response after "much disputing" very interesting:
Notice the bold/italic portions above.  My question to all of you as believers in Jesus and the Holy Ghost, do you believe that G-d will be, at times, deliberately ambiguous about important matters in order for men to make their own decisions?
Not sure if I'm making any sense, but there you have it.  Be well, my friends.
 

Wow that sounds like an unpleasant and fruitless exercise. No thanks. 

I'm obviously not mikbone but wanted to respond to this question. We've been told by many leaders of the Church that going beyond the mark isn't necessary. Just search the term "going beyond the mark" or "looking beyond the mark" for the pages and pages of references on LDS.org.   Another way to look at it is that "going beyond the mark" for some may be way more than they can handle, whereas someone else can keep their sanity and bodily health in check by not doing so. I have a dear friend who has a picture of Christ or a temple or a scripture plaque in EVERY SINGLE room of her house. For me, that would be going way beyond what is necessary or helpful. For her, it's what she likes and needs- apparently to remember Christ and to help her family. This friend has been known to live life in high gear with a zillion things going on at once. When I first met her she was extremely strict with computer use with her children. Over the years she's lightened up a bit. But she herself makes sure everyone knows she doesn't use social media and has dim views of it...just shy of acting as though it's against the commandments. For her, personally,  maybe it is.
So what YOU may think is the bare minimum of what is required may be someones very best effort- all they can muster. And I believe that's acceptable to the Lord.  For someone else, it may not be enough and the Lord will ask why talents weren't expanded and resources used to do more? I fear the admonition to "magnify our callings" meant that some would go overboard and that it would be used as a measuring stick to beat upon those for whom doing the minimum feels just right. 

I'm obviously not mikbone but wanted to respond to this question. We've been told by many leaders of the Church that going beyond the mark isn't necessary. Just search the term "going beyond the mark" or "looking beyond the mark" for the pages and pages of references on LDS.org.   Another way to look at it is that "going beyond the mark" for some may be way more than they can handle, whereas someone else can keep their sanity and bodily health in check by not doing so. I have a dear friend who has a picture of Christ or a temple or a scripture plaque in EVERY SINGLE room of her house. For me, that would be going way beyond what is necessary or helpful. For her, it's what she likes and needs- apparently to remember Christ and to help her family. This friend has been known to live life in high gear with a zillion things going on at once. When I first met her she was extremely strict with computer use with her children. Over the years she's lightened up a bit. But she herself makes sure everyone knows she doesn't use social media and has dim views of it...just shy of acting as though it's against the commandments. For her, personally,  maybe it is.
So what YOU may think is the bare minimum of what is required may be someones very best effort- all they can muster. And I believe that's acceptable to the Lord.  For someone else, it may not be enough and the Lord will ask why talents weren't expanded and resources used to do more? I fear the admonition to "magnify our callings" meant that some would go overboard and that it would be used as a measuring stick to beat upon those for whom doing the minimum feels just right. 

I think you have a fair point. I was thinking of government help and intervention, of course single mothers need help right now. I don't know exactly what the perfect answer is, although I do know there are thousands of private groups that make themselves available to help women in a difficult situation. While abortion must stop, I'd be happy to launch some studies to see what the most effective way of helping women in pregnancy crises would be and acting according to that data. 

But the government has taken away a person's agency to kill another human being, no matter how annoying or inconvenient it is to live with or near that person.  There are lots of things we can't use our agency on, without serious repercussions. Like jail or being put to death ourselves.  I guess what counts is how much value you put on the life of a baby before it's born. 

The church is very pro life. There are numerous talks that focus on the sacredness of human life and the evils of abortion, many of them by President Nelson. I agree with you and also applaud the Alabama legislature, although I hope there is an exception for ectopic pregnancies which are impossible to save. Hopefully between Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama we can finally challenge and overturn the most disgusting Supreme Court decision since Plessy V. Ferguson, Roe V. Wade. Most abortions are of convenience. I've seen studies that anywhere between 85 to 95 percent of them are strictly because said person doesn't want the inconvenience of another baby (it'll hurt their career, they aren't ready, they have too many already etc). Those should be outlawed, and it breaks my heart to think of how many babies have been killed on the altar of convenience.
However, I do not believe the church should change it's policy, because it's direction is set by the Lord. He will change or keep the policy as he sees fit, and he knows far better than we what direction to take on this matter. I've read often enough other talks wherein they explain that even the exceptions should only be considered after prayer and consultation with the Lord and priesthood leaders (sorry I'd post examples but I'm off to work in a minute, a quick google search out to bring them up). 

