dahlia

article in Mormon Light

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

At some point I expect to see a 2 hour block (there are wards that are currently trying this out) and marriages removed from the temple in the US like most other countries.

What do you mean by "marriages removed from the temple"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

I think we will see changes to the Sunday School program.

That's a given. It was already announced months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vort said:

I would like to see changes that would move us toward Christ and a Zion society. But I don't know what those changes might be. Copout? Maybe, but those are my honest feelings.

The first thing we could do to move closer to Zion would be to hit singles wards over the back of the head and toss them in a ditch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

In all fairness, I don't believe if you aren't going now you'll start going if it's shorter.  People just come up with new excuses to justify what they know to be wrong.  There are three hours every Sunday the Church asks you to participate.  Nobody locks the doors.  People come late and leave early every Sunday.

Right, I said that recently in another thread-that the rule change will probably only effect those who already obey the rules anyway. So we agree, more or less. 

That said, shorter services might help some of us who have non member families simply because we can dedicate our time to them and hopefully attend an hour or two of church on Sunday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:


That said, shorter services might help some of us who have non member families simply because we can dedicate our time to them and hopefully attend an hour or two of church on Sunday. 

2

That's my point, though.  You can still attend an hour or two of church now.  The length of church isn't the issue.  It's the amount of time you can/will dedicate to it.  

Share this post


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

That's my point, though.  You can still attend an hour or two of church now.  The length of church isn't the issue.  It's the amount of time you can/will dedicate to it.  

Right, that's why I said we already basically agree. 
 

It's a moot point as of right now though. Nothing has changed. 

Share this post


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

My friend at work (M) says she talked to another of our friends at work (I) who has a relative (X) in the Logan UT area who says that his ward (X's ward) is part of a pilot program trying out the 2-hour block.  They didn't get rid of any meeting, they shortened them (exactly how is unclear).  Sounds worse to me than getting rid of one of them - 20 minute Sunday School?

Anywho, that's as authoritative as I've heard.  What they do, they do, and we support it, but if we chop everything short, it's gonna look to me more like when Moses broke the first set of tablets than like when Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount.

Sacrament meeting could stay the same length, but I can see shortening the other sessions. In my experience, they often go one way or the other - not enough content/participation to fill the time or really good flow and the time is too short. Maybe we could find a happy medium. 

What would happen to the kids if primary was removed? Would we have kids in adult Sunday School? No. I can hardly hear myself think in Sacrament meeting as it is, and people seem to have no problem letting their babies cry in RS. It often spoils the lesson for me. I am in a ward with a lot of young marrieds w/kids. Maybe in a ward with a more mixed age group, it wouldn't be so bad, but I'm OK with the children going someplace separate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Right, that's why I said we already basically agree. 
 

It's a moot point as of right now though. Nothing has changed. 

Then I suppose I don't understand what you meant.  I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, e-eye said:

Good luck with that!

I think 2 hour church sounds great but I think it will also come with us being asked to do more on our own studying with our family.

Something should already be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dahlia said:

What do you mean by "marriages removed from the temple"?

In the USA Marriages as well as Sealings are perform pretty much at the same time for most people. And there are currently policies that say that if you get married outside the temple then you need to wait a year to be Sealed.  This has caused issues with family members who want to be in the wedding but are not also worthy church members.

However it is not a world-wide policy because some countries had different laws about marriage.  Outside the USA it is possible to get married out the temple and then get to the temple with a certain time frame to be Sealed.

The stopping of marriages (but not Sealings) in the temple has been speculated as one way the Church can avoid the mounting pressure for everyone to perform homosexual marriages. (ie by not performing any marriages... just religious rituals with out government impact)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

In the USA Marriages as well as Sealings are perform pretty much at the same time for most people. And there are currently policies that say that if you get married outside the temple then you need to wait a year to be Sealed.  This has caused issues with family members who want to be in the wedding but are not also worthy church members.

However it is not a world-wide policy because some countries had different laws about marriage.  Outside the USA it is possible to get married out the temple and then get to the temple with a certain time frame to be Sealed.

