Exclusion?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I think I'm on the verge of exhausting a whole day's supply again, having spent them largely on your posts.

[ERayR]

I think I'm on the verge of exhausting a whole day's supply again, having spent them largely on your posts.

Think about me I have to divide my points between you two.

[selek1]

Think about me I have to divide my points between you two.

Yes- but I have the added attraction of Key Lime Cheesecake to sway you to my side....

[jwhitlock]

Good points, Scott and selek.

I'm reminded of the Community of Christ and how they've basically headed in the direction promoted by those who want the temple ceremony to be open to all. Opening things up means that you have to lower the power of any ceremony down to the lowest common denominator. The philosophy of the temple, on the other hand, is to raise people up to God through the power of the covenants made there. Raising people up and giving them the power to come out of the world is not met - in fact, it's undermined - by making something available without any requirement at all.

One thing that is clearly evident is that those who think the temple rituals should be open to all simply don't understand the power or purpose of them. It's also evident that they don't want to. Attending the temple is about sacred experiences among those who have taken upon themselves the name of Christ by covenant and have become His children. It's about being given the power to undergo the trials and pruning that ready you for the presence of God. Hebrews 12, I believe, is rather specific about dividing those who covenant and those who won't covenant; the terminology used there is aptly descriptive.

[ERayR]

Yes- but I have the added attraction of Key Lime Cheesecake to sway you to my side....

You just solved my dilemma.

Edited May 31, 2012 by ERayR

[Thinking]

The Temple has always been exclusionary.

Except in Kirtland.

[Nominee]

Think about me I have to divide my points between you two.

I'm with ERayR. Hats off to Selek; Scott; GREAT posts throughout this thread! I've blown all my points on the two of you here for the last two days. Thank you. I have been following quietly. You guys are saying everything that needs to be said and I appreciate it.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The responses here have not engaged the central points I have tried to make.

No one has explained why excluding family from the Sealing ceremony makes it more Holy than if they were to be included.

No one has given a direct answer to why the creation of sacred space would be harmed or diminished or compromised by allowing people who are not currently part of our faith to enter.

Merely positing that it is (or should be) obvious or self-evident is not an adequate defense of the personal view that the Sealing ceremony would be diminished by non-member family being allowed into the Temple.

In other threads, people have said that the Sacrament -- which non-members are allowed to observe even if they don't take part -- is the Holiest Ordinance. If this view is to remain consistent, it necessarily follows that non-members witnessing a Sealing would not lessen the Holiness of the Ordinance. Hypotheticals about further "demands" which might be made once non-members are allowed entrance are beside the point. It's not the number of people involved which is the problem -- plenty of people have weddings where only the immediate family is invited. That's a completely different situation than what happens in the Temple, where even immediate family is definitionally excluded based not on their personal righteousness, but rather simply for being non-members. A good person is a good person, whether in or out of the Church.

Matthew 7:13 states 'Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

While this quote is one of the most abused prooftexts in scripture, since it is so amenable to being thrown against anyone we disagree with by implying that our way is God's way and anyone who disagrees with us is therefore not walking along the narrow way, in context, it has nothing to do with excluding others from witnessing sacred rituals just because they are not part of the same faith. This is about a way of life, a pattern of being. When we deliberately exclude the Fathers and Mothers we have covenanted to Honor, we are going in the opposite direction of the At-One-Ment of Christ in which there is neither Jew nor Greek.

(Keep in mind that it would be just as easy for me turn around and use this as a prooftext against those who disagree with my views, claiming that anyone who is opposed to opening the Sealing ceremony to non-members is simply walking on the broad path which countless exclusivist "no-[whatevers]-allowed" clubs have walked, whereas I'm More Righteous Than You because I'm walking the narrow path of the few who are welcoming to all people regardless of membership. Of course, that would be as unconvincing to others as the reverse is to me, so let's give that one a rest, aight?)

