Exclusion?

[selek1]

The following (again, from the Frequently Asked Questions section regarding Temples) gives the lie to the entire controversy:

I have family members who cannot enter the temple. What can I do to help them feel included in my temple marriage?

This can be a tender subject. Since the temple is the house of the Lord, dedicated to Him, those who enter must hold a current temple recommend, which certifies that they are living by the standards He has set. However, those who do not have a current temple recommend are welcome on temple grounds, and most temples have a room where they can wait while family members are being sealed. A couple with family members who cannot enter the temple may invite their bishop or another Church member to stay with them in the waiting room.

A couple may also arrange with their bishop to hold a special meeting afterward for relatives and friends who do not have a recommend. This meeting provides an opportunity for them to feel included and to learn about eternal marriage. Although no ceremony is performed and no vows are exchanged, rings may be exchanged at such a meeting.

Contrary to the myth-making going on by critics, faithful Latter-day Saints are more than welcome to have a ring ceremony or other meeting in order to solemnize their marriage in the sight of family and friends.

They are simply not allowed to put the temporal ceremony ahead (figuratively or literally) of their eternal covenants.

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[Bob Oliverio]

Contrary to the myth-making going on by critics, faithful Latter-day Saints are more than welcome to have a ring ceremony or other meeting in order to solemnize their marriage in the sight of family and friends.

Contrary to critics of those angered by the exclusion of LDS softball teams in the Mercer league, mormons are allowed to play on other teams.  They just are not allowed to play, perform their skills or get to the next level, as a team in front of friends and family.

Somehow I don't think all "quid-pro-quos" are equally understood!

[selek1]

Contrary to critics of those angered by the exclusion of LDS softball teams in the Mercer league, mormons are allowed to play on other teams. They just are not allowed to play, perform their skills or get to the next level, as a team in front of friends and family.

And yet, as your ally Jaybear pointed out, "weddings are more important than softball games".

Arguing that these are functionally or morally equivalent demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of what the Temple is, and what "sacred" means. It directly harms your credibility, and undermines your claims to be an LDS convert.

Somehow I don't think all "quid-pro-quos" are equally understood!

Sorry, your illiteracy is showing.

quid-pro-quo

noun, plural quid pro quos, quids pro quo for 2.

1. (

italics

) Latin . one thing in return for another.

2.

something

that

is

given

or

taken

in return for something

else;

substitute.

By your "logic" (and I use the term advisedly) the exclusion of the Mormon teams by the Mercer league is offered in equal payment for the "exclusion" suffered by blacks and non-Mormons.

Nothing could be further from the truth- as the statement made by the Mercer league (in the thread dedicated to that discussion) demonstrates.

More specifically, we have never wronged them- therefore they have no need to return wrong-for-wrong.

If, on the other hand, you are implying that the Mercer exclusion is some sort of karmic "just-desserts" for alleged bigotry, then you justifying LDS complaints that the exclusion is prima facia bigotry.

Where the LDS have- by your own admission- moved on from such practices, you are implicitly justifying such behavior (so long as it is directed at people you think are deserving of such discrimination).

That is functionally identical to the (long-discredited) idea that blacks deserved their second-class status because of their pre-mortal deeds.

By embracing the notion that Mormons deserve to be discriminated against because they once discriminated, you are justifying bigotry- and have thus become exactly that which you profess to hate.

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[Thinking]

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

It's more complicated than that (which I'm sure you already know).

1. I am confident that you are not suggesting that people join the LDS Church just to witness a temple marriage.

2. The process would take at least one year since the wait to enter the temple after baptism is one year.

[rodheadlee]

Contrary to critics of those angered by the exclusion of LDS softball teams in the Mercer league, mormons are allowed to play on other teams. They just are not allowed to play, perform their skills or get to the next level, as a team in front of friends and family.

Somehow I don't think all "quid-pro-quos" are equally understood!

If that's the trade off it's fine with me. I don't want to trade my inheritance for a bowl of porridge.

[KevinG]

Does anyone need a reminder that participation in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is voluntary?

