You no longer have to wait a year between civil marriage and temple marriage in the US

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, Mores said:

Here's a thought.  

What if the next change was that the anyone could attend the temple sealing.  Attend, not participate in the covenant.  Yes, member and non-member alike with or without recommends could attend the sealing.  Would that send anyone into a tizzy fit?

Where is the change in doctrine?  I am unaware of any doctrine that would prevent such a policy.  Maybe I'm just woefully ignorant.  But I'm not aware of any doctrine that would be violated by making such a change.

Assuming I'm right, how many people would raise a tizzy fit if such a change happened?  My guess?  A LOT.

The doctrine that we have been given is that only those adjudged minimally worthy can enter the temple, and certain ordinances are performed only in the temple. Thus, while there is no explicit teaching that non-Latter-day Saints must not attend or view a sealing ceremony, that idea is implicit in the nature of the ordinance and the place where it is performed. So yes, it would ultimately be a change in doctrine.

[Guest Mores]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

The doctrine that we have been given is that only those adjudged minimally worthy can enter the temple, and certain ordinances are performed only in the temple. Thus, while there is no explicit teaching that non-Latter-day Saints must not attend or view a sealing ceremony, that idea is implicit in the nature of the ordinance and the place where it is performed. So yes, it would ultimately be a change in doctrine.

We're not supposed to allow any "unclean thing" to enter.  But we do all the time.  JAG says that we at least try.  Ok.  Even if we do that. Is it doctrinal to state that anyone who has not made baptismal covenants are considered "unclean"?  

It is an easy enough syllogism to think that baptism and the Holy Ghost are what "clean" us.  Therefore, only those who have had those ordinances can be considered clean.  But are we?  Consider the ordinances in the temple and the wording thereof.  It looks like not.  Youth enter the temple.  And they have not been cleaned.

For now, I'm on your side that it is at least "inappropriate" -- in the extreme.  But is it against doctrine?  I "believe" yes.  But I'm not going to say this is a deal breaker.

Let me clarify one thing.  I am NOT trying to advocate for opening the temple to non-members.  I think that would be terrible.  In fact, I'd be one who would have a tizzy fit if that were announced.  But after I calmed down and asked the Lord to tell me if such an announcement was inspired or not, I can see myself getting that confirmation and eventually being ok with it.

The reason I bring this up is that we need to be clear about all these changes coming down.  Too many people are losing faith over something that they have not taken the time to consider.  On the other hand, I believe too many people have already taken the apologists route (and in some ways I applaud their faithfulness) and begun to make justifications for this change or that change.  But the truth is that we don't know why the Lord has done what he has done.  We don't even know if it is from the Lord unless we've received confirmation of such -- or at least that Pres. Nelson is truly the Lord's Prophet.

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Mores said:

Is it doctrinal to state that anyone who has not made baptismal covenants are considered "unclean"? 

Yes, absolutely. Baptism as an entry into the covenant has often been described and taught as a "washing away of sin". Oliver Cowdery called it being "buried in the liquid grave", a common metaphor where the baptized person arises ("resurrects") in newness of life, cleansed from the sin of the world. Consider that the only nonmembers ever allowed in a dedicated temple are children under the age of eight. Members of the kingdom of heaven have a natural right to participate, where appropriate, in temple dealings. No one else does except worthy members of the kingdom of God, aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

EDIT: By the way, doctrinal nits aside, I agree with the thrust of what you're saying.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Vort

[carlimac]

16 hours ago, Anddenex said:

#1 - This was OK. I am not sure that you understood what I said. What I shared has nothing to do with waiting for a year. You wait for a year if you marry civilly first, and then temple. My thought shared that people were able to have a "sealing" first, and then a wedding afterwards. So I am a little confused as to your comment in relation to what I shared.