I get no sense of movement towards the divine simply by excluding others. I don't think that's what the rituals are supposed to convey, I don't see that as a necessary part of what we're there to learn through the Sacred Drama. I don't see God as a narcissistic God who desires sole worship -- I see Him as the designated Speaker for an entire Family - the Divine Council which we are all to take part in. Christ is our Advocate among the Gods; our Heavenly Father, our Heavenly Mother, our Heavenly Sisters and Brothers. It's not about sycophantically sucking up to a single person, it's about learning to take part in the Plan of Salvation and becoming the Servant of All, recognizing that we're all part of the same family, each of us an archetypal Adam or Eve.

The emphasis placed on the couple in the Sealing would not be harmed by allowing non-member family in; it would be heightened. The Temple being set apart from the cares and turmoil of the world would not be harmed by allowing non-member family in; it would help to heal some of the turmoil which the current policy causes in the world.

To describe the desire felt by parents to witness the Sealing of their own children as merely the "delectation of the prurient or the entertainment of the merely curious" is an amazingly disingenuous and audaciously insulting mischaracterization.

selek1's argument is immediately shown to be incoherent when he quotes a Church publication stating that "although no ceremony is performed and no vows are exchanged, rings may be exchanged at such a meeting" and then goes on to say that "contrary to the myth-making going on by critics, faithful Latter-day Saints are more thanwelcome to have a ring ceremony or other meeting in order to solemnize their marriage in the sight of family and friends."

This policy does not make sense, and is not supported by any scripture we have agreed upon by common consent. No ceremony is performed ... except a ring ceremony? Clarification on what exactly we are defining as a "ceremony" would be helpful.

Darren10's comment that "the father of the girl who got marriage has no inherent right to witness her marriage for her marriage was a covenant before God" is similarly hurtful. Do you folks really not see the harm that is caused by this attitude? How would you feel if you were barred from witnessing your own child's wedding, not based on any wrong you have done, but simply because you're not a member of your child's faith community?

Yes, the father was as free as his daughter to prepare himself to enter the Temple, but these things go on different time scales. Joseph Smith said that if he hadn't experienced what he had, he wouldn't have believed the story he told himself. In the meanwhile, because this father has happened not to be in exactly the same place spiritually as his daughter, he's barred from this life-changing event?

... and this is supposed to encourage him to look further into the religion?

selek1 claims that "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."

This is not a valid argument. External circumstances which cannot be helped such as distance, time, money, etc., are entirely different than being explicitly excluded. There is no comparison.

And [Christ] welcomed all!

No- he didn't.

Yes, He did. The key word here is "welcomed." As 1 Timothy 2:1 says:

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

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?"

So let them be underwhelmed. At least they have the option of witnessing it, and are not being deliberately, institutionally, excluded.

jwhitlock claims that:

"Opening things up means that you have to lower the power of any ceremony down to the lowest common denominator."

Not. True. My family is not "the lowest common denominator" just because they're not members. Allowing non-members in to the Temple would not lower the power of the ceremony. Why would it?

No one here has explained why it would lessen the personal effect of the Ceremony to include non-member family!

Maybe it would for you. In that case, simply don't invite the people you don't want there.

I know that if my parents were simply allowed in the doors for my sealing, that it would heighten the Holiness of the ceremony, at least for me.

One thing that is clearly evident is that those who think the temple rituals should be open to all simply don't understand the power or purpose of them. It's also evident that they don't want to.

Actually, one thing that is clearly evident is that this is an extremely false characterization.

Edited June 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[selek1]

The responses here have not engaged the central points I have tried to make.

I flatly disagree. That you don't like the answers you have received does not mean you have not received answers.

No one has explained why excluding family from the Sealing ceremony makes it more Holy than if they were to be included.

Again, I disagree.

No one has given a direct answer to why the creation of sacred space would be harmed or diminished or compromised by allowing people who are not currently part of our faith to enter.

As stated above, the Temple is not merely "sacred space"- it is set apart unto the Lord. By definition, it is exclusive to those who have prepared themselves and made themselves worthy. By opening it to those who have not, you are robbing it of its very exclusivity. It becomes just one more common or public venue.

