Have we got it right?

[Just_A_Guy]

It's really starting to look like the OP is desperate to get faithful LDS to agree with her that a civil marriage ending at death is every bit as good as an eternal sealing by priesthood authority in God's House, obeying His commandments.

Frankly, from what I know of her posting history, Carlimac is pretty near the last LDS.net member I'd expect to make that kind of assertion. I think that's why some of us are so confused/surprised.

[beefche]

Why not allow a "wedding" off site and an immediate sealing right after instead of having to wait a year? In many ways I think it would even make the sealing that much more sacred.

Or why not allow a sealing followed by an immediate celebration and even some type of ceremony that friends/family can participate in?

So, I think your question falls back to the age old debate that people have with American temple sealings. Why can't we be more like the UK where they have a civil ceremony and the next day have a sealing. Right now, the answer is "because the prophet (with the implication the Lord) said so."

[pam]

Or why not allow a sealing followed by an immediate celebration and even some type of ceremony that friends/family can participate in?

So, I think your question falls back to the age old debate that people have with American temple sealings. Why can't we be more like the UK where they have a civil ceremony and the next day have a sealing. Right now, the answer is "because the prophet (with the implication the Lord) said so."

And we have to keep in mind that it is by law in the UK that it is done the way it is. I would imagine if it were not required even the UK would be doing it the way the US is doing it.

[Guest]

Oye...how does anyone pretend to tell me what is right or wrong about my feelings when they weren't even there. I talked to several endowed women who were at this wedding and they all said the same thing. THIS was the most joyful wedding they had ever witnessed. These two good people who are serving the Lord, believe in Him, proclaim Him their Savior and follow the commandments were married outside the temple. How could we possibly believe that at the end of their rightoeus lives, the Lord says...OK you two, that's it. Off to you separate parts of the kingdom you go. I just can't grasp that. I believe in a more merciful Heavenly Father than that. Perhaps they won't rise to the highest level in the celestial kingdom but I honestly think they'd rather be together wherever. I think the Lord will make that possible for them. And they will do awesome things while on this earth together.

What exactly is missing in temple weddings? Music, laughter (out loud), squeals of joy and rejoicing, and participation in word and song by family members, the father walking his daughter down the aisle, the color and celebratory feeling, all loving members of one's circle of friends and family who haven't been baptized and endowed including younger siblings.

What was missing from this wedding? The priesthood ordinance. That's it. Was that enough for her to reject this good man's offer of marriage. No!! I believe it will be worked out between now and eternity. Another way of saying that I was trying to feel something was missing...I was trying to feel regret that she was marrying the right man (finally) in the temple. But there was so much joy it completely eclipsed any regret. Everything about the wedding was good. (And I just have to say, much more enjoyable than many dry, tense LDS weddings I've been too.)

I think MOE hit the nail on the head with his response. Is the priesthood ordinance necessary and important if one is trying to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom? Of course. I've never said otherwise. But I truly wish we could distinguish a little more between the priesthood ordinance and the ceremony of marriage. Why not allow a "wedding" off site and an immediate sealing right after instead of having to wait a year? In many ways I think it would even make the sealing that much more sacred.

Do you know that this is what EVERY SINGLE Catholic or Baptist convert feel when they attend Sacrament Meeting for the first time?

Why not allow a full band and a chorus and theologians at the podium? Why this dry, stiff service and speakers that can barely string 2 doctrines together giving a sermon?

Same answer.

Because the sacrament meeting/wedding is not "Music, laughter (out loud), squeals of joy and rejoicing, and participation in word and song by family members, the father walking his daughter down the aisle, the color and celebratory feeling, all loving members of one's circle of friends and family who haven't been baptized and endowed including younger siblings".

That's the celebratory feast. Which all temple-sealed members can have if they so desire. That's not the important part. The important part is the WEDDING COVENANT.

What LDS don't want - and this goes for sacrament meeting as well - is EXACTLY what you're trying to tell us here Carlimac. That the COVENANT we make at the wedding/sacrament meeting is not what we're after. Instead, we're after the "Music, laughter (out loud), squeals of joy and rejoicing, and participation in word and song by family members, the father walking his daughter down the aisle, the color and celebratory feeling, all loving members of one's circle of friends and family who haven't been baptized and endowed including younger siblings".

So, in a sense, this exact type of argument against temple ordinances just puts God's eternal purpose to bring his people to the fullness of joy through the requirements of the temple wedding in much more stark clarity. Because, we humans have the propensity to seek after worldly things instead of have our eyes looking forward to what one has to do for eternal joy.

