Predictions on policy changes during conference?

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Death of the temple marriage.

Stating the obvious: This will never happen, and not just because eternal marriages don't die. Even if the Church refuses to solemnize marriages in a governmental capacity, the idea of marriage is inextricably bound up in the concept of sealing. So temple marriages for eternity aren't going anywhere, regardless of how the Church pursues policies of contracting government-recognized marriages.

[mikbone]

CHINA

[The Folk Prophet]

If I were to guess...and I hate to guess because it stinks of wannabeism*...but if I were to guess...I'd guess one of the changes will be Family Home Evening.

*Note: the reason I gave into the weakness of guessing publicly is so when I'm right I can say, "Haha! I was right!"  -- Wannabeism.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Stating the obvious: This will never happen, and not just because eternal marriages don't die. Even if the Church refuses to solemnize marriages in a governmental capacity, the idea of marriage is inextricably bound up in the concept of sealing. So temple marriages for eternity aren't going anywhere, regardless of how the Church pursues policies of contracting government-recognized marriages.

Might I add...if they do change things so people must be civilly married separately first, it won't be so non-member friends and families can attend.

Also, such a policy change strikes me as unnecessary as a General Conference announcement.

[zil]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'd guess one of the changes will be Family Home Evening.

And what would they change?  Some night other than Monday?  That it should be done?  That it is no more?  Just curious what you think they could change here.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

And what would they change?  Some night other than Monday?  That it should be done?  That it is no more?  Just curious what you think they could change here.

Something similar to what they did with HT/VT. Rename it. Take away the Monday night, perhaps. Emphasize it in various ways and dig down to the real purpose and meaning. Etc.

[The Folk Prophet]

My theory stems directly from the fact that they're supposedly creating home study material as part of church curriculum. I, unlike the church haters (you know who you are (yes, I mean you (no...not you....you...(😈)))) do not think that's to replace church, but is for a very important purpose and focus.

That being said, I'm fairly confident that I'm wrong.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

(you know who you are (yes, I mean you (no...not you....you...(😈))))

Your code will compile.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Your code will compile.

if ((you know who you are (yes, I mean you (no...not you....you...(😈)))) == you) {

     repent();

}

[Lost Boy]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Stating the obvious: This will never happen, and not just because eternal marriages don't die. Even if the Church refuses to solemnize marriages in a governmental capacity, the idea of marriage is inextricably bound up in the concept of sealing. So temple marriages for eternity aren't going anywhere, regardless of how the Church pursues policies of contracting government-recognized marriages.

Of course eternal marriage is not going to die, but the way we go about it can and probably will change.  Marry civilly first and then sealing in the temple. 

I think the thought process is two fold.  1 it allows all to celebrate in the wedding and 2. it keeps the sealing small and focused on the spiritual aspects.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Of course eternal marriage is not going to die, but the way we go about it can and probably will change.  Marry civilly first and then sealing in the temple. 

I think the thought process is two fold.  1 it allows all to celebrate in the wedding and 2. it keeps the sealing small and focused on the spiritual aspects.

Neither of these reasons seem strong enough to justify the word "probably".

On point 2: How so? Those worthy can still enter the temple? Are you of the mindset that those worthy to enter the temple would be more excited by the civil wedding than the eternal sealing.

[Lost Boy]

54 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Neither of these reasons seem strong enough to justify the word "probably".

On point 2: How so? Those worthy can still enter the temple? Are you of the mindset that those worthy to enter the temple would be more excited by the civil wedding than the eternal sealing.

I think we are kind of comparing apples and oranges.  Why can't we be excited about both?  Celebrate our love with all of our friends and family and in a sacred place celebrate with our creator.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I think we are kind of comparing apples and oranges.  Why can't we be excited about both?  Celebrate our love with all of our friends and family and in a sacred place celebrate with our creator.

It is and has been my understanding that the one cheapens the other. What has changed in that regard? If the only reason for the suggested change is to appease the natural man -- well that just doesn't seem like a strong enough reason to me to abandon the point of not doing it that way in the first place. That point includes a commitment to be willing to sacrifice for a higher way. The suggestion you make seems to imply that the reason for casting aside that sacrifice is so we don't have to sacrifice. That doesn't really work, imo unless you abandon the importance of said sacrifice. I've yet not heard a good reason for doing so other than "because".

The question becomes: Why is celebrating with family important enough to abandon the current policy? The answer cannot be so people can celebrate with their families.

[Lost Boy]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It is and has been my understanding that the one cheapens the other. What has changed in that regard? If the only reason for the suggested change is to appease the natural man -- well that just doesn't seem like a strong enough reason to me to abandon the point of not doing it that way in the first place. That point includes a commitment to be willing to sacrifice for a higher way. The suggestion you make seems to imply that the reason for casting aside that sacrifice is so we don't have to sacrifice. That doesn't really work, imo unless you abandon the importance of said sacrifice. I've yet not heard a good reason for doing so other than "because".

The question becomes: Why is celebrating with family important enough to abandon the current policy? The answer cannot be so people can celebrate with their families.