#2 - I think I was clear in my original thought. Article of Faith #11 doesn't change because my daughter or son chooses to participate in a wedding ceremony I can't be apart of. Would I long to be there? Yes. If I was unworthy to attend the temple, and my daughter or son chose to marry in the temple I wouldn't be able to go although I am a member. This is called respect for another person's religion. Who am I to think so high and mighty of myself that I complain to the world that "I have been wronged!" because of another person's faith choice?

#3 - I am pretty sure with my opening statement I was clear with why this policy was given, "Overall, the policy is a "good" policy change (good as in all things that are good come from God), and I am sure our brethren pondered and prayed to know how to proceed according to our day and time. We do believe in a living Church, with revelation from Heavenly Father." As to giving a reason for the policy change, I was not part of the revelation received, and my thoughts for the change would be speculation. The policy change is from God through his servants the prophets, that is all I need to know. If God wants to reveal to me why, then I will listen.

Although, my last paragraph didn't have anything to do with policy change. It was with regards to civil marriage being different from sealings (a question that was brought up early in this OP). If all the sons and daughters of God had kept the commandments from Adam till President Nelson this question, this policy, wouldn't exist. This policy exists, and the previous policy exists due to sin/weakness in relation to the human race and past choices of parents long time ago.

1) Ok You're right. The year wait doesn't have anything to do with that. But somewhere in this lengthy thread someone said that , no getting sealed ( or married) first in the temple and then having a wedding after was not allowed. I don't know who could really stop you from doing it. But didn't some general authority say it mocked the sealing to do that? 

2) YOU might not complain, but the ones being left out are the ones that don't adhere to AF #11- the non-members not allowed to see the temple weddings. Sure it's nice if they don't throw a fit about being left out but it doesn't stop a non-member parent from feeling really ticked off by the rule and perhaps harboring ill will toward the church forever. Might even do more harm than good in the long run as they badmouth the church and hamper missionary work. and then there is the problem of family relationships that may be severly/permanently damaged.  I'm curious. Do you know of any other religion that would keep a parent from witnessing their child's wedding? Share if you do. I'd be interested in hearing about it. 

3) This was 4 under the second part of your post which was supposed to be in response to this question.What about civil marriage in comparison to a sealing makes it OK to be unified physically, sexual intimacy, without breaking law of chastity:  Your answer-  "I believe it was @TheFolkProphet who said something to this nature, "Due to the weakness of God's children." I would say this has definite merit. What does God do when two people who know better choose a lesser choice? In this case, he prepares a temporal way of union between two people. I am not saying this is right, but we can see God works with his children throughout scripture even in their weakness." 

My response to your response is this- 98% of the world have never even heard of a temple or eternal marriage.  Do you really believe all these bajillions of people who have gotten married outside a temple "knew better" but were making a lesser choice? How could they have made a better choice when they quite honestly didn't know of one? How are they being weak?  Thing is, many people ARE following the commandments that they know of. They are being incredibly strong and faithful. To get married these days is something that actually shows strength of character, especially if they haven't slept together first. So I just don't understand what you mean by "due to the weakness of God's children." 

Edited May 8, 2019 by carlimac

[Anddenex]

5 hours ago, carlimac said:

My response to your response is this- 98% of the world have never even heard of a temple or eternal marriage.  Do you really believe all these bajillions of people who have gotten married outside a temple "knew better" but were making a lesser choice? How could they have made a better choice when they quite honestly didn't know of one? How are they being weak?  Thing is, many people ARE following the commandments that they know of. They are being incredibly strong and faithful. To get married these days is something that actually shows strength of character, especially if they haven't slept together first. So I just don't understand what you mean by "due to the weakness of God's children." 

Let's start here: Would you say the life of the Lamanites was due to strength or weakness of Laman and his supporters?

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, carlimac said:

[1] OK here are some sincere questions for the benefit of all of us who are simply taking this change in policy on good faith that the First Presidency means what they said in the letter and nothing more.