Catholics, even without the temple ordinance, fall into this trap too. The entire family gets swept into the wedding celebrations that the marital vows become less important. That is why they changed their rules to require a marriage seminar before the priest performs the marital ordinance. It brings the couple back to focus on their marital vows instead of the distractions of the wedding feast.

Edited October 14, 2013 by anatess

[Jenamarie]

Been pondering on this thread today... The Proclamation on the Family does say that marriage is ordained of God. It doesn't specify civil vs. Temple. There ARE blessings that come from civil marriage. The church doesn't deny that. The couple in question could very well likely have a very blessed marriage (just as Temple marriages can end in divorce, as the bride discovered the first time around). A marriage between two loving, faithful individuals can and will indeed be blessed by God. The significant difference comes in at the time of death, when one blessed and loving marriage ends, and one doesn't. Both marriages are blessed, the difference is in how.

[Vort]

Been pondering on this thread today... The Proclamation on the Family does say that marriage is ordained of God. It doesn't specify civil vs. Temple. There ARE blessings that come from civil marriage. The church doesn't deny that. The couple in question could very well likely have a very blessed marriage (just as Temple marriages can end in divorce, as the bride discovered the first time around). A marriage between two loving, faithful individuals can and will indeed be blessed by God. The significant difference comes in at the time of death, when one blessed and loving marriage ends, and one doesn't. Both marriages are blessed, the difference is in how.

Agreed. The whole "God won't tear us apart!" argument doesn't make sense. God isn't the one tearing people apart. On the contrary, he gives them the opportunity to make their marriage eternal. If they choose not to do it, that is their choice, not God's.

[carlimac]

Not if she remarried with out the covenant. Temple covenants are sacred and eternal and as I said before include promises not just to one's spouse but to G-d.

The Traveler

This is absolute hogwash. She is still temple worthy. She broke no covenants with God. Her ex-husband broke his covenants with her and with God. Heavenly Father is not going to hold her responsible.

[Backroads]

Clearly, carlimac isn't against the sealing, and it seems some on this thread keep bringing up "but the sealing is important!"

We all agree on that. But this girl happily chose a non-LDS man and they're hardly the first mixed-faith couple and I don't see what really makes it a tragedy.

But carlimac, you do seem insistent that any of our positive temple sealing experiences never happened. Granted, there's probably huge numbers that had good and huge numbers that had dry and lifeless, so that's fair. But you also went to this wedding hoping to find it bad, and when that didn't happen, you are in sudden disequilibrium about what constitutes a great ceremony.

Now, I'm in favor of removing the one-year wait policy. Not enough to throw a big stink over it and think the church heads are evil and old-fashioned, but I see the charm in non-temple wedding ceremonies.

I also think adults can make their own decisions about their weddings.

[carlimac]

Im glad your daughter is in love with her now husband and that you all had a lovely wedding. I do hope that her husband will in time become a member of his own will and that they will later seal their marriage for eternity this is my wish and desire for them.

Thank you. That's very sweet. One thing though. It's my niece, not my daughter.

[carlimac]

It's really starting to look like the OP is desperate to get faithful LDS to agree with her that a civil marriage ending at death is every bit as good as an eternal sealing by priesthood authority in God's House, obeying His commandments.

I really doubt that notion's going to get a lot of buy-in around here, at least from believing Church members.

Oh for pity sake. I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me at all. I'm just asking basically...can we lighten up the temple ceremony a little? Can we allow laughter? Or are we just too darn serious and uptight about it all. Can't the ladies in the waiting room in the basement of the Salt Lake Temple allow families, some of who are having reunions right then and there, talk and laugh and enjoy each other's company rather than shushing them. It really takes the joy out of the moment. The noise really can't be heard upstairs and people who have been endowed recognize that when you DO go up to the ceiling rooms, there is a need for more quiet. Is it going to be all shush and quiet in heaven? All solemn faces? And YES can't we allow the bride and groom be silly eyed at each other over the alter? I've heard this more than once. " Don't look at each other even if you want to." I doubt very many brides or grooms really capture the whole deep meaning of the sealing ordinance the first time around anyway. It takes hearing it over and over and over again and pondering it at other times than the very moment you're getting married to have it really take root.