I think policy is the key here.  It is just policy.  I have lived most of my life outside of Utah and Idaho.  I have lived in foreign countries where Latter-Day Saints are a small fraction of the population.  In Utah you can invite any number of friends and family to the temple to be with you for the wedding.  Not like that in other countries where you alienate parents, family, friends, etc.  And unlike baptism that can be a spiritual experience for those who are not members, not being able to attend the wedding is not uplifting, but puts a bad taste in non-members mouths when they can't attend their little girls most important day.

A civil marriage does not lessen the sanctity of the sealing.  And yes, why should a wedding be a sacrifice?  It should be a happy time for all.  Celebrating with family is important because having their love and understanding is important.  Having their support is important.  How is alienating them as a sacrifice beneficial?  I don't recall any blessings that are dependent on getting married in the temple.  Those who get married civilly have the same blessings bestowed on them when they get sealed.

Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice doesn't make any sense to me.  It is like that guy in the Da Vinci Code, Silas that would self mutilate for penance.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I think policy is the key here.  It is just policy.

Policies are not "just". This is God's church. These are God's policies.

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

A civil marriage does not lessen the sanctity of the sealing.

God's policies don't seem to agree with you.

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

It should be a happy time for all. Celebrating with family is important because having their love and understanding is important. Having their support is important.

Says who?

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

How is alienating them as a sacrifice beneficial?

This is like those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions.

11 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Those who get married civilly have the same blessings bestowed on them when they get sealed.

I am quite confident that those who choose to get married civilly when they could have married in the temple will not have the same blessings unless they repent.

12 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice doesn't make any sense to me.  

Sacrifice isn't just for the sake of sacrifice. If that's your understanding of gospel sacrifice then I suppose I can understand how you don't understand this matter.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Policies are not "just". This is God's church. These are God's policies.

God's policies don't seem to agree with you.

Says who?

This is like those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions.

I am quite confident that those who choose to get married civilly when they could have married in the temple will not have the same blessings unless they repent.

Sacrifice isn't just for the sake of sacrifice. If that's your understanding of gospel sacrifice then I suppose I can understand how you don't understand this matter.

Policies are not commandments.  I didn't agree with the policy of blacks not holding the priesthood either.

who says?  I do.

No, that is nothing like that.  that is throwing up a straw man argument.

And what blessing would those be?  I understand gospel sacrifice just fine and I am all good with sacrifice so long as there is a purpose for it.

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I didn't agree with the policy of blacks not holding the priesthood either.

who says?  I do.

Your disagreement and 50 cents would have bought you a cup of coffee at the Disgruntled Mormon Cafe.

[Fether]

5 hours ago, mikbone said:

CHINA

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Fether

[Fether]

4 hours ago, zil said:

And what would they change?  Some night other than Monday?  That it should be done?  That it is no more?  Just curious what you think they could change here.

Family Home Morning

[zil]

Just now, Fether said:

Family Home Morning

05:45!

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Policies are not commandments.

Did I say they were?

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I didn't agree with the policy of blacks not holding the priesthood either.

And you agreeing or not is the criterion whereby we may judge the correctness of any given policy?

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

who says?  I do.

Who that matters says?

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

that is throwing up a straw man argument.

How so? Explain.

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

And what blessing would those be?

I'm not convinced that knowing what blessings God has in store for us for any given sacrifice should be understood before we choose to be willing to make any given sacrifice.

22 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I understand gospel sacrifice just fine and I am all good with sacrifice so long as there is a purpose for it.

Since you seem to think it's important for you to know the exact reward before you'd be willing to act...I'm pretty sure you do not understand gospel sacrifice as well as you think you do.

Understanding that there is purpose in sacrifice is different than understanding what the reward will be.

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?

Edited September 25, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[carlimac]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

05:45!

I would SOOO do this over having my kids go to  early morning seminary! 

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, carlimac said:

I would SOOO do this over having my kids go to  early morning seminary! 

So do it.

[Vort]

2 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?

This brings up a great point. Many Latter-day Saints say, in effect, "I do not know why this commandment was given. Therefore, it's not really a commandment." I have heard variations on this theme scores of times. "The Priesthood policy about black was just racism" is an obvious example.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Did I say they were?

And you agreeing or not is the catalyst whereby we may judge the correctness of any given policy?

Who that matters says?

How so? Explain.

I'm not convinced that knowing what blessings God has in store for us for any given sacrifice should be understood before we choose to be willing to make any given sacrifice.

Since you seem to think it's important for you to know the exact reward before you'd be willing to act...I'm pretty sure you do not understand gospel sacrifice as well as you think you do.

Understanding that there is purpose in sacrifice is different than understanding what the reward will be.

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?

I am not saying I need to know what the blessing is, but I don't recall there being any blessing promised for one way over the other.  Let's sacrifice because that will bring blessings.  No, I don't think that is the way it works.  Let's sacrifice to help this person.  Let's sacrifice so we can go to the temple. 

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.