Relgion - a force for good?

[beefche]

Well the one getting married was only 19 and the one who couldn't see it was 26. It just seemed silly to me. The one who was kept out was way more mature than the one getting married. My father in law, who has worked in the temple for many years, asked me about this too, he said it made no sense to him. He was going to write a letter to the first presidency. I don't know if he really did.

I'm confused. You indicate you are LDS, yet this paragraph implies that you don't understand the temple requirements.

In order to enter a dedicated temple, one must meet requirements. At the age of 12, one can do certain ordinances if one meets the requirements. Typically by age 19 (this age will depend on the individual and circumstances) one can begin doing other ordinances in the temple such as endowments, sealings, etc.

If one is over the age of 19 and not endowed, then that person cannot enter the temple until he/she meets the requirements. So, in your example, the 19 y/o getting married met the requirements necessary to receive a temple recommend and perform ordinances (in this case, a sealing). The 26 y/o was either not a member or a member who was not endowed. Unless the 26 y/o was able to meet the requirements to obtain a temple recommend, he/she would not be able to enter the temple, even to just view a sealing.

I'm sure it is difficult for family members to not watch a wedding; however, the ordinances in the temple are sacred. Those who decide to go against family wishes and be sealed in the temple are looking at it from a different perspective than their family members.

[cougarfan]

The 26 year old has not been endowed yet. She hasn't married yet so like a lot of single women her age who have not been on a mission has not been endowed. In all other respects she is worthy.

This just seems so obvious to me but I guess you folks don't see the problem with keeping family members out. When families are sealed, the children who are not yet endowed are allowed to go in the same room as where the marriages are performed. Isn't the sealing ordinance Melchizedek? It shouldn't be that big of a deal for an active worthy young member of the church to see her sibling get married. They could issue some type of recommend just like they do for baptisms for the dead or whatever they give family members who are going in to get sealed together.

[beefche]

The 26 year old has not been endowed yet. She hasn't married yet so like a lot of single women her age who have not been on a mission has not been endowed. In all other respects she is worthy.

This just seems so obvious to me but I guess you folks don't see the problem with keeping family members out. When families are sealed, the children who are not yet endowed are allowed to go in the same room as where the marriages are performed. Isn't the sealing ordinance Melchizedek? It shouldn't be that big of a deal for an active worthy young member of the church to see her sibling get married. They could issue some type of recommend just like they do for baptisms for the dead or whatever they give family members who are going in to get sealed together.

The children who are being sealed to the parents are allowed to go into the sealing room to perform that sealing--children to parents. They aren't there for the rest of the sealing.

Children, and even adults who are not prepared, won't really understand much that goes on in a sealing. I'm assuming you've never been to a sealing, but it is not like a typical wedding. Even the wedding clothing is different than a wedding outside of the temple and would likely cause misunderstanding.

I do understand the emotions behind it. I am the only member of my family. If I ever marry, my family will not be able to attend my sealing. But I also understand the covenant behind it--my family doesn't and that's why they are likely to be hurt and angry.

[cougarfan]

I do understand the emotions behind it. I am the only member of my family. If I ever marry, my family will not be able to attend my sealing. But I also understand the covenant behind it--my family doesn't and that's why they are likely to be hurt and angry.

So I think you get my point. Religion, including LDS, can be a source of good and bad. Here it tends to pull families apart and causes hurt and anger. I have witnessed this every time a family member gets married in the temple. There are always people left out. We LDS don't tend to think a lot about the people who are left out.

The last time I witnessed this (last Summer) it dawned on me that part of the problem could be easily solved.

The cynical side of me might think that there is some other motive going on here as to why they don't at least solve part of the problem, but I try not to be cynical. :)

[pam]

I understand how hard it is on families where some members can't attend. But if we start making exceptions or changing the rules..doesn't it somehow take away from the whole sacredness of the temple? The whole must be worthy to attend idea?

[beefche]

So I think you get my point. Religion, including LDS, can be a source of good and bad. Here it tends to pull families apart and causes hurt and anger. I have witnessed this every time a family member gets married in the temple. There are always people left out. We LDS don't tend to think a lot about the people who are left out.