I hate to dip into the mere prurient- but apparently nothing less subtle will sway you.

The intimacy between man and wife is private, sacred, and exclusive (or at least should be, in the Household of faith). It becomes less so when it is shared with the milk man, the mailman, the cable repair man, the paper boy, the encyclopedia salesman.....

This is not because they are bad or unworthy men per se, but because their presence is both a violation of the covenants between husband and wife and because they have not made and prepared similar covenants with her before God.

Anyone participating in the marital rites without having made such covenants is guilty of gross sin. They have fundamentally mocked and profaned the sacred.

Merely positing that it is (or should be) obvious or self-evident is not an adequate defense of the personal view that the Sealing ceremony would be diminished by non-member family being allowed into the Temple.

Nor is a mere application of handwavium-238 sufficient cause for us to accept your version of what is right or correct.

In other threads, people have said that the Sacrament -- which non-members are allowed to observe even if they don't take part -- is the Holiest Ordinance. If this view is to remain consistent, it necessarily follows that non-members witnessing a Sealing would not lessen the Holiness of the Ordinance.

This sounds like the notorious journalistic canard, "Some people say". This is used (primarily) to offer up an idea or view while not having to take responsibility for that view. It is a bit of disingenuous foolscap, used most often for rhetorical advantage.

More to the point, it misses the point.

As noted above, while the Sacrament is sacred, it is also a public witness of our willingness to take upon us the name of Christ. Why else are we tasked to partake collegially? We are specifically cautioned not to prepare or partake of the Sacrament simply by or for ourselves (though there are rare exceptions to this rule).

By definition, the Sacrament is public. By definition, the Temple is private. No amount of sophistry will alter those fundamental definitions.

Hypotheticals about further "demands" which might be made once non-members are allowed entrance are beside the point. It's not the number of people involved which is the problem -- plenty of people have weddings where only the immediate family is invited.

That's a completely different situation than what happens in the Temple, where even immediate family is definitionally excluded based not on their personal righteousness, but rather simply for being non-members. A good person is a good person, whether in or out of the Church.

This canard is getting no more true for its hypnotic repetition. We all agree that a good person is a good person whether within the Church or without. But it is not their membership in the Church that is the deciding factor. "Good" Mormons are "excluded" every day.

The deciding factor is whether or not they have made and are keeping the sacred covenants necessary to enter the Temple. Anyone who has not- from John the Baptist to John the Butcher is disqualified from the Temple, regardless of their personal worthiness.

While this quote is one of the most abused prooftexts in scripture,

(Not that that'll stop you from misuing it for your own purposes).

This is about a way of life, a pattern of being.

I agree- and the pattern laid down by Christ and his apostles is one that puts the sacred before the profane, and the Holy before the Unholy. Latter-day Sainta are a covenant people. We cannot simply set aside our covenants simply because appeasement is easier.

When we deliberately exclude the Fathers and Mothers we have covenanted to Honor, we are going in the opposite direction of the At-One-Ment of Christ in which there is neither Jew nor Greek.

This is false on a number of levels.

First and foremost, we are not "dishonoring" our parents by honoring the Sacred, anymore than I am "dishonoring" my father by not allowing him to embezzle from the company.

What you are offering us is a false (and malicious) dichotomy. To insist otherwise is rhetorically dishonest. As others here have demonstrated, one can honor his father and his mother without profaning the Temple.

(Keep in mind that it would be just as easy for me turn around and use this as a prooftext against those who disagree with my views, claiming that anyone who is opposed to opening the Sealing ceremony to non-members is simply walking on the broad path which countless exclusivist "no-[whatevers]-allowed" clubs have walked, whereas I'm More Righteous Than You because I'm walking the narrow path of the few who are welcoming to all people regardless of membership. Of course, that would be as unconvincing to others as the reverse is to me, so let's give that one a rest, aight?)

You could make that argument- but it would be every bit as disingenuous as those which you have offered thus far.