Do I hope and pray this couple makes it to the temple? With all my heart. I'm not dissing the importance of the covenant. But unlike Travelor and a few others who with their punitive and holier than thou attitudes about it, I don't believe that God will separate them in the hereafter if they don't get sealed on earth. They may not inherit all the blessings that we can't even fathom as far as creating worlds and eternal increase together. But ...I"ll leave it at that.

Am I going to petition or make a stink for change? No, that's not my style. But I do wish there were a way for more than only the temple endowed to witness the event.

At out last stake conference we had a Q&A session with the visiting general authority. A very humble man asked stood at the microphone almost shaking and said his daughter was soon to be married in the temple. The daughter's twin sister with some mental handicaps wanted to be included in the ceremony but she hadn't been endowed. The girl being married desired her sister to be there. The answer was nope. No way she could be there. The man had nothing else to say and sadly trudged back to his seat. It just felt all wrong to me. There must be a better way, a more compassionate way. I'll keep praying for something to change.

Edited October 15, 2013 by carlimac

[carlimac]

Do you know that this is what EVERY SINGLE Catholic or Baptist convert feel when they attend Sacrament Meeting for the first time?

Why not allow a full band and a chorus and theologians at the podium? Why this dry, stiff service and speakers that can barely string 2 doctrines together giving a sermon?

Same answer.

Because the sacrament meeting/wedding is not "Music, laughter (out loud), squeals of joy and rejoicing, and participation in word and song by family members, the father walking his daughter down the aisle, the color and celebratory feeling, all loving members of one's circle of friends and family who haven't been baptized and endowed including younger siblings".

That's the celebratory feast. Which all temple-sealed members can have if they so desire. That's not the important part. The important part is the WEDDING COVENANT.

What LDS don't want - and this goes for sacrament meeting as well - is EXACTLY what you're trying to tell us here Carlimac. That the COVENANT we make at the wedding/sacrament meeting is not what we're after. Instead, we're after the "Music, laughter (out loud), squeals of joy and rejoicing, and participation in word and song by family members, the father walking his daughter down the aisle, the color and celebratory feeling, all loving members of one's circle of friends and family who haven't been baptized and endowed including younger siblings".

So, in a sense, this exact type of argument against temple ordinances just puts God's eternal purpose to bring his people to the fullness of joy through the requirements of the temple wedding in much more stark clarity. Because, we humans have the propensity to seek after worldly things instead of have our eyes looking forward to what one has to do for eternal joy.

Catholics, even without the temple ordinance, fall into this trap too. The entire family gets swept into the wedding celebrations that the marital vows become less important. That is why they changed their rules to require a marriage seminar before the priest performs the marital ordinance. It brings the couple back to focus on their marital vows instead of the distractions of the wedding feast.

I don't want just one ( the celebration) or the other( the sealing ordinance) . I want them both- at the same time. I just think temple weddings are too solemn, almost funeralish. Didn't they used to sing in the temple in the early days of the church?

[Lakumi]

I wrote down all the plans I had for a wedding, and my funeral.

(it is assuming I marry a non Mormon, my funeral is my funeral no matter what I believe-and I will still probably break out "The Wheel of Religion")

[Dravin]

I don't believe that God will separate them in the hereafter if they don't get sealed on earth.

The default status is that they won't be together, as husband and wife, in the hereafter if they are not sealed, by proxy or in person. You seem to be taking the stand that they are in a relationship that persists beyond this life, and for it not to persist means God is separating them. The reality is they are in a relationship that will not persist beyond this life and God has provided a way in which it can persist beyond this life.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

I don't want just one ( the celebration) or the other( the sealing ordinance) . I want them both- at the same time. I just think temple weddings are too solemn, almost funeralish. Didn't they used to sing in the temple in the early days of the church?

I have not experienced the funeralish sealing that you talk about so I can't really relate to it. The temple brings about a completely different ambience in all its functions - baptisms, endowments, sealings, hanging out in the celestial room. They all share the same ambience of solemnity which, depending on your frame of mind, either enhances the sanctity of the experience or, I guess, you can feel funeralish if that's where your frame of mind is.

But just because you got sealed at the temple doesn't mean you are required to skip on the festivities. You can have both! Temple weddings are solemn because the Temple is a solemn place. But once you get done with all that - you can go to town!