So last night I was invited to the home of a co-worker for dinner.  It's Ramadan, so it was a breaking of the fast.  (In Islamic tradition, during Ramadan you fast during the day and eat once the sun goes down.)
Man, the food was incredible.  It was a blend of Tunisian and Spanish (as in Spain spanish) food.
But that wasn't my realization.
During dinner, everybody had white wine except me, and after dinner I was offered Turkish coffee but I declined.  Total resulting drama:  Zero.
What I mean is this... When I'm among non-LDS Christians or Atheists, I don't like to discuss matters like the Word of Wisdom because more often than not I get funny looks, incredulous laughing, or taunting about how silly it is that we can't have [insert whatever beverage here].   Sometimes I get a lecture about how a certain amount of alcohol daily is good for you, or how there's nothing wrong with a cup of tea. 
When I'm among Muslims however, (and in my experience this is also true of Hindu folks) when I say I'm unable to partake in those things because of my religious beliefs, they understand completely and that's that.  They just get it.  No offense is taken, no criticism, no exaggerated eye rolls.  They respect it because they have their own dietary rules.  It often leads to an enlightening and friendly conversation about our different beliefs and traditions.  
But man... Tunisian food...  I'm gonna be daydreaming about that stuff for a while.

https://apple.news/AXrV2WMtOS3CfEPtngxi6kQ
So it wasn’t just LDS leaders after all. We really don’t ever hear much about the abuse going on in your run-of-the-mill local scout troop. 

That wasn’t my experience, MG.  For me there wasn’t really an element of fear, because I knew I was being a good boy and I was less concerned about notions like “procedural due process” than I am now.  And I didn’t see people going about looking for breaches. 
Although—and I never thought much about this at the time—but when Just_A_Girl and I were dating, we would often talk in her apartment until midnight (at which time I, being a male, had to leave the apartment); and then we’d move into the hallway outside the apartment and talk for another hour or two.  I remember one night, sitting in the hallway chatting, and around 12:30 the door of the apartment across the hall opened just a crack and swiftly shut again.  This happened again and again, probably, every five or ten minutes for the next hour.  At length the door opened completely, and the female resident emerged and asked if we were “hall monitors”.  We, of course, denied this (I had never heard of such a thing at BYU).  Eventually we managed to convince this young lady that Just_A_Girl was simply a neighbor talking to her boyfriend; whereupon the door opened a bit wider and a young man sheepishly exited the apartment and beat a hasty retreat.

I don’t think there is one “right” definition of Feminist. It’s sort of an umbrella term that means different things to different people. Out in the world, my first impression of that label conjures up images of loud protesting women who want equal pay, equal treatment, pro-choice because whether they were consenting or not, being pregnant is something men did to them. They want the equal ability to walk away from that little responsibility like the men can if they so choose. It’s also high powered CEOs who are scary intimidating bosses because they are so full of their own power. 
In the church, I hear Feminist and I immediately think of women who want the priesthood and want to run the church. 
But I know people who consider themselves Feminists who don’t fit squarely under all those categories.  
You can’t pigeonhole Feminists.

My take on it is Well-Behaved can be Loud (I’d put Rosa Parks in this category even if she wasn’t considered well-behaved at the time), and it can be quiet.
At the same time, Not-Well-Behaved can also be Loud and Quiet (I’d put Lisa Page in this category).

OK JAG and FP, you've said some things that are good that I agree with, but some that still sound awfully preachy and  insulting to people who are simple in their beliefs and gratitude for this blessing from God. You can look at it in any way you want, in fact go ahead and instruct your children to not have that "alternate" kind of wedding first, even if they are marrying someone who's family aren't members. And make sure they know that anyone who takes less than 3-4 hours to be sealed in the temple is just not doing it right and can't possibly be touched and filled with the spirit or understand those "salvific" ordinances. 
 Sometimes it's nice to simply recognize the mercy and beauty of what the Lord has done for us and free ourselves of this notion that we are wicked for ever wanting that blessing in the first place.  
 
Pfffft! What does  Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy mean anyway? 

