Exclusion?

[rodheadlee]

Thank you Selek, outstanding. I look forward to the day when my wife and I are worthy to be sealed.

[selek1]

Thank you Selek, outstanding. I look forward to the day when my wife and I are worthy to be sealed.

As do I. my friend.

Nor do I have any doubt that that great and glorious day will come sooner, rather than later.

[Pahoran]

Come on, this defense is old and tired, even in LDS circles.

How very jaded you sound! Have you forgotten already that you are supposed to be a brand new convert, fresh and full of enthusiasm for your newfound faith?

Why not quote what the scriptures say as opposed to what we don't know but just "want to conclude"?

John 18:20

"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

We need to abandone the myths and stick with the written scripture if we have any chance of credibility on this one.

Come on, Bob. That argument is so old and tired, even in EV circles.

Mark 7:

36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;

Mark 8:

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Luke 8:

56 And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

Luke 9:

21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

And many more besides.

"We" don't need to do anything; but you definitely need to abandon the myths of a completely public teaching, and stick with the written scripture if you are to have any chance of credibility on this one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

This fundamentally misstates both the function of the Temple and LDS theology.

The Temple exists not to "provide the spiritual needs of a few" but to facilitiate communication and covenant between man and God.

No one will achieve the fulness of the Celestial Kingdom who cannot or will not partake of Temple covenants and blessings either in this life or by proxy.

That you would attempt to denigrate the Temple as merely a facet or "experience" of Christianity amply demonstrates that you have no clue about what Temple worship and the authority represents or entails.

As is amply demonstrated throughout your post, you are not qualified to offer such an opinion.

Temple sealings are unique in Christendom for the simple reason that they are eternal. Until very recently (historically speaking) Christian marriages were solemnized "until death do you part". Based on a few (misunderstood) verses in Matthew, Christians were taught that every marriage contained its own bill of divorcement. It was (and for the most part remains) an unchallenged truth that a "Christian" marriage was null and void at the moment of death. Mainstream Christians (and their theologians) hoped that their associations and relations might continue after death, but their bedrock theology dictated that had only a hope, rather than any kind of assurance.

Then perhaps you should study the matter a bit before offering us you unalloyed opinion.

I'm sorry- but this goes back to your most fundamental weakness- a desire for acceptance and approval from the world at large.

As faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, as a Latter-day Saints, and as a Church as a whole, we are not required to go bowing and scraping for approbation and validation from the pomp of Babylon.

We believe what we do- and worship as we do- because we have been taught and commanded to do so by God. We neither seek the consent of Babylon, nor her approval.

Again- this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between "secret" and "sacred".

We are not afraid that our temple rites and practices might be exposed and do us ill credit. We have nothing to hide.

We separate the sacred from the profane not to hide what we are doing, but rather to preserve the sacred and exclusive nature of the covenants.

We do not hide what we are doing to protect ourselves, but to avoid "throwing pearls before swine" and feeding the prurient lusts of the foolish, the venal, and the ignorant.

Again- we neither want nor need your approval, nor are we particularly concerned about your opinion.

For we do not serve you- but rather we serve our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ- and it is their good opinion, not yours, that drives us.

But then again, perhaps the Church is not looking to make an offering and sacrifice at the altar of Babylon. Perhaps we are content to worship and obey as the Lord has decreed.

And perhaps its something more.

Something beautiful.

Something sacred.

And something utterly beyond your current comprehension.

I've reached my limit of approbation points for today, so I'll just say +1 to Selek for this post.

And I'll come back tomorrow when my quota is restocked and give him a rep point.

[ERayR]

Come on, this defense is old and tired, even in LDS circles.

Why not quote what the scriptures say as opposed to what we don't know but just "want to conclude"?

John 18:20

"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

We need to abandone the myths and stick with the written scripture if we have any chance of credibility on this one.

Why would you display the sacred to and open holy places to those who can not appreciate it because they have not been prepared to appreciate it?

[Jaybear]

Why would you display the sacred to and open holy places to those who can not appreciate it because they have not been prepared to appreciate it?

