Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nuclearfuels

Preview of coming attractions? BSA, marriage, Temples

Recommended Posts

So now that President Nelson has shown us how he roles and how the inspiration he receives roles, I can't help but ask/ponder aloud with my cyber-ward-family/friends (I don't know any of you well enough to consider our relationship to be that of frenemies, my apologies):

- I figure we have maybe two years until the BSA program (love it or hate it) will be replaced

- Several years ago, maybe 10+ years, there was talk about mini-Temples being created in levels other the main entry level of stake centers; wondering if this idea might come back?  Really I'm just looking for an excuse to goto Ireland and a Temple openhouse seems to be that opportunity; slainte!

- Wondering if any of you have written to General Authorities and asked about topics like these; anyone received a response?  Since "marriage" has been legally "redefined," I'm curious to ask the GA's if redefining marriage in the vein of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many others defined marriage.  Waiting for SCOTUS to "redefine marriage" again (before reinstituting), would be more palatable no doubt, but aren't we on kind of an accelerated time schedule/ last days etc.?  And when you attend the Temple, don't the Sisters outnumber the Brothers by a factor of 3 to 1, on average?

Share this post


Link to post

I hope that scouts end sooner!!!!!!

But I think you have it right, about 2 years!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think we'll end our BSA involvement within two years.  I think the Brethren will continue the "phase-out" by ceasing to enroll 8 year old boys in cubs.

I love the idea of creating endowment and sealing rooms in stake centers but I don't see anything that suggests we'll go in that direction.  Seems like we tried smaller temples but then went back to the big, glamorous edifices.

Polygamy isn't coming back.  We'll continue to practice eternal polygamy but avoid discussing it.  And we're still decades away from when I foresee gay marriage being accepted within the Church.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I love the idea of creating endowment and sealing rooms in stake centers but I don't see anything that suggests we'll go in that direction.  Seems like we tried smaller temples but then went back to the big, glamorous edifices.

Are we taking an either/or approach?  Are we no longer building smaller temples at all?

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Polygamy isn't coming back.  We'll continue to practice eternal polygamy but avoid discussing it. 

I think it's fair to "avoid discussing it."  There are plenty of Christians who believe that families will be together in some sense in the hereafter.  They just don't have any particularized mechanism for it.  But if pressed, I think plenty of them would venture to say that Dad will be with Mom again, but that Joanne (the nice lady he met and married five years after Mom died) will also be part of the family.  God will sort it all out in the end.

I think we are just a bit more structured in our approach to this question.  It's all a matter of faith, anyway.

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And we're still decades away from when I foresee gay marriage being accepted within the Church.

I don't think we'll ever see that.  Social mores have radically changed, such that fornication is widely accepted and acceptable.  But here we are, 50 years out from the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s (which some say actually started in the 1920s), but has the Church altered its stance on fornication?  Nope.  Adultery?  Nope.  Masturbation?  Not really.  

All of these are seen as unacceptable forms of otherwise acceptal behavior: heterosexual sex.  Homosexual behavior, however, is categorically and necessarily a violation of the Law of Chastity.  There is no set of circumstances where it has ever been acceptable.  And with the advent of same-sex marriage, the Church has been unequivocal in not accepting homosexual behavior, regardless of whether in or out of a marital relationship.

Time will tell, I suppose.  But it seems like wishful thinking to suggest that the Church is headed toward accepting same-sex marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

So now that President Nelson has shown us how he roles and how the inspiration he receives roles

President Nelson did mention in conference that the discussions that led to the changes he announced had started earlier under President Monson.  I wonder if it wasn't for President Monson's declining health if the changes wouldn't have been made earlier

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Will we see a change in the way temple marriages are done in the worldwide church , ie, that the couple are joined by the state first in all cases, before the sealing ordinance is performed in the temple? Personally I would approve of a 1 year waiting period between state ceremony and temple one. Rather than reducing the importance of the temple, it would place a higher value on a more eternal covenant and might lessen the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages that can fall apart so easily nowadays. Ya , I  know , heresy, but ...

Edited by strappinglad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am also wondering if the singles program(s) will be phased out.  Where I live it is already mostly useless.

