Have we got it right?

[Traveler]

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 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.

I am in complete agreement that G-d is not magical or as many would think in terms of supernatural - G-d being the designer and creator of all things natural.

But I am interested that you do not think of G-d as being technologically advanced. As an engineer I find it interesting that many of the modern advances in "technology" are reverse engineered from nature. Giving rise to man in essence at least attempting to learn of G-d (creation) through technology.

So I am wondering if this kind of thinking is offensive (religiously) to you?

The Traveler

[Lakumi]

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 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.

these things are things I thought when I was a child, I obviously don't think that in all serious now. Growing up religion was just stories I heard and I thought of weird things to explain it all to myself.

Obviously now, as a grown man, I don't seriously think God is that way. But the convo went that way so I shared some childish beliefs I had

[Vort]

I am in complete agreement that G-d is not magical or as many would think in terms of supernatural - G-d being the designer and creator of all things natural.

But I am interested that you do not think of G-d as being technologically advanced. As an engineer I find it interesting that many of the modern advances in "technology" are reverse engineered from nature. Giving rise to man in essence at least attempting to learn of G-d (creation) through technology.

Technology is a type of worldly learning. Saying "God is technologically advanced" seems to me similar to saying "God is proficient in playing the violin" or "God has good fashion sense".

So I am wondering if this kind of thinking is offensive (religiously) to you?

No, not offensive. Naive, maybe. Perhaps a bit rankling, given how many people want to portray us as some sort of sci-fi cult worshipping a god from Planet Kolob and other such nonsense.

[Finrock]

The last sealing that I attended was for some friends from my ward. They are converts to the Church with children so the whole family was sealed together at that time.

I can't tell you how palpable the spirit was. I could hardly stand it. I can't think of a more sweet experience than what I experienced at this sealing.

I know nothing about sterile, stiff, or anything missing when it comes to the temple and temple ordinances.

-Finrock

Edited October 15, 2013 by Finrock

[Canuck Mormon]

Carlimac, I know how you feel. I attended the "wedding" of my brother in law and sister in law a couple of years ago. The reason wedding is in quotes is because they were actually married, it was more of a vow renewal. This was one of the most touching and loving ceremonies that I have ever attended, including my own Temple wedding. They are non members, but very good people who put others first in everything that they do. Do I feel that the wedding had no value because they weren't sealed in the Temple? Nope. Did I feel the spirit at their wedding? Yup. It reminds me of a line from a Primary song "Where love is, there God is also." Is the church a little rigid in somethings? Yes. But the sealing is closed to only those who have been endowed for a reason. Can you imagine walking into a sealing room and seeing the bride and groom having no context for it? Not understanding a lot of the ceremony. I think they would feel worse than if they weren't allowed. But that's my opinion.

BTW - My wife and I looked at each other through the whole ceremony. We even laughed when they mentioned having kids (we both married late in life. So they are not all sterile.

I'm glad you were able to enjoy your neices ceremony and share the day with her.

[prisonchaplain]

I know that details cannot be discussed. However, I also know that one of the LDS distinctives is that marriage is "for time and eternity." My guess would be that this doctrine would be celebrated in any marriage rituals and liturgy. So, however somber and reflective the ceremonies are, I would think that most would have fond memories of their LDS weddings, from that simple fact alone. I'm I thinking right on this?

[Traveler]

Technology is a type of worldly learning. Saying "God is technologically advanced" seems to me similar to saying "God is proficient in playing the violin" or "God has good fashion sense".

No, not offensive. Naive, maybe. Perhaps a bit rankling, given how many people want to portray us as some sort of sci-fi cult worshipping a god from Planet Kolob and other such nonsense.

Interesting that you find the concept of technology as naive. Would you classify the liahona part of the naive technology you are talking about?

The Traveler

[Vort]

Interesting that you find the concept of technology as naive. Would you classify the liahona part of the naive technology you are talking about?

You misunderstand. Perhaps I didn't word it well. I don't find the concept of technology to be naive; rather, I find the idea that God is "technologically advanced" to be naive.

The liahona was not a "technological device" as we understand such things. It operated according to faith, and not (apparently) according to any physics principles we presently understand.

[Vort]

I know that details cannot be discussed. However, I also know that one of the LDS distinctives is that marriage is "for time and eternity." My guess would be that this doctrine would be celebrated in any marriage rituals and liturgy. So, however somber and reflective the ceremonies are, I would think that most would have fond memories of their LDS weddings, from that simple fact alone. I'm I thinking right on this?

Yes, I think you're right, but there is more to it than that. The ceremony itself is very simple, and impressive for its simplicity. The setting is intimate; even the largest sealing room is no larger than a tiny chapel, and most are much smaller. You might possibly squeeze four or perhaps even five dozen people in the largest, standing shoulder to shoulder, but this is discouraged. A typical sealing room used for live sealings might comfortably seat, I don't know, twenty or so. (Others should feel free to correct me if my memories and impressions are wrong, but I think that's about right.)