Why wouldn't you? It makes perfect sense to keep the ceremony a secret from outsider is Smith's days, when polygamy was illegal.

But the ideas that nonMembers just can't "appreciate" the "sacred" ritual strikes me as condescending and insulting.

Have you ever been to a Jewish, Catholic or Greek Orthadox wedding? If so, did you find yourself incapable of appreciating the ceremony?

[selek1]

As I said in the other thread dedicated to this nonsense:

I find it interesting how steadfastly the anti-Mormon and pseudo-Mormon polemicists ignore basic reality in pursuit of this chimera.

Parents and family members are "excluded" from weddings every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year.

Some are excluded for reasons of health.

Some are excluded by reason of distance.

Some are excluded by money.

Some are excluded by bad blood between the relatives.

Some are excluded because of their own immaturity or the immaturity of the marrying couple.

Some are excluded by death.

Some are excluded by duty- as military service takes them far away from the loved ones in defense of us all.

And yet the only one that is decried as lamentable, dishonorable, hateful, or wrong is the principled decision to respect the sanctity of the Temple.

When I weigh all the events I have missed in my daughters' lives due to military service and distance, I find I have little sympathy for those who wail and gnash their teeth over missing fifteen minutes in a Temple they have rendered themselves unworthy to enter.

Edited May 29, 2012 by selek1

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

The Ceremony is still not "appreciate"d by critics even today. Which by the way has no mention of polygamy, and hasn't since at least 1972 when I went the first time.

I have been to Catholic services and they sure didn't mean as much to me as to those who understand the services.

[Scott Lloyd]

But the ideas that nonMembers just can't "appreciate" the "sacred" ritual strikes me as condescending and insulting.

Whether they can or not, many of them won't. They will be deliberately unkind, disrespectful and mocking.

And so, we obey the commandment to preserve the sanctity of it as best we can.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

The Ceremony is still not "appreciate"d by critics even today. Which by the way has no mention of polygamy, and hasn't since at least 1972 when I went the first time.

I have been to Catholic services and they sure didn't mean as much to me as to those who understand the services.

While you may not have "appreciated" the ceremony, I presume, like any normal adult, you were not deliberately unkind, disrespectful and mocking to your Catholics hosts.

[selek1]

To give the entire thread the weight it truly deserves, I offer the following:

These guys are Utah (if not Salt Lake) locals and are absolutely fantastic.

Check out their other videos, especially the

.

And try- just try- to keep your feet still during the videos.

I haven't been able to yet.

Edited May 29, 2012 by selek1

[Scott Lloyd]

While you may not have "appreciated" the ceremony, I presume, like any normal adult, you were not deliberately unkind, disrespectful and mocking to your Catholics hosts.

How the Catholic Church chooses to conduct its religious ceremonies is its own business.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chooses to safeguard the sanctity and privacy of its holiest ordinances.

[Garden Girl]

I've reached my limit of approbation points for today, so I'll just say +1 to Selek for this post.

And I'll come back tomorrow when my quota is restocked and give him a rep point.

Me too... GG

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I love the Temple ceremonies. I have some philosophical issues with some of the gendered patriarchal language currently used, but that doesn't change the fact that part of my interest in joining the church stems directly from reading transcripts of the ceremonies online. This is why (though I understand the reticence of some members) I have personally long believed that the current scripts should be made available in our standard works, presented openly in a faith-affirming context. This has nothing to do with capitulating to sinful Babylon; this has to do with serving our own members better. (I've known people go inactive after going to the Temple for the first time, because they were so unprepared for the covenants they would be asked to make there. If they knew what they were getting into because they had read it, the transition would be smoother.)

Nibley's book on the Endowment is one of my all-time faves, for instance, and I disagree in the strongest, strongest terms with Bob Oliverio's claims that the Temple is "not worthy of it's claimed history nor heritage" and that there is nothing in the Bible or Book of Mormon requiring a Temple (and see Margaret Barker or Oskar Skarsaune for the "educated christian world"). In fact, I find the Temple simple everywhere in the Bible and Book of Mormon. I think Joseph Smith was a man willing to gather all the good and true from wherever he found light, and one thing that he restored was the Temple, the ancient Mountain of the Lord, the House where the ritual of the Heavenly Ascent is reenacted to restore Covenants of At-one-ment with Heaven and Earth.

