Future Wedding


Recommended Posts

When my widowed grandfather died, his children and their spouses gathered to read the will and discuss how property division would take place. For the most part, the children talked while the spouses looked on, but one of my uncles (the husband of a daughter) kept interjecting his opinions and ideas. Finally, another of my uncles (a son, and definitely not known for his tact) said bluntly to him, in effect, "You are an in-law, not a child, so shut up and butt out."

 

While I don't condone such impolite speech, I confess it kinda makes me laugh a little, especially knowing and loving (all) my uncles as I do. Brusque and unfriendly though the incident was, it points up a true principle; my well-meaning uncle who was an in-law and not a child really had no business expressing his opinion.

 

I suspect that many here are feeling that way toward your expressions, Maureen, though they don't want to come out and bluntly say it to you. You are not LDS. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but you really have no business expressing it in this case. (You do have the right to express it, but that's another matter.) And given that you have already expressed that opinion, not just once but repeatedly, you might consider letting it go and leaving the conversation to those who have actual skin in the game.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scripture you mentioned was Matthew 10:37. Just because a bride and groom loves their parents doesn't mean they love God less. Can you show me a scripture where God commands that temple sealings are commanded and any less is a sin against God? That type of a scripture would make Matthew 10:37 fit your argument.

 

Also, if a couple chooses to have a civil wedding and then have their sealing a year later; does not the sealing make everything right with God?

 

My whole argument is that if a temple sealing is the ultimate goal, what does it matter when it happens, it should only matter that it does happen.

 

M.

 

 

You keep missing the point...  So let remove the words marriage and wedding from the situation. 

 

The young couple has the chance to receive an ordinance that God requires of them.  Instead of turning to God and fulfilling his commands, they say "Well we have this family thing that we need to attend to, but once we we deal with that then we will follow you."  Or "Well my Mother (Father, Brother, Sister etc.) wants me to do something else instead so I am going to Honor them over you"

 

Sure it is important to get the Ordinance and it is better late then never... But the mindset and willingness to Honoring Family before God is rebuked by Christ himself, and that is the Sin.  Not the fact that they got married civilly, but the fact that they chose to set the things of God as something of lesser importance then things of the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scripture you mentioned was Matthew 10:37. Just because a bride and groom loves their parents doesn't mean they love God less. Can you show me a scripture where God commands that temple sealings are commanded and any less is a sin against God? That type of a scripture would make Matthew 10:37 fit your argument.

 

Also, if a couple chooses to have a civil wedding and then have their sealing a year later; does not the sealing make everything right with God?

 

My whole argument is that if a temple sealing is the ultimate goal, what does it matter when it happens, it should only matter that it does happen.

 

M.

 

 

You keep missing the point...  So let remove the words marriage and wedding from the situation. 

 

The young couple has the chance to receive an ordinance that God requires of them.  Instead of turning to God and fulfilling his commands, they say "Well we have this family thing that we need to attend to, but once we we deal with that then we will follow you."  Or "Well my Mother (Father, Brother, Sister etc.) wants me to do something else instead so I am going to Honor them over you"

 

Sure it is important to get the Ordinance and it is better late then never... But the mindset and willingness to Honoring Family before God is rebuked by Christ himself, and that is the Sin.  Not the fact that they got married civilly, but the fact that they chose to set the things of God as something of lesser importance then things of the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, I have stated my non-LDS view point. But you haven't convinced me that if LDS members wish to be sealed after they are married, that those members will have offended God.

 

Good luck yoyoteacher with your wedding and marriage decisions.

 

M. 

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, I have stated my non-LDS view point. But you haven't convinced me that if LDS members wish to be sealed after they are married, that those members will have offended God.

 

Good luck yoyoteacher with your wedding and marriage decisions.

 

M. 

 

 

Does God care if some one gets baptisted?  Does God care about anything at all?  The Scriptures clearly state that he does.  The scripture make it quite clear he cares quite a bit.  From the LDS stand point Sealing is just as important as anything God has ever asked.

 

Now it is clear Maureen that you don't agree with LDS position but neither can you claim that your position is a principled one.  You try to lay claim to the principles of "Family Harmony" and "Happy Wedding"  but you fail. 