@carlimac, for what it's worth, I totally understand/get where you're coming from and the confusion you have. I do think that there's mankind's weakness involved in the story of the change in some ways, but I think you might be taking what is meant by weakness differently than is intended. It is not to say that those who sorrowed for being unable to have their family join in their marriage ceremony were de facto wicked, or that those who now rejoice over the ability to do so with church backing are de facto wicked.
I think a lot of people who haven't ever had to face the difficultly of hurt feelings because of this sort of situation may be a bit to callous in their responses on the matter. I may be included in that. It's very easy to analytically see a policy's theoretical reason and then say, "well here's the theological theory and so everyone should just get on board." That is technically probably true, but in practice it isn't so easy.
The fact that it isn't so easy is because we are weak, mortal, fallen, and attached to things more than we probably should be. That's weakness. Yes. But it's the SAME weakness that we ALL have. We are ALL mortal, fallen, and attached to things more than we probably should be. And family is a tough one. It should be very easy for anyone to understand that being put into a situation where a close loved one cannot join with us in something so important can be a very difficult sacrifice.
And it isn't fair to imply that the situations that arise causing difficulty in these times are always about mere weakness. Loving family is not weakness. Wanting family involved in special moments is not weakness. You need to understand that this is not the weakness that's being implied.
What is weakness is translating those hurt feelings to the conclusion that the policy was wrong, not of God, and had no useful purpose.
Sacrifice is asked of us all the time. It is one of the very core principles of the gospel. If it didn't hurt, it wouldn't be sacrifice. The reality that some things hurt is WHY they're sacrifices. God asks for sacrifices in different ways according to different times. In ancient times that meant slaughtering the best sheep one. It involved leaving lands, riches, family, and friends to travel to strange new lands (sometimes never actually getting into the strange new land). It meant being willing to kill one's own child if so commanded. It involved taking on multiple wives to support, or becoming a multiple wife. It involved starvation, injury, and death.
Most of those sacrifices are no longer asked of us in our time. But some sacrifices still are asked of us. Until a few days back, one of those was this policy. And just as with any sacrifice, there was cause, there were blessings involved and there was good. The Lord asks us to sacrifice for our good. But at times He removes the need to sacrifice in certain ways, as can be seen throughout history. This is one of those times. And that is something worthy of gratitude. But it's not worthy of claiming the sacrifice demanded was a bad thing. That's the primary issue to which some of us are taking exception.

In response to carlimac, I saw this link to Ardis Parshall's blog post in the Deseret News's (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900069248/church-marriage-temple-sealing-policy-mormon-lds.html)coverage of this announcement: http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/12/the-temple-one-year-rules/ It seems that a big part of it were those who had elaborate civil ceremonies and receptions that -- in the opinion of leadership -- overshadowed the temple ceremony too much.
I found it interesting again that Elder Stevenson is quoted in the Des News article again making this about couples with non-member family members so that they can choose to have both a civil ceremony and include those family members followed by the sealing ceremony for those who hold temple recommends. Perhaps, reading between the lines, this is a setup for future changes. On the surface, the First Presidency and other GAs are talking about making it about families and not needing to choose between a temple sealing and a civil ceremony that can include non-TR holding family members.
 

My personal opinion is that people are overthinking this. It seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me. Because of missionary work there are more people now who are the only members of the church in their families than there were when the original policy of having to wait a year after a civil marriage to be sealed.  Just like the church is trying to be more inclusive of the LGBT crowd without changing doctrine, I see this change as simply being more friendly to people with non-member families without changing doctrine. Why should a couple who are worthy have to wait?  It has been an extremely hurtful thing that mothers and fathers have been excluded from the weddings of their children. Read the letter again.  https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Sealing-After-Civil-Marriage-Letter.pdf   It has nothing to do with the Lord making accomodations for his weakening saints. It's about family unity and that's about it. 
Everyone I've talked to personally is thrilled with the change. Only on this forum am I hearing anything negative or "suspicious" plus maybe a comment or two on KSL and Deseret News. But there is story after story on those sites about regret and family being offended and won't have anything to do with the church for years because of the way it was.  I'm just throwing up my hands about those who are pushing back or making it sound as if getting married civilly first is a weakness. As for me and my house we are rejoicing!
 
 

My personal opinion is that people are overthinking this. It seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me. Because of missionary work there are more people now who are the only members of the church in their families than there were when the original policy of having to wait a year after a civil marriage to be sealed.  Just like the church is trying to be more inclusive of the LGBT crowd without changing doctrine, I see this change as simply being more friendly to people with non-member families without changing doctrine. Why should a couple who are worthy have to wait?  It has been an extremely hurtful thing that mothers and fathers have been excluded from the weddings of their children. Read the letter again.  https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Sealing-After-Civil-Marriage-Letter.pdf   It has nothing to do with the Lord making accomodations for his weakening saints. It's about family unity and that's about it. 
Everyone I've talked to personally is thrilled with the change. Only on this forum am I hearing anything negative or "suspicious" plus maybe a comment or two on KSL and Deseret News. But there is story after story on those sites about regret and family being offended and won't have anything to do with the church for years because of the way it was.  I'm just throwing up my hands about those who are pushing back or making it sound as if getting married civilly first is a weakness. As for me and my house we are rejoicing!
 
