Predictions on policy changes during conference?

[Lost Boy]

It will be interesting to see the naysayers reaction when it gets announced.  Will there be a great change of heart?  Oh, now I support it...

Me?  whether it is announced or not, I doubt I will change my mind on it.

What I would like to see is the ability to choose one way or the other.  Get married civilly and then get sealed, or get married in the temple.  And let the member decide which would be best.

 

[carlimac]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And because it's a hypothetical I'm going to go ahead and tell you that in a marital covenant, the parents are not in the covenant, therefore have no bearing on the decision.

Saying that "they can't be in the celebration" is not correct.  Temple marriage is the covenant, not the celebration.  You can go celebrate to your heart's content outside the temple complete with all the bridezilla cultural pizzaz you want.

All the more reason to separate the wedding part from the sealing ordinance part.  

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This has become very prevalent with our conversations here on LDS.net  mormonhub.com

Fixed it.

 

Hahaha.

Not for long.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sure.  but this can take place whether you get married inside or outside the temple.

Sure.  It's just like saying... why do I have to be baptized now when I can be baptized later, even after I die?  Where's the difference?

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Dupe.

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, carlimac said:

All the more reason to separate the wedding part from the sealing ordinance part.  

Yes.  Except that a lot of people put the covenant-making in the wedding part, so they settle for earth-only marriage instead of eternal marriage.  It doesn't have to unless you are forced to (like in England).  You can make the eternal covenant in the temple.  Then you can do whatever cultural wedding practice you want to do afterwards.

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[Lost Boy]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  It's just like saying... why do I have to be baptized now when I can be baptized later, even after I die?  Where's the difference?

Actually it is not.  I am not advocating postponing the sealing ordinance at all.  I am saying getting married in front of man and then getting sealed right away in front of God.  Marriage is something all would celebrate.  The sealing is something that you would do in private.  Something the world does not need to be a part of.  Something between you, your spouse and God and a couple of close family members.

If you get married in the temple, you alienate a lot of family and friends.  You get married outside the temple and get sealed in the temple...  you alienate no one and the blessings are the same.  Am I wrong on this?  are there blessings that people that get married in the temple have that those who just get sealed there don't have?

Please explain.  Or is it that this is just the way it is done and we don't want to do it another way.  We don't know why, but we don't..

[let’s roll]

49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And because it's a hypothetical I'm going to go ahead and tell you that in a marital covenant, the parents are not in the covenant, therefore have no bearing on the decision.

Saying that "they can't be in the celebration" is not correct.  Temple marriage is the covenant, not the celebration.  You can go celebrate to your heart's content outside the temple complete with all the bridezilla cultural pizzaz you want.

I didn’t say parents are part of the covenant nor did I say celebration or cultural pizzaz would have had anything to do with the decision but it’s you opinion, so you can base it on any assumptions you like.

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

It will be interesting to see the naysayers reaction when it gets announced.

I'm not sure you're using that word correctly.

35 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Oh, now I support it...

Of course we'll support the directions and policies of our church leaders. Because we're not, actually, you know...naysayers.

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Then you can do whatever cultural wedding practice you want to do afterwards.

Actually, the handbook is pretty clear on what you should and shouldn't do afterward. You "can", of course, do whatever you want. But if one has interest in adhering to the church's guidelines...

[mordorbund]

I have it on good authority* that this change will actually take place. Couples may be sealed in the US following a civil ceremony provided:

• it is performed in a government building, and 
• only family members are in attendance (if anyone)

Does this salve the hurt feelings?

 

 

 

*no I don't.

[anatess2]

30 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure you're using that word correctly.

Of course we'll support the directions and policies of our church leaders. Because we're not, actually, you know...naysayers.

Actually, the handbook is pretty clear on what you should and shouldn't do afterward. You "can", of course, do whatever you want. But if one has interest in adhering to the church's guidelines...

