Sealings - current policy, not culture?

[gem2477]

I think the policy that makes couples who get married civily wait a year to get sealed - and the marriage and sealing should be seperated. Here's why:

1- Countries whose law says that a civil ceremony must occur before any religious ceremony already allow this - why not in North America?

2- It would be a great missionary tool to get non members in to the chapels.

3- It would be good PR and make the church look like it's moving in the right direction

4- Joseph Smith said “All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,” the scripture stated, “should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..." (The Times and Seasons, 1842)

5- I think it's a scare tactic to teach YW that if you don't get married in the temple right of, you'll die. The YW have a lesson in which Spencer W. Kimball told a story that a couple who didn't get married in the temple died on their way to the honeymoon, then used strong language against it. This is wrong.

6- The LDS doesn't have a huge part of human culture - public weddings. This needs to change.

7 - Families get torn apart by this. It is wrong to not allow families not to see the weddings of each other.

[gem2477]

This is simple policy, not doctrine. I say the way it can be changed is for more and more couples to chose to wait a year, which will make it more meaningful if you have been together for a period of time. Do wedding they way you want, not the way someone tells you to. Make the two things seperate.

[estradling75]

gem2477.. of your 42 posts here they can all be summed up as "The church is doing something I don't like... Therefor the church is wrong and it must change to better suit me."

So gem2477 is there anything about the church that you do like? Do you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, of Prophets, of the Church? If you don't.. then you really need to focus on the basics

[gem2477]

estradling 75-

I was just saying that it would be beneficial for the church to make these changes - why can't we talk about things that would help the church out? Do we not have a say in anything? We are members, you know. Making observations that are negative in the hopes of change is not wrong.

It has nothing to do with me - 95% of those who I would want at my wedding are temple worthy and could come see me. My brothers and sisters are already married, and I was too young to go anyway, so that point is mute.

Edited December 3, 2013 by gem2477

[estradling75]

Way to dodge the question... Do you believe that God has inspired men running the church? If your answer is no then you need to work on that. If your answer is yes. Then understand that they are neither stupid nor clueless. They know what is going on they know the impact this has on the members. This is a policy that they can choose to change at any time. They are in a position to see the larger picture then any one of us, and they are choosing to hold the course. We might not like it, we might not agree with it, but it is their call.

You seem to think the Church is a democracy, its not, it is a kingdom. Our choice is do we wish to be a part of it or not?

[gem2477]

Way to dodge the question... Do you believe that God has inspired men running the church? If your answer is no then you need to work on that. If your answer is yes. Then understand that they are neither stupid nor clueless. They know what is going on they know the impact this has on the members. This is a policy that they can choose to change at any time. They are in a position to see the larger picture then any one of us, and they are choosing to hold the course. We might not like it, we might not agree with it, but it is their call.

You seem to think the Church is a democracy, its not, it is a kingdom. Our choice is do we wish to be a part of it or not?

Okay I will answer the question - head on.

They may not be stupid or clueless, but we aren't either. We can, and are able to see the larger picture as well. Why can't members of the church actually think for themselves?The bretheren aren't inspired every single waking minute of their lives. They are human, and have made mistakes. Remember Uchdorf's talk about that last general conference? Sometimes the "speaking as man" and the "inspiration from the spirit" part gets muddy in the church. There has been stories in which there were policies that were put into place that just didn't work and needed change.

I don't see basic, everyday policies that are put into place as inspired. They are just things that make the church function.

[Guest]

Mmmmm, currants.

[estradling75]

Okay I will answer the question - head on.

They may not be stupid or clueless, but we aren't either. We can, and are able to see the larger picture as well. Why can't members of the church actually think for themselves?The bretheren aren't inspired every single waking minute of their lives. They are human, and have made mistakes. Remember Uchdorf's talk about that last general conference? Sometimes the "speaking as man" and the "inspiration from the spirit" part gets muddy in the church. There has been stories in which there were policies that were put into place that just didn't work and needed change.

I don't see basic, everyday policies that are put into place as inspired. They are just things that make the church function.

Policies may or may not be inspired. But they always have reasons. The leaders of the church don't enact policies willy nilly. If they enact a policy its because they are trying their best to fix something or encourage something among the Saints. It might work or it might fail. But the only way to know if it is working or failing is to know what they were trying to do with the policy in the first place. Given that the closest you have come to considering the why is number 5 in your initial post... it becomes clear that you are more then a little clueless and haven't even really looked at it.

You are quite right that some policies didn't work and need to be changed... But who is in a better position to see this? You with your limited group of friends and family? Or a general authority who understand what they are trying to do and hears from the members and bishops, and stake presidents, and temple presidents, and other general authorities in addition to their own family and friends? Of the two... I know who I consider more expert and knowledgeable on the subject. And it isn't you and it isn't me.

[Backroads]

gem didn't answer estradling's question at all...

