Sealings - current policy, not culture?

[Backroads]

Would it be fair to observe that no one here would fight tooth and tail to keep this policy even if the Church decided to drop it?

[mnn727]

And here you get into some difficulties with explaining to outsiders why the sealing is so important. Mormons are expected to explain the significance and importance of the sealing to their non-Mormon friends but they have to do so without telling them what the covenants, promises, and blessings really are because we're not allowed to repeat the text of the vows outside of the temple. What ends up happening a lot of the time is "Well, the sealing is a sacred, religious ordinance that we believe is above and beyond the marriage. But I can't really tell you more, so I hope you'll understand and no hard feelings." That's a really unsatisfying answer.

That's not really true, you can explain why without quoting the Temple Ceremony, I can and have.

What's more, that discussion of what the sealing "really means" is only relevant to Mormons. There was a lot of non-Mormon family that would have liked to come to my wife's and my sealing. And I can assure you they couldn't have cared less about the sealing. They were only interested in the marriage.

Perhaps you didn't explain it well enough or perhaps they didn't listen/understand.

Note: I make these comments mostly because I don't think the majority of the Mormons in this discussion are making enough effort to understand and empathize with how it feels to the non-Mormons to be excluded from these ceremonies. In what I've read of this thread, I've noted a lot of "You should respect the way we believe and feel" without much respect for the way others believe and feel.

Having been married in a Catholic Church years before I became LDS and then my wife and I being the only family members at our Sealing, I believe your wrong. We both explained to our families and long term friends the significance and reasons behind it. Almost every one of them came to the reception we held afterwards.

So I respectfully have to reject your belief that 'we LDS just don't get it'.

[estradling75]

Would it be fair to observe that no one here would fight tooth and tail to keep this policy even if the Church decided to drop it?

I would not. If the legal system ends up redefining marriage like some want it to the Church might have to break the link it has with the legal ceremony happening in the temple here in the US

[MarginOfError]

That's not really true, you can explain why without quoting the Temple Ceremony, I can and have.

Then perhaps you need to share educate others here, because clearly, there is a group non-Mormon who are not satisfied by the explanations given.

Perhaps you didn't explain it well enough or perhaps they didn't listen/understand.

Honestly, I think it was more of a matter that they didn't care what the difference was.

Having been married in a Catholic Church years before I became LDS and then my wife and I being the only family members at our Sealing, I believe your wrong. We both explained to our families and long term friends the significance and reasons behind it. Almost every one of them came to the reception we held afterwards.

So I respectfully have to reject your belief that 'we LDS just don't get it'.

Then I will refer you back to the part of my statement where I said "the majority of Mormons in this discussion." And I stand by that.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't pretend to know the full rationale behind the things Joseph Smith did. If I were to judge his actions based on today's definition of the law of chastity, I would rule that he was in violation.

Understandable. I guess what I'm getting at is the degree to which today's definition is "doctrine" versus "policy". Early Church history is rife with sexual relationships between people who were sealed but not legally married.

So, trying to go back to the Filipino baptism analogy: If the Church's current position was that a baptism must be "legal and lawful" prior to the Church's being willing to perform a confirmation--but hadn't always been so--and so the Church does require that you do both a Catholic baptism and a regular baptism--and then a liberal wing in the Church suggests that we should do the Catholic baptism a year in advance, and act for all the world like that's the baptism that matters to us--at some point, don't things start getting just a little bit ridiculous?

I believe this is incorrect. A man and woman legally married are, by Church doctrine and practice, allowed and even encouraged to engage in physical intimacy, whereas a man and woman not married to each other are considered to be violating the law of chastity if they engage in physical intimacy. I believe this is more than a simple matter of legalistic characterization. Marriage, even for time only, is very meaningful in the Church, much more than a "dead work".

I'm open to persuading--would love to see you elaborate on this--but for now, my take is that the permissibility of sexual relations in civil marriage is a sort of "lower law" that God suffers because of the hardness of our hearts; rather akin to Mosaic divorce.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[mnn727]

Honestly, I think it was more of a matter that they didn't care what the difference was.

That particular case is then their problem.

Just a side thought: I would wonder about the state of their friendship if they don't care enough about what you find important and try to explain to them. Sounds to me like its "their way or the highway"

[Guest]

I've always been of the opinion that a couple should marry how and where they wish. Of course, that's subject to the "rules" they might have to follow for a specific place or sect (Catholics require conversion and premarital counseling, LDS require recommends for the Temple), but ultimately the wedding is about the customs and wishes of the couple being married, not the guests. When I get an invitation in the mail, I decide whether to attend or not. I don't contact them to make sure they're getting married in a fashion that satisfies me and my traditions/beliefs/customs.