Nevertheless, no one has yet addressed the question of why sacred ordinances such as the Sacrament, Baptism, Priesthood Ordination, Confirmation, Blessings, Healings of Comfort, Dedications, etc., are able to be seen as equally Holy despite the fact that non-members can witness them. What exactly would be lost if non-members were similarly allowed to observe the Temple ordinances? There have been many changes made to the Temple ceremonies since they were introduced; if they are amenable to deletions and rewrites, it shows that the Sacred Drama is not a magical incantation carved in stone, but rather a ritual medium through which instruction is received and covenants are made in the language in which they can be received.

All that matters, ultimately, is that there is a ritual form which reifies the intangible promises being made, Binding people together. We are counseled to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you"; I honestly cannot find a reason why people who are not (yet?) members of the Church would harm the Binding merely by being allowed in.

On the other hand, I think considerable good could be done by opening the doors. For one thing, I think it would excite desire in those non-members seeking truth to take part! I know I've felt holy envy while observing Hindu and Catholic rites; that interest spurred me to find out more about such faiths, and the same would happen if we allowed people to observe our own. Since we are supposed to be trying to find and bind all people into our fold who want to take part, I think this would be all to the good. I would frankly find the ritual to be far more Holy if my non-member family and friends were allowed to witness it. The purpose of the Temple is to Bind the family of humanity to each other across worlds without number. Deliberately excluding non-member family from even witnessing the ordinances goes in exactly the opposite direction, and I urge everyone to consider the possibilities for good which opening the doors would very likely bring.

[volgadon]

Nevertheless, no one has yet addressed the question of why sacred ordinances such as the Sacrament, Baptism, Priesthood Ordination, Confirmation, Blessings, Healings of Comfort, Dedications, etc., are able to be seen as equally Holy despite the fact that non-members can witness them. What exactly would be lost if non-members were similarly allowed to observe the Temple ordinances? There have been many changes made to the Temple ceremonies since they were introduced; if they are amenable to deletions and rewrites, it shows that the Sacred Drama is not a magical incantation carved in stone, but rather a ritual medium through which instruction is received and covenants are made in the language in which they can be received.

I have some thoughts on this, but have also been super busy at work.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I look forward to them! (I should note that as a big Mircea Eliade fan, I'm aware that in the past the sharp division between the Sacred and the Profane was seen as especially necessary in the Temple - even the word "profane" is from pro-fano, "before the Temple." I like Nibley's paper 'On the Sacred and the Symbolic', for instance, and I think it has historically served a legitimate symbolic purpose for some people to create a sacred space, which I don't disdain; however, I think that that purpose is no longer necessary, and indeed is causing some harm.)

Edited May 30, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[daz2]

There are two questions. 1. Should the Church continue to exclude from the temple (and therefore from witnessing marriages for time and eternity) people not deemed worthy? 2. Should the Church accommodate the wishes of nonmember parents in particular by permitting (as happens in many other countries) the marriage for time to be performed outside the temple, followed within a short period of time the marriage (sealing) for eternity in the temple? Many years ago this was permitted. Mitt Romney and his wife were married under this regime--married for time outside the temple and shortly thereafter sealed in the temple. The current policy is to require a virtually unwaivable one year waiting period before the sealing can occur if the couple chooses to marry for time outside the temple first, even to accommodate the wishes of nonmember parents. (One year waiting periods seem almost like a penalty, as if it were a sin to marry outside the temple in that circumstance. I.e., that it is a sin to wish to permit one's parent to witness the portion of the marriage that relates to time only by having that part performed outside the temple)Plus, President Kimball once said that he questioned the efficacy of a post-mortem sealing for a couple who chose to marry outside the temple, and died before getting sealed. Young Women Manual 2, Lesson 15. He did not mention an exception for couples who had the civil ceremony as an accommodation to family. Had that couple chosen God first, I suppose, they would choosen to have all of the ceremony performed in the temple, including the portion that could be performed outside (the marriage for time). Thus, to be a "righteous" Mormon, one should choose the method that excludes parents who follow a different religion from ours.