The stopping of marriages (but not Sealings) in the temple has been speculated as one way the Church can avoid the mounting pressure for everyone to perform homosexual marriages. (ie by not performing any marriages... just religious rituals with out government impact)

Thanks. I get the picture now - especially regarding the push to legally make all denominations perform homosexual marriages or lose tax benefits, etc. I also understand about the rift a sealing can cause when many family and friends can't attend and don't really understand why. My understanding is that if you are LDS, the Church looks askance at getting married outside of the temple - there needs to be a reason why you aren't getting sealed, so, people get sealed, even though it causes bad feelings.

Before people go crazy, I'm not saying the Church has to change in order to avoid causing bad feelings,  I'm OK with keeping things the way they are, but I can see why Church leaders may want to examine this issue, especially since they allow differences in other countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dahlia said:

My understanding is that if you are LDS, the Church looks askance at getting married outside of the temple - there needs to be a reason why you aren't getting sealed, so, people get sealed, even though it causes bad feelings.

In my experience as a lifelong member, I haven't found this to be the case. I think that people's temple-marriage status is rarely considered by others. I don't remember ever going up to someone and say, "Hey, Fred, are you sealed in the temple?"

Edited by Vort

Share this post


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

In my experience as a lifelong member, I haven't found this to be the case. I think that people's temple-marriage status is rarely considered by others. I don't remember ever going up to someone and say, "Hey, Fred, are you sealed in the temple?"

Fair enough. I've always heard that if you 'can' get married in the temple and don't, people wonder why. Just like if you don't take the Sacrament. There may be a purely innocuous reason, but people don't tend to think toward the innocuous. 😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Thanks. I get the picture now - especially regarding the push to legally make all denominations perform homosexual marriages or lose tax benefits, etc. I also understand about the rift a sealing can cause when many family and friends can't attend and don't really understand why. My understanding is that if you are LDS, the Church looks askance at getting married outside of the temple - there needs to be a reason why you aren't getting sealed, so, people get sealed, even though it causes bad feelings.

I think the hard feelings were more from non-member family members who couldn't...  Imagine for a moment you were getting married in the temple... But your mom and dad could not be there for you because they were not members...  That hurts no matter how you try to explain it.

 

29 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Before people go crazy, I'm not saying the Church has to change in order to avoid causing bad feelings,  I'm OK with keeping things the way they are, but I can see why Church leaders may want to examine this issue, especially since they allow differences in other countries. 

Everything in this thread is speculative.  Speculation can be find as long as we do not get too attached out our pet theories that we have issues when the church does what it needs to do

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dahlia said:

Fair enough. I've always heard that if you 'can' get married in the temple and don't, people wonder why. Just like if you don't take the Sacrament. There may be a purely innocuous reason, but people don't tend to think toward the innocuous. 😃

It probably is true that when a young LDS couple doesn't marry in the temple, there is a sort of assumption among many that maybe they "couldn't", because, you know, they couldn't get temple recommends, because...well...you know...

I'll be the first to admit this is sub-optimal. But it's also rather obvious. When a couple welcome their 8 pound, 3 ounce bouncing baby boy into the world seven and a half months after they get married, it's not really that hard to wonder if the baby really is a premie. This is not passing judgment per se, but observing probabilities. Not saying it's good or right, but I don't see how such a thing could really be avoided.

Share this post


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

I'll be the first to admit this is sub-optimal. But it's also rather obvious. When a couple welcome their 8 pound, 3 ounce bouncing baby boy into the world seven and a half months after they get married,

Off topic- In American history (and probably world history) if you look at the birth statistics t's somewhat surprising how many births happened before nine months into a marriage. We'd like to think all our ancestors were super virtuous and holier than we are, but that isn't the case by a long shot. 

Share this post


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

Something should already be doing.

yup.  However, besides family night and family scripture study I think it will be furthered - which like you said -  we should be doing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I heard they're making Sunday services 4 hours and adding a Wednesday evening Bibe study.

If so, my testimony of the church will increase 7 fold

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