[MarginOfError]

Understandable. I guess what I'm getting at is the degree to which today's definition is "doctrine" versus "policy". Early Church history is rife with sexual relationships between people who were sealed but not legally married.

I know. And I'm hesitant to pass judgement on them because I don't fully understand the context under which they were operating. I don't get it. I don't know if they did. I am content to leave it in God's hands. If they were behaving according to his will, then fine. If not, he'll take care of it.

So, trying to go back to the Filipino baptism analogy: If the Church's current position was that a baptism must be "legal and lawful" prior to the Church's being willing to perform a confirmation--but hadn't always been so--and so the Church does require that you do both a Catholic baptism and a regular baptism--and then a liberal wing in the Church suggests that we should do the Catholic baptism a year in advance, and act for all the world like that's the baptism that matters to us--at some point, don't things to start getting just a little bit ridiculous?

Presumably, in this world we've imagined, the Catholic baptism comes with some change in status that has a positive social favor. the person becomes a legal adult and earns the right to vote in elections*. Asking that the Catholic baptism come a year in advance would be for the purpose of allowing those close to the person to celebrate with and observe the transformation to adulthood. So that day, the boy would become an adult in the eyes of society, be allowed the privilege to vote, and a year later, the LDS baptism would be a more private affair in which he becomes an adult in the eyes of God.

I don't find that entirely ridiculous. I mean, I do find it a bit ridiculous, but I also find my suggestion of forcing a year wait on everyone a bit ridiculous (the reason for which I linked to previously). But I don't find it at all ridiculous to suggest that the Catholic baptism and the LDS baptism could be performed separately so that the social significance of baptism and the spiritual significance of baptism could each be observed and celebrated.

* I understand this is kind of arbitrary. I'm struggling to find a good analog. Legal marriage grants a number of legal privileges that are irrelevant to the sealing. The only obvious rights and privileges tied to legal marriage that the Church concerns itself with are cohabitation and sex. And I'm not sure what kind of analogy to draw in our make-believe world for this.

[person122]

Perhaps we'd be better off requiring all couples to wait a year between their marriage and their sealing.

Everyone wins that way. :)

I can't say I was ready to take out my covenants. I was ready to do it with the knowledge and desireI had at the time. I loved it and was personally changed. There was a definite difference. Not on the outside. The promises are real. From taking out my endowments to my sealing, it was the most powerful day if my life. Not because I could see it all at the time. But because I grow and see and experience it more. Even if someone can't see it ot feel it, it is there. I couldn't imagine starting my marriage without it. So many times I have felt a protection over our marriage because of the blessings. Would we have made it after I found out I wasn't so good at marriage? No. Knowing I made temple covenants to my Heavenly Father that I would do it kept me in.

My husband is a convert and he didn't want a ring ceremony or anything after. To him, what the sealing was more important than anything else. His family waited in the waiting room.

[MarginOfError]

That particular case is then their problem.

Just a side thought: I would wonder about the state of their friendship if they don't care enough about what you find important and try to explain to them. Sounds to me like its "their way or the highway"

[Deleted long frustrated rant]

*sigh*

I think you're not in a position to evaluate their intentions or what is or isn't their problem. I also find questioning the state of their friendship--solely based on their level of concern about the difference between a sealing and a marriage--is simple minded and beneath the quality of your intellect*.

* Not meant as an insult. I just normally see higher quality reflection from you than this.

[Just_A_Guy]

Presumably, in this world we've imagined, the Catholic baptism comes with some change in status that has a positive social favor. the person becomes a legal adult and earns the right to vote in elections*. . .

* I understand this is kind of arbitrary. I'm struggling to find a good analog. Legal marriage grants a number of legal privileges that are irrelevant to the sealing.

I hear you. Maybe the idea of a Bar Mitzvah in a heavily Jewish family/community is a somewhat better example? But perhaps this horse is good and dead already.

At any rate, I think it does go back to the question already asked in this thread: What is it about "marriage" that our society is really celebrating, and why do we deem any celebration that excludes the event itself as somehow inadequate?

I don't think it's the assumption of legal rights per se that we're celebrating--after all, we don't give eighteenth birthdays, or divorces, or adoptions or the assumption of guardianship or the execution of a power of attorney, nearly the same fanfare as we do to weddings. And the legal rights and obligations pertaining exclusively to marriage are being pared down with each passing year--or at least, they're becoming less and less exclusive.