The "exclusion" which you are so desperate to denigrate and decry has ample historical precedent. More importantly- it is endorsed, tactitly and explicitly, by those who hold the keys of the stewardship.

The Temple is not "ours" to withhold or bestow. Our authority in that regard is delegated from Christ. I have no reason to believe that those good men enforcing this policy are doing so thoughtlessly or maliciously.

I am quite confident that they are aware of the contention the issue engenders and are acting both responsibly and to the best of their ability to coincide with the Lord's wishes.

Other than your stated opposition to the policy, do you have any reason to suspect otherwise?

I get no sense of movement towards the divine simply by excluding others. I don't think that's what the rituals are supposed to convey, I don't see that as a necessary part of what we're there to learn through the Sacred Drama.

And yet your opinion is not the end-all and be-all of the issue.

It is not your calling. It is not your stewardship. It is not your place to dictate who may (or may not) enter the Temple.

In that regard, you remind me of the rooster who proudly proclaims that it is his crowing that causes the Sun to rise in the morning.

The Temple exists. The restriction on who may enter are an essential part of its sacred nature and function. No matter how much you crow, it will remain so.

I don't see God as a narcissistic God who desires sole worship -- I see Him as the designated Speaker for an entire Family - the Divine Council which we are all to take part in. Christ is our Advocate among the Gods; our Heavenly Father, our Heavenly Mother, our Heavenly Sisters and Brothers. It's not about sycophantically sucking up to a single person, it's about learning to take part in the Plan of Salvation and becoming the Servant of All, recognizing that we're all part of the same family, each of us an archetypal Adam or Eve.

No one has pretended otherwise- but one must also consider how God "became" God. His very nature and authority are defined by the fact that he keeps the law perfectly.

We do not become more God-like by picking-and-choosing which eternal laws we will honor and which we will "bend" to keep the in-laws happy.

The emphasis placed on the couple in the Sealing would not be harmed by allowing non-member family in; it would be heightened.

In your opinion. Others of good character (and who hold the keys) disagree. More specifically, as noted above, it would alter the fundamental nature of the Temple.

The Temple being set apart from the cares and turmoil of the world would not be harmed by allowing non-member family in; it would help to heal some of the turmoil which the current policy causes in the world.

In your opinion. Others of good character (and who hold the keys) disagree. More specifically, as noted above, it would alter the fundamental nature of the Temple, turning it from a place that is set apart unto the Lord into just one more public venue. Edited June 1, 2012 by selek1

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Still haven't answered the fundamental question of why it would diminish the Holiness of the Ordinance to have non-members witness it.

The Temple is clearly not "private" to the same degree or in a way comparable to the intimacy shared between married folk, since there are plenty of others in there, so long as they are members. The people involved in the ritual are "set apart" in the same way that anyone with a calling is -- which means that the ritual by which they are set apart can be witnessed without robbing the Ordinance of sanctity, or making those doing so "guilty of gross sin" for having "fundamentally mocked and profaned the sacred." Your argument rests essentially on hyperbolic language.

While this quote is one of the most abused prooftexts in scripture,

(Not that that'll stop you from misuing it for your own purposes).

Note that I specifically did not use it, and instead tried to debunk the use to which it was put earlier in this thread by someone who is not me.

You have continually mischaracterized the concept of letting non-members witness the Sealing with such deliberately inflammatory terms as "appeasement" and "picking-and-choosing" from eternal laws, while bringing in illogical parallels such as "embezzling from the company." These miss the point, and are far more "malicious" than anything I have written.

Historical precedent does not a True Doctrine make. That's the whole point of continuing revelation. Racism has historically been endorsed, tacitly and explicitly, by those who held stewardship keys -- I don't expect people in different ages to be perfect, just as I don't expect people in our own to be perfect. But it does imply that we're not done learning, and that our fallible leaders can make fallible policies, and that those of us who question certain current policies might not be mere vainly-crowing roosters. I urge everyone to consider again Professor Peterson's words in the video I linked in my earlier post. I have no reason to suspect that the good men (and of course, it is only men, due to the unnecessary current policy of restricting the Priesthood by gender) at the helm are not acting to the best of their ability to coincide with the Lord's wishes. However, I disagree that the current policy is fair.