[Jaybear]

By embracing the notion that Mormons deserve to be discriminated against because they once discriminated, you are justifying bigotry- and have thus become exactly that which you profess to hate.

Your inane allegation assumes that the decision to exclude the Mormon Church was the product of bigotry.

I don't see "bigotry" in either circumstance.

From their perspective, the Mormon Church is not part of the community of Christian Churches.

You are essentially complaining about not being invited to a family reunion, by a family that does not recognize you as a close relative.

By contrast, you see the exclusion of Mormons as bigotry, and the exclusion by Mormons as God's will.

So of course, from your very limited perspective, the two situations are not analogous.

[Darren10]

I didn’t want to derail the Softball thread so I started this one.

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.

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

A certain radio hostess I used to listen to regularly made an excellent point regarding marriage. She said that marriage is a covenant before God and that the nature of marriage is spiritual with social components mixed in with it. It is not social with religious components mixed in. That, I think, is a very important distinction to make. The father of the girl who got marriage has no inherent right to witness her marriage for her marriage was a covenant before God. (Likewise, IuI really do not care for the Mercer Countery Softball League, unless it's publicly funded, bans LDS teams). As Storm Rider pointed out, if witnessing anything about the marriage is that important, he's free to make post temple sealing arrangements to do his witnessing. The father was also as free as his daughter to prepare himself to enter into the temple. Apparently he made diferent choices than she.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

[changed]

It's more complicated than that (which I'm sure you already know).

1. I am confident that you are not suggesting that people join the LDS Church just to witness a temple marriage.

2. The process would take at least one year since the wait to enter the temple after baptism is one year.

it is not more complicated than that. If a family wants to be together, they need to have the same religious beliefs. Not going to someone's wedding is the tip of the iceberg -

(New Testament | Matthew 12:48 - 50)

Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Family is not about who you are related to, it's about who you share common beliefs with. Sadly, I have many relatives who are not part of my family. We can eat dinner together, or go to a movie, or take a vacation together - but we are guarded around one another because we don't hold the same principles/morals/goals/beliefs. Baptism is about choosing your family... everyone is free to choose whatever family they want to belong to. I love my relatives, of coarse you are going to love those you've grown up with, but there is a closeness that can only be achieved between those who hold the same beliefs.

Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

the higher bond is one of choice - who you choose to be with.

Edited May 31, 2012 by changed

[selek1]

Your inane allegation assumes that the decision to exclude the Mormon Church was the product of bigotry.

No, Jaybear- it is not inane to demonstrate the holes in your Bobsy (Olviero) twin's logic, nor how his poisonous ideology turns on itself.

Nor is your attempted distraction particularly useful to your case.

Mormons bend over backwards to ensure that non-LDS members feel welcome during their children's wedding day.

Some folks (due to worthiness and membership issues) cannot attend the brief ceremony in the Temple itself.

While disappointing, this is no different than the many, many people in every day life who cannot attend due to various circumstances having nothing to do with Temple considerations.

To single out the Mormon practice for condemnation, while ignoring the greater reality, is to engage in hyper-partisan demagoguery and unprincipled polemics.

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[Jaybear]

No, Jaybear- it is not inane to demonstrate the holes in your Bobsy (Olviero) twin's logic, nor how his poisonous ideology turns on itself.

Nor is your attempted distraction particularly useful to your case.

Mormons bend over backwards to ensure that non-LDS members feel welcome during their children's wedding day.

Some folks (due to worthiness and membership issues) cannot attend the brief ceremony in the Temple itself.

While disappointing, this is no different than the many, many people in every day life who cannot attend due to various circumstances having nothing to do with Temple considerations.

To single out the Mormon practice for condemnation, while ignoring the greater reality, is to engage in hyper-partisan demagoguery and unprincipled polemics.

In your zeal to lash out with righteous furry, you have an annoying tendency to misconstrue.

I have not "condemned" this practice. In fact, I just said it was NOT bigotry. As I see it, it is your ceremony. Your church has every right to exclude anyone it choses for any reason.