The last time I witnessed this (last Summer) it dawned on me that part of the problem could be easily solved.

The cynical side of me might think that there is some other motive going on here as to why they don't at least solve part of the problem, but I try not to be cynical. :)

So, you think that God should just pitch His covenants and requirements and allow anyone in to view sealings? Why not just pitch His standards altogether to allow anyone into the temple just to watch an endowment session?

Can you really not see the principle behind it? Stop for a moment and step away from the emotions. Look at the big picture. We are talking about sacred and holy covenants the Lord is requiring--not Pres Monson or the Quorum of 12--it is Jesus Christ Himself who set these standards.

And are you suggesting a conspiracy from our Church leaders to exclude family members on purpose? For what intent? What possible reason could the Church leaders have to exclude family members from the temple?

[pam]

Utahlrulzz..I'm going to ask you right here and publically. Please quit laughing at every single comment I make. It's mocking and it's childish.

[cougarfan]

So, you think that God should just pitch His covenants and requirements and allow anyone in to view sealings? Why not just pitch His standards altogether to allow anyone into the temple just to watch an endowment session?

Can you really not see the principle behind it? Stop for a moment and step away from the emotions. Look at the big picture. We are talking about sacred and holy covenants the Lord is requiring--not Pres Monson or the Quorum of 12--it is Jesus Christ Himself who set these standards.

And are you suggesting a conspiracy from our Church leaders to exclude family members on purpose? For what intent? What possible reason could the Church leaders have to exclude family members from the temple?

I don't think you are paying attention to me. My sister who is 26 could easily pass the temple recommend interview. She is not just "anyone." I'm not asking God to pitch his standards. She can already be allowed in the temple to do baptisms for the dead. What is so wrong with allowing her to see her sister get married if she passes a temple recommend interview? I wasn't talking about allowing people to come in and watch the endowment session (although I guess if they are really curious they can always find something on the internet).

If it is only Jesus setting the standards for a temple recommend then he must be changing his mind from time to time. Loosen up brother. Don't you think there is a little bit of human influence too? The questions for a recommend have continued to change and evolve and sometimes reflect LDS culture. For example, it wasn't until the late 1920s that they added anything about the word of wisdom. Before that, they just made the statement that it wasn't in keeping with the spirit to enter the temple smelling of cigarettes or alcohol. There are lots of other changes that have been made over the years. These are policy decisions set by the leadership. The questions have changed just in my lifetime, as has the endowment itself. Last time I went through, there were no penalties mentioned. They were a big deal the first time I went through.

So, can I see the principle behind excluding worthy family members from witnessing a family member's wedding? No. I really can't.

I really wouldn't be surprised if they allow worthy adult family members who have not been endowed to witness the wedding ceremony in the future. I guess time will tell.

[pam]

Loosen up brother

*whispers* Beefche is a she.

[pam]

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere

I would be mindful of this rule as you are starting to border on it.

[cougarfan]

Beefche...oops, sorry sister. Didn't realize you were a sister. My apologies.

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere

I would be mindful of this rule as you are starting to border on it.

I didn't think what I said was anything close to "anti" but I will be more careful if you think I am out of line. I was just being honest.

This is so frustrating.

[pam]

Not anti..just a bit derogatory.

[beefche]

No problem--my name sounds like a man. According to the spam emails I get, I'm an older, balding man who needs help with the ladies.

[beefche]

I don't think you are paying attention to me. My sister who is 26 could easily pass the temple recommend interview. She is not just "anyone." I'm not asking God to pitch his standards. She can already be allowed in the temple to do baptisms for the dead. What is so wrong with allowing her to see her sister get married if she passes a temple recommend interview? I wasn't talking about allowing people to come in and watch the endowment session (although I guess if they are really curious they can always find something on the internet).

Look, I'm not casting judgment on your sister or anyone else for that matter. In order to enter the temple, there are standards that must be met. That does not mean that people who cannot enter the temple are not good, faithful people. It just means that they are not willing/able to adhere to the standards. And even that sentence isn't meant as a judgment. It just means that some people are not ready to make that committment.