I have offered my opinions explicitly as opinions, while never claiming that they are the be-all-end-all of the issue, or that I have stewardship over any changes which might be made. I have offered the idea that those who do have stewardship responsibilities over this area might reconsider the current policy. We're all part of the church, folks. Our good leaders do take the opinions of us lowly peons into account -- sometimes revelation comes as recognizing a good idea from the lower ranks.

Edited June 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[selek1]

Still haven't answered the fundamental question of why it would diminish the Holiness of the Ordinance to have non-members witness it.

More handwavium-238.

The ordinance is reserved to the Temple.

The Temple is reserved to those who have made and are worthy to keep Temple covenants.

Allowing those who are not worthy to make and keep Temple covenants in to the Temple violates the very nature of the Temple as sacred and exclusive.

The Temple is clearly not "private" to the same degree or in a way comparable to the intimacy shared between married folk, since there are plenty of others in there, so long as they are members.

In your opinion.

Yet it is clear that marital covenants of exclusivity are analogous to those of the Temple.

The people involved in the ritual are "set apart" in the same way that anyone with a calling is -- which means that the ritual by which they are set apart can be witnessed without robbing the Ordinance of sanctity, or making those doing so "guilty of gross sin" for having "fundamentally mocked and profaned the sacred."

I am not talking about "the people in the ritual"- I am talking about the fundamental nature of the Temple itself.

It's sanctity- especially when compared to other "sacred" spaces such as chapels- is predicated on its exclusivity. It cannot be divorced from that exclusivity without fundamentally altering its nature.

Your argument rests essentially on hyperbolic language.

And yours is predicated on a willful and fundamental misreading of what I said.

You have continually mischaracterized the concept of letting non-members witness the Sealing with such deliberately inflammatory terms as "appeasement" and "picking-and-choosing" from eternal laws, while bringing in illogical parallels such as "embezzling from the company." These miss the point, and are far more "malicious" than anything I have written.

In your opinion. Other people of sound mind and good character disagree with that opinion.

Historical precedent does not a True Doctrine make. That's the whole point of continuing revelation.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. If continuing revelation exists (and we both believe that it does) then you have no reason to suggest that the policy in place is not the will of the Lord.

Do you have any reason to believe that the Brethren have not inquired of the Lord regarding this matter? You do not.

Do you have any reason that they have been less-than-diligent in carrying out their duties? By your own admission, you do not.

Therefore, save for your own personal animus, you have no reason to believe that the policy is wrong.

I have no reason to suspect that the good men (<snip irrelevant digression into pet apostacy>) at the helm are not acting to the best of their ability to coincide with the Lord's wishes.

Thank you for the concession.

Now- can you tell us why we should accept your opinion over both the weight of LDS theology and history and the opinions of the good brethren who actually hold those keys?

However, I disagree that the current policy is fair.

And that, ultimately, is the crux of the matter.

We get that you don't like the policy.

Tough.

That's not a sufficient reason to alter the policy or agitate for its repeal.

Edited June 1, 2012 by selek1

[Analytics]

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....

If this is truly how Mormons feel about the family members who are excluded from Mormon weddings, then Mormonism deserves all of the scorn it receives for its exclusionary wedding rituals and then some.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Analytics

[Nominee]

I have repeatedly thought of the only answer that comes to mind for Jeremy's question of why. I have hesitated to post it because I know that he wants more (and maybe he deserves more but that doesn't ness. make it a good thing). However, it needs to be said in all its merciful simplicity that the reason why is because God said so. That's right, just because God said so. I realize now that this answer to that question is deeper than the longest post written here (still, I do love to read the longer posts). If you can't understand the depth of this answer then perhaps you are focusing on the wrong question.