 

While it is true that if the members of the LDS would set aside their principles and their beliefs, and their desire for their children then a couple whom decide to forgo a Sealing for a Civil service it is true that it would help with having "Family Harmony" and "Happy Wedding" It is equally true that if the Non LDS side would set aside their principles and their beliefs and their desire for their children, then they could also help have "Family Harmony" and "Happy Wedding".  If your position was truly based on the principles "Family Harmony" and "Happy Weddings" you would know that both sides are equally capable of making it happen and you would be activity encouraging both sides to surrender.

 

But Maureen in spite of trying to mask your position as some kind of principled stance you clearly and repeated only want the LDS members to change their ways. That is not a principled stance. Your clear bias in the matter makes all your arguments in this hypocritical ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep missing the point...  So let remove the words marriage and wedding from the situation. 

 

The young couple has the chance to receive an ordinance that God requires of them.  Instead of turning to God and fulfilling his commands, they say "Well we have this family thing that we need to attend to, but once we we deal with that then we will follow you."  Or "Well my Mother (Father, Brother, Sister etc.) wants me to do something else instead so I am going to Honor them over you"

And we have an example of that in scripture:

 

Matt 8

21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a bride and groom loves their parents doesn't mean they love God less.

 

If the put the wishes of their parents prevail above the wishes of their God, then yes, they love God less than their parents.  The Lord has counseled us through his chosen prophets and apostles that couples in such situations should not put off being sealed in the temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you haven't convinced me that if LDS members wish to be sealed after they are married, that those members will have offended God.

 

Hmm. Was that our intent?

 

I'm not convinced that the Catholic sacraments do any good toward their salvation. Maybe I'll go find a Catholic forum and tell them that. Yeah. That's wisdom in me.

 

brb....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Was that our intent?

 

I'm not convinced that the Catholic sacraments do any good toward their salvation. Maybe I'll go find a Catholic forum and tell them that. Yeah. That's wisdom in me.

 

brb....

Want to have Catholics get in a dither? Have a non-Catholic highfalutingly tell them it's just fine to have a Garden or Beach Wedding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...While it is true that if the members of the LDS would set aside their principles and their beliefs, and their desire for their children then a couple whom decide to forgo a Sealing for a Civil service it is true that it would help with having "Family Harmony" and "Happy Wedding" It is equally true that if the Non LDS side would set aside their principles and their beliefs and their desire for their children, then they could also help have "Family Harmony" and "Happy Wedding".  If your position was truly based on the principles "Family Harmony" and "Happy Weddings" you would know that both sides are equally capable of making it happen and you would be activity encouraging both sides to surrender....

 

My main thought is to look at getting married as a wonderful milestone in one's life. I do admit that I am not of the LDS mindset. I really don't see why a sealing could not be done after the wedding. It was done like that decades ago; Mitt Romney got married with a civil wedding and then sealed later.

 

But in yoyoteacher's case, I'm seeing yoyoteacher as a convert, who know both sides. She knows the non-LDS perception of a wedding and the LDS perception of a wedding. Her parents on the other hand only really understand their perception. Yes, she could discuss her LDS feelings about a temple sealing but no matter how much she explains it to them, they will not fully understand that thought process. Because yoyoteacher knows both sides, she could take the higher ground and make it work both ways. Have a civil wedding that enbraces her non-LDS side and a sealing later that embraces her LDS side. 

 

But Maureen in spite of trying to mask your position as some kind of principled stance you clearly and repeated only want the LDS members to change their ways. That is not a principled stance. Your clear bias in the matter makes all your arguments in this hypocritical ones.

 

 

I don't understand how I'm being hypocritical. I do admit that I have a bias but so do you, estradling. That's usually how people form opinions, based on their biases. I don't know why you're so hot and bothered by how I think about an LDS wedding situation. It's not like my opinion on the matter is going to change anything. I gave yoyoteacher my non-LDS opinion. I'm not telling her what she has to do. She seems like a very thoughtful person, I'm sure she'll make the right decision that's good for her.

 

M.  

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main thought is to look at getting married as a wonderful milestone in one's life. I do admit that I am not of the LDS mindset. I really don't see why a sealing could not be done after the wedding. It was done like that decades ago; Mitt Romney got married with a civil wedding and then sealed later.

 

We have even had General authorities talk about taking the "Honeymoon" trail to St. George to get Sealed..  For those that refuse the idea of modern revelation they will likely never understand that what the Lord commanded for one Generation might not be what he commands for another. 

 

The Lord has many different ways to test our willingness to put him first.  Part of me thinks it is one of the many that the Lord has chosen to use as a test of some of those that claim to be faithful. 

