Grunt

9 Crucial Things for Parents

Recommended Posts

So the consensus seems to be that he is referring to the importance for our kids to be married in the temple. Interestingly, this is an topic that has been rattling around in my head after a comment in EQ about parents who can't attend their child's temple sealing. Disclaimer first, I grew up in the Church and married in the temple, so I know the reasons that I was given for why temple marriage was important. I also did not have to choose between temple sealing and excluding a parent. As I have thought through this hypothetical (to me) scenario, I frequently conclude that, in some cases, it might be more important to have the civil ceremony where all parents can attend and participate and wait a year to do the temple sealing, than to be immediately sealed in the temple and alienate a parent. Does the fact that I sometimes come to this conclusion suggest that I don't understand the significance of BIC? Or how would you talk about the importance of temple marriage in such scenario?

In some ways, this approach to the question feels more to me like the importance of "retention". Temple marriage becomes a marker that my children are walking in truth (3 John 1:4) and that my grandchildren will hopefully also walk in truth. If its about retention, then I may have to deal with questions of patience with a wayward child.

Anyone care to expand on their answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So the consensus seems to be that he is referring to the importance for our kids to be married in the temple. Interestingly, this is an topic that has been rattling around in my head after a comment in EQ about parents who can't attend their child's temple sealing. Disclaimer first, I grew up in the Church and married in the temple, so I know the reasons that I was given for why temple marriage was important. I also did not have to choose between temple sealing and excluding a parent. As I have thought through this hypothetical (to me) scenario, I frequently conclude that, in some cases, it might be more important to have the civil ceremony where all parents can attend and participate and wait a year to do the temple sealing, than to be immediately sealed in the temple and alienate a parent. Does the fact that I sometimes come to this conclusion suggest that I don't understand the significance of BIC? Or how would you talk about the importance of temple marriage in such scenario?

In some ways, this approach to the question feels more to me like the importance of "retention". Temple marriage becomes a marker that my children are walking in truth (3 John 1:4) and that my grandchildren will hopefully also walk in truth. If its about retention, then I may have to deal with questions of patience with a wayward child.

Anyone care to expand on their answer?

I would say that conclusion doesn't understand the significance of the marital covenant.

There's the marital covenant and there's the ceremony.  2 different things.  The covenant is what needs to be made in the temple for an eternal marriage.  Anything beyond that - the wedding rituals of exchanging rings, traditional ceremonies like you see in Bridezilla, etc. etc., including the involvement of parents are not part of that marital covenant.  They can be done outside of the temple.  

So, if the marital covenant is so irrelevant as to decide to unnecessarily put it behind in importance from the desires of parents, then you have failed in teaching the significance of such a covenant.

And about retention - if you are "retained" with a faulty understanding of a very important foundational principle of the Church such as Eternal Marriage then I'm not sure if sacrificing covenants for such a retention is more beneficial than harmful.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So the consensus seems to be that he is referring to the importance for our kids to be married in the temple. Interestingly, this is an topic that has been rattling around in my head after a comment in EQ about parents who can't attend their child's temple sealing. Disclaimer first, I grew up in the Church and married in the temple, so I know the reasons that I was given for why temple marriage was important. I also did not have to choose between temple sealing and excluding a parent. As I have thought through this hypothetical (to me) scenario, I frequently conclude that, in some cases, it might be more important to have the civil ceremony where all parents can attend and participate and wait a year to do the temple sealing, than to be immediately sealed in the temple and alienate a parent. Does the fact that I sometimes come to this conclusion suggest that I don't understand the significance of BIC? Or how would you talk about the importance of temple marriage in such scenario?

In some ways, this approach to the question feels more to me like the importance of "retention". Temple marriage becomes a marker that my children are walking in truth (3 John 1:4) and that my grandchildren will hopefully also walk in truth. If its about retention, then I may have to deal with questions of patience with a wayward child.

Anyone care to expand on their answer?

This may not be what you're looking for, but here's my opinion in case it makes a difference.

I believe that the policy of a one-year waiting period after a non-temple wedding before a couple can be sealed was put in place because far too many Latter-day Saints were considering the secular wedding as the "real" wedding and the sealing as a sort of afterthought. This is upside-down.  The Saints need to understand and acknowledge that the only "real wedding" that lasts beyond the grave is that contracted in the temple.

