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

[Vort]

2 hours 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.

Sometimes it's nice to acknowledge that people are right instead of straining to find fault with something they said, even if that fault is only that they hurt your tender feelings.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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?

Yeah, my Latin is off a bit and I should probably quit using that phrase (I confused “ex” as being “as”, when it actually means “from”).  What I mean to convey is the idea that we expect God to come in and act like an indulgent, benign, and perhaps slightly libertine uncle; rather than like—well—God.  

Edited May 9, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

55 minutes ago, carlimac said:

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.

I am genuinely sorry you find yourself in this condition. You have my sincere sympathy.

But since you bring it up: How sure are you that your son left the Church because of the uncompassionate know-it-alls, and not because he decided he was smarter than his parents and the Saints and the prophets, and maybe even Jesus Christ himself? I have seen many people who claim to have left the Church because someone or other offended them. I have yet to see any leave who clung tightly to the knowledge they had painstakingly gained, despite being offended (because everyone gets offended at some time). Since offense is inevitable, can the uncompassionate know-it-alls really be blamed for your son's abandonment of his covenants?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, my Latin is off a bit and I should probably quit using that phrase (I confused “ex” as being “as”, when it actually means “from”).  What I mean to convey is the idea that we expect God to come in and act like an indulgent, benign, and perhaps slightly libertine uncle; rather than like—well—God.  

Dang it. I was mistaken. My translation is, however, more accurate than your meaning, eh?

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, my Latin is off a bit 

On the first day of Latin class in high school, my teacher wrote on the board: 

Latin is a language, as dead as it can be. 
It killed the ancient Romans
And now it's killing me.     

Edited May 9, 2019 by MormonGator

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

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.

I believe it's even simpler than this. A marriage is a contractual social arrangement, a bond well within the power of mortal men to grant. God happens to recognize most heterosexual marriages, because after all they are patterned on the true eternal idea of marriage. It's a natural fit. A temple sealing is a different matter, in that it is eternal in nature. Mortal men do not have the power (indeed, do not even pretend to have the power) to contract a marriage beyond death. All mortal bonds and covenants are by definition dissolved at death. This is exactly why Pilate recognized that Jesus' kingship presented no legal challenge to Caesar, because his kingdom was not of this world. It was eternal.

tl;dr: God recognizes moral marriage as valid in a familial and sexual context insofar as it is a natural outgrowth of the eternal principle of marriage. Sealing is eternal, not mortal, and thus is another matter.

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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?

It actually means "God out from Uncle Fluffy", parallel to Deux ex machina "God out of the machine". The latter refers to ancient Roman plays (and the earlier Greek plays that inspired them), where the characters would get themselves into an intractable position from which there was no earthly means of escape, only to have a god descend in the form of an actor being lowered by a crane (Greek μηχανή or mēkhanē, whence we get our word "machine"), who then by divine power puts everything aright.

So I take Deus ex Uncle Fluffy to mean that a kind uncle (or other involved family member or close friend), acting in God's place, puts things aright when it seemed they could not be put so.

How'd I do?

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, my Latin is off a bit and I should probably quit using that phrase (I confused “ex” as being “as”, when it actually means “from”).  What I mean to convey is the idea that we expect God to come in and act like an indulgent, benign, and perhaps slightly libertine uncle; rather than like—well—God.  

Okay, never mind.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Anddenex and @Vort you've sparked my thinking cap.

I wonder at this idea of God "accepting" mortal marriage: I mean what does that even mean? Are we conflating the church policies of it counting towards being baptized as "accepting" something that, perhaps, isn't so relatively wholesome as we like to think? (Not to say it is unwholesome. But... well, consider:)

If two people live committed in a sexual relationship but are unwed, not knowing of the importance of marriage or eternal marriage, are they living less wholesomely than those who understand the importance of marriage and thereby join therein?

Is, perhaps, the bringing of people into marriage prior to baptism about teaching the principle of eternal marriage and its importance, rather than a condemnatory, "you've been living in sin" thing?

Or to approach it another way: Will he/she who having rejected eternal marriage, but having lived in a committed and faithful relationship be somehow condemned at a greater level in the eternities than those who lived in a "married" committed and faithful relationship, having rejected the same -- all knowledge and actions being equal otherwise?

[Guest Mores]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

It actually means "God out from Uncle Fluffy", parallel to Deux ex machina "God out of the machine". The latter refers to ancient Roman plays (and the earlier Greek plays that inspired them), where the characters would get themselves into an intractable position from which there was no earthly means of escape, only to have a god descend in the form of an actor being lowered by a crane (Greek μηχανή or mēkhanē, whence we get our word "machine"), who then by divine power puts everything aright.

