Sealings - current policy, not culture?

[mnn727]

Is this Gods Church and do we have living Prophets? If so then your wants and desires mean very very little

If its mans Church, then why would you want to be a member when obviously they do things you don't agree with.

Either way this whole argument is silly at best.

[mnn727]

A bit too harsh there, mnn. My kids' bday parties are 3-day events. That's birthdays. Their baptism was a weeklong beach party. Their weddings will be ginormous celebrations, I'm sure of it. No, it's not as important as the temple sealing, of course. But, it's not a time for people to show off themselves and their greed.

No its not a bit harsh, the Pomp and Ceremony involved in a modern (non-lds) wedding is all about showing off and showing wealth. And apparently the First Presidency agree considering what they put in the Church Handbook of Instructions about Pomp, music, pictures, etc

A 3 day birthday party!?!?

[Guest]

No its not a bit harsh, the Pomp and Ceremony involved in a modern (non-lds) wedding is all about showing off and showing wealth. And apparently the First Presidency agree considering what they put in the Church Handbook of Instructions about Pomp, music, pictures, etc

A 3 day birthday party!?!?

I don't know whose weddings you've been to. But, I've never been to one that is meant for showing off and showing wealth. Maybe you've been watching too many Bride-zilla episodes. I come from a Catholic background. The Catholic wedding is very ceremonial in nature... it starts with the Mass at the Church which usually lasts an hour with certain parts.

Yes. A 3-day bday party. That's a small party. My boys have bdays on sports season. Some kids can't attend in the morning because of soccer, some kids can't attend in the afternoon because of football, some kids can only attend on Friday, some kids can attend but nobody can pick them up until Sunday... So, we just tell everybody - come anytime between Friday and Sunday. And so a few of their friends come on Friday and don't go home until Sunday. If their bday falls on a weekday, they get an extra day of party for just the close family (my and my husband's siblings and parents) because we have the Angel Cake tradition, so we host a small dinner before the Angel Cake.

If I was in the Philippines, it would last a week. Filipinos don't do timed parties very well. So, when it's somebody's bday, you just tell one person - we're having a party on AnatessJunior's bday... People will show up at any time that day. There's no need for an invite-list. People you've invited years before might show up or they might not with or without an invitation. Your entire family might show up or they might not - Filipino families don't always appear in the family tree. It won't be surprising for a "family" member to have been family because some grandmas were classmates in elementary. There are those who are travelling from different islands that might show up within a few days before or after that day. And, because my family is politically connected, you might get a mayor or a governor or a senator show up unannounced. It's a riot.

Edited December 5, 2013 by anatess

[Leah]

I don't know whose weddings you've been to. But, I've never been to one that is meant for showing off and showing wealth. Maybe you've been watching too many Bride-zilla episodes. I come from a Catholic background. The Catholic wedding is very ceremonial in nature... it starts with the Mass at the Church which usually lasts an hour with certain parts.

Yes. A 3-day bday party. That's a small party. My boys have bdays on sports season. Some kids can't attend in the morning because of soccer, some kids can't attend in the afternoon because of football, some kids can only attend on Friday, some kids can attend but nobody can pick them up until Sunday... So, we just tell everybody - come anytime between Friday and Sunday. And so a few of their friends come on Friday and don't go home until Sunday. If their bday falls on a weekday, they get an extra day of party for just the close family (my and my husband's siblings and parents) because we have the Angel Cake tradition, so we host a small dinner before the Angel Cake.

If I was in the Philippines, it would last a week. Filipinos don't do timed parties very well. So, when it's somebody's bday, you just tell one person - we're having a party on AnatessJunior's bday... People will show up at any time that day. There's no need for an invite-list. People you've invited years before might show up or they might not with or without an invitation. Your entire family might show up or they might not - Filipino families don't always appear in the family tree. It won't be surprising for a "family" member to have been family because some grandmas were classmates in elementary. There are those who are travelling from different islands that might show up within a few days before or after that day. And, because my family is politically connected, you might get a mayor or a governor or a senator show up unannounced. It's a riot.

And I (and others) have been to Catholic weddings where it IS all about showing off and showing wealth. And, yes, this included Catholic weddings in which a Mass was included. Your experience (and much of it may have been in the Phillipines) is YOUR experience. Once again, your experiences are not universal to everyone and simply because it is not something you would do or have experienced, does not in any way mean others (many others) have not had a different experience.