Regards, Naomi

[jwhitlock]

I have repeatedly thought of the only answer that comes to mind for Jeremy's question of why. I have hesitated to post it because I know that he wants more (and maybe he deserves more but that doesn't ness. make it a good thing). However, it needs to be said in all its merciful simplicity that the reason why is because God said so. That's right, just because God said so. I realize now that this answer to that question is deeper than the longest post written here (still, I do love to read the longer posts). If you can't understand the depth of this answer then perhaps you are focusing on the wrong question.

Regards, Naomi

That is, of course, the whole point.

God has directed that participation in temple covenants and the ceremonies associated with them be ONLY made available to those willing to prepare themselves and make those covenants. They are not for outsides. They are not for spectators. That is the direction by revelation.

And, as you note, that's the end of it. Asking other questions to rationalize it based on offending someone are irrelevant. God is not concerned with the contrived offense some might take - just because they don't want to do what He has outlined to enter the temple are make the covenants.

[jwhitlock]

The responses here have not engaged the central points I have tried to make.

No one has explained why excluding family from the Sealing ceremony makes it more Holy than if they were to be included.

No one has given a direct answer to why the creation of sacred space would be harmed or diminished or compromised by allowing people who are not currently part of our faith to enter.

No use in responding to the rest of the post; having read the original before-editing version about how "insulted" you were, it's obvious that you've put on the blinders and formed your own opinion entirely without regard to what the Lord wants.

However, it's simply false that no one has engaged your "central" points. We have. You simply don't want to accept or recognize that.

You're continued demand to phrase all of this in the context of "your family" - as if family trumps obedience to God, which it doesn't - simply emphasizes the false perspective you're coming from. It's not about "family"; it's about reserving the ceremony for those who have been willing to make the covenants and changes necessary to enter the temple. It's what God has directed be done, through prophets. It's done through revelation, and your continued attempts to avoid that very point make it clear that you want to do what you want - and not what God wants.

My point stands that allowing anyone access to the temple without the required preparation would water down the power and value of the ceremony. It's irrelevant how good a person may be otherwise; if they do not meet the requirements, they don't go in.

That's the way life, in general, is, by the way. God is not being arbitrary in requiring this. Indeed, were someone to enter the temple under false pretenses, without the preparation or the willingness to make the covenants, it would work to their condemnation.

I don't get to go to a military academy unless I meet the requirements for entry.

I don't get to become a doctor or lawyer unless I meet the requirements for being certified as one.

I don't get to become a member of the church unless I meet the requirements for baptism and am baptized by one holding the authority to do so.

I don't get to go into the temple unless I have a temple recommend and am willing to make and try to keep covenants given to me in the temple.

Frankly, if someone is "offended" because they can't go anywhere they want, on their terms, without regard to any requirements, that is their problem. Not ours. And certainly not God's. Since the gospel is all about change in ourselves to come closer to God, and since - as I have noted - the temple lifts us closer to God than nowhere else, and since coming closer to God means NOT doing what WE want, but rather doing what GOD WANTS US TO DO, it is very evident that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Feel free to be "insulted" or to term all of this "nonsense" all that you want; I'll gladly stick with the church's position that the temple is a refuge from the world and wants to keep it that way.

And be very clear on it - allowing people into the temple who are not willing to make the covenants or meet the requirements, just so they can be spectators to something they cannot and will not understand, is nothing more or less than inviting the world into a place where God doesn't want it to be.

[jwhitlock]

If this is truly how Mormons feel about the family members who are excluded from Mormon weddings, then Mormonism deserves all of the scorn it receives for its exclusionary wedding rituals and then some.

Perhaps, rather than misrepresenting what's been said, you should review the scriptures for God's perspective. We are to meet His terms; we don't return to Him on our terms.

Your inane and offensive misrepresentation about how "Mormons feel about family members" doesn't really deserve any other response.

[Thinking]

I don't get to go to a military academy unless I meet the requirements for entry.

Yes, but when you graduate, does your mother get to attend the ceremony?