Children who are sealed to their parents have all the blessings of those born in the covenant. This is explicitly stated during the sealing ceremony. But note the order: Those sealed to their parents have ALL THE SAME BLESSINGS AS those BIC -- not the other way around. BIC is God's standard. Sealing to parents is God's way of helping everyone receive the standard blessings.

These are eternal concepts. We take them lightly at our own peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

So the consensus seems to be that he is referring to the importance for our kids to be married in the temple. Interestingly, this is an topic that has been rattling around in my head after a comment in EQ about parents who can't attend their child's temple sealing. Disclaimer first, I grew up in the Church and married in the temple, so I know the reasons that I was given for why temple marriage was important. I also did not have to choose between temple sealing and excluding a parent. As I have thought through this hypothetical (to me) scenario, I frequently conclude that, in some cases, it might be more important to have the civil ceremony where all parents can attend and participate and wait a year to do the temple sealing, than to be immediately sealed in the temple and alienate a parent. Does the fact that I sometimes come to this conclusion suggest that I don't understand the significance of BIC? Or how would you talk about the importance of temple marriage in such scenario?

In some ways, this approach to the question feels more to me like the importance of "retention". Temple marriage becomes a marker that my children are walking in truth (3 John 1:4) and that my grandchildren will hopefully also walk in truth. If its about retention, then I may have to deal with questions of patience with a wayward child.

Anyone care to expand on their answer?

When/where you are married has nothing to do with a child being BIC, providing you are sealed when they are born.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

So the consensus seems to be that he is referring to the importance for our kids to be married in the temple. Interestingly, this is an topic that has been rattling around in my head after a comment in EQ about parents who can't attend their child's temple sealing. Disclaimer first, I grew up in the Church and married in the temple, so I know the reasons that I was given for why temple marriage was important. I also did not have to choose between temple sealing and excluding a parent. As I have thought through this hypothetical (to me) scenario, I frequently conclude that, in some cases, it might be more important to have the civil ceremony where all parents can attend and participate and wait a year to do the temple sealing, than to be immediately sealed in the temple and alienate a parent. Does the fact that I sometimes come to this conclusion suggest that I don't understand the significance of BIC? Or how would you talk about the importance of temple marriage in such scenario?

In some ways, this approach to the question feels more to me like the importance of "retention". Temple marriage becomes a marker that my children are walking in truth (3 John 1:4) and that my grandchildren will hopefully also walk in truth. If its about retention, then I may have to deal with questions of patience with a wayward child.

Anyone care to expand on their answer?

I'm a convert (baptized the day before my 19th birthday). When I was newly baptized, I envisioned a temple marriage, but with all the "finery" of a "regular" wedding.My mom was an inactive member and my dad a non-member (and my siblings/family non members--I was the only active, temple recommend holding member). I knew that if I chose to have a temple sealing without any type of civil service, they would be hurt and disappointed. Once I was endowed, I began to realize that my covenants made in the temple reinforced my thoughts that a temple sealing had more precedence and vitality over any civil service. Fast forward 35 years or so after baptism, I was now faced with an upcoming marriage and how I would handle it. 

It is my personal belief (strongly held one, mind you) that the covenants I made during the endowment include sacrificing even family relationships to keep my covenants of the Gospel which include choosing to be sealed in the temple rather than civil service and temple sealing (obviously, I'm in the US as having this choice is just not possible in other countries). I chose to have a temple sealing with minimal "finery" for a reception. My dad did not walk me down any aisle, we didn't have anything more than a ring "ceremony" during the reception. My dad's home teacher (yep, a non-member has a home teacher--great man) who did the ring ceremony talked on temple sealing/marriage and the significance of that. We didn't exchange vows or say any words. 