[Backroads]

All right, I'm going to address these by my own opinions:

To begin, I am in some favor of getting rid of the waiting period. BUT I am not against the current policy.

1- Countries whose law says that a civil ceremony must occur before any religious ceremony already allow this - why not in North America?

The countries don't allow it, the Church does. Since the United States recognizes most religious marriages as legal, there is no pressure. We are simply not in the same situation as other countries.

2- It would be a great missionary tool to get non members in to the chapels.

How? Temple dates have nothing to do with getting investigators into chapels. If you mean we will attract investigators by chancing the temple policy, you are assuming the vast majority of people have as strong an opinion on it as you do.

3- It would be good PR and make the church look like it's moving in the right direction

Again, do enough people care enough? And what is the "right direction"? It's not like we're doing anything outlandishly progressive if we were to drop the wait period.

4- Joseph Smith said “All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,” the scripture stated, “should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..." (The Times and Seasons, 1842)

The temple ceremony is public in that it involves people.

5- I think it's a scare tactic to teach YW that if you don't get married in the temple right of, you'll die. The YW have a lesson in which Spencer W. Kimball told a story that a couple who didn't get married in the temple died on their way to the honeymoon, then used strong language against it. This is wrong.

I agree that's a nasty story. But I have never heard such a blatant lesson. I think you are interpreting it the way you want.

6- The LDS doesn't have a huge part of human culture - public weddings. This needs to change.

So all wedding ceremonies need to have a billion people? "Public wedding" sounds weird. Like anyone can just wander in.

7 - Families get torn apart by this. It is wrong to not allow families not to see the weddings of each other.

Why are so many against temple weddings excluding family but have no issues when a couple decides to elope without inviting the family?

[Guest]

I've been to weddings in the chapels of other churches and, while the ceremonies and buildings were lovely, I can't say it ever compelled me toward their respective denominations.

[Dravin]

5- I think it's a scare tactic to teach YW that if you don't get married in the temple right of, you'll die. The YW have a lesson in which Spencer W. Kimball told a story that a couple who didn't get married in the temple died on their way to the honeymoon, then used strong language against it. This is wrong.

The moral/point of the story is not, "If you don't get married in the temple you'll die." It's hard to take you seriously when you spout something so ridiculous.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Dravin

[Leah]

I think the policy that makes couples who get married civily wait a year to get sealed - and the marriage and sealing should be seperated. Here's why:

1- Countries whose law says that a civil ceremony must occur before any religious ceremony already allow this - why not in North America?

2- It would be a great missionary tool to get non members in to the chapels.

3- It would be good PR and make the church look like it's moving in the right direction

4- Joseph Smith said “All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,” the scripture stated, “should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..." (The Times and Seasons, 1842)

5- I think it's a scare tactic to teach YW that if you don't get married in the temple right of, you'll die. The YW have a lesson in which Spencer W. Kimball told a story that a couple who didn't get married in the temple died on their way to the honeymoon, then used strong language against it. This is wrong.

6- The LDS doesn't have a huge part of human culture - public weddings. This needs to change.

7 - Families get torn apart by this. It is wrong to not allow families not to see the weddings of each other.

You clearly don't understand what a sealing is. You apparently think it is nothing more than another variation on current culture's concept of what a wedding should be.

Just because you want a certain kind of wedding doesn't mean there is any reason for church policy to change.

What is more important...having a fashion show/party (which is what many weddings amount to these days) or receiving a sacred ordinance? I think the church has it exactly right when it comes to marriage. Just as Heavenly Father ordained it.

[Maureen]

2- It would be a great missionary tool to get non members in to the chapels.

How? Temple dates have nothing to do with getting investigators into chapels. If you mean we will attract investigators by chancing the temple policy, you are assuming the vast majority of people have as strong an opinion on it as you do.

Because a public wedding in an LDS chapel would include non-LDS family and friends of the bride and groom. They may not even be familiar with the LDS church and the wedding may tweek their curiousity about the COJCOLDS and they may want to know more.

M.

[Leah]

I think the policy that makes couples who get married civily wait a year to get sealed - and the marriage and sealing should be seperated. Here's why:

1- Countries whose law says that a civil ceremony must occur before any religious ceremony already allow this - why not in North America?

2- It would be a great missionary tool to get non members in to the chapels.

3- It would be good PR and make the church look like it's moving in the right direction

4- Joseph Smith said “All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,” the scripture stated, “should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..." (The Times and Seasons, 1842)

5- I think it's a scare tactic to teach YW that if you don't get married in the temple right of, you'll die. The YW have a lesson in which Spencer W. Kimball told a story that a couple who didn't get married in the temple died on their way to the honeymoon, then used strong language against it. This is wrong.

6- The LDS doesn't have a huge part of human culture - public weddings. This needs to change.

7 - Families get torn apart by this. It is wrong to not allow families not to see the weddings of each other.

I just found and read the lesson to which you are referring. Would you please tell us what exactly was "wrong" with what was said in that lesson?