What I have done that appears to have raised your ire, is point out an obvious fact, that nonLDS parents who are excluded from attending their child's LDS wedding will likely be disappointing, and many cases even resentful.

Do you even disagree with that statement?

I have also said that this pain and resentment would likely go much deeper than any pain and resentment that would follow from not being able to filed a ward softball team in a "Christian league."

The only one here condemning a practice, was you when you characterized the softball exclusion as bigotry.

At some point it would great if you would actually address the opinions I express, rather than the ones you imagine.

[Scott Lloyd]

What I have done that appears to have raised your ire, is point out an obvious fact, that nonLDS parents who are excluded from attending their child's LDS wedding will likely be disappointing, and many cases even resentful.

It occurs to me that children of such parents, in very many cases, have suffered disappointment as well. Perhaps they are disappointed that their efforts to share their precious faith with said parents have been rebuffed, even met with hostility. Perhaps the determination of said parents to publicly play the victim role has engendered resentment in their children.

Disappointment and resentment are the hazards that attend allowing individuals to chart their own life's course or give vent to their emotions.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

It occurs to me that children of such parents, in very many cases, have suffered disappointment as well. Perhaps they are disappointed that their efforts to share their precious faith with said parents have been rebuffed, even met with hostility. Perhaps the determination of said parents to publicly play the victim role have engendered resentment in their children.

Disappointment and resentment are the hazards that attend allowing individuals to chart their own life's course or give vent to their emotions.

So does this mean you agree that ...nonLDS parents who are excluded from attending their child's LDS wedding will likely be disappointing, and many cases even resentful ?

No one here seems to be willing to openly acknowledge or dispute my perception of reality.

If so, would you also agree that the LDS Church could go a long way to minimizing this disappointment and resentment by simply allowing the couple to option to have a civil ceremony before the sealing?

A simple yes or no would be great.

[ERayR]

The only one here condemning a practice, was you when you characterized the softball exclusion as bigotry.

No selek is correct it is bigotry and is in no way analogous to exclusion of non-recommend holders to a temple marriage. If baseball were a religious rite they were performing then you would have an analogy. As much as some like their ball games I doubt anyone would argue for it being a religious rite.

Edited May 31, 2012 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

So does this mean you agree that ...nonLDS parents who are excluded from attending their child's LDS wedding will likely be disappointing, and many cases even resentful ?

If you mean to say disappointed rather than "disappointing," I will acknowledge that some do get disappointed and resentful. Who here has denied that? People can be disappointed and resentful over all manner of things. That doesn't mean that in every single case they are justified.

If so, would you also agree that the LDS Church could go a long way to minimizing this disappointment and resentment by simply allowing the couple to option to have a civil ceremony before the sealing?

A simple yes or no would be great.

We've been through this before: I'm not on a witness stand, so you can't browbeat me into a one-word response.

It occurs to me that there would be costs involved in whatever decision the Church would make in this matter.

I don't speak for the Church, but I would venture a guess that the leaders have considered the matter carefully and determined that doing what you describe carries too great of a hazard that the sealing ceremony itself, which ought to be viewed as supernal and sublime, would be marginalized and minimized in favor of the pomp and pageantry that such a "civil ceremony" might entail.

Meanwhile, it seems to me an exchange of rings between the couple before well-wishers, which the Church does permit, could answer some people's craving for a ceremony of some kind outside of the temple and is a reasonable accommodation.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Oliverio]

The point I was attempting to make was one of perception, attitude and one of doctrine.  

While Mr/Ms Selek seemed to dismiss my earlier point, the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was nothing more than an attitude of the Church at the time and has left a long and strong negative perception towards the Church.  As we know, there was no doctrine that required that exclusion. And if I'm wrong, Selek or anyone else can specifically identify the one the Church has officially stood behind for justification of this practice of excluding blacks.  And had they been allowed the priesthood, would it have impaired, in any way, those who were already priesthood holders or those who would become such?