[2] What was the reason for waiting a year after a civil wedding to go to the temple to be sealed?  ( I have my ideas, having done plenty of intellectual and spiritual legwork in my life- thank you very much.)  But some may not know and only held a grudge about it. So tell us. And why just a year? Why not 2 or 5? What is it about a year that answers for the apparent lack of faith and obedience demonstrated by having a civil wedding? 

[3] How do you know that some people think the secular wedding was more important than the sealing? [4]And how did you come to the conclusion that "they seem to think that the approval of others and/or “keeping the peace” is ultimately just as, or more, important than making, keeping, and reaping the benefits of salvific  ordinances as soon as the opportunity presents itself."  [5] Couldn't it be possible that some other circumstances presented themselves and a civil wedding seemed the best option at the time. [6] Maybe you could do some intellectual or perhaps just some humanitarian legwork to understand and be gentler on people. 

I could go on. But lets start there.

1.  Carlimac, the trouble is that a lot of folks in this discussion are not "simply taking this change in policy on good faith"; they're using it to imply that the previous policy was wrong and/or to justify a bunch of doctrinally incorrect, and possibly hazardous, assumptions; as I outlined in the post to which you are responding.

2.  This is an interesting rhetorical approach.  You take umbrage at me expressing concern that many folks "cannot or will not do the intellectual and spiritual legwork to understand why the policy ever existed at all"--but then you pretty much agree with me by acknowledging that a lot of folks haven't done it, and use that fact as an excuse to try to get me to proffer my own understanding of the reasons for the policy.  (For the benefit of others, of course!) 

Getting into a deep discussion of the reasons for the former policy goes beyond the scope of my original point (and would be largely cumulative anyways, if you've been playing close attention to my posts to this thread thus far).  And if you're merely trying to disprove my assertion by stating that that you , individually, know and understand those reasons--well, I didn't intend to make this discussion about you specifically.  But if you want to go there, the best way to disprove me is by you demonstrating your own understanding of the reasons before I come in and offer my take.  If, after that, you want to divert into a discussion of the reasons underlying the policy, I'm happy to engage on that; but for now the best way you can refute my point is by . . . refuting my point.  

3.  Some say so explicitly.  Others show it by the things that they do.  Others strongly hint at the encroachment of such attitudes by fantasizing about new wedding-day or wedding-month regimens in which, for example, the sealing is crammed down into two hours and anything over that window is seen as "unreasonable" (while at the same time suggesting that the sealing may be appropriately be held in some mid-honeymoon "destination temple"), or in which implicitly anticipated that beloved, temple-worthy yet distantly-located family members would prefer to be present for the civil ceremony rather than the temple sealing.  Others do it by asserting that the Church has zero right to weigh in on wedding day activities anyways.  

4.  Because they don't make, keep, and reap the benefits of salvific ordinances as soon as the opportunity presents itself.  

5.  Whatever the circumstances may be, it boils down to the fact that the couple is not making, keeping, and reaping the benefits of salvific ordinances as soon as the opportunity presents itself.  They are letting some other priority keep them out of the temple.  The Church, for the time being, has elected not to impose further sanctions on this particular manifestation of that sort of myopia; but as I said upthread:  that couple's Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy paradigm of nonchalance towards temple obligations isn't ultimately going to save anyone.  If the who-can-go-to-my-wedding? question doesn't force them into an Abrahamic sacrifice, something else will--and a cadre of half-hearted Mormons will be sure to be present, insisting that the Church is being unreasonable because Jesus never wants us to do anything hard.  

6.  I presume you will also be telling God that at the final judgment, when when nonbelieving parents are howling about being separated from their children who are entering into their exaltations.  Just for future reference:  will you be doing that in person, or from behind a keyboard?

Edited May 9, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Mores]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

The correct order is 1-2-5.

Only if that is your preference.  

[Guest Mores]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Carlimac, the trouble is that a lot of folks in this discussion are not "simply taking this change in policy on good faith"; they're using it to imply that the previous policy was wrong and/or to justify a bunch of doctrinally incorrect, and possibly hazardous, assumptions; as I outlined in the post to which you are responding.