Edited by Maidservant
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you all for your replies.

I forgot to ask in my original post:

- When will we a Second Quorum of the Twelve be announced? Since this structure existed when the Savior visited the America's - to say nothing of a Quorum of the Twelve amongst the Lost Tribes - it's possible, right?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think we'll end our BSA involvement within two years.  I think the Brethren will continue the "phase-out" by ceasing to enroll 8 year old boys in cubs.

I love the idea of creating endowment and sealing rooms in stake centers but I don't see anything that suggests we'll go in that direction.  Seems like we tried smaller temples but then went back to the big, glamorous edifices.

Polygamy isn't coming back.  We'll continue to practice eternal polygamy but avoid discussing it.  And we're still decades away from when I foresee gay marriage being accepted within the Church.

As a Libertarian wouldn't liberty include privacy in the bedroom, and thus warrant a SCOTUS ruling, in time?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thank you all for your replies.

I forgot to ask in my original post:

- When will we a Second Quorum of the Twelve be announced? Since this structure existed when the Savior visited the America's - to say nothing of a Quorum of the Twelve amongst the Lost Tribes - it's possible, right?

Possible, I suppose, but unlikely.  A quorum of twelve disciples (not apostles) in the New World was necessary to preside over and guide the Church there, as they were isolated from (but still technically subordinate to) the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency headed by Peter.

These days, advances in technology allow the Quorum of the Twelve to have a worldwide reach. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

And when you attend the Temple, don't the Sisters outnumber the Brothers by a factor of 3 to 1, on average?

Nope, not even close. Depending on the day and time, many of our sessions are heavily male.

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

... the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages...

I really dislike it when people attempt to universalise a cultural phenomenon by naturalising it. Everybody on this planet has hormones; not all young people are raised in oversexed cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

I really dislike it when people attempt to universalise a cultural phenomenon by naturalising it. Everybody on this planet has hormones; not all young people are raised in oversexed cultures.

True enough, but should we discount the stories of the " trip to Las Vegas to get married so as to technically not sin " from BYU ? Several countries in the world require a civil marriage , or better said, do not recognize a Temple marriage as legal. So the Church already allows a civil marriage before the Temple sealings. Why not make it a universal ' policy' ?

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

True enough, but should we discount the stories of the " trip to Las Vegas to get married so as to technically not sin " from BYU ? Several countries in the world require a civil marriage , or better said, do not recognize a Temple marriage as legal. So the Church already allows a civil marriage before the Temple sealings. Why not make it a universal ' policy' ?

I think because the church wants its Solomon's ations to be on equal footing with other solemnizations where the jurisdiction allows it. If the jurisdiction recognizes such things, then let's go with it. Otherwise, we accommodate the laws of the land as necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, ksfisher said:

President Nelson did mention in conference that the discussions that led to the changes he announced had started earlier under President Monson.  I wonder if it wasn't for President Monson's declining health if the changes wouldn't have been made earlier

You get a little more detail on how he receives revelation from his wife  on the devotional they just gave to the saints in Hawaii  Go to about the 52 min. mark.  It's pretty interesting and worth a listen.  

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/hawaii-broadcast/2018/04?lang=eng

 

As for other things - I heard rumors that scouts may go in 2019.  From the rumors I have heard these are just the beginning of the changes and there will be more.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Will we see a change in the way temple marriages are done in the worldwide church , ie, that the couple are joined by the state first in all cases, before the sealing ordinance is performed in the temple? Personally I would approve of a 1 year waiting period between state ceremony and temple one. Rather than reducing the importance of the temple, it would place a higher value on a more eternal covenant and might lessen the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages that can fall apart so easily nowadays. Ya , I  know , heresy, but ...

Any children born in the first year would be born out of the covenant. Not ideal.

Hormone driven marriages are not a new phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's fair to "avoid discussing it."  There are plenty of Christians who believe that families will be together in some sense in the hereafter.  They just don't have any particularized mechanism for it.  But if pressed, I think plenty of them would venture to say that Dad will be with Mom again, but that Joanne (the nice lady he met and married five years after Mom died) will also be part of the family.  God will sort it all out in the end.