Personally, I think the one-year waiting period causes couples to choose to hold the entire ceremony (for time and eternity) in the temple (and none of it outside)--which probably is the intent of the policy. Thus, the policy seems to be a Church statement that it would prefer that no part of the marriage ceremony--even the part that could performed outside the temple--be performed outside the temple to be visible to nonmember parents.

Perhaps the current one-year waiting period is more than a policy or practice, and it would take a major revelation from God to change it. Perhaps God is displeased with those countries in which the law requires that the marriage for time, to be legally recognized, must be performed outside the temple.

[Calm]

I'm aware that in the past the sharp division between the Sacred and the Profane was seen as especially necessary in the Temple - even the word "profane" is from pro-fano, "before the Temple." I like Nibley's paper 'On the Sacred and the Symbolic', for instance, and I think it has historically served a legitimate symbolic purpose for some people to create a sacred space, which I don't disdain; however, I think that that purpose is no longer necessary, and indeed is causing some harm.)

This world seems to be becoming more and more profane with less and less areas that are committed in part to sacred space and hardly any overall that are set aside for sacred space. And our culture is such that we have to go to some lengths as a group to create a sacred space that is recognized by others in the same way...that those willing to understand can appreciate our choice to create sacred spaces, where we choose to encounter God face to face.

I think there is a significant problem when you open up fully dedicated sacred space and sacred ceremony to what amounts as tourism. What happens is the sacred ceremony becomes a performance where those observing are not primarily there to learn and recommit to their covenants, but to observe others in their 'native habitat' for mostly entertainment, though some come to actually learn.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Your presumption is correct, but I still was informed not to take the Eucharist.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

This world seems to be becoming more and more profane with less and less areas that are committed in part to sacred space and hardly any overall that are set aside for sacred space. And our culture is such that we have to go to some lengths as a group to create a sacred space that is recognized by others in the same way...that those willing to understand can appreciate our choice to create sacred spaces, where we choose to encounter God face to face.

I think there is a significant problem when you open up fully dedicated sacred space and sacred ceremony to what amounts as tourism. What happens is the sacred ceremony becomes a performance where those observing are not primarily there to learn and recommit to their covenants, but to observe others in their 'native habitat' for mostly entertainment, though some come to actually learn.

Personally, I don't see the world becoming more profane; I actually think there has been great improvement in some ways. But what I really disagree with here is the idea that family witnessing the Temple ceremony amounts to "tourism", and that they are there merely for "entertainment". I don't see it that way at all. And it still doesn't answer the question of why some covenants are seen as Holy despite the fact that outsiders can observe the rituals by which we make them -- some people consider the Sacrament to be the most holy ordinance; is its holiness lessened by the fact that "tourists" can observe it, even if they don't take part? I don't think so, personally. These things are as Holy as we make them; as I've said, it would not take away any holiness for me to have family members and close friends in the Temple -- even if they are not members themselves, their presence would increase the holiness for me.

Edited May 30, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

But what I really disagree with here is the idea that family witnessing the Temple ceremony amounts to "tourism", and that they are there merely for "entertainment".

Perhaps not, but I think many would see the experience as much the same as observing a native american religious ceremony.

And once the demand for being able to observe has been met, why would they assume that other demands would not be met as well...such as ensuring rooms are large enough so that all nonmembers who want to attend can attend, family and friends or being able to add to the ceremony in some fashion so as nonmembers could be a meaningful part of it, not just observers?

I am afraid that my experience in other, nonreligious and religious events, has demonstrated to me at least that there is a significant portion of the population that will always want to make any event over in the image that they desire and will assume they have the right to do so.

As far as other rituals that are observed by outsiders, I am trying to think of one that is unique to our faith or does not have a similar ritual in another faith. I think familiarity and uniqueness have contributing qualities that can add to sacred space (others recognize the familiar as sacred in their own experience, uniqueness OTOH contributes to creating the sacred within our own experience).