The problem I see is trying to move the temple wedding out of the solemnity of the temple ordinance and conflate it with the celebration. And that's really where I see the Prophet as the spokesperson for God is taking this stance on this matter... The temple ordinance is solemn and sacred. It needs to have a completely all encompassing focus devoid of any distractions. I am glad for this because my experience in the sealing room (I was Catholic when my husband and I got married so we did not get married in the temple, but we got sealed at the temple) is so very different from my wedding. My husband and I consider the sealing as our wedding simply because of the "tunneling" experience that we both went through. When my husband and I knelt infront of each other, it's like we tunneled into each other where every single thing except for the voice of the temple president and my husband's presence faded. We didn't experience this during our secular wedding. We stayed in the celestial room for a long time just by ourselves trying to extend that feeling as long as we can.

Oh, I have to tell you this one - before the sealing... we were separated to get ready for our endowments. He changed into temple whites while we were separated so the very first time I saw him in all white was when I was sitting in this room waiting for him and he turned the corner and walked towards me. Oh, that was this... I-can't-explain-it feeling. When I saw him in all white and it seems like his hair was glowing and his blue eyes were so clear that it seemed like I can see right through to his brain and he had that smile... ahhhh!!! He was walking with his dad and brothers and I did not see anybody else there but my husband. That's really where the tunneling started. It lasted all the way through the endowment session even through the times that we were separated again to go through the ordinances and all the way through to the sealing. His family, and all the people from our ward that were there could have left to go to Disneyland and we wouldn't have noticed. It was really awesome.

So when I attend someone else's wedding/sealing, I try not to make a peep to break that solemnity in case the bride and groom are "tunneling".

[Guest]

And about music in the temple...

In the Catholic Church, the most solemn mass is the mass on Good Friday and the Easter vigil when the congregation ponder upon the Atonement of Christ. I'm a member of the choir and the choir is a full band (trumpets, flutes, guitars, violins, piano, drums, chorus). But on Good Friday and the Easter vigil, there is no music and the lights are dimmed almost to candlelight. It is so quiet and so solemn during this time that this is the time when I've felt the Spirit the strongest in the entire Liturgical calendar masses.

I guess one can also relate it to funeralish. I don't really see the correlation. My dad passed away last May and we had the full Filipino Catholic 9-day vigil. Yes, it was also very quiet and very solemn. But the feeling is very different. The Easter vigil has that joyous and hopeful quality to it while the funeral is somber.

I'm not very good with describing feelings but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do I hope and pray this couple makes it to the temple? With all my heart. I'm not dissing the importance of the covenant. But . . . I don't believe that God will separate them in the hereafter if they don't get sealed on earth. They may not inherit all the blessings that we can't even fathom as far as creating worlds and eternal increase together. But ...I"ll leave it at that.

You know, it's an odd thing we do as Church members. In my experience we tend to assume that we'll see and recognize each other in the Celestial or even the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms--unless, of course, we happen to be a husband and wife who chose never to get sealed; in which case God takes the extra time and trouble to make sure that we either won't "be with" or won't "know" each other.

I don't see God as being that singularly vindictive.

[Lakumi]

And about music in the temple...

In the Catholic Church, the most solemn mass is the mass on Good Friday and the Easter vigil when the congregation ponder upon the Atonement of Christ. I'm a member of the choir and the choir is a full band (trumpets, flutes, guitars, violins, piano, drums, chorus). But on Good Friday and the Easter vigil, there is no music and the lights are dimmed almost to candlelight. It is so quiet and so solemn during this time that this is the time when I've felt the Spirit the strongest in the entire Liturgical calendar masses.

I guess one can also relate it to funeralish. I don't really see the correlation. My dad passed away last May and we had the full Filipino Catholic 9-day vigil. Yes, it was also very quiet and very solemn. But the feeling is very different. The Easter vigil has that joyous and hopeful quality to it while the funeral is somber.

I'm not very good with describing feelings but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

my funeral will have a clown

[Dravin]

You know, it's an odd thing we do as Church members. In my experience we tend to assume that we'll see and recognize each other in the Celestial or even the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms--unless, of course, we happen to be a husband and wife who chose never to get sealed; in which case God takes the extra time and trouble to make sure that we either won't "be with" or won't "know" each other.

I don't see God as being that singularly vindictive.

Do we? While I'm sure some members may be thinking God has a neuralizer from MIB to flash everyone who isn't sealed I've by and large interpreted it within the context of D&C 132. They won't be memory wiped or anything like that, but the association they had as husband and wife is at an end.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do we? While I'm sure some members may be thinking God has a neuralizer from MIB to flash everyone who isn't sealed I've by and large interpreted it within the context of D&C 132. They won't be memory wiped or anything like that, but the association they had as husband and wife is at an end.