Nor, obviously, is it necessary to be present at an event in order to celebrate the fact that the event has occurred--as I pointed out earlier, our society contents itself with baby showers rather than demanding that labor-and-delivery rooms include spectator galleries.

But whether you use the wedding scenario or a baptism scenario--what it boils down to is that God instituted a ceremony, which was then co-opted or secularized to the point that the ceremony itself is but a pale imitation--in many subcultures, bordering on outright mockery--of what it was intended to be. So God re-institutes the ceremony in its pure form--only to have His followers tell him "we only want the true form if you let us keep the most self-aggrandizing features of the old form, too--and if You don't let us combine them in the way we think proper, then we prefer the corrupt form". I imagine God must find that rather depressing.

To address Backroads' question, I wouldn't "fight tooth and nail" if the Church changed its policy. But I think that God would see such a policy shift much as some on the left think He viewed the priesthood ban: something He neither authored nor desired, but permitted due to the hardness of the hearts of His people.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[mnn727]

I think you're not in a position to evaluate their intentions or what is or isn't their problem. I also find questioning the state of their friendship--solely based on their level of concern about the difference between a sealing and a marriage--is simple minded and beneath the quality of your intellect*.

I can only base it on your statement.

It was YOUR wedding, YOUR choice as to where and how, It was up to YOU (and the person you were marrying), and if the person complaining didn't care enough about your wishes to try to understand, sorry, but to me that's not a true friend.

My best friend for (at the time) 20+ years struggled with the fact he was not invited, until I told him why, that was 15 years ago and today we're still best friends, because he took the time to hear and more importantly because as a friend he was interested in my beliefs - not that he'll ever convert or believe what I believe, but because he's my friend.

Edited December 6, 2013 by mnn727

[MarginOfError]

I hear you. Maybe the idea of a Bar Mitzvah in a heavily Jewish family/community is a somewhat better example? But perhaps this horse is good and dead already.

At any rate, I think it does go back to the question already asked in this thread: What is it about "marriage" that our society is really celebrating, and why do we deem any celebration that excludes the event itself as somehow inadequate?

I don't think it's the assumption of legal rights per se that we're celebrating--after all, we don't give eighteenth birthdays, or divorces, or adoptions or the assumption of guardianship or the execution of a power of attorney, nearly the same fanfare as we do to weddings. And the legal rights and obligations pertaining exclusively to marriage are being pared down with each passing year--or at least, they're becoming less and less exclusive.

Nor, obviously, is it necessary to be present at an event in order to celebrate the fact that the event has occurred--as I pointed out earlier, our society contents itself with baby showers rather than demanding that labor-and-delivery rooms include spectator galleries.

But whether you use the wedding scenario or a baptism scenario--what it boils down to is that God instituted a ceremony, which was then co-opted or secularized to the point that the ceremony itself is but a pale imitation--in many subcultures, bordering on outright mockery--of what it was intended to be. So God re-institutes the ceremony in its pure form--only to have His followers tell him "we only want the true form if you let us keep the most self-aggrandizing features of the old form, too--and if we can't have that, then we prefer the corrupt form".

I imagine God must find that rather depressing.

That's funny...I had written up a good long post hybridizing the bar mitzvah with the baptism to try and convey my point. But then I felt I was getting lost in the baptism/bar mitzvah/whatever so I tried to simplify it.

The part of your post I bolded is the only real compelling argument I've seen either way in this discussion. Though I don't know if it's entirely depressing. That may stem from the fact that I have a frame of mind that assumes religious practice (not doctrine) has reshaped itself over the years to accommodate social norms. If you feel that religious practice should be static in the face of changing cultural norms, I can see why this would be depressing.

[Just_A_Guy]

That may stem from the fact that I have a frame of mind that assumes religious practice (not doctrine) has reshaped itself over the years to accommodate social norms. If you feel that religious practice should be static in the face of changing cultural norms, I can see why this would be depressing.

I agree with you that God formulates Church liturgy in such a way as to resonate as powerfully as possible with the prevailing culture--and that as culture changes, liturgy may also change (within certain parameters). But I think that each time God authorizes a change, He probably sighs and thinks "here those schlubs go, putting me last--again!" We know--we who have been through the temple, especially, know--that God, and the covenants we make with Him in those temples, are supposed to come first.

If I throw a tantrum in the supermarket, and Mommy gives me a cookie to quiet me down and get her shopping done--I may have won in the short run; but there'll be heck to pay when we finally get home. Because I've shown Mommy exactly what I really think of her; and she'll not soon forget that.