 

It's true that other Christians don't have a mechanism for eternal families but I think that's because they view it as a natural state where no mechanism would be needed. Why wouldn't families be together? Is God going to tell people they can't be with the ones they love? In fairness, we don't really know how things will work either with Dad and that nice lady and her kids from a previous marriage etc. So whether Mormon or "other" Christian, I think we all look at it similarly; God will sort it all out in the end. For most Christians, no mechanism or bureaucracy needed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I am also wondering if the singles program(s) will be phased out.  Where I live it is already mostly useless.

Yes! Please! Please get me out of this stupid calling. My other two callings are actually enjoyable and fulfilling but planning Single activities I do not go to is just awful.

Keep YSA around but if you graduate without marriage then finding other Singles to date or spend time with is your own problem.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Any children born in the first year would be born out of the covenant. Not ideal.

Hormone driven marriages are not a new phenomenon.

I agree. The 1 year wait is simply a policy and it seems to be unique to North America. In other countries which require a state wedding first, they are permitted to be sealed within a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why that would cause any problems if instituted church-wide and I don't know why anyone would want to maintain a 1 year wait in which children will be born outside of the covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, e-eye said:

As for other things - I heard rumors that scouts may go in 2019.   

YES!!!😀😀😀 

Let's hope so!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, e-eye said:

As for other things - I heard rumors that scouts may go in 2019.  From the rumors I have heard these are just the beginning of the changes and there will be more.

In one way that wouldn't break my heart, but both of my sons really enjoyed their experience in scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. The 1 year wait is simply a policy and it seems to be unique to North America. In other countries which require a state wedding first, they are permitted to be sealed within a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why that would cause any problems if instituted church-wide and I don't know why anyone would want to maintain a 1 year wait in which children will be born outside of the covenant.

The 1 year wait policy, in my mind, helps to further emphasize the importance of marriage as a divinely instituted. 

As you mentioned, in some areas the state mandates a public wedding.  The church is right to make exceptions in these instances.

However, when a temple wedding is possible from the outset I believe the church is right to place covenants and the sealing power of the priesthood at the forefront of a marriage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Will we see a change in the way temple marriages are done in the worldwide church , ie, that the couple are joined by the state first in all cases, before the sealing ordinance is performed in the temple? Personally I would approve of a 1 year waiting period between state ceremony and temple one. Rather than reducing the importance of the temple, it would place a higher value on a more eternal covenant and might lessen the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages that can fall apart so easily nowadays. Ya , I  know , heresy, but ...

Can you imagine how many marriages would struggle without the sealing power and blessings of the temple that first year of marriage. I am not so sure many people understand the power of the covenants we make in the temple - That includes me.  If anything I would think waiting a year may promote hormone driven marriages - most couples just struggle to stay worthy during the engagement and I think knowing they want to be worthy to be sealed helps check those urges but if you were just getting married then hey what's a little slip up here and there.  

Share this post


Link to post

I am probably arguing against myself but just for my curiousity, in countries that require a state wedding , what is the problem with a couple going to the Temple to be sealed first and then going to the magistrate to be wed ? Yes, it is out of order . I could quote J Golden on such but I will refrain.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

I am probably arguing against myself but just for my curiousity, in countries that require a state wedding , what is the problem with a couple going to the Temple to be sealed first and then going to the magistrate to be wed ? Yes, it is out of order . I could quote J Golden on such but I will refrain.

Respectfully, one should always quote J. Golden; let's not be afraid to be bold now

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

I think it's fair to "avoid discussing it."  There are plenty of Christians who believe that families will be together in some sense in the hereafter.  They just don't have any particularized mechanism for it.  But if pressed, I think plenty of them would venture to say that Dad will be with Mom again, but that Joanne (the nice lady he met and married five years after Mom died) will also be part of the family.  God will sort it all out in the end.

It's true that other Christians don't have a mechanism for eternal families but I think that's because they view it as a natural state where no mechanism would be needed.

Yep.  Interesting, though, that this generalized belief is at odds with formal doctrines of most Christian groups ("Until death do you part" and all that).  Also consider Matthew 22:

Quote

23 ¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It seems that "Marriage isn't forever" is a pretty common - perhaps even standard - doctrine outside of Mormonism.