I know that my family was disappointed and I'm sorry for that. But, I also know that my faith in the sealing and temple covenants enables me to believe that their disappointment will someday (most likely in the next life) be mitigated by knowledge. For those members in the US, their family relationships may inspire them to make a different choice. But as with all commandments or guidance by the prophets, I feel we should resolve to abide unless the Spirit directs otherwise. He didn't direct me otherwise, so I decided to follow. Not an easy choice (sounds easy to do, but in reality when faced with disappointing or even angering family it makes it difficult), but life isn't always about the easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vort said:

psycho-the-rapist-its-one-word-george-ps

So maybe he should try the Church's addiction recovery program first....  Except as soon as he said he was addicted to buying fountain pens, everyone else would rush to the closet for their torches and pitchforks and chase him off.

Meanwhile, how's your pen addiction coming - tried any of those colorful inks yet? :twistedsmall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2018 at 11:16 AM, beefche said:

I'm a convert (baptized the day before my 19th birthday). When I was newly baptized, I envisioned a temple marriage, but with all the "finery" of a "regular" wedding.My mom was an inactive member and my dad a non-member (and my siblings/family non members--I was the only active, temple recommend holding member). I knew that if I chose to have a temple sealing without any type of civil service, they would be hurt and disappointed. Once I was endowed, I began to realize that my covenants made in the temple reinforced my thoughts that a temple sealing had more precedence and vitality over any civil service. Fast forward 35 years or so after baptism, I was now faced with an upcoming marriage and how I would handle it. 

It is my personal belief (strongly held one, mind you) that the covenants I made during the endowment include sacrificing even family relationships to keep my covenants of the Gospel which include choosing to be sealed in the temple rather than civil service and temple sealing (obviously, I'm in the US as having this choice is just not possible in other countries). I chose to have a temple sealing with minimal "finery" for a reception. My dad did not walk me down any aisle, we didn't have anything more than a ring "ceremony" during the reception. My dad's home teacher (yep, a non-member has a home teacher--great man) who did the ring ceremony talked on temple sealing/marriage and the significance of that. We didn't exchange vows or say any words. 

I know that my family was disappointed and I'm sorry for that. But, I also know that my faith in the sealing and temple covenants enables me to believe that their disappointment will someday (most likely in the next life) be mitigated by knowledge. For those members in the US, their family relationships may inspire them to make a different choice. But as with all commandments or guidance by the prophets, I feel we should resolve to abide unless the Spirit directs otherwise. He didn't direct me otherwise, so I decided to follow. Not an easy choice (sounds easy to do, but in reality when faced with disappointing or even angering family it makes it difficult), but life isn't always about the easy.

BEEFCHE!!!!  GLAD TO SEE YOU HERE AGAIN!  WE MISS YA!  What's up!

 

So, about this marriage thing.  I married my husband when I was still Catholic.  Before that, I almost got married to another guy.  My parents, his parents, everybody were flying into town (some from out of the country) for this wedding.  Flights and hotel all booked.  The wedding gown alone costed $5K.  My mom melted her collection of ancient silver coins to make the chord (Catholic thing), it was a very expensive wedding.  My fiancee and I went through a month of marriage seminar, etc. etc.  I backed off of the wedding 1 week before the big day.  Most of the stuff are non-refundable.  And a lot of presents have come in that I had to painstakingly return.

So then I met my husband.  This time it was The One.  My parents wouldn't accept him because he is not Catholic in addition to not being raised Filipino.  So we got married without much fanfare.  We took a day off from work, went to the city hall, paid $80 for the license, added $20 for the JIP to marry us under the arbor in the back office.  He gave me my el cheapo engagement ring as my wedding ring, I gave him his CTR ring.  We spent $40 for the pizza afterwards to treat our friends during their lunch break.  Best wedding ever.  And then we went back to work the next day. 

We made our vows and my husband's strong booming voice as he said them was priceless.  I would have wanted my family to be there with me.  But I wouldn't change anything about my wedding except for having the opportunity for a temple marriage.  We were sealed at the temple 5 years later and that was beautiful.  But we celebrate our courthouse wedding anniversary instead of our sealing anniversary just for the main reason that we made our marital vows then.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

BEEFCHE!!!!  GLAD TO SEE YOU HERE AGAIN!  WE MISS YA!  What's up!