Yes. YES. YES!

[The Folk Prophet]

@carlimac, for what it's worth, I totally understand/get where you're coming from and the confusion you have. I do think that there's mankind's weakness involved in the story of the change in some ways, but I think you might be taking what is meant by weakness differently than is intended. It is not to say that those who sorrowed for being unable to have their family join in their marriage ceremony were de facto wicked, or that those who now rejoice over the ability to do so with church backing are de facto wicked.

I think a lot of people who haven't ever had to face the difficultly of hurt feelings because of this sort of situation may be a bit to callous in their responses on the matter. I may be included in that. It's very easy to analytically see a policy's theoretical reason and then say, "well here's the theological theory and so everyone should just get on board." That is technically probably true, but in practice it isn't so easy.

The fact that it isn't so easy is because we are weak, mortal, fallen, and attached to things more than we probably should be. That's weakness. Yes. But it's the SAME weakness that we ALL have. We are ALL mortal, fallen, and attached to things more than we probably should be. And family is a tough one. It should be very easy for anyone to understand that being put into a situation where a close loved one cannot join with us in something so important can be a very difficult sacrifice.

And it isn't fair to imply that the situations that arise causing difficulty in these times are always about mere weakness. Loving family is not weakness. Wanting family involved in special moments is not weakness. You need to understand that this is not the weakness that's being implied.

What is weakness is translating those hurt feelings to the conclusion that the policy was wrong, not of God, and had no useful purpose.

Sacrifice is asked of us all the time. It is one of the very core principles of the gospel. If it didn't hurt, it wouldn't be sacrifice. The reality that some things hurt is WHY they're sacrifices. God asks for sacrifices in different ways according to different times. In ancient times that meant slaughtering the best sheep one. It involved leaving lands, riches, family, and friends to travel to strange new lands (sometimes never actually getting into the strange new land). It meant being willing to kill one's own child if so commanded. It involved taking on multiple wives to support, or becoming a multiple wife. It involved starvation, injury, and death.

Most of those sacrifices are no longer asked of us in our time. But some sacrifices still are asked of us. Until a few days back, one of those was this policy. And just as with any sacrifice, there was cause, there were blessings involved and there was good. The Lord asks us to sacrifice for our good. But at times He removes the need to sacrifice in certain ways, as can be seen throughout history. This is one of those times. And that is something worthy of gratitude. But it's not worthy of claiming the sacrifice demanded was a bad thing. That's the primary issue to which some of us are taking exception.

Edited May 9, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[carlimac]

OK JAG and FP, you've said some things that are good that I agree with, but some that still sound awfully preachy and  insulting to people who are simple in their beliefs and gratitude for this blessing from God. You can look at it in any way you want, in fact go ahead and instruct your children to not have that "alternate" kind of wedding first, even if they are marrying someone who's family aren't members. And make sure they know that anyone who takes less than 3-4 hours to be sealed in the temple is just not doing it right and can't possibly be touched and filled with the spirit or understand those "salvific" ordinances. 

 Sometimes it's nice to simply recognize the mercy and beauty of what the Lord has done for us and free ourselves of this notion that we are wicked for ever wanting that blessing in the first place.  

 

Pfffft! What does  Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy mean anyway? 

[carlimac]

 

14 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Let's start here: Would you say the life of the Lamanites was due to strength or weakness of Laman and his supporters?

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by carlimac

[Anddenex]

24 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Sometimes it's nice to simply recognize the mercy and beauty of what the Lord has done for us and free ourselves of this notion that we are wicked for ever wanting that blessing in the first place. 

Yes, it is wonderful to recognize how wonderful our Lord is and has been even with the previous policy as given by the Lord through his servants. The second part has nothing to do with what I or others have said.