I don't get to become a doctor or lawyer unless I meet the requirements for being certified as one.

Yes, but you may still receive their services.

I don't get to become a member of the church unless I meet the requirements for baptism and am baptized by one holding the authority to do so.

Yes, but there are no restrictions about who may observe the baptism.

I don't get to go into the temple unless I have a temple recommend and am willing to make and try to keep covenants given to me in the temple.

Except during the temple ceremony, those observing the sealing are not making covenants.

And be very clear on it - allowing people into the temple who are not willing to make the covenants or meet the requirements, just so they can be spectators to something they cannot and will not understand, is nothing more or less than inviting the world into a place where God doesn't want it to be.

You owe every non-member parent who has waited outside the temple an apology for calling them spectators.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Thinking

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

A certain man decided to hold a glorious feast in honor of his sons' wedding. He invited family and friends to attend. Asking only that they have clean hands and a joyful heart. Some immediately responded they would love to attend. Some really didn't like the son and said they wouldn't attend. Some ignored the part about having clean hands and a joyful heart, and were denied entrance.

Whom is at fault?

Edited June 2, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[jwhitlock]

Yes, but when you graduate, does your mother get to attend the ceremony?

Yes, but you may still receive their services.

Yes, but there are no restrictions about who may observe the baptism.

Except during the temple ceremony, those observing the sealing are not making covenants.

You owe every non-member parent who has waited outside the temple an apology for calling them spectators.

Perhaps you should re-read the analogies I gave and the context they were given in. Each of your responses missed the point; your response about temple sealings was especially strained since the whole point was that those witnessing the sealing are the ones who have made the covenants already and so have met the requirements to be there.

Your last statement was a classic misrepresentation, in that I wasn't addressing people outside the temple. Hence, your misplaced demand for some kind of apology is based on an imagined offence, manufactured by you. Perhaps you're the one who really owes an apology in all this.

Here's a question for you: who are the most important people, and really the only ones that matter in any marriage ceremony? Here's a hint: it's not the parents, it's not the siblings, it's not the relatives or friends.

It's the couple.

Everyone else present in the temple at a sealing must comply with two requirements: first, that they meet the requirements God has set for entering the temple, and second that the couple has invited them to be there.

I'll pose the question again for you and Jeremy and anyone else who wants to open the temple up to spectators (and that is exactly what anyone would be inside the temple who otherwise had no interest in being there) - who made the rules about requirements for entering the temple?

God made the rules.

None of you seem to want to address that single, significant fact. Instead, you keep manufacturing offenses and rationalizations to avoid coming right out and saying that you either don't believe that God directs this church, or you don't think He's particularly interested in the requirements for making significant covenants with him. Talk about trying to remake what God has given in your own image!

[jwhitlock]

Analytics:

A certain man decided to hold a glorious feast in honor of his sons' wedding. He invited family and friends to attend. Asking only that they have clean hands and a joyful heart. Some immediately responded they would love to attend. Some really didn't like the son and said they wouldn't attend. Some ignored the part about having clean hands and a joyful heart, and were denied entrance.

Whom is at fault?

The parable from the New Testament (I assume you're using that as a base for your comments) that deals with the wedding talks about someone who got in without the proper wedding garment and was thrown out (Matt 22:11-14). This is another indication that there are certain requirements for entry into the kingdom that must be met; the parable of the ten virgins also deals with this.

Good point.

[Thinking]

God made the rules.

Obviously we will disagree on this point. The exclusionary policy (not doctrine) is a remnant of the secret polygamous sealings that were introduced in Nauvoo.

None of you seem to want to address that single, significant fact. Instead, you keep manufacturing offenses and rationalizations to avoid coming right out and saying that you either don't believe that God directs this church, or you don't think He's particularly interested in the requirements for making significant covenants with him. Talk about trying to remake what God has given in your own image!