 

So, about this marriage thing.  I married my husband when I was still Catholic.  Before that, I almost got married to another guy.  My parents, his parents, everybody were flying into town (some from out of the country) for this wedding.  Flights and hotel all booked.  The wedding gown alone costed $5K.  My mom melted her collection of ancient silver coins to make the chord (Catholic thing), it was a very expensive wedding.  My fiancee and I went through a month of marriage seminar, etc. etc.  I backed off of the wedding 1 week before the big day.  Most of the stuff are non-refundable.  And a lot of presents have come in that I had to painstakingly return.

So then I met my husband.  This time it was The One.  My parents wouldn't accept him because he is not Catholic in addition to not being raised Filipino.  So we got married without much fanfare.  We took a day off from work, went to the city hall, paid $80 for the license, added $20 for the JIP to marry us under the arbor in the back office.  He gave me my el cheapo engagement ring as my wedding ring, I gave him his CTR ring.  We spent $40 for the pizza afterwards to treat our friends during their lunch break.  Best wedding ever.  And then we went back to work the next day. 

We made our vows and my husband's strong booming voice as he said them was priceless.  I would have wanted my family to be there with me.  But I wouldn't change anything about my wedding except for having the opportunity for a temple marriage.  We were sealed at the temple 5 years later and that was beautiful.  But we celebrate our courthouse wedding anniversary instead of our sealing anniversary just for the main reason that we made our marital vows then.

 

My husband and I celebrate our civil marriage too.  We will acknowledge our sealing day to each other, but we celebrate the actual wedding day. We talked about whether we should celebrate both, but opted for the one celebration. One of the reasons we opted for that is, In the Proclamation on the Family, it states “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God...” It doesn’t say only temple marriages are ordained of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 8/23/2018 at 7:59 PM, JayKi said:

What is Born In Covenant ?

On 8/24/2018 at 8:14 AM, zil said:

A child born to parents who have been sealed in the temple is said to be "born in the covenant".  Said child does not need to be sealed to their parents in a separate temple sealing because they are already sealed to their parents by virtue of being born in the covenant.

I thought he said he was LDS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 8/25/2018 at 10:16 AM, beefche said:

It is my personal belief (strongly held one, mind you) that the covenants I made during the endowment include sacrificing even family relationships to keep my covenants of the Gospel which include choosing to be sealed in the temple rather than civil service and temple sealing.

You mean like this?

Quote

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Matt 10:35-38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Just now, zil said:

I assume the acronym was unknown to someone not a native speaker of English.

But he didn't ask about the acronym.  He asked about "Born In the Covenant."  Makes me wonder if he made things up.  Wouldn't be the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carborendum said:

But he didn't ask about the acronym.  He asked about "Born In the Covenant."  Makes me wonder if he made things up.  Wouldn't be the first one.

Yer too fa-ast.  I edited my response.  Apparently the Spanish version used in Church documents is "nacen en el convenio".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, zil said:

Yer too fa-ast.  I edited my response.  Apparently the Spanish version used in Church documents is "nacen en el convenio".

That's a literal word-for-word translation.  Why on earth did he not recognize it?  Did he ever say he was a recent covnert?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's a literal word-for-word translation.  Why on earth did he not recognize it?  Did he ever say he was a recent covnert?

Well, I was well into adulthood before I ever heard the idea of "born in the covenant" - it's not exactly a common Sunday School lesson (or wasn't when I was growing up and well into said adulthood).  So perhaps he was never exposed to the phrase.  (Though there seem to be a fair number of things Jayki didn't know about the Church - maybe he wasn't active for part of the time...)  Anywho, dunno, not terribly concerned about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2018 at 9:23 PM, Carborendum said:

You mean like this?

To some extent. My strongly held, personal belief stems from the covenants in the temple and results in my belief that I made a covenant to marry only in His temple which means I would only marry someone who was temple worthy and recommend holding. The fact that that choice would likely prevent my family from attending that wedding is more a byproduct of that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 8/31/2018 at 8:52 PM, zil said:

Well, I was well into adulthood before I ever heard the idea of "born in the covenant" - it's not exactly a common Sunday School lesson (or wasn't when I was growing up and well into said adulthood). 

That's because they hadn't invented the phase yet... back in the 1800s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now