 

 

I don't understand how I'm being hypocritical. I do admit that I have a bias but so do you, estradling. That's usually how people form opinions, based on their biases. I don't know why you're so hot and bothered by how I think about an LDS wedding situation. It's not like my opinion on the matter is going to change anything. I gave yoyoteacher my non-LDS opinion. I'm not telling what she has to do. She seems like a very thoughtful person, I'm sure she'll make the right decision that's good for her.

 

M.  

 

Simple you come to a LDS fourm and post that the LDS (Church, members, doctrine, practices, and culture) are always the party in the wrong.  This is your clearly shown bias (and like you said everyone has them)

 

But then you try to hide and justify your opinion as some kind of principled stance...  When it is clear you don't apply the principle to all involved and thus the hypocrisy.

 

For example I am sure if the subject can up about LDS members going into other religious groups forums and begin to interject on points of the other faiths doctrine, practices and culture.  You would consider them rude and that they should show more respect...  But you are more then happy to interject in our forums and I am sure you don't consider yourself rude or disrespectful...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was taught, that if one knows they should be sealed in the temple, chooses not to, and then dies before going to the temple after a civil marriage, that this could keep them from Celestial Glory.  Being sealed in the Temple is more than just culture for LDS.  If one knows the Temple is where one should be married, and chooses not to, then they are choosing a lesser alternative, which could prevent them from attaining Celestial Glory.  I know there are exceptions to this, such as, not living within a reasonable distance from a temple, etc.  The Lord will know what is in one's heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It was done like that decades ago; Mitt Romney got married with a civil wedding and then sealed later.

 

Maureen, if you read the Keepapitchinin' link I submitted earlier in the thread, you'll see that the LDS church policy dates to the early 20th century at least.  However, plenty of commenters there have given anecdotal evidence of numerous exceptions granted by the First Presidency on a case-by-case basis (which might be another avenue for the OP to look into).  One presumes the Romneys may have fallen into this category for whatever reason.  At any rate, notwithstanding the exceptions, the rule does appear to have a pretty established history.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know people who delayed sealings for civil ceremonies because of baptisms, waiting on sealing clearances and cancellations, and even sin--hence my earlier question on if they sinned by simply not delaying the weddings until they could be sealed.

Happily only one couple has yet to be sealed.

They really are anectdotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Simple you come to a LDS fourm and post that the LDS (Church, members, doctrine, practices, and culture) are always the party in the wrong.  This is your clearly shown bias (and like you said everyone has them)

 

Where have I done that? Expressing my opinion about something is not telling you or your church that you are doing something wrong.

 

But then you try to hide and justify your opinion as some kind of principled stance...  When it is clear you don't apply the principle to all involved and thus the hypocrisy.

 

 

What shouldn’t I justify my opinion – it’s my opinion! 

 

For example I am sure if the subject can up about LDS members going into other religious groups forums and begin to interject on points of the other faiths doctrine, practices and culture.  You would consider them rude and that they should show more respect...  But you are more then happy to interject in our forums and I am sure you don't consider yourself rude or disrespectful...  

 

 

I'm not telling you that your belief in eternal marriage is wrong. I think I've been quite clear that I know it's important to you. All I'm saying is that in my opinion, I think it would be nice that if members wished to have a civil wedding first and then have a sealing later, that that should be their choice without all the worrying of being judged by their family or ward that they are doing something wrong or sinful.

 

Is it the part where I think some LDS members judge other LDS members for not following policy to a T that bothers you estradling? If so, I apologize for the offense.

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not telling you that your belief in eternal marriage is wrong. I think I've been quite clear that I know it's important to you. All I'm saying is that in my opinion, I think it would be nice that if members wished to have a civil wedding first and then have a sealing later, that that should be their choice without all the worrying of being judged by their family or ward that they are doing something wrong or sinful.

 

Is it the part where I think some LDS members judge other LDS members for not following policy to a T that bothers you estradling? If so, I apologize for the offense.

 

M.

 

 

And I wish non members wouldn't accuse us of being judgmental when questions are asked and they get answered...

 

The answer is that a Member couple should not wait to get sealed. 

 

Yet simply stating that and explaining why get us labelled as "Judgmental". 

 

Acknowledging that the Member parents have just as much right to "upset" if their child chooses to forgo a Sealing for a Civil ceremony is somehow "judgmental"

But the Non-member being "upset" about being excluded are not being "Judgmental".  Hypocrisy

 

Yet somehow its only the active and faithful members that are being "Judgmental" in trying to influence the Kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have I done that? Expressing my opinion about something is not telling you or your church that you are doing something wrong.