You asked what I was meaning and I provided an easy question to start with, but you avoided it. If we want to understand, then please answer the question where we can have a starting position.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

OK JAG and FP, you've said some things that are good that I agree with, but some that still sound awfully preachy and  insulting to people who are simple in their beliefs and gratitude for this blessing from God. You can look at it in any way you want, in fact go ahead and instruct your children to not have that "alternate" kind of wedding first, even if they are marrying someone who's family aren't members. And make sure they know that anyone who takes less than 3-4 hours to be sealed in the temple is just not doing it right and can't possibly be touched and filled with the spirit or understand those "salvific" ordinances. 

I find it fascinating that you don't see how preachy and insulting this comes across as.

[carlimac]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, it is wonderful to recognize how wonderful our Lord is and has been even with the previous policy as given by the Lord through his servants. The second part has nothing to do with what I or others have said.

You asked what I was meaning and I provided an easy question to start with, but you avoided it. If we want to understand, then please answer the question where we can have a starting position.

Sorry my computer froze up before I was done. Obviously Laman was spiritually weak but even still, many of his people ended up being strong and righteous. So what does that have to do with the new temple policy? 

[carlimac]

Ok look boys  ( I'm old enough to be your mother or at the least your older sister.)  You've worn me down. It's obvious we're talking past each other and it's not worth my time or energy anymore to keep debating this. Semantics and meaning are getting all tangled up and genuine thoughts are not coming out right in written form.

One parting thought. I'm having simultaneous discussions today  with my son who left the church precisely because of the know-it-alls who don't listen and don't have an ounce of compassion or desire to understand others. They are so high up on their pedestals of their own making that they just sit up there and spew spittle on the lowlings below as they pontificate. There is more to life than this. At least he is actually doing good things for and caring for others...without religion in his life. I imagine that it's less of what we think we know and more of what we actually do that God cares about. The more we preach the more harm done sometimes. 

Good luck with the wedding challenges you'll face someday with your kids. May they all be minuscule. 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Ok look boys  ( I'm old enough to be your mother or at the least your older sister.)  You've worn me down. It's obvious we're talking past each other and it's not worth my time or energy anymore to keep debating this. Semantics and meaning are getting all tangled up and genuine thoughts are not coming out right in written form.

One parting thought. I'm having simultaneous discussions today  with my son who left the church precisely because of the know-it-alls who don't listen and don't have an ounce of compassion or desire to understand others. They are so high up on their pedestals of their own making that they just sit up there and spew spittle on the lowlings below as they pontificate. There is more to life than this. At least he is actually doing good things for and caring for others...without religion in his life. I imagine that it's less of what we think we know and more of what we actually do that God cares about. The more we preach the more harm done sometimes. 

Good luck with the wedding challenges you'll face someday with your kids. May they all be minuscule. 

She says in a know-it-all manner with no compassion or desire to understand us, high on the pedestal of her own making, spewing spittle at we lowlings below her as she pontificates.

Edited May 9, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

She says in a know-it-all manner with no compassion or desire to understand us, high on the pedestal of her own making, spewing spittle at we lowlings below her as she pontificates.

Indeed... it is next to impossible to complain about others making judgements without making our own.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

[1]OK JAG and FP, you've said some things that are good that I agree with, but some that still sound awfully preachy and  insulting to people who are simple in their beliefs and gratitude for this blessing from God. [2]You can look at it in any way you want, in fact go ahead and instruct your children to not have that "alternate" kind of wedding first, even if they are marrying someone who's family aren't members. [3]And make sure they know that anyone who takes less than 3-4 hours to be sealed in the temple is just not doing it right and can't possibly be touched and filled with the spirit or understand those "salvific" ordinances. 

 [4]Sometimes it's nice to simply recognize the mercy and beauty of what the Lord has done for us and free ourselves of this notion that we are wicked for ever wanting that blessing in the first place.  

 

[5]Pfffft! What does  Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy mean anyway? 