See here:

Quote

In other words, a widow does not need to worry about polygamy in heaven when she remarries, because relationships are going to be so different in the resurrection. No one will think of marriage in a way that makes polygamy a problem. It is just not going to be there. There won’t be marriage and giving in marriage like there are here and now.

And here:

Quote

The reason that there is no marriage in Heaven is that marriage as a means of grace is meant to help prepare us for union with God. It is meant to teach us about the union with God that we will ultimately have. When we are in Heaven, we have that union. The marriage is only an image of this union, the Image of God. But in Heaven we have actual union with God, and through Him, with the entire communion of Saints. It’s not so much that there is no marriage in Heaven as that there is a universal marriage in Heaven, a “marriage” between all the communion of Saints. It is just like in Heaven, priests will no longer be priests. All the Sacraments will “end” in Heaven.

And here:

Quote

So, according to Jesus, people won’t be married in heaven.

And here:

Quote

But to come to your question: we'll admit that your second friend has a point – the one you describe as "bursting your bubble." Jesus did say that life in the world to come will not include "marriage" as we know it here on earth. When questioned by the Sadducees about this, He said, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). Your friend may lack sensitivity, but her comment does have a strong biblical basis.

What Jesus did not say was that "all earthly relationships will be nullified in heaven." There is no good reason to put such a negative spin on His words. We will most certainly be together with those we love in the next life. We just don't know precisely what form that "togetherness" will take.

But see here:

Quote

So, I think it's safe to say you will see your wife again. Your question, however, is more specific: will your marriage continue in heaven?

Most Protestant commentators since the Reformation have not been comfortable going that far. However, there is an earlier strand of interpretation, from the first centuries of the church, that some find intriguing. It suggests that there is a special meaning to the marriage bond that continues in heaven, though we can't know what it will be like. It is based on Paul's description of marriage in Ephesians 5:21-33, which concludes: "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

Scriptures like the Ephesians passage, and Jesus' well-known teaching that "the two will become one flesh" (Mark 10:8), suggest that the marriage bond has a spiritual meaning different from that of most earthly relationships. If so, God may preserve that mysterious quality in heaven just as he seeks to do on earth. But we'll have to wait and see what form this relationship will take in eternity.

Interesting stuff.

Quote

Why wouldn't families be together?

Well, there are some scriptures that can be construed as indicating that marriages do not last into the eternities.

From and LDS perspective, we have D&C 132:7:

Quote

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

It's a matter of faith.

Quote

Is God going to tell people they can't be with the ones they love?

I tend to think of it this way: God has given His children a way to preserve their relationships with their loved ones.  Whether they choose to accept that way, and live in accordance with it, is up to them.

Quote

In fairness, we don't really know how things will work either with Dad and that nice lady and her kids from a previous marriage etc.

I think the doctrines of the LDS Church account for this.  Dad can be sealed to "that nice lady."  And if he keeps honors his covenants, then he has a marriage "entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... for time and all eternity."

Quote

So whether Mormon or "other" Christian, I think we all look at it similarly;

There are some similarities, yes.

But there are also some very significant differences.

Quote

God will sort it all out in the end. For most Christians, no mechanism or bureaucracy needed.

Unless, of course, the Mormons have it right.  If so, then a "mechanism" is needed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      Kenya legalized polygamy in 2014.  Any readers here serve mission there and have to tell investigators they'd need to stop the practice before being able to be baptized? I understand in Latin America a lot of married people split up but forgo the legal part of making the divorce official and that has to be done before they can be baptized.
      Germany is trying to indirectly legalize polygamy for one of their migrant culture's beliefs. 
      My wife and I support our ancestors who practiced polygamy, to say nothing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob practicing polygamy.
      Curious as to your thoughts:
      Will other African countries and European countries following suit? Will / Should people in Congress - Ilhan, Tlaib, Romney, Bishop, etc. allow migrants here to practice what their faith encourages?  Declining populations (Japan, Europe) really have two options: welcome in higher fertility populations from other countries or legalize polygamy. 
       
