Why The One Year Wait?

[Old Tex]

It's a spiritual slap in the face for not obeying the Brethren.

No Jason, it's a wise policy put in place by the Brethren to give those making the decision time to contemplate their decision. This is not something to be done lightly.

[shanstress70]

I understand that you are looking at this from your perepective, as you stated. However, LDS folks look at things from an LDS perspective and many times the two perspectives are not the same.

That's true... some of us like to honor our mothers and fathers even if they don't share our same beliefs. Totally different perspective.

[the_jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

My mother in law likes to play that "honor thy father and mother" crap with me all the time. Honoring your parents does not mean doing everything they want you to do. If their will is different than the Lord's, then it's the Lord we should follow. Just as wife hearkens to her husband as he hearkens to the Lord, so should we hearken to our parents only as they hearken to the Lord.

Would you like to stand with that argument in the context of the decalogue? Probably not, so we'll just let you retract that.

I'll retract nothing. I stand by what I said.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

My mother in law likes to play that "honor thy father and mother" crap with me all the time. Honoring your parents does not mean doing everything they want you to do. If their will is different than the Lord's, then it's the Lord we should follow. Just as wife hearkens to her husband as he hearkens to the Lord, so should we hearken to our parents only as they hearken to the Lord.

Would you like to stand with that argument in the context of the decalogue? Probably not, so we'll just let you retract that.

I'll retract nothing. I stand by what I said.

Proving that you neither know nor care about Biblical exegesis.

[jsb]

There are countries that require the marriage be performed in public, sometimes by certain elected or appointed officials. The United States does not require this. The US and its states recognize the marriages performed in US LDS temples as being legal, and are performed by people licensed to do so, whereas other countries do not legally recognize temple marriages or the officiators.

I would a

[quote name='john doe' date='Oct 2 2007, 11:35 PM'

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>

Again from my perspective and if I believed in a temple marriage as LDS do, I wouldn't see the civil cermony as way to please others, rather as an opportunity to demonstrate the love of Christ to them. To demonstrate the love you have for each other, for Christ and for those who are yet to know him. To proclaim the truth to them through your words and actions even if it is the merest shadow of the real event. (that you believe takes place in the temple in an ceremony scripted by God.)

Anthony,

LDS folks have plenty of opportunties to "demonstrate the love of Christ" to others. Celestial marriage however, is a special event involving holy covenents that are to be made only in the House of the Lord. That is one of the purposes that the Lord has stated for the construction of Holy Temples in our day, that his people can enter into everlasting covenants with Him.

I understand that you are looking at this from your perepective, as you stated. However, LDS folks look at things from an LDS perspective and many times the two perspectives are not the same.

Old Tex,

I'm not saying civil instead of temple or that you should place it on the same level as s temple wedding. However why not seize the opportunity presented as a chance to present the gospel and show the love of Christ? I could find numerous verses from the NT (eg All things to all men, in order to save some.) but rather than that could you please explain why from the LDS perspective you wouldn't use the opportunity presented to express your faith to your loved ones and friends? Is it that it diminishes from the temple ceremony or that a civil ceremony is just wrong or your concerned that non God inspired traditions will be used? I'm trying to understand what would drive your dislike/dissapproval?

[antispatula]

<div class='quotemain'>

Hmm.

So, an LDS couple being endowed and with recommends, if civilly married outside the temple, will be disallowed to be sealed there for the period of one year? I am unfamiliar with this (I haven't personally known any endowed members with recommends to take a civil marriage rather than a temple sealing).

Now, I know that recently baptized members must prepare for one year for the taking out of their endowments and subsequent sealings. But I was unaware that an endowed couple with current recommends would be unable to be sealed if engaged in a civil marriage.

Can anyone clarify?

-a-train

If the couple is endowed and hold current recommends and still choose not to get married in the temple, there must be a reason for it. If they simply don't see the value of getting married in the temple then they obviously have some learning to do, and therefore shouldn't be getting married in the temple. The one year wait is not a matter of worthiness as much as it is a matter of preparation and learning.

Exactly. A couple who believe a civil marriage is of any importance, especially when they have the temple available to them isntead, obviously do not understand some very essential things; the most important things, when it comes to ones eternal happyness.

[the_jason]

"Proving that you neither know nor care about Biblical exegesis."

My interpretation is obviously different from yours. I don't insult you for your beliefs. Don't insult me for mine.

[john doe]

PS I really like the idea of eternal marriage, but currently I believe in Jesus as revealed in the Bible and it would be a bit of a stretch for me to get that doctrine from what I believe God has said on the subject.

Just curious, what do (non-LDS) Christians believe that God said about eternal marriage, LDS temples and recommends on the subject? You may not know this, but LDS also proclaim a belief in the Jesus of the Bible. I wasn't aware that the Bible forbids eternal marriage.

[Jason]

"Proving that you neither know nor care about Biblical exegesis."