So I take Deus ex Uncle Fluffy to mean that a kind uncle (or other involved family member or close friend), acting in God's place, puts things aright when it seemed they could not be put so.

Dang it!!!  I was two-thirds finished with my version of this post.  Talk about stealing someone's machine, ehrm, thunder.

I took it to mean that the uncle's desire to be at the wedding clearly showed God's will.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Mores

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

It actually means "God out from Uncle Fluffy", parallel to Deux ex machina "God out of the machine".

Actually it means "God from machine" (I got it slightly wrong by using "in").

As to the rest of your guess: I'd say the literary device meaning of the word could be used either way. The machine acts as god (the uncle acts as God) or the machine supplants God (the uncle supplants God). So we're both potentially right.

Either way, this much is certain: @Just_A_Guy's usage was WRONG!

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

Dang it!!!  I was two-thirds finished with my version of this post.  Talk about stealing someone's machine, ehrm, thunder.

I took it to mean that the uncle's desire to be at the wedding clearly showed God's will.

Another brilliant and better-than-JaG-used-it idea!

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder at this idea of God "accepting" mortal marriage: I mean what does that even mean? Are we conflating the church policies of it counting towards being baptized as "accepting" something that, perhaps, isn't so relatively wholesome as we like to think? (Not to say it is unwholesome. But... well, consider:)

If two people live committed in a sexual relationship but are unwed, not knowing of the importance of marriage or eternal marriage, are they living less wholesomely than those who understand the importance of marriage and thereby join therein?

Surely they are, by definition. Mortal law contains the injunction that ignorance of the law does not excuse law-breaking. Divine law, describing as it does the actual mechanisms of the universe itself, does not need any such injunction; it is obviously and even trivially true. When speaking of a heterosexual couple having children, marriage is better than no marriage. That's a universal truth, and is in fact why we teach people to marry. If it were not so, we could just let people wallow in their sinless ignorance, and everyone would be happy.

The fact that people are not happy when living by the standards of the world is really the bottom-line proof that we need to learn the laws of the universe in the form of the commandments of God.

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is, perhaps, the bringing of people into marriage prior to baptism about teaching the principle of eternal marriage and its importance, rather than a condemnatory, "you've been living in sin" thing?

I think the question is phrased in such a way that it can't be answered truthfully, sort of a "Have you quit beating your wife?" deal. Specifically, the "rather" portion strikes me as untrue. Telling people that they have been living after the manner of the sinful world is not (or should not be) condemnatory; it's an invitation to join a higher order.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

It actually means "God out from Uncle Fluffy", parallel to Deux ex machina "God out of the machine".

Actually it means "God from machine" (I got it slightly wrong by using "in").

"Out of" means "from". E pluribus unum = Out of many, one = One from many.

EDIT: Btw, Latin "ex" often gets modified to "e" before a word beginning with a consonant.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

"Out of" means "from". E pluribus unum = Out of many, one = One from many.

Yes. But "from" doesn't always mean "out of".

[Guest Mores]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Out of" means "from". E pluribus unum = Out of many, one = One from many.

Yeah, @The Folk Prophet.  Get it right!!! (eyeroll) <--- see what I did there?

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

Surely they are, by definition.

That's a circular argument.

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

Mortal law contains the injunction that ignorance of the law does not excuse law-breaking. Divine law, describing as it does the actual mechanisms of the universe itself, does not need any such injunction; it is obviously and even trivially true.

I don't agree. Divine law required knowledge.

I see, of course, what you mean...but when we're talking accountability re: mortality then the mortal consequence of action does, indeed, require knowledge.

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

When speaking of a heterosexual couple having children, marriage is better than no marriage.

In what regard?

Per what marriage represents, institutionally speaking, yes...but what if that institutional idea changes, as it is in the process of doing now?

Commitment is better than no commitment. On that point I'm sure we agree. But marriage as a synonym for commitment has long gone out the window in many's minds.

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

If it were not so, we could just let people wallow in their sinless ignorance, and everyone would be happy.

Hmm... 🤔

I see what you're getting at. But I'm not sure the idea that mortal marriage is de facto better than mortal commitment. Eternal marriage is the end goal. Accordingly, perhaps, mortal marriage is only valuable in that it is a potential step to that end. If it, for whatever reason, isn't a step to that end, then is it really more wholesome than pure, honest, committed, commitment?

Moreover, is uncommitted marriage de facto more wholesome than truly committed non-married cohabitation?

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

The fact that people are not happy when living by the standards of the world is really the bottom-line proof that we need to learn the laws of the universe in the form of the commandments of God.

Yes, but living in mortal only marriage is living by the standards of the world.

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

Have you quit beating your wife?

Well... Have you?

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

 the "rather" portion strikes me as untrue. Telling people that they have been living after the manner of the sinful world is not (or should not be) condemnatory; it's an invitation to join a higher order.

