Predictions on policy changes during conference?

[Lost Boy]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Take fasting: Can you give a good reason beyond suffering for fasting? And just so we're clear -- fast offerings don't really count because many people could pay that and still not go hungry for the day, and yet they are commanded to fast anyhow. Why? What's the purpose there beyond sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice?

Fasting brings humility and helps us get more in tune with the spirit.  There are plenty of references why fasting is good and that it brings blessing.  So yes, fasting is not sacrificing for the sake of sacrificing.  Not in the least.  It is a law and with any law comes blessings.  We don't always know what all of the blessings will be, but we know that our sacrifice is tied to a commandment of God.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am not saying I need to know what the blessing is, ...[sets about explaining that he doesn't know what the blessing is/was for having been married in the temple without family there and how it's never felt good]

As if your feeling good about something is, once again, the criterion for whether it has value.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Fasting brings humility and helps us get more in tune with the spirit. 

It seems to me that the same can be said of choosing to marry in the temple despite not being able to have unworthy or non-member family members attend.

[Lost Boy]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

As if your feeling good about something is, once again, the criterion for whether it has value.

No, I said obeying the law of the fast is what gives it value.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It seems to me that the same can be said of choosing to marry in the temple despite not being able to have unworthy or non-member family members attend.

 20 There is a ^alaw, irrevocably decreed in ^bheaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all ^cblessings are predicated—

  21 And when we obtain any ^ablessing from God, it is by ^bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

There is no law that says you need to marry in the temple. 

[Jane_Doe]

I will 100% say that I would be thrilled when the policy changes American couples can do the same as rest of the world: the ability to choose to be married civilly and then get sealed without a 1 yr waiting period.  

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

There is no law that says you need to marry in the temple. 

This comment, once again, shows a lack of understanding.

The laws of heaven and the blessings upon which they are predicated are not merely 1:1 with the commandments we've been given. There is no commandment, for example, that we have to accept callings, but we've been promised many times by our prophets that accepting callings will bless our lives.

[Lost Boy]

50 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This comment, once again, shows a lack of understanding.

The laws of heaven and the blessings upon which they are predicated are not merely 1:1 with the commandments we've been given. There is no commandment, for example, that we have to accept callings, but we've been promised many times by our prophets that accepting callings will bless our lives.

We have not been told that accepting a calling will bring us blessings. It is the fulfilling of the calling that does and yes, there is a commandment associated with that.... Serving the lord. 

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

We have not been told that accepting a calling will bring us blessings. It is the fulfilling of the calling that does and yes, there is a commandment associated with that.... Serving the lord. 

As you don't seem to be even willing to try to see the point I am making, I'm not sure further discussion holds any value.

[Lost Boy]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As you don't seem to be even willing to try to see the point I am making, I'm not sure further discussion holds any value.

I know the point you are trying to make and I disagree with it. But that is ok. I don't claim to be right. It is my opinion and I have been known to be wrong. 

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

My wife's parents are not members.  They did not get to attend our wedding.  That was 25 years ago.  They still mention that today in a negative way.  And I always have felt bad about it.  Never once did I feel good about them not being able to attend.  Not once.  Every sacrifice I have made, I have had a good feeling about...  that I was doing the right thing.  paying tithing, serving a mission, working with the scouts, helping people move, the list goes on and on.  I don't feel bad that I spent time, effort, etc for any of those.  But I do feel bad that her family was not able to take part in our wedding.  It has never felt right.  I have used all of your reasons to try and convince myself, but it has never felt right.  I don't feel blessed for that.  I didn't sacrifice anything.   I forced them to sacrifice and that just doesn't set right with me.

I still have family members that feel the same way about my temple marriage.  I am even finding out to this day about how deep some of those feelings go.