The man holding the sealing power is called the "sealer" (surprise!). Typically, the sealer will invite the witnesses (often the fathers, if they are present) to take their seats, offer a few words of congratulations and counsel to the couple being sealed, then perform the sealing. That last step takes about three minutes, if the sealer speaks very slowly. Then, after a kiss (if they want), the couple is invited to look into the mirrors and contemplate the eternity of their union for a short time. Then everyone in attendance hugs them and offers them quiet congratulations, and the group leaves the temple for pictures and festivities.

I can see how someone used to a large wedding with loud organ or band music, over-the-top decorations, and great theatricalities might find a temple wedding somehow disappointingly low-key. But for those of us who treasure temple sealings, non-temple weddings too often seem to us to be loud, vulgar displays of ostentation and/or self-involved focusing on the whims or idiosyncracies of the couple instead of a holy, beautiful ceremony uniting two souls for (what we hope to be) all eternity.

[Traveler]

You misunderstand. Perhaps I didn't word it well. I don't find the concept of technology to be naive; rather, I find the idea that God is "technologically advanced" to be naive.

The liahona was not a "technological device" as we understand such things. It operated according to faith, and not (apparently) according to any physics principles we presently understand.

I would only add that there are a great many things that have been discovered to be rather technological marvels. For example super massive black holes exist outside of any physics principles we presently understand.

However, I am not a proponent of a G-d of the gaps or that G-d is what we cannot understand or explain. The reason is obvious - the more we can understand and explain such a G-d would be come less relevant. I have said this before in other threads - I do not believe G-d violates his laws and principles to accomplish his wishes - I believe such a being to be the definition of a hyprocrit. I believe that with superior understanding and knowledge comes superior ability.

The Traveler

[carlimac]

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

Holy Cow! I just don't think we can go around making judgments like this about people. How do you know that she isn't fulfilling her covenant by marrying this good man outside of the temple at this time so that she can possibly bring another soul into the gospel. All I know is that she prayed pretty hard about this an got the go ahead. It may not make surface sense to you, but then neither did Nephi cutting off Laban's head.

I think we need to be very very careful in refraining from judging how others fulfill covenants. It's the wrong thing to do. Frankly I'm appalled you would even think these things.

[prisonchaplain]

non-temple weddings too often seem to us to be loud, vulgar displays of ostentation and/or self-involved focusing on the whims or idiosyncracies of the couple

Yeah...I suppose all that stuff belongs at the receptions.

[carlimac]

Yes, I think you're right, but there is more to it than that. The ceremony itself is very simple, and impressive for its simplicity. The setting is intimate; even the largest sealing room is no larger than a tiny chapel, and most are much smaller. You might possibly squeeze four or perhaps even five dozen people in the largest, standing shoulder to shoulder, but this is discouraged. A typical sealing room used for live sealings might comfortably seat, I don't know, twenty or so. (Others should feel free to correct me if my memories and impressions are wrong, but I think that's about right.)

The man holding the sealing power is called the "sealer" (surprise!). Typically, the sealer will invite the witnesses (often the fathers, if they are present) to take their seats, offer a few words of congratulations and counsel to the couple being sealed, then perform the sealing. That last step takes about three minutes, if the sealer speaks very slowly. Then, after a kiss (if they want), the couple is invited to look into the mirrors and contemplate the eternity of their union for a short time. Then everyone in attendance hugs them and offers them quiet congratulations, and the group leaves the temple for pictures and festivities.

I can see how someone used to a large wedding with loud organ or band music, over-the-top decorations, and great theatricalities might find a temple wedding somehow disappointingly low-key. But for those of us who treasure temple sealings, non-temple weddings too often seem to us to be loud, vulgar displays of ostentation and/or self-involved focusing on the whims or idiosyncracies of the couple instead of a holy, beautiful ceremony uniting two souls for (what we hope to be) all eternity.

This "gentile" wedding (as some of you responding seem to think it was) felt to me as holy a ceremony as any I've been to. I've attended at least a dozen weddings in the temple.At this wedding, as in temple weddings, I felt the spirit and approval of the Lord, even the presence of my parents who are deceased. I felt the Lord's complete approval. There were tender mercies all along the way. You just can't say that temple weddings have a corner on the market for holy. Many many holy occasions occur outside of temples and outside of LDS members' experiences.

LDS temple weddings are holy and sacred, no doubt about it. But they aren't the only holy ones.

Just for the record, I had at least 45-50 at my temple wedding. The Salt Lake sealing rooms are generally bigger than the ones in the smaller temples.