I’ll say it. I don’t believe God directs the LDS Church.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I wanted to get Jeremy's attention. And everyone else’s. I finished reading through this thread thinking from the very beginning someone would bring up the single fundamental reason why non-temple worthy spectators are not allowed at sealings, endowments, and initiatories.

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.

Key tokens and symbols. That is why. Anyone who has been through the Temple knows that this is the case:

Initiatory: A new name is given which you are never to reveal, except to your spouse at a certain time and place. (It's also really cramped in the initatory area, so not even temple worthy family watch).

Endowment: In the endowment, key symbols and tokens are revealed to which we are placed under covenant never to reveal, except at a certain time and place. These are visually performed. There is no way to do this with a non-Temple worthy audience. The covenants themselves would be fine open to the public. They are, although more spelled out, pretty similar to the covenants of baptism. The promises are okay too. I talk about both all the time when the setting and spirit is right.

Sealing: In the sealing, the Bride and Groom clasp across the altar using a sacred temple token received during the endowment. They have covenanted never to reveal them except under certain circumstances. The name of this token is also given, which is also never to be revealed among non-members by covenant with God. They are not to be sold, traded, stolen, mocked, etc. This particular token and its meaning is so vital to understanding the temple ceremony, it cannot be excluded. Thus, it is impossible to have a non-Endowed member or non-member present during the sealing ordinance.

Jeremy, I hope that answers your question a bit more specifically. There is simply no way to avoid the token involved. All else can be, I believe beautifully explained and appreciated by most (but not all) observers. But the tokens are held sacred and are an integral and immovable aspect of the ceremony.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Matthew J. Tandy

[rodheadlee]

[

Obviously we will disagree on this point. The exclusionary policy (not doctrine) is a remnant of the secret polygamous sealings that were introduced in Nauvoo.

I’ll say it. I don’t believe God directs the LDS Church.

Then why do you care what we do in our temples or who is allowed inside? Why are you here stiring up contention?

Edited June 2, 2012 by rodheadlee

[ERayR]

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I wanted to get Jeremy's attention. And everyone else’s. I finished reading through this thread thinking from the very beginning someone would bring up the single fundamental reason why non-temple worthy spectators are not allowed at sealings, endowments, and initiatories.

Key tokens and symbols. That is why. Anyone who has been through the Temple knows that this is the case:

Initiatory: A new name is given which you are never to reveal, except to your spouse at a certain time and place. (It's also really cramped in the initatory area, so not even temple worthy family watch).

Endowment: In the endowment, key symbols and tokens are revealed to which we are placed under covenant never to reveal, except at a certain time and place. These are visually performed. There is no way to do this with a non-Temple worthy audience. The covenants themselves would be fine open to the public. They are, although more spelled out, pretty similar to the covenants of baptism. The promises are okay too. I talk about both all the time when the setting and spirit is right.

Sealing: In the sealing, the Bride and Groom clasp across the altar using a sacred temple token received during the endowment. They have covenanted never to reveal them except under certain circumstances. The name of this token is also given, which is also never to be revealed among non-members by covenant with God. They are not to be sold, traded, stolen, mocked, etc. This particular token and its meaning is so vital to understanding the temple ceremony, it cannot be excluded. Thus, it is impossible to have a non-Endowed member or non-member present during the sealing ordinance.

Jeremy, I hope that answers your question a bit more specifically. There is simply no way to avoid the token involved. All else can be, I believe beautifully explained and appreciated by most (but not all) observers. But the tokens are held sacred and are an integral and immovable aspect of the ceremony.

All of the above plus there is just no way a non-believer has the reverence for these ordinances and covenants that a person who has prepared for and received a temple recommend. I would predict that someone unbelieving would be disappointed at the lack of pomp and ceremony and then would not show the roper reverence then or in the future.

[Calm]

The exclusionary policy (not doctrine) is a remnant of the secret polygamous sealings that were introduced in Nauvoo.

Then why aren't proxy baptisms allowed to be observed?

And why weren't the sealings to first and/or only wives allowed to be observed at that time?

Edited June 2, 2012 by calmoriah