[estradling75]

Because a public wedding in an LDS chapel would include non-LDS family and friends of the bride and groom. They may not even be familiar with the LDS church and the wedding may tweek their curiousity about the COJCOLDS and they may want to know more.

M.

There are things known as receptions that can be held in the church were non-member and member friends and family can come and celebrate the newly married couple... In which they can be a part of all the games, traditions, well wishes. Everything about a marriage celebration but the ordinance itself. So they get all that. (or they can if the couple decides to hold a reception in the church)

[Leah]

Because a public wedding in an LDS chapel would include non-LDS family and friends of the bride and groom. They may not even be familiar with the LDS church and the wedding may tweek their curiousity about the COJCOLDS and they may want to know more.

M.

Again, no concept of what the purpose of a sealing is. And given your dislike of the church, it is actually understandable that you would want things changed to fit your own desires.

[Maureen]

There are things known as receptions that can be held in the church were non-member and member friends and family can come and celebrate the newly married couple... In which they can be a part of all the games, traditions, well wishes. Everything about a marriage celebration but the ordinance itself. So they get all that. (or they can if the couple decides to hold a reception in the church)

A wedding ceremony is not the same as a reception.

M.

[Jenamarie]

Why are so many against temple weddings excluding family but have no issues when a couple decides to elope without inviting the family?

To be fair, an elopement excludes *everyone* except the bride and groom. A Temple wedding excludes certain individuals, regardless of their relationship with the bride and groom. You may have a bride's great-aunt-once-removed, who was invited as a favor to the bride's mother, at a Temple Sealing, but not the mother of the groom. Now imagine if that groom was his mother's only child. There's going to be hurt feelings.

[Connie]

Is this lesson being referred to in the current youth curriculum or is it from the manual no longer being used? Would someone post a link? Thanks in advance.

[estradling75]

A wedding ceremony is not the same as a reception.

M.

Nope... but if you are talking about PR and getting people interested in the church... having the couple buck the trend of the world and make it a religious ceremony is absolute gold. Those not invited will ask why and then the couple can explain their beliefs and why it is important to them. The people not invited might not agree but as long as they understand that it is the couple's important day and not theirs things should be fine

[Maureen]

Again, no concept of what the purpose of a sealing is. And given your dislike of the church, it is actually understandable that you would want things changed to fit your own desires.

Having a civil wedding before a sealing would have no negative effects for the sealing; it happens in the UK all the time. Are you saying Leah, that the sealings performed in the UK are inferior to those performed in the USA?

Leah, you claim that I dislike the church and that I bash the church but you've never shown me why you think this. I do not dislike or bash the LDS church. I am not a member because I do not agree with the church's doctrines or beliefs. But I love the church's history, it is fascinating and intriguing. I way in on topics on this forum because I have an opinion and I like to express my opinion when I'm interested in the subject. If you dislike reading my posts you can always put me on ignore.

M.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Maureen

[Backroads]

Because a public wedding in an LDS chapel would include non-LDS family and friends of the bride and groom. They may not even be familiar with the LDS church and the wedding may tweek their curiousity about the COJCOLDS and they may want to know more.

M.

Okay, I can kind of see that. But it's no more likely than me or Eowyn expressing more than mild interest of any other religion because we attended a wedding in a place of worship. It's hardly missionary-level.

[Maureen]

Nope... but if you are talking about PR and getting people interested in the church... having the couple buck the trend of the world and make it a religious ceremony is absolute gold. Those not invited will ask why and then the couple can explain their beliefs and why it is important to them. The people not invited might not agree but as long as they understand that it is the couple's important day and not theirs things should be fine

I'm not sure what you mean by "buck the trend of the world" but if you actually mean bucking the trend of current church policy then I would say that if the policy was changed to allow the couple to choose civil wedding first with sealing to come later then no one would be bucking anything. If sealing policy was changed for North American (and other) members then these conversations would not even be taking place. It would be a win win for everyone involved. It already happens in other countries, how would it be wrong if it happened in the US and Canada?

M.

[Backroads]

To be fair, an elopement excludes *everyone* except the bride and groom. A Temple wedding excludes certain individuals, regardless of their relationship with the bride and groom. You may have a bride's great-aunt-once-removed, who was invited as a favor to the bride's mother, at a Temple Sealing, but not the mother of the groom. Now imagine if that groom was his mother's only child. There's going to be hurt feelings.

I think this situation, being so delicate, deserves real discussion among all parties.

I know it's not so simple, but instead of a blanket statement of "let everyone attend the ceremony so no one's feelings will be hurt", the bride and groom should sit down, consider what they want on the spectrum of temple marriage and having all loved ones present, and figure out what the best situation FOR THEM would be, whether that be "We must have our sealing at the same time as our marriage" or "We love our loved ones and will delay our sealing so they can be part of our special day."

Stop putting the blame for everyone's issues on the church.