[dahlia]

Even though I just had a little proxy sealing, it wasn't like the OP suggested. It turned out the proxy and his wife knew one of my guest couples, I had gone to the same university as the officiator, and there was a little talk about being connected even though we were strangers, etc. Afterward, I was asked to stand up while my guest filed past and hugged me and gave best wishes. I thought it was fine.

I didn't want to look at the proxy because I was embarrassed, I was never told not to look at him.

[prisonchaplain]

I've only officiated four weddings--mainly for staff. When they come to me, my rule (required by my fellowship) is that both parties be Christian, or that neither be. In the latter case, I tell them that I will use a Christian script. The one I like best says, "This is an old family wedding liturgy. The kicker is that the copyright on the book is 1965--and it was old then! They always agree.

Once, the groom says, "Can you take out the part where it says I'm taking on a grave responsibility." I smiled and said, "Absolutely not!"

I'll admit that when the brides want to edit I'm more flexible. :-)

[Dravin]

You just can't say that temple weddings have a corner on the market for holy.

If that's the case then I'd say it's a good thing he didn't say that.

[Guest]

This "gentile" wedding (as some of you responding seem to think it was) felt to me as holy a ceremony as any I've been to. I've attended at least a dozen weddings in the temple.At this wedding, as in temple weddings, I felt the spirit and approval of the Lord, even the presence of my parents who are deceased. I felt the Lord's complete approval. There were tender mercies all along the way. You just can't say that temple weddings have a corner on the market for holy. Many many holy occasions occur outside of temples and outside of LDS members' experiences.

LDS temple weddings are holy and sacred, no doubt about it. But they aren't the only holy ones.

Just for the record, I had at least 45-50 at my temple wedding. The Salt Lake sealing rooms are generally bigger than the ones in the smaller temples.

Now I really don't understand your point.

What about this temple wedding do we not have right?

[Backroads]

Now I really don't understand your point.

What about this temple wedding do we not have right?

I'd also like to get more specifics on this.

So far, what I understand is:

1. You highly enjoyed this outdoor wedding you attended (Most of us have no problem whatsoever with this outdoor wedding or with the marriage of the two people involved.)

2. You find temple sealings akin to funerals (this seems to be a matter of personal experience and opinion rather than a hard rule determining the nature of temple sealing ceremonies).

So, aside from the fact you personally don't enjoy temple sealing ceremonies as much as non-temple wedding ceremonies, what is wrong or right all across the board about either?

[prisonchaplain]

I suspect the main point of the OP was that weddings should have a celebratory and joyful spirit to them. The experiences she had with temple weddings were apparently somber. Bottom line: Shouldn't the weddings feel happier?

From my outsider view, I did not take the OP as a challenge to the doctrines, liturgy, or rituals of LDS weddings. Rather, it asked why there was not more of a joyfulness to the experience.

Maybe there is no good answer, and it really is a matter of perception. It could also be that what happens in preparation, and afterwards, in celebration, that effects the impressions of the ceremony itself.

[Guest]

I suspect the main point of the OP was that weddings should have a celebratory and joyful spirit to them. The experiences she had with temple weddings were apparently somber. Bottom line: Shouldn't the weddings feel happier?

From my outsider view, I did not take the OP as a challenge to the doctrines, liturgy, or rituals of LDS weddings. Rather, it asked why there was not more of a joyfulness to the experience.

Maybe there is no good answer, and it really is a matter of perception. It could also be that what happens in preparation, and afterwards, in celebration, that effects the impressions of the ceremony itself.

The lack of joyfullness is not the issue at hand. Because, it is not missing in Temple Weddings. The "separate the joyfullness to the reception" is the problem. Because, for some reason, people think that if you're not saying I do infront of all the family, it's not joyful even if you say I do a million times at the reception.

[carlimac]

I'd also like to get more specifics on this.

So far, what I understand is:

1. You highly enjoyed this outdoor wedding you attended (Most of us have no problem whatsoever with this outdoor wedding or with the marriage of the two people involved.)

2. You find temple sealings akin to funerals (this seems to be a matter of personal experience and opinion rather than a hard rule determining the nature of temple sealing ceremonies).

So, aside from the fact you personally don't enjoy temple sealing ceremonies as much as non-temple wedding ceremonies, what is wrong or right all across the board about either?

I'll respond later. I'm flying all day.

[Traveler]

Holy Cow! I just don't think we can go around making judgments like this about people. How do you know that she isn't fulfilling her covenant by marrying this good man outside of the temple at this time so that she can possibly bring another soul into the gospel. All I know is that she prayed pretty hard about this an got the go ahead. It may not make surface sense to you, but then neither did Nephi cutting off Laban's head.

I think we need to be very very careful in refraining from judging how others fulfill covenants. It's the wrong thing to do. Frankly I'm appalled you would even think these things.