Similarly, there is no doctrine that requires the exclusion of anyone from witnessing a temple marriage.  If I'm wrong, please provide the specific doctrine to which the church has officially cited for this exclusion.  If a non member, or even a member w/o a temple rec, witnessed the ceremony, would it impair the blessings received by the two being sealed?  I don't think so.  So in the abscence of doctrine, it really is just a policy.  Is  it really a question of worthiness, or a policy that helps the Church with control and loyalty over tithings?

We compromise proxy baptisms for the Jewish community and justify it as a respect for their feelings and to build bridges.   And that is a ceremony supported by doctrine.  So why not build bridges and respect the feelings of all families and change the exclusion policy of temple weddings?  After all, "family first"!!!

[thesometimesaint]

Christ First.

[Bob Oliverio]

Christ First.

And he welcomed all!

[selek1]

And he welcomed all!

No- he didn't.

Perhaps a passing familiarity with the Scriptures must reduce your credulousness.

Christ welcomed the humble and the penitent. He turned away the prideful and the unrepentant.

Christ told a Samaritan woman that he was sent to the children of Israel, and that "the it was not meat to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs".

Christ (rather violently) drove the money changers from the Temple and frequently- and caustically- decried the Pharisees and Saducees who tried to entrap him and undermine his ministry.

Christ turned away many potential disciples until he was left with only Twelve.

Jesus flatly rejected those who would not turn from their sins- saying that they could not be saved.

In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus turned away the "wealthy young man" who had kept the law "perfectly", but still loved his wealth.

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[Kenngo1969]

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. ...

This, times 1,000! I believe the "uninitiated" would be vastly underwhelmed by the ceremony. As dissatisfied as they are now being excluded from it, I believe the response of many would be, "That's it? C'mon, surely my formerly-non-LDS son or daughter deserves more than that! Even 'til-death-do-they-part ceremonies have more substance than that! I can't believe something so simple could suffice to marry my son or daughter, allegedly for eternity! Where's the pomp? Where's the circumstance?"

[Yep]

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

I fail to see the necessity of explaining this. In response: Why does it need to be explained?

Neither Christ nor the Apostles taught that the exclusionary nature of the Temple should ever be changed. Why would anyone think that somehow God's house was in some way different than it ever was? The Temple has always been exclusionary. From the beginning even the Presiding High Priest of the Temple was only allowed in one part of the Temple and then only once a year. Should this area have been open to everyone, all the time?

Why do people ask for explanations when there really isn't a need for one? It is exlusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

So why not build bridges and respect the feelings of all families and change the exclusion policy of temple weddings? After all, "family first"!!!

What does "Family first" mean (whether or not it is followed by a series of superfluous exclamation marks)? If by this you mean that family has priority over personal pleasures or worldly pursuits, that's quite true.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that allegiance to extended family and relatives trumps one's duty to God and obedience to His commandments, I think you've picked up a false impression along the way.

And if I may speak candidly, Bob, within the last few days you've made it quite clear how lightly you regard the doctrine of the temple. You hardly have the credibility at this point to be lecturing us about "policy" vs. "doctrine" or how the leaders of the Church ought to be altering the practice with regard to temple worship to accommodate the demands of those who hold it in even lower esteem than you.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

We compromise proxy baptisms for the Jewish community and justify it as a respect for their feelings and to build bridges. And that is a ceremony supported by doctrine.

By the way, this is not an accurate statement. Proxy baptisms have not been "compromise"d for the Jewish community or anyone else. The policy is that Church members may submit the names only for their direct-line ancestors, and that is true whether the names being submitted are Jewish Holocaust victims or not. On the other hand, a direct descendant of a Holocaust victim, under specified conditions, could submit and have the temple work done for that ancestor. Nothing in any agreement the Church has made precludes it.

So the doctrine of work for the dead has not been "compromise"d, despite how much you need it to be so to make your point.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[selek1]

Scott,

Could you arrange to make all of these points (so utterly devastating to Oliveiro's case) in a single post from now on?

It's sooo much easier on my approval points bank account.