I hope you're right. But some comments within this thread suggest that, at least in some quarters of the Church, the perception persists.

[classylady]

Do we? While I'm sure some members may be thinking God has a neuralizer from MIB to flash everyone who isn't sealed I've by and large interpreted it within the context of D&C 132. They won't be memory wiped or anything like that, but the association they had as husband and wife is at an end.

I've never heard or thought that spouses who didn't attain the highest degree of exaltation would somehow miraculously forget each other. I've always thought that we would have a perfect memory. But, I have been taught (have no idea if this is true or not), that our bodies would be changed so that the physical desire would be gone. That may go along with the MIB flash theory?

Edit: If the physical desire is taken away, then I would imagine we would all just think of each other as brothers and sisters, which is exactly what we are. If our memories are all there, a perfect memory, I imagine, even if we're not on the other side as husband and wife, that there would be an added dimension or bond with the other spouse. But, I don't believe that we would be together as husband and wife, unless the sealing ordinances were performed, and both are worthy. (And, oh, my, word, I totally just thought of the scene in Wayne's World "We're not worthy").

Edited October 15, 2013 by classylady

[Guest]

I would hope that love between spouses encompasses far more than only physical desire.

[Lakumi]

I've never heard or thought that spouses who didn't attain the highest degree of exaltation would somehow miraculously forget each other. I've always thought that we would have a perfect memory. But, I have been taught (have no idea if this is true or not), that our bodies would be changed so that the physical desire would be gone. That may go along with the MIB flash theory?

Edit: If the physical desire is taken away, then I would imagine we would all just think of each other as brothers and sisters, which is exactly what we are. If our memories are all there, a perfect memory, I imagine, even if we're not on the other side as husband and wife, that there would be an added dimension or bond with the other spouse. But, I don't believe that we would be together as husband and wife, unless the sealing ordinances were performed, and both are worthy. (And, oh, my, word, I totally just thought of the scene in Wayne's World "We're not worthy").

I donno, I don't see God as the having weird technology sort, I imagine it more like Hokuto Shinken, where he, basically pokes a point on your head and you forget an amount of time, determined on how hard the pressure was.

Or like Q from Star Trek where he just snaps a finger and he makes it so

[Traveler]

This is absolute hogwash. She is still temple worthy. She broke no covenants with God. Her ex-husband broke his covenants with her and with God. Heavenly Father is not going to hold her responsible.

Do you understand the law of consecration and the covenant associated with it? As you should have realized from the ex-husband - being temple worthy (getting a temple recommend) does not necessarily mean (or prove) loyal to covenants and to G-d.

Loyalty to G-d and obedience to covenants is not about surface appearances - it is about deep down commitments to do as G-d has directed even if it is inconvenient or not as fun (or seemingly "worldly" joyfulness) and exciting.

However, perhaps you can help me understand - where G-d has commanded worthy Saints that have prepared themselves in every way possible by sacred covenant that they can only please G-d by a marriage without (void) of eternal (temple) covenant.

The Traveler

[Leah]

I don't want just one ( the celebration) or the other( the sealing ordinance) . I want them both- at the same time. I just think temple weddings are too solemn, almost funeralish. Didn't they used to sing in the temple in the early days of the church?

Ordinances aren't about our wants, they are about Heavenly Father's plan for salvation. Even as much as I sometimes want things to be different than what Heavenly Father has planned for me, I know without any doubt, that His plan is ALWAYS better.

If you think a temple wedding is akin to a funeral, that's because of the preconceptions you take to it, not the reality of what is happening.

I, personally, don't want to stand before my Heavenly Father some day and when He asks "Why did you do it that way, instead of the way I asked you to?" and have my answer be "Because I wanted to, that's why".

[Vort]

I donno, I don't see God as the having weird technology sort,

Yes, clearly the word "technology" is insufficient to describe the condition and power of a glorified celestial being. Surely God's power derives from what he is rather than from what he has.

I imagine it more like Hokuto Shinken, where he, basically pokes a point on your head and you forget an amount of time, determined on how hard the pressure was.

Or like Q from Star Trek where he just snaps a finger and he makes it so

I do not believe in "Jeannie God" (as in I Dream of Jeannie). God is not magical. God is all-powerful. I realize that many will not recognize a distinction, but the distinction is nonetheless there, and it is important.