I differ from you though.  I wanted to share that special day with them (and we did have a ring ceremony as close to a wedding ceremony as we possibly could to try to accommodate them) and yet, it was not shared entirely.  I do NOT regret my choice nor do I feel bad that I made the decision to be married in the temple.  More than anything, I am grateful that I could be sealed to my wife in marriage...not as a secondary action, but as the first and primary act of being joined together in our marriage.

The day we were married, when I saw my wife in the temple, I KNEW I made the right choice.  My heart was filled with joy and to this day I marvel at how wonderful I felt that I knew we could be together for all eternity.  I would not trade that moment for all my families begging, anger, or sadness. 

My family never joined the church (beyond my children of course), and even the few left alive today do not seem very favorable towards that disposition.  However, the blessings from being sealed in the Temple are not something I think can be counted.  I am very grateful we live in a nation where, at least when I was married, we could have being married in the temple as our first and foremost choice as an option.  I know that there are nations that do not allow this, and I do not think those in that situation lose out.  However, when given the opportunity to be married in the temple, or to be married civilly as a choice, I think those that choose to be married in the temple as the first and foremost choice are blessed for that choice.

[john4truth]

There will be a new rule no more just taking turns reading. No reading in classes. The lesson on the internet but the teacher has to know the lesson. Get rid of the cost of books and especially the boring reading. Everything has to be studied ahead of time. The will save time and the embarrassed that can't see to read.     

See Teaching as the Savior Taught.

[KScience]

Picking up on the temple marriage theme... how about other countries will now allow temple sealings to be recognised as marriages?  Wont happen in the UK as it contradicts current laws but there could be other countries.

No more missions served in the USA; all missionaries to serve elsewhere

Utah to become independent of the USA

LDS colleges outside of the USA to be established

Adult institute classes to allow "old" singles to join

Arranged marriages, because the brethren are so fed up with repeating talks advising people to get married

 

Anyone up for making a predictions BINGO card? I think they would stay rather blank!!

Edited September 25, 2018 by KScience
Poor grammar and an additional thought

[Jane_Doe]

58 minutes ago, KScience said:

Picking up on the temple marriage theme... how about other countries will now allow temple sealings to be recognised as marriages?  Wont happen in the UK as it contradicts current laws but there could be other countries.

It's pretty common, especially in countries which were at one point British colonies.

The 1-year wait policy only applies to marriages that happen in the USA.

58 minutes ago, KScience said:

Utah to become independent of the USA

What the????   Utah is a secular government, not church....

58 minutes ago, KScience said:

Adult institute classes to allow "old" singles to join

They actually already do     Anyone is welcome to come.

[KScience]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's pretty common, especially in countries which were at one point British colonies.

I mean without the civil marriage part first at all.    The 1-year wait policy only applies to marriages that happen in the USA. I know I am UK based and we have great "road trips" for ceremony part 1 and then ceremony part 2.

What the????   Utah is a secular government, not church....  

I know, I was getting into the spirit of ridiculous predictions  

They actually already do     Anyone is welcome to come.

Not the case here. I remember the year I was too old to go and missing my weekly gathering. I am now rather older than that but take our ward YSA to institute as she has no transpor;  then I sit in a class room and catch up on some work.  If it is the case it is certainly not general knowledge and we could quadruple our institute class overnight.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, KScience said:

Not the case here. I remember the year I was too old to go and missing my weekly gathering. I am now rather older than that but take our ward YSA to institute as she has no transpor;  then I sit in a class room and catch up on some work.  If it is the case it is certainly not general knowledge and we could quadruple our institute class overnight.

Ah, things are different in my region.

Institute isn't YSA specific, though it is indeed very focused on YSA ages and >95% attend by thus (whether you're single or not).  They even have some which specifically cater to older retired people.

YSA wards do have age restrictions.  

 

 

[KScience]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Ah, things are different in my region.

Institute isn't YSA specific, though it is indeed very focused on YSA ages and >95% attend by thus (whether you're single or not).  They even have some which specifically cater to older retired people.

YSA wards do have age restrictions.  