I would remind you that it was you that judged a none temple wedding as "getting it right". What I am trying to point out is that in so doing you are judging G-d, his ordinances, and covenants as "not getting it right".

What I am trying to suggest to you (as nicely as I can while remaining true to my covenants with G-d) is that you consider beyond the surface of worldly things and consider the covenants of G-d as the most important or in terms of the op - getting it right. I am suggesting that if you understood covenants you would understand even why Nephi cut off Laban's head - because it was all about covenants of G-d and not about worldly warm fuzzies.

Now you want to call me judgmental for saying that non-covenant with G-d is contrary to what G-d has clearly commanded of his Saints. Jesus said that if we love G-d (or love him) we will keep his commandments.

So I ask you as clearly and plainly as I can - Has G-d commanded his Saints to marry in the temple or has he commanded that some of his saints marry outside the temple? The only way that your niece can serve G-d (love G-d) is by keeping his commandments. So where is the commandment that you claim is "getting it right"??? I have been a member of the LDS faith for a long time and I have never heard such a commandment ever - I honestly believe you are wrong in believing such a thing. And I find noting in anything you have said so far to convince me otherwise.

What I am asking is why you believe G-d commands some of his saints to marry outside the temple. You have hinted that it may be a means to bring someone to G-d. I have enough life experience to realize that dong something wrong for a good reason is not a good thing - especially while trying to convince others to do right things.

But you do bring up a very interesting question - since you brought it up - Did your niece pray about her first marriage? If so what is different this time? I have learned by sad experience that if I pray hard enough about what I want G-d will grant me my desire - just because I desired it. But I have also learned that I cannot blame him, or his covenants or his ordinances if the granting of my desires do not work out - especially in eternity.

I am sorry that I appear to be raining on you parade - I would love to share in you joy - but I honestly do not believe such is a lasting joy. Or to change a little from what Alma said - Wickedness never was happiness - but it sure was a lot of fun and excitement while it lasted.

I do hope your niece and her husband repent (have a change of mind and heart) and someday marry in the temple but from what you are claiming as getting it right - it does not appear that you or they see any sense in changing a thing.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I have no stake in this conversation really. However, could it be that you are reading the OP incorrectly? You suggest that it opposes Temple weddings, judges God, etc. All I saw was some admiration of a joyful and poignant non-temple ceremony, and the question why can't ours have some of that spirit?

Do such questions and observations really call for repentance???

[Misshalfway]

I suspect the main point of the OP was that weddings should have a celebratory and joyful spirit to them. The experiences she had with temple weddings were apparently somber. Bottom line: Shouldn't the weddings feel happier?

From my outsider view, I did not take the OP as a challenge to the doctrines, liturgy, or rituals of LDS weddings. Rather, it asked why there was not more of a joyfulness to the experience.

Maybe there is no good answer, and it really is a matter of perception. It could also be that what happens in preparation, and afterwards, in celebration, that effects the impressions of the ceremony itself.

Yup. You've hit the nail. There is no good answer. LDS sealings are absolutely out of the norm. It's hard to argue it because each perception is different.

There is no doubt that the temple ritual restricts behaviors. I remember kissing my husband just after our sealing in the hallway outside the sealing room. We were abruptly censured by a very lovely white haired lady who abruptly took my arm and ushered me to my dressing room leaving us both feeling embarrassed and urked. Did such interfere with my joy? Yeah... it kinda did for a minute. I was young and swept away by the moment and didn't realize that a post sealing kiss was inappropriate. But that's just the deal when you get married the mormon way. You make certain sacrifices. And it's ok to feel whatever we feel about it.

My girlfriend was a convert. Her nonmember family had a really hard time with her decision to marry int he temple. It broke her dad's heart that he couldn't give away his baby girl. I watched as my friend hugged her tearful dad just before she entered the doors on the temple. And I saw him walk back to his car in tears. But you know, my friend didn't regret her choice. She felt heartbroken too but also completely at peace with her decision. Whose to judge what's joyful and what's not? I don't know.

If I were gonna plan a wedding, I'd do it with Martha Stewarts entire staff and I'd add all the drama and ambience to create a celebratory experience for everyone. Mormon sealings just aren't like that. And so I'd admit that Carlimac is right in a sense. It's a different kind of display. Not sure how to measure joy though. It's not like traditional marriage ceremonies are guaranteed to produce joyfulness.

[Canuck Mormon]

Traveler, I have no stake in this conversation really. However, could it be that you are reading the OP incorrectly? You suggest that it opposes Temple weddings, judges God, etc. All I saw was some admiration of a joyful and poignant non-temple ceremony, and the question why can't ours have some of that spirit?

Do such questions and observations really call for repentance???

Unfortunatley for some people it does. And that is really, really sad.