I also think that the progression of rituals from something observed in the greater community to something observed by fewer and fewer (even of worthy members) creates a sense of movement toward the divine, toward the one. The scriptures teach that the way is narrow and few there are that find it. I am not suggesting we promote the idea that LDS are special in that we are the few and all others are not as I don't believe that at all. I am suggesting that limiting the ritual to a few believers allows for a greater emphasis on the presence of the one we have come to the temple to encounter by walking the narrow way.

I don't know about everyone else, but I have observed the more people involved in a reception or any other event, the less many are able to concentrate on the actual event being celebrated as they are too concerned with the experience of others, ensuring they are having a good time instead of being concerned about their own experience and what they need to get out of it. I think many of those who focus on the inclusive aspect of a sealing, trying to involve as many as possible in their wonderful experience...while not a bad idea in and of itself, often lose sight of the most important guest and witness who should be present, God.

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps not, but I think many would see the experience as much the same as observing a native american religious ceremony.

And once the demand for being able to observe has been met, why would they assume that other demands would not be met as well...such as ensuring rooms are large enough so that all nonmembers who want to attend can attend, family and friends or being able to add to the ceremony in some fashion so as nonmembers could be a meaningful part of it, not just observers?

I am afraid that my experience in other, nonreligious and religious events, has demonstrated to me at least that there is a significant portion of the population that will always want to make any event over in the image that they desire and will assume they have the right to do so.

As far as other rituals that are observed by outsiders, I am trying to think of one that is unique to our faith or does not have a similar ritual in another faith. I think familiarity and uniqueness have contributing qualities that can add to sacred space (others recognize the familiar as sacred in their own experience, uniqueness OTOH contributes to creating the sacred within our own experience).

I also think that the progression of rituals from something observed in the greater community to something observed by fewer and fewer (even of worthy members) creates a sense of movement toward the divine, toward the one. The scriptures teach that the way is narrow and few there are that find it. I am not suggesting we promote the idea that LDS are special in that we are the few and all others are not as I don't believe that at all. I am suggesting that limiting the ritual to a few believers allows for a greater emphasis on the presence of the one we have come to the temple to encounter by walking the narrow way.

I don't know about everyone else, but I have observed the more people involved in a reception or any other event, the less many are able to concentrate on the actual event being celebrated as they are too concerned with the experience of others, ensuring they are having a good time instead of being concerned about their own experience and what they need to get out of it. I think many of those who focus on the inclusive aspect of a sealing, trying to involve as many as possible in their wonderful experience...while not a bad idea in and of itself, often lose sight of the most important guest and witness who should be present, God.

Well put.

The emphasis in the temple sealing is on the couple - not on the rest of the people in the room. The sealers, in the sealings I've attended, have been universally specific about that point.

[Bob Oliverio]

I think there is a significant problem when you open up fully dedicated sacred space and sacred ceremony to what amounts as tourism.

Maybe we should define what is a sacred place and sacred ceremony.  Is a baptism a sacred ceremony? Is a priesthood blessing a sacred ceremony? Are there any "sacred places" outside of our Temples?  Pretty tough arguments and explanations to make publicly with a straight face if we think not.  

As JeremyOrbe-Smith rightfully articulated this very point:

Nevertheless, no one has yet addressed the question of why sacred ordinances such as the Sacrament, Baptism, Priesthood Ordination, Confirmation, Blessings, Healings of Comfort, Dedications, etc., are able to be seen as equally Holy despite the fact that non-members can witness them.

Mr Smith and I obviously disagree as to the evidence of the Temple Wedding ceremony/requirement in ancient Christian/Jewish scripture or history.  I'm sure we can find isolated authors who can find ways to "rationalize" a setting for such practice, but just as we find no secular academic interest/support for BOM historicity claims or interest in the "rationalizations" of adopting a mesoamerican history for it's ancient setting, we can't find any Jewish scholars supporting the Temples used for ancient marriage cerimonies.  And it would seem they "should be" the group most aligned with such history and belief in this practice.