1.  People who are simply glad that a divinely-imposed burden has been lifted, have no reason to feel uncomfortable with what I have said.  It is those whose agendas and prejudices lead them to lash out at the fact that the burden ever existed, to whom my “preachiness” is directed—because, quite frankly, they’re wrong and they need to be preached to.

2.  At this point, thanks to the change in policy, I won’t have to take *quite* that hard of a line.  But you can bet I have had, and will continue to have, a lot of discussions about the principle of consecration. 

3.  Carlimac, that is not what I have said.  

At all.  

You are too innately smart, and too well-informed—and have been openly confronted about this sort of thing too many times in the past—for such misrepresentations to be an innocent mistake at this point in time.  

Please, stop it.  

I am sorry your son left the Church, and I sincerely wish him and you and your family well.  But I am not prepared to take your explanations for his conduct, or your attempt to smear me by association, at face value; when you have been arguing in such a disingenuous and atopical manner.

4.  You are misrepresenting my words.  

Again.  

The wickedness doesn’t lie in wanting one’s parents with them at a wedding/sealing.  The problem lies in failing to recognize that God has provided a way for those loved ones to be there, and they have rejected it.  The problem lies in failing to recognize that from the days of Adam onwards it is the sealing that has been the divinely-inspired real thing; and the civil/public ritual that was a plan B institutes because of rebellion and apostasy against the divine ideal.  The problem lies in choosing to let nonbeliever-imposed-drama delay or thwart our own spiritual progress, and the possible precedents and patterns that may follow therefrom.  The problem lies in the mindset that we can willfully forfeit divine blessings at a time we find them inconvenient, and still expect to be able to come back and demand those same blessings once we have finagled things such that the blessings don’t cost quite so much.  The problem lies in assuming that people who don’t agree with you about matters of policy and doctrine, simply don’t feel like you; don’t love like you; don’t sacrifice like you—and then try to usurp the moral high ground with virtue signaling so that you don’t have to address the actual merits of the points being raised.   

And the problem lies in—well—lying about the words of people whose actual positions you are either unable or unwilling to directly refute. 

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed... it is next to impossible to complain about others making judgements without making our own.

And, it absolves us of any responsibility for our actions. After all, just pointing out that the accuser is also guilty of what he accuses us washes us clean and makes anything we do okay, which is a wonderful benefit. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  People who are simply glad that a divinely-imposed burden has been lifted, have no reason to feel uncomfortable with what I have said.  It is those whose agendas and prejudices lead them to lash out at the fact that the burden ever existed, to whom my “preachiness” is directed—because, quite frankly, they’re wrong and they need to be preached to.

2.  At this point, thanks to the change in policy, I won’t have to take *quite* that hard of a line.  But you can bet I have had, and will continue to have, a lot of discussions about the principle of consecration. 

3.  Carlimac, that is not what I have said.  

At all.  

You are too innately smart, and too well-informed—and have been openly confronted about this sort of thing too many times in the past—for such misrepresentations to be an innocent mistake at this point in time.  

Please, stop it.  

I am sorry your son left the Church, and I sincerely wish him and you and your family well.  But I am not prepared to take your explanations for his conduct, or your attempt to smear me by association, at face value; when you have been arguing in such a disingenuous and atopical manner.

4.  You are misrepresenting my words.  

Again.  

The wickedness doesn’t lie in wanting one’s parents with them at a wedding/sealing.  The problem lies in failing to recognize that God has provided a way for those loved ones to be there, and they have rejected it.  The problem lies in failing to recognize that from the days of Adam onwards it is the sealing that has been the divinely-inspired real thing; and the civil/public ritual that was a plan B institutes because of rebellion and apostasy against the divine ideal.  The problem lies in choosing to let nonbeliever-imposed-drama delay or thwart our own spiritual progress, and the possible precedents and patterns that may follow therefrom.  The problem lies in the mindset that we can willfully forfeit divine blessings at a time we find them inconvenient, and still expect to be able to come back and demand those same blessings once we have finagled things such that the blessings don’t cost quite so much.  The problem lies in assuming that people who don’t agree with you about matters of policy and doctrine, simply don’t feel like you; don’t love like you; don’t sacrifice like you—and then try to usurp the moral high ground with virtue signaling so that you don’t have to address the actual merits of the points being raised.   