 

 

Thanks, I think different areas are more rigid. I also think it makes a difference with the number of YSA that need to be accommodated. As a YSA in a university rich area we would often have 40 -50 in attendance; in this stake 10 is a good turn out, and our ward only has one active YSA (hence she gets stuck with me on the road trip to institute).  I have no experience of the older retired people institute - I have a few years in me before I need to start looking; especially with our every changing retirement age. 

We have one YSA ward in this country so I find it odd that they are so prevalent in other places. I can see a demand for them, but we just expect YSA's to integrate into wards.

[Midwest LDS]

4 hours ago, KScience said:

Thanks, I think different areas are more rigid. I also think it makes a difference with the number of YSA that need to be accommodated. As a YSA in a university rich area we would often have 40 -50 in attendance; in this stake 10 is a good turn out, and our ward only has one active YSA (hence she gets stuck with me on the road trip to institute).  I have no experience of the older retired people institute - I have a few years in me before I need to start looking; especially with our every changing retirement age. 

We have one YSA ward in this country so I find it odd that they are so prevalent in other places. I can see a demand for them, but we just expect YSA's to integrate into wards.

That's actually not so uncommon here in the US either. Usually, there are only YSA wards in big college towns and if there are enough members to have multiple wards (here in Indiana, that's probably only 1 or 2 I'd have to check). We only have 50,000 members or so in this state. Generally, YSA's attend their local ward if they are far from where the YSA one meets. The exceptions are states with high Latter Day Saint populations such as Utah, Arizona, California, Idaho where you get dozens or hundreds of these wards but that's rather unique even here in the States. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[zil]

6 hours ago, KScience said:

Arranged marriages, because the brethren are so fed up with repeating talks advising people to get married

@mordorbund, you have a compatriot!

[Lost Boy]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I still have family members that feel the same way about my temple marriage.  I am even finding out to this day about how deep some of those feelings go.

I differ from you though.  I wanted to share that special day with them (and we did have a ring ceremony as close to a wedding ceremony as we possibly could to try to accommodate them) and yet, it was not shared entirely.  I do NOT regret my choice nor do I feel bad that I made the decision to be married in the temple.  More than anything, I am grateful that I could be sealed to my wife in marriage...not as a secondary action, but as the first and primary act of being joined together in our marriage.

The day we were married, when I saw my wife in the temple, I KNEW I made the right choice.  My heart was filled with joy and to this day I marvel at how wonderful I felt that I knew we could be together for all eternity.  I would not trade that moment for all my families begging, anger, or sadness. 

My family never joined the church (beyond my children of course), and even the few left alive today do not seem very favorable towards that disposition.  However, the blessings from being sealed in the Temple are not something I think can be counted.  I am very grateful we live in a nation where, at least when I was married, we could have being married in the temple as our first and foremost choice as an option.  I know that there are nations that do not allow this, and I do not think those in that situation lose out.  However, when given the opportunity to be married in the temple, or to be married civilly as a choice, I think those that choose to be married in the temple as the first and foremost choice are blessed for that choice.

I don't regret getting married in the temple.  There was no way I was going to do a civil marriage and then wait a year.  No, getting married in the Temple was the right choice.  But if the option were available, I definitely would have had a civil marriage and then the next day get sealed to my wife.  Unfortunately that was not an option so I took the best route possible at the time.  But that route left many hurt feelings and bad thoughts about the church.

I too knew I did the right thing getting married in the temple.  With the options I had at the time, I would still do it the same way.  But being able to marry civilly and then get sealed the next would make it a happy occasion for all.  My in-laws cared about the wedding.  I cared more about the sealing.  If my in-laws got to participate in the wedding and not the sealing, they would be absolutely happy.  They aren't interested in the sealing.  Not important to them

So would your blessings be less if you married civilly and then got sealed the next day?  I don't think so, but I am not a docternal scholar.