My interpretation is obviously different from yours. I don't insult you for your beliefs. Don't insult me for mine.

Your interpretation is irrelevant. For that matter, so is mine. But you should know that what the text actually means is quite different from your "interpretation".

I wasn't aware that the Bible forbids eternal marriage.

I wasn't aware the Bible teaches eternal marriage? It does teach reincarnation though, and that would seem to invalidate the concept of eternal marriage.

[rosie321]

"Proving that you neither know nor care about Biblical exegesis."

My interpretation is obviously different from yours. I don't insult you for your beliefs. Don't insult me for mine.

This attitude burns me up. Poor LDS that we are. I'm not insulting you. Why is everyone always picking on us?

Could you at least try and see things from the other point of view. Empathize a little? You are basically calling everyone outside the church worthless for their belief. Other people are worthless in comparison to the mormons who have everything perfectly together. All the sacrifices and love these families have shown the marrying member mean nothing.

For those who have families that can not understand do they really deserve the expressions-Oh well deal with it? Join or else you can't cherish a moment you have waited your whole life to experience? Can you not at all see where this might be hurtful or percieved as an attack against non members? Why they might be at least a little bit angry and possibly even bitter about it?

Ideally every LDS should be married in the temple. But aren't we also given lattitude in free agency and encouraged to prayerfully apply this principle, as all others, to our own lives? Christ gave up his own life for us. Aren't we to have that same love to one another? If waiting a year will be beneficial for a prayerfully considered individual circumstance then why should that be a problem? That's different from not wanting to do it or not wanting to put God first. Some people want the temple marriage so much. Could a sacrifice not be waiting and showing care and compassion for others?.

BTW what happens tomorrow if the church decides that its alright to civilly marry tomorrow? Or the country adapts the same laws as other countries? Everything would change

[Moksha]

I think it's selfish that your beliefs led to you excluding your parents from your wedding. I don't believe God approves of this practice. Do you think your parents were happy with this, or possibly they were pretending?

Amen, Jason.

My thoughts are that one should have both a Temple and an out of Temple wedding in these cases. Although some Authority made up the rule of the one year exclusion prior to the Temple wedding, they did not think to hinder another wedding immediately following the Temple Ceremony. That way, LDS couples could have their spiritual needs met, without breaking the hearts of those they are forced to exclude.

[the_jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

"Proving that you neither know nor care about Biblical exegesis."

My interpretation is obviously different from yours. I don't insult you for your beliefs. Don't insult me for mine.

Your interpretation is irrelevant. For that matter, so is mine. But you should know that what the text actually means is quite different from your "interpretation".

So who determines what the text actually means? You?

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>

PS I really like the idea of eternal marriage, but currently I believe in Jesus as revealed in the Bible and it would be a bit of a stretch for me to get that doctrine from what I believe God has said on the subject.

Just curious, what do (non-LDS) Christians believe that God said about eternal marriage, LDS temples and recommends on the subject? You may not know this, but LDS also proclaim a belief in the Jesus of the Bible. I wasn't aware that the Bible forbids eternal marriage.

Firstly, I wasn't insinuating that LDS don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible but rather that you have extra scripture outside the Bible on which you can base your doctrines such as this. As a non LDS I'm not likely to read "The Pearl of Great Price" et al for doctrinal support.

Non-LDS Christians is a fairly deverse group, I can't promise to speak for the whole lot. I can express what I was taught and believe. I shan't provide all the references but I can if you really want them I can supply them. (This is an LDS site, I'm here to learn about you "guys", not to expound my own views. But since you ask here goes(quickly)...)

Looking mainly at Matt 22:23-30 esp 30. & Roms 7:2 on eternal marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman for this life and does not continue into heaven. There is no need of procreation in heaven of any sort and gender differences cease to have any meaningful distinction. It isn't so much as the family links being diminished but being one in Christ we are bonded to God and all others in heaven in as meaningful way as we bonded to our spouses and families here.

Jesus is the eternal high-priest in the order of Melchizedek, in the true temple in heaven. His people are now the temple on earth as he is always with them and even more so when two or three (or more) gather in His name. We sanctifiy any place by our presence, we are not sanctified by any place on earth.

Now I know that the LDS have different interpretation on the verse on marriage above. I just not sure I could follow that interpretation as logical, but for LDS your interpretation has been inspired by your prophet(s).

I have however been thinking on Matt 16. Where to me, Jesus indicates that profession of faith gives the keys to the kingdom. If that is the case then the power loosing and binding would become available to any who confessed Christ as Peter did. (I know people who believe that) So maybe some things could be bound in eternity (like marriage)?

Anyway I never said that eternal marriage was forbidden in the Bible, just that holding it as a doctrine just from scripture without (prophetical inspired) specific interpretations of scripture like the LDS have would be a stretch.

[sixpacktr]

Yes, yes, the rules of the church, the rules of our HF are meant to cause pain and grief. We are trying to exclude everyone else, in a kind of 'go to hell' attitude...