 

... without all the worrying of being judged by their family or ward that they are doing something wrong or sinful.

 

Do you not understand that these two things are contradicting each other? I'm not telling you you're doing anything wrong...except this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen, you have asked why a couple shouldn't get married civilly first then wait the one year to be sealed.  Others have explained that we believe the answer is that God said so.  For us, that's enough.  For others, they don't believe that God is saying that.

 

But, I'd like to answer you differently. Whenever we put others before God, even if we eventually make our way to God, we lose blessings and/or opportunities.  I can't tell you what blessings or what opportunities. As one friend put it, "when we miss opportunities to be obedient, our relationship with God suffers."  

 

Just as it is when we are disobedient with other commandments, so it is to Mormons regarding being sealed in the temple. When we choose to disobey, we forfeit something....blessings, being close to God, the Spirit, etc.

 

This doesn't mean that we don't believe one can't later develop in their personal relationship with God to put Him first or that they don't receive any blessings at all if they choose to be sealed after a civil ceremony. But again, just as if you choose to place God above ANYTHING in your life, there are consequences--sometimes not seen in this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have I done that? Expressing my opinion about something is not telling you or your church that you are doing something wrong.

<snip>

I'm not telling you that your belief in eternal marriage is wrong. I think I've been quite clear that I know it's important to you. All I'm saying is that in my opinion, I think it would be nice that if members wished to have a civil wedding first and then have a sealing later, that that should be their choice without all the worrying of being judged by their family or ward that they are doing something wrong or sinful.

Okay, pay very close attention... because this here is the crux of this matter...

FOR THE LDS who believe in the doctrine of Eternal Marriage... the bolded statement above is doing something wrong or sinful if one has the opportunity to be married in the temple but instead opted for the lesser law.

So, basically, you telling us that it is not wrong is the same as you telling us we are wrong for believing it is wrong.

Read that underlined statement again. I know the many uses of the word wrong can possibly trip you up, but read it slowly so you can be clear about what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole argument is that if a temple sealing is the ultimate goal, what does it matter when it happens, it should only matter that it does happen.

 

And, as I've said before, if you're not absolutely certain you can commit to a one year plan, you have no business pretending an eternal covenant.

 

More or less irrelevant for me, though, since women within 10 years of my age are pretty much all either nonmembers or still sealed to their exes, and it seems the FP is very slow to grant sealing cancellations unless the woman is already civilly remarried to a temple worthy man...effectively requiring a civil marriage first in that case.

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, as I've said before, if you're not absolutely certain you can commit to a one year plan, you have no business pretending an eternal covenant.

 

More or less irrelevant for me, though, since women within 10 years of my age are pretty much all either nonmembers or still sealed to their exes, and it seems the FP is very slow to grant sealing cancellations unless the woman is already civilly remarried to a temple worthy man...effectively requiring a civil marriage first in that case.

 

NightSG, it is much easier to get a Sealing Cancellation.  Women no longer need to be engaged/married to a temple worthy male to request a sealing cancellation.  It is also much easier for a man to obtain a Sealing Cancellation from his ex.  My husband just received a sealing cancellation from his ex back in October.  When he had tried to get it some 30 + years ago, it was not granted, he was advised it wasn't necessary.  Many members are not aware of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NightSG, it is much easier to get a Sealing Cancellation. Women no longer need to be engaged/married to a temple worthy male to request a sealing cancellation. It is also much easier for a man to obtain a Sealing Cancellation from his ex. My husband just received a sealing cancellation from his ex back in October. When he had tried to get it some 30 + years ago, it was not granted, he was advised it wasn't necessary. Many members are not aware of this.

I wasn't aware he finally got the cancelation! Congratulations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by estradling75, June 17, 2015 - dup
Hidden by estradling75, June 17, 2015 - dup

NightSG, it is much easier to get a Sealing Cancellation. Women no longer need to be engaged/married to a temple worthy male to request a sealing cancellation. It is also much easier for a man to obtain a Sealing Cancellation from his ex. My husband just received a sealing cancellation from his ex back in October. When he had tried to get it some 30 + years ago, it was not granted, he was advised it wasn't necessary. Many members are not aware of this.

I wasn't aware he finally got the cancelation! Congratulations!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share