[Bini]

The other thing to remember is how one person perceives something isn't how another person perceives it. A celebration that feels extravagant and flaunting to me may not feel the same way to you. It's easy to make assumptions but unless you know the person and what's in their heart, you really shouldn't assume the worse, but perhaps give the benefit of the doubt that such an overwhelming celebration is solely for the purpose of bringing people together and celebrating.

[Maureen]

I guess I'm sort of confused as to why you would take a position in a doctrinal/policy matter of a Church to which you don't belong, and which doesn't work by majority opinion even for those who do belong. Do you also take stances on how non-Catholics are allowed to participate in Catholic masses or baptisms, or how Jews should serve Passover Seder, or whether non-Muslims should be allowed to walk around the Kaaba?

It is a policy matter and I have an interest in the LDS church and know about this specific policy and I have an opinion. I know very little regarding Catholic, Jewish or Muslim policy; and I'm not all that interested in investigating them.

M.

[applepansy]

You know, it's interesting. As Mormons we encourage people to prepare themselves to go to the temple--we drill it into our children's heads--and that's a good thing. But if we aren't careful then we run the risk of creating the impression that a temple marriage is some sort of birthright so long as you've been "good enough". That seems to be the impression that Maureen, Gem2477, and a number of other people inside and outside of the Church have--and it's incorrect. If you listen to the temple liturgy and parse the covenants that are actually made in there, it becomes clear: Mormon temple rites are not for half-hearted Mormons. It's for the zealots--the borderline fanatics, really.

That level of commitment gives the Church tremendous power to do good--both physical and spiritual power, and both on an institutional and an individual basis. You could say that that commitment constitutes the "soul" of practical Mormonism. This notion that serving God in whatever capacity He asks is tremendously important--even more important, in some cases, than extra family time--drives much of what we do as Church members. For this reason, I think it would be a bad idea to water down the temple liturgy.

But therein lies the rub: as long as the temple liturgy is what it is, then there's going to be a certain amount of incongruity in the practice Maureen and others advocate. Because what you'd be doing is taking two kids who just last week put family above (as our theology sees it) God Himself, and thrusting them into a temple where they promise that from now on, God will always come first regardless of the personal cost. If you see the temple covenants as more than mere ritual--if you expect the participants to pattern their life in accordance with those covenants--then letting them participate in the endowment and sealing rites under such circumstances smacks strongly of setting them up for failure.

Very Well Said!

I would like to add that everyone has a choice. There are consequences to our choices. And we don't get to choose those consequences.

Thank you again JAG for so clearly stating how important God is to temple attending mormons.

[applepansy]

It is a policy matter and I have an interest in the LDS church and know about this specific policy and I have an opinion. I know very little regarding Catholic, Jewish or Muslim policy; and I'm not all that interested in investigating them.

M.

Are you investigating the LDS Church with an intent to be baptized?

[mnn727]

I don't know whose weddings you've been to. But, I've never been to one that is meant for showing off and showing wealth. Maybe you've been watching too many Bride-zilla episodes. I come from a Catholic background. The Catholic wedding is very ceremonial in nature... it starts with the Mass at the Church which usually lasts an hour with certain parts.

I was married in a Catholic church years before I became LDS and yes, its about showing off.

all the bridesmaid and groomsmen, the wedding march, lighting candles, etc.

I do agree you can be married without that, but I have never seen a Church wedding that does away with the showing off and 'pomp' -- so my statement stands.

(perhaps we just have a different definition of showing off)

Edited December 5, 2013 by mnn727

[Bini]

Are you investigating the LDS Church with an intent to be baptized?

I haven't read through all the posts but I thought I had read somewhere Maureen stating that she has family that are LDS - a nephew and a niece - both recently married, one in the temple and the other not. This might be where some interest roots from.

[Vort]

It is a policy matter and I have an interest in the LDS church and know about this specific policy and I have an opinion. I know very little regarding Catholic, Jewish or Muslim policy; and I'm not all that interested in investigating them.

Very well. I suppose you have a right to any opinion you want, even on things that do not concern you. As long as you understand exactly what your opinion is worth, I guess that's that. But when you start thinking that your opinion on such matters actually mean anything, you will have misunderstood how the LDS Church works and will probably find yourself baffled as to why your opinion is not exerting the influence you think it ought to.