But I think when you step back and look at things objectively, the two most harmful  practices of "exclusion" drawing the loudest and most profound criticism are blacks being excluded from the priesthood and friends, family and loved ones being excluded from temple weddings.  Ironically, neither of these practices of exclusions are supported by nor identified as required within LDS doctrine.  Certainly not that the Church will publicly explain or support officially.

[changed]

Molly joins the LDS Church against her parents’ wishes. She meets Peter, and they fall in love. Peter asks her to marry him in the temple. She accepts, but when she tells her parents, the reality hits that they won’t be allowed to witness the ceremony. She asks Peter if they could hold a civil ceremony, then get sealed later (after waiting one year). Peter tells her the story of the young couple who chose that path but were killed before they could be married in the temple. Molly agrees to marry in the temple and let her parents wait outside.

I'm a "Molly" Mormon (my parents were not able to come into the temple with me).

Please explain to Molly’s parents how this is not exclusion.

everyone is invited to join the church, and come to the temple.

[selek1]

Maybe we should define what is a sacred place and sacred ceremony.

It would give more credibility to your claims to be LDS if you knew what you were talking about.

From the Frequently Asked Questions section regarding Temples on LDS.org:

The temple is a peaceful, sacred place, set apart from the cares and turmoil of the world. All areas of the temple are beautifully and carefully maintained to preserve a spirit of reverence. Because it is the Lord’s house, and because of the sacred work performed there, in the temple we can feel the Spirit abundantly and feel close to the Lord. There we can receive personal revelation and spiritual strength to help us overcome our trials. This is part of the reason we are encouraged to attend the temple regularly.

Emphasis mine.

It not sufficient to say that the Temple is "sacred". It specifically set apart and consecrated as the Lord's House.

While our chapels are also sacred spaces (you might wish to take note of what types of services are allowed in the chapel proper and which are not), they are not set apart and consecrated in the same fashion as the Temple.

Yes- sacred spaces exist (and we are encouraged to have them in our homes, where possible)- but simply being sacred does not make them a Temple.

A Temple is something more.

Is a baptism a sacred ceremony? Is a priesthood blessing a sacred ceremony?

This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Were you what you pretend to be, you would understand that while baptism is a sacred rite, it is also public declaration of faith, and your willingness to take upon you the name of Christ.

A Priesthood Blessing, on the other hand, is made both to exercise the powers of Heaven and to edify both the person being blessed as well as those serving or witnessing.

Even then, neither a baptism nor a Priesthood blessing is intended to serve for the delectation of the prurient or the entertainment of the merely curious.

With the exception of the very public baby blessing which confirms the child a member of the household of faith and dedicates the child to the service of the Lord, blessings are intended to be held privately amongst those with a direct interest, and not a spectacle.

Are there any "sacred places" outside of our Temples? Pretty tough arguments and explanations to make publicly with a straight face if we think not.

This statement is a non sequitor. Could you please rephrase it into something coherent? What- precisely- argument is being made that we are supposed to be find so credulous?

I'm sure we can find isolated authors who can find ways to "rationalize" a setting for such practice, but just as we find no secular academic interest/support for BOM historicity claims or interest in the "rationalizations" of adopting a mesoamerican history for it's ancient setting, we can't find any Jewish scholars supporting the Temples used for ancient marriage cerimonies. And it would seem they "should be" the group most aligned with such history and belief in this practice.

There are a number of assumptions packed into this statement that indicate a vast and bottomless ignorance of LDS thought, theology, and of history in general and both Jewish and Mormon religious history in particular.

Being so woefully ignorant, you are simply not qualified to make the sweeping statements for which you are so justly ignored.

But I think when you step back and look at things objectively, the two most harmful practices of "exclusion" drawing the loudest and most profound criticism are blacks being excluded from the priesthood and friends, family and loved ones being excluded from temple weddings.

Unfortunately, you are not qualified to offer this as anything other than unvarnished, ignorant posturing. There is nothing "objective" about your pose.

Ironically, neither of these practices of exclusions are supported by nor identified as required within LDS doctrine. Certainly not that the Church will publicly explain or support officially.

Not true- but why let a blatant falsehood interefere with your agenda, right? Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1