I'm am truly appalled at the very thought that some have that the temple just doesn't mean that much to them, that a civil marriage is just a good so that you don't offend someone. My wife's parents weren't members. Was it sad? Yes, it was for her--she wanted to have her parents there. But she also knew that a marriage in the temple was the only way to do it right.

As for having a ceremony after the temple marriage, no one would stop you, but again, it shows a complete lack of respect for what the temple represents, and it shows an attitude of regarding the thoughts and attitudes of men above those of what it right. I'm not sure that a Bishop could do the ceremony. But again, have at it. You're right: the 'brethren' didn't think of that 'loophole'. Good thinking, Moksha! You really got one over on them, didn't you?!

I'm not saying it is easy. I'm not saying that it is necessarily fair. What I am saying is that a temple wedding should be the goal of every worthy LDS. Again, right place, right time, right authority.

Our kids learned from their mother, and will settle for nothing less.

[the_jason]

Well said, six.

[Moksha]

As for having a ceremony after the temple marriage, no one would stop you, but again, it shows a complete lack of respect for what the temple represents, and it shows an attitude of regarding the thoughts and attitudes of men above those of what it right. I'm not sure that a Bishop could do the ceremony. But again, have at it. You're right: the 'brethren' didn't think of that 'loophole'. Good thinking, Moksha! You really got one over on them, didn't you?!

Your point might be valid if it really was in the best interest of the Church and the couple in question to start them off with extended family hurt and animosity. I don't believe it is the case. Nor is the point well taken that considering the feelings of the excluded family members is somehow showing lack of respect for the Temple.

If you have followed the balance of this thread and heard about the exchanging of rings after the Temple Ceremony or the fact that civil weddings have to first occur in several other countries for the marriage to be considered valid, then this option of having a post Temple Sealing out of Temple Wedding should not be thought of as a loop hole. It should be thought of as an opportunity to address the needs of inclusion of those family members excluded from the Temple Sealing.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

"Proving that you neither know nor care about Biblical exegesis."

My interpretation is obviously different from yours. I don't insult you for your beliefs. Don't insult me for mine.

Your interpretation is irrelevant. For that matter, so is mine. But you should know that what the text actually means is quite different from your "interpretation".

So who determines what the text actually means? You?

Apparently you didn't actually read what I wrote. Let me say it again: "Your interpretation is irrelevant. For that matter, so is mine." (Emphasis added just for you.)

Jewish and Christian scholars (as well as agnostics) determine what the text meant in it's original context, not in light of later developments.

Maybe a course in exegesis would prove enlightening for you.

Or you could just keep your head buried in the sand. Whatever works best.

[the_jason]

Jewish and Christian scholars (as well as agnostics) determine what the text meant in it's original context, not in light of later developments.

Maybe a course in exegesis would prove enlightening for you.

Or you could just keep your head buried in the sand. Whatever works best.

I'd rather be instructed by a prophet of God or the Holy Spirit, not by scholars.

[Jason]

I'd rather be instructed by a prophet of God or the Holy Spirit, not by scholars.

Sure. And you probably think the Inspired Version of the Bible is more accurate than the dead sea scrolls. But that just tells us more about you than anything.

[Jason]

Again with the personal shots. Can't you be more clever than to just insult people? Are we back in the 4th grade again? I guess it goes to show me your level of moral character, or rather the lack of.

I'm not the one who had an affair.

[Jason]

So why did your wife kick you out of the house again? Must be because you're such a morally upright person, huh?

[the_jason]

I made a mistake and realized it. Morally upright people still make mistakes. You, on the other hand, are a [word deleted by CK] who enjoys insulting people and makes no apologies for it.

That's the difference between you and me.

[Jason]

I made a mistake and realized it. Morally upright people still make mistakes. You, on the other hand, are a [word deleted by CK] who enjoys insulting people and makes no apologies for it.

That's the difference between you and me.

No. I'm right about the exegesis issue on the Decalogue, and you're wrong. Rather than admit it, you pulled out the "morality card" and I called your bluff.

I'm gonna give you some overdue advice kid: When you dig yourself into a hole....stop digging.

[the_jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

I made a mistake and realized it. Morally upright people still make mistakes. You, on the other hand, are a jackass who enjoys insulting people and makes no apologies for it.

That's the difference between you and me.

No. I'm right about the exegesis issue on the Decalogue, and you're wrong. Rather than admit it, you pulled out the "morality card" and I called your bluff.

I'm gonna give you some overdue advice kid: When you dig yourself into a hole....stop digging.

That's my whole point. You believe something, therefore you're right and everyone is wrong. Not only are they wrong, but they are stupid for believing what they do. We are all entitled to our own beliefs. I don't give a rat's ###### if you agree with me, but at least show some respect for what I believe. I've never once attacked what you believe. That's why you have no character.