[Bini]

Thinking on what Vort has said, and anyone can answer this, has there ever been a time documented within the church where the opinion of its members have affected gospel doctrine or how it is taught?

[Vort]

Thinking on what Vort has said, and anyone can answer this, has there ever been a time documented within the church where the opinion of its members have affected gospel doctrine or how it is taught?

Depends on who you ask. Anti-Mormons will quickly point out President Kimball's revelation, which they will of course style a "revelation" (with scare quotes), as "convenient" and a reaction to external pressure. This is nonsense, but can be applied more truthfully to the Church's discontinuation of polygamy, which at least appeared to be a very explicit reaction to external pressure.

On the other hand, some, even a few faithful Saints (but certainly not I), maintain that the prohibition of blacks receiving the Priesthood and temple blessings was caused by the widespread bigotry of Church members, so that President Kimball's revelation actually ended the practices of the Church that had been caused by "the opinion of its members." Another example could be the Word of Wisdom, which was given for counsel, not commandment, but was adopted by the body of the Church. Maybe those qualify.

If you are asking for actual doctrinal changes caused from the opinions of Church members, I can't think of any clear-cut examples. I would probably argue that if the LDS Church is what it claims to be, it is not possible for popular sentiment to change the Church's doctrines. But certainly the practices and policies of the Church have been affected by the actions and opinions of the members.

[Maureen]

Very well. I suppose you have a right to any opinion you want, even on things that do not concern you. As long as you understand exactly what your opinion is worth, I guess that's that. But when you start thinking that your opinion on such matters actually mean anything, you will have misunderstood how the LDS Church works and will probably find yourself baffled as to why your opinion is not exerting the influence you think it ought to.

You can be rest assured that I do not have a red phone hotline connected to President Monson's office. :)

M.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Maureen

[Vort]

You can be rest assured that I do not have a red phone hotline connected to President Monson's office. :)

Aw, now I'm all disappointed.

[Maureen]

Are you investigating the LDS Church with an intent to be baptized?

No, I did that when I was 17 and it almost took but not quite. :)

I am just interested in the Mormon church and I have family that are members.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

You can be rest assured that I do not have a red phone hotline connected to President Monson's office. :)

M.

Of course not. Maureen has his cell number.

[Guest]

And I (and others) have been to Catholic weddings where it IS all about showing off and showing wealth. And, yes, this included Catholic weddings in which a Mass was included. Your experience (and much of it may have been in the Phillipines) is YOUR experience. Once again, your experiences are not universal to everyone and simply because it is not something you would do or have experienced, does not in any way mean others (many others) have not had a different experience.

Exactly. I wasn't saying that no weddings are for show - hence my mention of Bride-zilla. But, once again, you fail to grasp the point of my disagreement with mnm... that concluding that Weddings of Pomp and Ceremony are to show themselves off and their wealth is bull dung. That's a sweeping generalization that you seem to have the temerity to defend.

[Vort]

Exactly. I wasn't saying that no weddings are for show - hence my mention of Bride-zilla. But, once again, you fail to grasp the point of my disagreement with mnm... that concluding that Weddings of Pomp and Ceremony are to show themselves off and their wealth is bull dung. That's a sweeping generalization that you seem to have the temerity to defend.

I don't understand. Isn't that the very definition of pomp and ceremony (we Americans tend to use "pomp and circumstance" more often, but that's another matter altogether), the whole point of which is to create a magnificent spectacle?

[Guest]

I don't understand. Isn't that the very definition of pomp and ceremony (we Americans tend to use "pomp and circumstance" more often, but that's another matter altogether), the whole point of which is to create a magnificent spectacle?

Read mnm's posts and you tell me what he means by it. Because, all the weddings with the dress and bridesmaids and flower girls are magnificent spectacles to me.

[Bini]

I guess it kind of goes back to my last comment. What is pompous to me may not be pompous to you. What classifies as being pomp? And who gets to decide who is being pompous and who isn't?

[Vort]

Read mnm's posts and you tell me what he means by it. Because, all the weddings with the dress and bridesmaids and flower girls are magnificent spectacles to me.

Here it is:

I was married in a Catholic church years before I became LDS and yes, its about showing off.

all the bridesmaid and groomsmen, the wedding march, lighting candles, etc.

I do agree you can be married without that, but I have never seen a Church wedding that does away with the showing off and 'pomp' -- so my statement stands.