      Pushed by politicians, polygamy enjoys a heyday among Christians in ...
      Germany: Citizenship for Polygamous Migrants?  
    • By nuclearfuels
      POLL: Choose your own misadventure. What would you do? (Caution: includes sarcasm)
    • By MeeMee
      My question as I am still a new convert is how many times can you be sealed to someone or others. Say for example you were sealed to your current husband but he pass away. Years later down the line you meet someone and want to get sealed with the new husband instead. How does it work in the end. I never understand this and every time I ask someone nobody seems to really want to explain it. Please clarify only if you truly have the answer.
      Thank You
       
    • By Bernard Gui
      On another thread, I mentioned the idea that we update the names of the Young Women groups. “MIA Maids” harks back to the youth and young adult programs of yesteryears....when I was a kid, but we are not saying when that was.
      The culmination of those programs was the Master M-Men (Master Mutual or Mormon Men, not Master Mahan Men ) and the Golden Gleaner Awards. I wonder if we might not be revisiting those awards as we look to reform and upgrade our programs for youth, especially the Scouting program.
      Lest we scoff at Master M-Men and Golden Gleaners, take a look at what the program involved. There was some serious work required - up to age 30! I had some older friends and relatives who earned the titles, but it was discontinued before I reached the eligible age. 
      It would really be worth your while to look at this, especially if you wonder what MIA Maids are. Check out this page for a list of required achievements....it is extensive and very demanding, and involved real-life skills and accomplishments:
      http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2009/08/20/master-m-men-and-golden-gleaners/
    • By Five Solas
      Related to the “Baptisms for the Dead in the Second Temple?” thread – but now the question is whether LDS-style “temple marriages”/”eternal marriages” were performed in the Second Temple (prior to its destruction in 70 AD).
      In the previous thread we established vicarious ordinances for the dead were not authorized until after Christ’s resurrection.  Therefore it would have been a very short window of opportunity (from a historical perspective) for any such proxy work to have been performed in the ancient temple.  And no one on that thread made any argument in favor of such work being done there.  So I think we succeeded in getting that answer.
      So now I want to shift gears and focus on ordinances for the living, using marriage as an example.   Is there any evidence to suggest temple marriages/eternal marriages were performed in the Second Temple?
      If so, what is that evidence?  What do folks think?
      --Erik
      PS.  I remember a stake fireside, back in my LDS days, where the recently-released temple president (Seattle temple) came and spoke.  (This would have been early in the last decade.)  He was old and frail and strikingly tall and thin – but he had a strong voice and expressed himself clearly.  He had held the position for a long time and was much admired and respected, and I recall a sort of hushed reverence in the room.
      I came motivated by some mix of loneliness (I didn’t have anything else to do on a Sunday evening) and some curiosity (I had never met a temple president before).  So I didn’t have quite the same sentiment as others.  And as a result, I undoubtedly gave his words a more critical reception.
      He talked about being asked numerous questions in his capacity at the temple, participating members sometimes looking to him for guidance and clarity on difficult questions—and how he would always admonish questioners to seek out the answers themselves through a combination of prayer and meditation while there.  He didn't answer questions, he redirected questioners--that was an important part of his calling. 
      But what really caught my attention was his expressed belief the temple was carrying on “the same” practices and tradition that had been done at the time of Christ—and indeed all the way back “to Adam.”  How exactly that last bit was possible—no one asked, and I dismissed it as a bit of hyperbole (although he gave us no reason to think he considered it such).  The LDS temple and what transpired therein was connected to antiquity.  He wanted us all to understand he had played his part in a truly ancient play.
      Afterwards with a few folks who were left I made a small joke that the City of Bellevue (where the “Seattle” temple is actually located) probably wasn’t appreciating their growing herd of feral goats (referring to the ancient Israelite practice of “scapegoating” – where one goat would be sacrificed and the other banished to the wilderness, Leviticus 16:8).  But as was not infrequently the case, my humor fell flat.  (Yet another spiritual moment soiled, dang it!)
      So it was particularly interesting to me to read the replies on that other thread.  The old gentleman would have disapproved.
×
×
  • Create New...