I can accept that I set up a poor "rather" situation there.

I think there might still be merit to my overall premise however. Or at least I remain unconvinced, for the moment, that the idea has no merit.

Edited May 9, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Mores said:

Yeah, @The Folk Prophet.  Get it right!!! (eyeroll) <--- see what I did there?

I've taken it upon myself to debate with @Vort.

I'm going to lose.

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's a circular argument.

Not at all. You had asked:

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wonder at this idea of God "accepting" mortal marriage: I mean what does that even mean? Are we conflating the church policies of it counting towards being baptized as "accepting" something that, perhaps, isn't so relatively wholesome as we like to think?

I like your "what does that even mean?" question, because I think that's the crux of the argument. I note that you used the term "wholesome", which I think is exactly appropriate.

If we are to be whole or complete—"perfect" is the Biblical term—we must understand what that wholeness looks like. And here's what it looks like, to some degree at least: A man and a woman bound together as one, each acting in his or her part, producing an output that has eternal worth, namely: A base of social interaction, a network of reliable couples that depend on each other and consecrate themselves to each other's well-being, and perhaps most importantly, children (and, by extension, parents), creating an order of inheritance and accountability that we call the patriarchal order.

Here in our fallen state, we are cut off from God. In that sense, we are spiritually dead (again, by definition). Our duty is to regain our spiritual life and find a way to make it everlasting. That way is, of course, through the atonement wrought by our Savior. While walking blind here below, we find and emulate eternal principles and actions, or at least we do when we're trying our best. The union of man and woman into a single unit, the basis of the family, is perhaps the most fundamental of those eternal principles we seek to emulate.

And how is that done? Within the kingdom of God, it is done by making sacred covenants before God. Note that in this system, you can't even get married without consecrating yourself fully to God's kingdom. The consecration necessarily precedes the sealing! To me, this is both amazing and (ultimately) obvious. But I don't want to go down that rabbit hole at this time.

So how does this work for those who are not members of God's kingdom, or for those members who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to make the necessary preconditional covenants in order to receive the sealing? The answer is marriage, as we understand it today: A legal contractual obligation that unites man and woman as a single recognized unit, justifies (we say "legitimizes") their producing children, grants to those children all the rights of inheritance and other protections that are normally recognized in society, and so forth.

This is why I say that, by definition, mortally contracted marriage is "more wholesome" than simply living together. It is a closer approximation to the eternal divine system, and is recognized by God himself as a legitimate entry into the entire marriage relationship (albeit not one that endures in eternity—that is possible only through covenants made with God and endorsed by the sealing power granted to us).

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't agree. Divine law required knowledge.

Not at all. Accountability requires knowledge. Divine law simply is. Divine law is reality. Gravity works. You can't just step off a cliff and claim that gravity has no hold on you because you don't know about it. (Well, you can claim so, but it won't do you any good.)

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I see, of course, what you mean...but when we're talking accountability re: mortality then the mortal consequence of action does, indeed, require knowledge.

Sure. This I agree with. But lacking accountability doesn't mean gaining joy. On the contrary, many or most (all?) of God's greatest blessings are explicitly conditioned on us assuming accountability and then acting within the law. And the law is not arbitrary, though it often seems so to us. It is a reflection of the very structure of reality.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In what regard?

Marriage is better than no marriage because it more closely reflects the ultimate eternal reality. God is a husband, and his Wife is our Mother. They are married, eternally so, a unit that survives death and even survives eternity.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Per what marriage represents, institutionally speaking, yes...but what if that institutional idea changes, as it is in the process of doing now?

Mortal marriage has only ever been valuable insofar as it reflects divine reality. When we start talking about "homosexual marriage", then of course that doesn't even mean anything. That is, it means something to us in our society, because we have defined to to mean something. But it has no eternal meaning or value.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Commitment is better than no commitment. On that point I'm sure we agree. But marriage as a synonym for commitment has long gone out the window in many's minds.

I don't disagree, but I don't think that impacts our present discussion.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Eternal marriage is the end goal. Accordingly, perhaps, mortal marriage is only valuable in that it is a potential step to that end. If it, for whatever reason, isn't a step to that end, then is it really more wholesome than pure, honest, committed, commitment?

Moreover, is uncommitted marriage de facto more wholesome than truly committed non-married cohabitation?

I would say that "uncommitted marriage" is an oxymoron. Given the choice you offer above, I would suggest that "truly committed non-married cohabitation" is more of a "real marriage" than "uncommitted marriage".

As for how that translates into Church policy for baptisms and such, I happily leave that determination to those who hold the keys to making it.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes, but living in moral only marriage is living by the standards of the world.