(perhaps we just have a different definition of showing off)

I don't know, it seems pretty straightforward. In mnn's experience, a Catholic wedding is all about showing off. What is being shown off, I'm not sure. Money, perhaps, to pay for the dresses and flower girls and candles and such? Or how many friends you have participating? Or something else?

I have never been to a big Catholic wedding before, so I have no dog in this fight. But it seems to me and my Mormon-bred sensibilities that a wedding ought to be about the union of a man and woman, AND NOTHING ELSE. Anything else besides that is a distraction from what is solely important in the wedding. That would include long bridal trains, magnificent costumes, ostentatious musical presentations, and the like -- and I am not saying that all or any of these are present in a Catholic or any other religious wedding. This is not about Catholic weddings, it's about what a wedding should be and what it should not be.

A post-wedding celebration seems like a good idea, and in that situation much of the "other" stuff could happen. But the wedding itself should be a sober, dignified union of two people helping to build the societal foundation for themselves and following generations, not an orgy of self-indulgence.

In any case, my immediate question in my response to you was why you were claiming the "pomp and ceremony" of wedding displays are not meant to show off. It seems true by definition.

[mnn727]

Read mnm's posts and you tell me what he means by it. Because, all the weddings with the dress and bridesmaids and flower girls are magnificent spectacles to me.

magnificent spectacles = showing off and pomp.

[Torostoros]

Interesting to see the varying viewpoints; I enjoy reading the things that I had never considered. I agree with points like not allowing them to choose something over God, or choosing a "lower law", one week and then allowing them to walk into the temple to make sacred binding covenants the next.

I certainly consider the wisdom of those we sustain as the Lord's representatives to be much greater than mine, and I'm sure policy is there for a reason (or numerous reasons). I sustain the policy wholeheartedly, as well as the exceptions such as that in place in the United Kingdom for the reason already covered numerous times in this thread.

Being one that enjoys a good loophole (for hypothetical reasons only, not in practice), I can't help but consider the following odd scenario pertinent to this policy:

(1) A U.S. couple, completely worthy, choose and carry out a civil marriage, rather than a temple sealing/marriage. They move to England a week later, and want to go to the temple to be sealed immediately (I say move rather than vacation, as this means a transfer of records and a change in the Bishop and Stake President that would conduct the Living Ordinance - Sealing interview). Obviously, their Bishop and Stake President in the U.S. would not even consider holding this interview until close to the one-year mark, be it a plan to be sealed in an American or an English temple. Would they get the green light from their new Bishop and Stake President well before the one-year mark, seeing as they are now in England?

[Guest]

Here it is:

That's not where this discussion started, Vort. It started with these:

However you are wrong The fashion show/party is of no importance, its a time for people to show off, both themselves and their greed.

No its not a bit harsh, the Pomp and Ceremony involved in a modern (non-lds) wedding is all about showing off and showing wealth. And apparently the First Presidency agree considering what they put in the Church Handbook of Instructions about Pomp, music, pictures, etc

These broad brush statements are what I'm correcting.

I don't know, it seems pretty straightforward. In mnn's experience, a Catholic wedding is all about showing off. What is being shown off, I'm not sure. Money, perhaps, to pay for the dresses and flower girls and candles and such? Or how many friends you have participating? Or something else?

I have never been to a big Catholic wedding before, so I have no dog in this fight. But it seems to me and my Mormon-bred sensibilities that a wedding ought to be about the union of a man and woman, AND NOTHING ELSE. Anything else besides that is a distraction from what is solely important in the wedding. That would include long bridal trains, magnificent costumes, ostentatious musical presentations, and the like -- and I am not saying that all or any of these are present in a Catholic or any other religious wedding. This is not about Catholic weddings, it's about what a wedding should be and what it should not be.

A post-wedding celebration seems like a good idea, and in that situation much of the "other" stuff could happen. But the wedding itself should be a sober, dignified union of two people helping to build the societal foundation for themselves and following generations, not an orgy of self-indulgence.

In any case, my immediate question in my response to you was why you were claiming the "pomp and ceremony" of wedding displays are not meant to show off. It seems true by definition.

It is not. A Catholic Wedding is ceremonial. The Catholic Church is very ceremonial. You should be familiar with some of these as movies have a habit of displaying Catholic rituals... from the vestments of the Bishops to the ornate paintings and sculptures of the Cathedral.

MichaelAngelo did not paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for "self indulgence".