Seriously, can you not understand that? Is it impossible to see that we are talking about the highest and most serious covenants we have (at this time) on earth? Even children who enter the temple to be sealed to their parents are not allowed back in until they are willing/capable to take upon themselves these covenants.

My personal opinion is that we place entirely too much emphasis on the wedding and reception and don't spend enough time on the actual marriage. For my family's sake, I'm willing to do up a reception for them (I'd rather have a simple thing). I'll include them as much as possible for the reception. As much as I love my family, I am not willing to sacrifice the beginnings of my marriage just so they can view a 2 minute event.

Perhaps with the way things are heading in USA, the church will adapt and do as they do in UK--civil wedding first, then sealing (due to UK laws). Until then, I'm willing to have faith in my God-appointed leaders that they are aware of part member families and the pain it may cause, but I will continue to follow their counsel and sustain/support their decisions.

[Maxel]

Gee I hope you are not saying that people who can't go to the temple are fighting against the gospel and should be cast into the fire. Basically tares left to contend with the wheat.

No. Merely that the Gospel isn't about bringing families together regardless of their personal choices and situations. If they refuse the Gospel, they ultimately have no place in the kingdom of Heaven. This is the ultimate act of division; where the righteous will dwell, the wicked will not be able to go. It's not surprising that in the Lord's church we'll see other examples of strain placed on families for the sake of following the commandments of the Lord.

All I am saying is the current policy divides families. A simple change would remedy part of it.

It's the Lord's policy. The strife caused isn't really that big.

[bytor2112]

The children who are being sealed to the parents are allowed to go into the sealing room to perform that sealing--children to parents. They aren't there for the rest of the sealing.

Actually the children are there for the entire sealing. When my wife and I were sealed in 2005, we went from the Celestial room to the sealing room and our children were there waiting for us and remained till the end.

I see Cougar fan's point....that being said, his sister could have received her Endowment (not taken it out:eek:) I am guessing had she expressed the desire to her Bishop and SP.

[beefche]

Thanks, bytor. Didn't know that.

I still stand by my statements regarding allowing others into the temple who do not have a recommend.

[pam]

And I still agree with Beefche.

[bytor2112]

And I still agree with Beefche.

Oh yeah Pam???? Well, I agree with....Beefche too!!

[cougarfan]

Perhaps with the way things are heading in USA, the church will adapt and do as they do in UK--civil wedding first, then sealing (due to UK laws).

Now there is the answer. I knew it didn't have to be that hard. That way all family members can be present for the wedding, and the temple sealing can be done with those present who have a recommend.

If they are already doing it in UK, then surely it can be done here. Pretty simple. :)

Of course I don't expect anybody here to agree with me but...

[Hemidakota]

Is religion a force for good?

The knee jerk reaction from most people who hold to a religious belief is "yes, of course it is." Then when you point out that religion is used to motivate people to commit suicide bombings they will likely concede that this isn't always the case.

In one instance though someone said religion is always a force for good because the intentions are always good, even those of a suicide bomber. My reply was that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions".

However the question got me thinking, is religion actually a force for anything?

There are many definitions for religion around, one is:

"A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred"

My own take is that religion is the beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred. The practices are seperate.

There are many religions and many churches.

I believe that while humans always have free will that it is the church and the way they encourage members to act that determines whether or not the church becomes a force for good or bad and this is regardless of the intentions of the church leaders of the individuals within the church.

Take Islam. The teachings of Islam include concepts of peace, love and many other upstanding moral values and yet certain extremist sects, churches if you will, manage to use it to "radicalise" people and turn them in to suicide bombers. Islam as a religion is neither a force for good nor evil rather it is how the church teaches it that determines the acts of the attendees.

I posit that religion is not a force for anything, that it is a catalyst around which churches are built. That it is church leaders and the individuals within the church that determine if the church is a force for good or not.

I posit that many issues surrounding religion stem not from the religion but the presumption by some that religion is good therefore what the church commands under the trappings of religion must also be good. That the problems in most cases are not with the religion but with the church leaders. It's amazing how good teachings can be twisted to serve someone else's "greater good".

Thoughts?

What is your observation of the LDS church?