Not really sure what you mean. As Paul taught, traditional "[m]arriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." Where the standard of the world reflects the divine standard, the standard of the world is sufficient. The problem is that this is rarely the case.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well... Have you?

Um. Well...no, I guess not.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I can accept that I set up a poor "rather" situation there.

I think there might still be merit to my overall premise however. Or at least I remain unconvinced, for the moment, that the idea has no merit.

My sense is that we agree in all or most of our thoughts, but that we are having a philosophical discussion about the nature of our verbal tokens. Which is exactly what philosophy is, by the way: A discussion of how we use words. Many will thus dismiss our discussion as "only semantics", but I don't. I think semantic arguments are important, as long as we are not merely trying to impose our definitions preferentially over others. Semantic arguments allow us to tease out deep relationships between things that might not be obvious on the surface.

[Guest Mores]

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's a circular argument.

Isn't that the nature of any definition?

It means this because that's the definition.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not at all. You had asked:

Maybe we're following this differently but here's my understanding of that bit of the exchange:

Me: Is mortal marriage more wholesome?

You: Yes, because mortal marriage is more wholesome?

Maybe you were referring to the definition of "wholesome" though.

I'll have to reply in detail to the rest of your post later when I have more time though.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

Isn't that the nature of any definition?

It means this because that's the definition.

So is the argument then that the definition of marriage is "wholesome"?

[Anddenex]

59 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Anddenex and @Vort you've sparked my thinking cap.

I wonder at this idea of God "accepting" mortal marriage: I mean what does that even mean? Are we conflating the church policies of it counting towards being baptized as "accepting" something that, perhaps, isn't so relatively wholesome as we like to think? (Not to say it is unwholesome. But... well, consider:)

If two people live committed in a sexual relationship but are unwed, not knowing of the importance of marriage or eternal marriage, are they living less wholesomely than those who understand the importance of marriage and thereby join therein?

Is, perhaps, the bringing of people into marriage prior to baptism about teaching the principle of eternal marriage and its importance, rather than a condemnatory, "you've been living in sin" thing?

Or to approach it another way: Will he/she who having rejected eternal marriage, but having lived in a committed and faithful relationship be somehow condemned at a greater level in the eternities than those who lived in a "married" committed and faithful relationship, having rejected the same -- all knowledge and actions being equal otherwise?

Here was my original thoughts on this idea that carlimac started responded to:

What about civil marriage in comparison to a sealing makes it OK to be unified physically, sexual intimacy, without breaking law of chastity:

1) The most obvious answer law of the land, by which God in scripture has specified that we follow. I recognize there are times where God may command otherwise, but until then we obey the law of the land. Look to #3 above.

2) Define "civil marriage"? If we define civil marriage as anything that is not a sealing, then every marriage performed (this includes other religious weddings) is a civil marriage. What then differentiates breaking chastity or keeping it? The commitment and contract between to people who make an oath, a vow to each other. Rather than two people who just want to have sex together because they "love each other" without any commitment. It is still a union by commitment/vow.

3) Knowledge. We are judged by the knowledge and covenants we have made. God knowing all, obviously would accept the commitment (by law, religion, or philosophy) of children who are making commitments/vows/oaths according to the knowledge they have. Let's look particularly at the Lamanite children who God has said he would be merciful to. God even says that the Lamanites loved their wives! God recognized their oath, their marriage to each other, although not performed by proper priesthood authority.

4) 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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The first example you provided coincides with "knowledge" my thought for #3. If they are committed (no other relationship) they are not living less wholesome -- so to speak. From our perspective, yes, this is not a wholesome relationship (as pertaining to the ideal, or God's actual command.

Sorry, I am not understanding the thought you are providing with the paragraph beginning with "Is, perhaps...."

I think your last statement conforms to the thought of much is given much is required, and those of us who sin against the greater light receive greater condemnation. I think the concept of having known something, and then rejecting it would be different than those who rejected marriage.  But then again, maybe that is how God is able to judge one as though they had lived in the flesh. If you reject civil marriage, for sure you would reject eternal marriage. At least I would think so.

[Vort]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe you were referring to the definition of "wholesome" though.

This.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Sorry, I am not understanding the thought you are providing with the paragraph beginning with "Is, perhaps...."

So the point I'm getting at, in short, is that maybe we put too much value on the good of mortal marriage in our minds. It's not to say that there is no value in it (for sure), or that there is less value than there actually is. But simply that maybe its value is somewhat overestimated at times.

I, personally, have a moderate amount of distaste for mortal marriage. That isn't relative to non-marriage (I have distaste for that too). But relative to eternal marriage. Mortal marriage leaves a foul taste in my mouth. It is shallow and worldly and corrupt.

That's where the idea stems from.

You see, @Vort wants to use facts and stuff. But I'm using feelings to make my point. So...you know...