 

My wife @Dollfacekilla and I have been married for 12 years.  
And this coming Saturday...
...at the Philadelphia Temple...
...we're getting Sealed.  
..finally.  
Just, ya know, thought some of you might like to know 
 

I think this policy is more in harmony with the concept of line upon line, precept upon precept.  There are plenty of different circumstances that could lead to a couple wanted to have a civil marriage.  The first that comes to mind is a new convert who hasn't met the one year term to receive his/her endowments yet, but wants to marry another member of the church.  This new way, they can be sealed one year after the baptism instead of the marriage.
I don't see this change taking anything away from the sacredness of the temple sealing.  It is more inclusive and I imagine it will lead to more people ending up being sealed in the temple.
As one who is subject to a different church policy of waiting at least a year, I can understand the frustration of waiting on a seemingly arbitrary period of time.  In my case, excommunication, I understand the need for a uniform policy regarding the time to wait. With marriages and sealings, I don't see a similar need for standardization.

I am really surprised how riled up this has got some people!!
I just saw this as a globalisation of policy and reflection of the more global nature of church membership and a move away from US centric policies with modifications for "the rest of us".
It works well here in the UK, civil ceremony in the chapel and then the couple and close family attend the temple then if close enough to the temple an evening reception or for those who have 4-5 hours to travel each way to get to the temple, family celebrations tend to take place the next day when the couple have returned from the temple.
When I was married then sealed in this way it meant that I could easily separate out the civil service and focus on the ordinance. It made the sealing ordinance the complete focus; we were just concerned about us as a couple and Heavenly Father with no other distractions. We had a simple civil service with close friends and family, both of us the only members in our families and this gave my spouse (who had been shunned by his family due to his conversion and their faith) the opportunity to reunite with his parents and opened the door to them having a relationship again after many years of no communication at all.  - Just my personal view of course.

This seems pretty harsh in relation to the parents or family that couldn't witness the wedding. I think of Sister Marriott who's parents planted the magnolia tree in their yard so that their daughter could be married there later in life. Then she got married without any family  present.
Parents, LDS or not can be  very invested the marriage of their child and I think this is a wonderful change that will help smooth the path for so many families rather than creating offense through exclusion. I would think that most non-member family aren't interested in the temple sealing and wouldn't mind not being a part of it. So the couple can go do that after and have it be more private and special without the hurt of not having their non member family there. 

😮 Pretty judgemental. I'd say one size does NOT fit all. There are so many variations in circumstances. I heard of a couple who got married in a hospital room where the father was dying so he could be there for their wedding. They knew perfectly well the significance of Eternal Marriage.

I'm not saying the civil wedding replaces sealing- end of wedding story.  In my mind, the civil wedding/temple sealing/party are all in the same agenda. Same day if possible. There is nothing wrong with this agenda now. In some countries this is how it's always been. So are those people weaker than Americans? 
From the First Presidency letter- " We anticipate that this change will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a man and woman." 
That's all I need to know. I don't really need to worry that some people won't relax their grip on the old way of doing things. I anticipate that at least one of my daughters will still get married AND sealed in the temple. My guess is that one won't because so many of her close friends aren't members of the church. Even though she's only 16  anddoesn't have even a boyfriend, she grinned ear to ear...  so happy to know that people who mean so much to her can now witness her marriage. 

I'm not saying the civil wedding replaces sealing- end of wedding story.  In my mind, the civil wedding/temple sealing/party are all in the same agenda. Same day if possible. There is nothing wrong with this agenda now. In some countries this is how it's always been. So are those people weaker than Americans? 
From the First Presidency letter- " We anticipate that this change will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a man and woman." 
That's all I need to know. I don't really need to worry that some people won't relax their grip on the old way of doing things. I anticipate that at least one of my daughters will still get married AND sealed in the temple. My guess is that one won't because so many of her close friends aren't members of the church. Even though she's only 16  anddoesn't have even a boyfriend, she grinned ear to ear...  so happy to know that people who mean so much to her can now witness her marriage. 

😮 Pretty judgemental. I'd say one size does NOT fit all. There are so many variations in circumstances. I heard of a couple who got married in a hospital room where the father was dying so he could be there for their wedding. They knew perfectly well the significance of Eternal Marriage.