[The Folk Prophet]

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,

But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

-Mark 10:29-30

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't regret getting married in the temple.  There was no way I was going to do a civil marriage and then wait a year.  No, getting married in the Temple was the right choice.  But if the option were available, I definitely would have had a civil marriage and then the next day get sealed to my wife.  Unfortunately that was not an option so I took the best route possible at the time.  But that route left many hurt feelings and bad thoughts about the church.

I too knew I did the right thing getting married in the temple.  With the options I had at the time, I would still do it the same way.  But being able to marry civilly and then get sealed the next would make it a happy occasion for all.  My in-laws cared about the wedding.  I cared more about the sealing.  If my in-laws got to participate in the wedding and not the sealing, they would be absolutely happy.  They aren't interested in the sealing.  Not important to them

So would your blessings be less if you married civilly and then got sealed the next day?  I don't think so, but I am not a docternal scholar.

I’ve actually wondered about this myself. I know I’m coming in late, I bailed on the thread when I saw I was 3 pages behind. so if this has already been discussed then just point me to the answer, but why is there that forces separation between civil marriage and temple marriage? The “civil” part that takes place in the temple seems to be nothing more than the signing of a few pieces of paper. Why can’t that be done outside the temple? Why is there that forced wait of a year? Is there doctrine or has there just not been revelation to change that???

Edited September 25, 2018 by Fether

[MarginOfError]

15 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’ve actually wondered about this myself. I know I’m coming in late, I bailed on the thread when InsawbI was 3 pages behind. so if this has already been discussed then just point me to the answer, but why is there that forces separation between civil marriage and temple marriage? The “civil” part that takes place in the temple seems to be nothing more than the signing of a few pieces of paper. Why can’t that be done outside the temple? Why is there that forced wait of a year? Is there doctrine or has there just not been revelation to change that???

My understanding is that it was done to encourage people to prioritize being sealed over being married.  

Whether or not the policy achieved that goal is a matter of debate.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

My understanding is that it was done to encourage people to prioritize being sealed over being married.  

Whether or not the policy achieved that goal is a matter of debate.

I'm not sure the point is to encourage. I mean I know that comes down to semantics. But...more of a statement. Or...just a "this is a result of the facts" sort of thing. Sealing IS the important thing. You can choose otherwise...but doing so is a statement that sealing is not the important thing to you...so you'll have to wait, etc., etc. Of course that could be termed "encouragement" so....

24 minutes ago, Fether said:

Is there doctrine or has there just not been revelation to change that???

It's quite explicit in Handbook 1. There were...if I recall...4 conditions where one doesn't have to wait (the handbook has been updated since I last saw it, so I can't speak to the latest). I can only remember 2 off the top of my head: If one legally cannot marry in the temple. If one must travel alone over several nights to get to the temple and must be alone with their future mate during that travel. There were 2 others, but I can't recall them. It has nothing to do with the US vs. other countries. The conditions that allow marriage civilly before hand are unrelated to country other than laws. And the handbook has specific directions about civil ceremonies too. No pomp, etc. Church leader performing the ceremony chooses the location. What should be said. And so forth. Everything therein is clearly, specifically downplaying the civil "marriage" in favor of the sealing ordinance and the covenants.

I don't see this changing. This is our most important, most sacred, pinnacle ordinance in the church. It's too bad so many don't seem to have the sense of that (which goes to MOE's point above -- clearly the importance, sacredness and what a tremendous blessing temple marriages is is not being conveyed correctly in all cases. Or maybe it is being conveyed but the selfish, worldly focused, carnally minded, natural man simply refuses to see.)

[carlimac]

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Take fasting: Can you give a good reason beyond suffering for fasting? And just so we're clear -- fast offerings don't really count because many people could pay that and still not go hungry for the day, and yet they are commanded to fast anyhow. Why? What's the purpose there beyond sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice?

To develop compassion for those who suffer and to show sincerity to the Lord.

Edited September 25, 2018 by carlimac