You probably took "afterwards" as right when you walk out of the temple.  That's not what I meant.  Afterwards is simply... after the eternal marriage which could be... oh, i don't know... one year after the temple marriage or whatever.

[anatess2]

42 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I didn’t say parents are part of the covenant nor did I say celebration or cultural pizzaz would have had anything to do with the decision but it’s you opinion, so you can base it on any assumptions you like.

If parents are not part of the covenant then why make an earthy covenant instead of an eternal covenant just for your parents?

This is actually not just my opinion.  This is what is taught by the prophets.  That's why you have to wait a year to get an earthly covenant sealed for eternity if you chose an earthly covenant over an eternal one when not necessary.  They want to make sure you understand the difference.

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

49 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually it is not.  I am not advocating postponing the sealing ordinance at all.  I am saying getting married in front of man and then getting sealed right away in front of God.  Marriage is something all would celebrate.  The sealing is something that you would do in private.  Something the world does not need to be a part of.  Something between you, your spouse and God and a couple of close family members.

If you get married in the temple, you alienate a lot of family and friends.  You get married outside the temple and get sealed in the temple...  you alienate no one and the blessings are the same.  Am I wrong on this?  are there blessings that people that get married in the temple have that those who just get sealed there don't have?

Please explain.  Or is it that this is just the way it is done and we don't want to do it another way.  We don't know why, but we don't..

Call me Ebenezer Scrooge, but I think a lot of our society's wedding traditions are pretty silly.  My non-LDS grandparents were married in his mother’s living room by a justice of the peace, with fewer than five family members present.  My semi-LDS grandparents were married in her bishop’s living room, by the bishop, with zero family members present.  This was all in the late 1930s, and the circumstances of their own parents’ marriages thirty years earlier were substantially similar.

Anything the LDS Church does to push back against our modern exhibitionist, extravagant, prince-and-princess-for-a-day narcissism, is A-OK in my book.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Call me Ebenezer Scrooge, but I think a lot of our society's wedding traditions are pretty silly.  My non-LDS grandparents were married in his mother’s living room by a justice of the peace, with fewer than five family members present.  My semi-Mormon grandparents were married in her bishop’s living room, by the bishop, with zero family members present.  

Anything the LDS Church does to push back against this exhibitionist, extravagant, prince-and-princess-for-a-day narcissism, is A-OK in my book.

I, a Catholic, got married to a Mormon at the county courthouse for $100 bucks plus $40 for the pizza after.  My husband gave me my engagement ring and I gave him his CTR ring at the ceremony.  None of my family were present because for Catholics, a non-Catholic wedding does not count as a proper wedding.  We went to work the next day.  That was 21 years plus a few days ago.  Happy Anniversary to me!

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I, a Catholic, got married to a Mormon at the county courthouse for $100 bucks plus $40 for the pizza after.  My husband gave me my engagement ring and I gave him his CTR ring at the ceremony.  None of my family were present because for Catholics, a non-Catholic wedding does not count as a proper wedding.  We went to work the next day.  That was 21 years plus a few days ago.  Happy Anniversary to me!

Happy anniversary.  

[Lost Boy]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I, a Catholic, got married to a Mormon at the county courthouse for $100 bucks plus $40 for the pizza after.  My husband gave me my engagement ring and I gave him his CTR ring at the ceremony.  None of my family were present because for Catholics, a non-Catholic wedding does not count as a proper wedding.  We went to work the next day.  That was 21 years plus a few days ago.  Happy Anniversary to me!

Congrats.  21 Years of bliss.  Or mostly bliss 🙂

 

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Happy anniversary.  

Hah!  Depends on what they mean by honeymoon.  Everyday of our marriage is a honeymoon.  Except when we're fighting.  So that's about 10 years of the 21 is a honeymoon. 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You probably took "afterwards" as right when you walk out of the temple.  That's not what I meant.  Afterwards is simply... after the eternal marriage which could be... oh, i don't know... one year after the temple marriage or whatever.