And the problem lies in—well—lying about the words of people whose actual positions you are either unable or unwilling to directly refute. 

You missed #5.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

And, it absolves us of any responsibility for our actions. After all, just pointing out that the accuser is also guilty of what he accuses us washes us clean and makes anything we do okay. 

Not at all... It just mean everyone is dirty...   In my experience it hard to have outrage and point fingers when one realizes that their outrage and finger pointing is directed at themselves.  And it is only by such self awareness do people really change... All the external outrage and finger pointing do basically nothing

[Anddenex]

46 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Sorry my computer froze up before I was done. Obviously Laman was spiritually weak but even still, many of his people ended up being strong and righteous. So what does that have to do with the new temple policy? 

Alright, so we have agreement then that Laman made choices, those who followed him made choices, not because of strength but due to weakness. The second point, "many of his people ended up being strong and righteous" is a different conversation - true -- but a different conversation we are having.

What does this have to do with the new temple policy? Well, let's remember what we were responding to first:

Quote

I believe it was @TheFolkProphet who said something to this nature, "Due to the weakness of God's children." I would say this has definite merit. What does God do when two people who know better choose a lesser choice? In this case, he prepares a temporal way of union between two people. I am not saying this is right, but we can see God works with his children throughout scripture even in their weakness.

This statement of mine was correlated with why God accepts "civil marriages" as not breaking the law of chastity -- instead of "sealings" the only way. So this statement wasn't a part of the new temple policy. It was simply stating that due to the weakness of God's sons and daughters he will provide a way, and we can see that God works through his children's weakness.

Civil marriage is a result of human weakness, we can also say it was a result of human sin (from some parent long ago who made a decision to remove themselves from the blessings of the gospel). If all the sons and daughters of God had kept the commandments this policy wouldn't even be in place. It is in place because of human weakness and sin (otherwise there would only be sealings by the priesthood of God).  This is the same with Laman and his followers. The Lord, through his servants, have to make changes to policies due to the weakness and strength of his sons and daughters. In some cases, this policy is a result from weakness. As this policy can stem from strength.

No one you are arguing with is saying this change is "bad." We do however find people rejoicing in thinking the prophets were originally wrong, or that this is ammo for prophetic weakness -- are in error. God will make changes, add or revoke, according to his will.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Not at all... It just mean everyone is dirty...   In my experience it hard to have outrage and point fingers when one realizes that their outrage and finger pointing is directed at themselves.  And it is only by such self awareness do people really change... All the external outrage and finger pointing do basically nothing

We agree that everyone is dirty and sinful, that's for sure. With you 100%. 

In my experience, I've noticed that self righteous and judgmental people love pointing out that out (that everyone is judgmental, which I also agree with, 100%) because it gives them some sense of absolution and justification. They tend to think that just pointing out that the accuser is also guilty of what they are being accused of diminishes their accountability. It's the same with your bratty teenager when they get a speeding ticket then when you take away their license (as you should) they stomp their feet and whine "But Dad, I've been in the car when you are speeding!" 

For the record, it's not just religious people who do that. Liberals/conservatives/atheists/etc. Like you said, we are all dirty.  

Edited May 9, 2019 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You missed #5.

So I did.  Think I’m about out of gas at the moment, though.   

Edited May 9, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So I did.  Think I’m about out of gas at the moment, though.   

Okay. I'll take a shot:

5. Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy translates to God in Uncle Fluffy. Meaning that Uncle Fluffy (a representative name for "family" in general) becomes more important than God. It's referencing prioritizing the 2nd commandment over the 1st.

 

How'd I do?