What I mean is that they specifically state that couples should not have a civil ceremony afterwards.

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Call me Ebenezer Scrooge, but I think a lot of our society's wedding traditions are pretty silly.  My non-LDS grandparents were married in his mother’s living room by a justice of the peace, with fewer than five family members present.  My semi-LDS grandparents were married in her bishop’s living room, by the bishop, with zero family members present.  This was all in the late 1930s, and the circumstances of their own parents’ marriages thirty years earlier were substantially similar.

Anything the LDS Church does to push back against our modern exhibitionist, extravagant, prince-and-princess-for-a-day narcissism, is A-OK in my book.

You mean...get some perspective people?  

[Lost Boy]

34 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I have it on good authority* that this change will actually take place. Couples may be sealed in the US following a civil ceremony provided:

• it is performed in a government building, and 
• only family members are in attendance (if anyone)

Does this salve the hurt feelings?

 

 

 

*no I don't.

Interesting.   That seems like a halfway approach.  Allow just the most important family to the civil ceremony.   I guess I would wonder why and how would that be enforced?  Ooops uncle Buck showed up, too..  and look, there is Martha..  I mean what would happen if more showed up?

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What I mean is that they specifically state that couples should not have a civil ceremony afterwards.

A civil ceremony - that is that thing where you make your covenants - does not make sense when you're already married.  A wedding - having a bridesmaid, a flower girl, walking down some aisle and having people throw rice at you and the best man say a stupid speech is not a "civil ceremony".  It's a... ppppaaaarrrrttttyyyy!

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A civil ceremony - that is that thing where you make your covenants - does not make sense when you're already married.  A wedding - having a bridesmaid, a flower girl, walking down some aisle and having people throw rice at you and the best man say a stupid speech is not a "civil ceremony".  It's a... ppppaaaarrrrttttyyyy!

I wish I could show you exactly what is says. I think you'd get the sense of it.

[carlimac]

51 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Call me Ebenezer Scrooge, but I think a lot of our society's wedding traditions are pretty silly.  My non-LDS grandparents were married in his mother’s living room by a justice of the peace, with fewer than five family members present.  My semi-LDS grandparents were married in her bishop’s living room, by the bishop, with zero family members present.  This was all in the late 1930s, and the circumstances of their own parents’ marriages thirty years earlier were substantially similar.

Anything the LDS Church does to push back against our modern exhibitionist, extravagant, prince-and-princess-for-a-day narcissism, is A-OK in my book.

Class Act Party Pooper is what you are!

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wish I could show you exactly what is says. I think you'd get the sense of it.

If you're talking about what I'm thinking about then I've read it and I get the sense of it.  We even had the lesson in gospel principles when I was in the Philippines.  That day, we had 8 investigators who wanted to be baptized but couldn't because they were living together with their spouses without being married.  They didn't want to get married (civil ceremony) because they don't have money to have one.  The lesson was then made from a talk by a prophet (can't remember who now) about civil ceremonies.  The ward mission leader gave the lesson on the difference between the Marriage (civil ceremony because this was where we were at, but eternal marriage is also talked about) and the Wedding and that they don't have to have weddings and that the ward will pay for the cost of their civil ceremony (basically pay for the court costs).

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

If parents are not part of the covenant then why make an earthy covenant instead of an eternal covenant just for your parents?

This is actually not just my opinion.  This is what is taught by the prophets.  That's why you have to wait a year to get an earthly covenant sealed for eternity if you chose an earthly covenant over an eternal one when not necessary.  They want to make sure you understand the difference.

Sounds like your as confident in your opinion as I am in mine.  My understanding of what prophets have taught is that we should be guided by the Spirit.  

So for example, if the Prophet says that young men may now go on their missions when they are 18, I trust that young men will understand that they should prepare themselves for a mission and begin their service as soon after the eligibility age as they can, and give no heed to those who believe they’re not following what they think prophets have taught if the begin their service when they are 19 or 20.