Exclusion?

volgadon · June 3, 2012

Another classic emotional rationalization that can be proffered on an obscure message board, which would NEVER be supported publicly by our Church in defense of such an offensive exclusionary policy. And still it amazes me how far some members will go to justify a practice that will continue to isolate us from the Christian community.

Emotional rationalisation? Is that really the best you can do? With Jeremy I know that if we disagree we'll at least hear each other out.

The LDS model as I see it is one of ascent. Has little to do with emotion, more with my perception being informed by my Jewish background. You should see if your Jewish friend can tell you anything about gathering sparks, or about descent for the sake of ascent, the four who entered the orchard, etc.

Will we ever see the light???

Do you often use the royal pronoun?

volgadon · June 3, 2012

We? Us? Faithful members of the church who embrace the temple certainly see the light; hence, you must be using the term in the royal sense (in which case your last sentence makes sense),

I had the same thought.

Matthew J. Tandy · June 3, 2012

Another classic emotional rationalization that can be proffered on an obscure message board, which would
NEVER be supported publicly by our Church in defense of such an offensive exclusionary policy. And still it amazes me how far some members will go to justify a practice that will continue to isolate us from the Christian community.
Will we ever see the light???

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

Bob, twice I have asked you specifically about how we are to address the key tokens and names with a non-LDS audience in the wedding ceremony which we have taken the most sacred oath never to reveal, and which it is impossible to remove from the ceremony since it is integral to it.

Twice you have completely ignored the questions and comments for it and instead derided concepts of sacred space instead, where you can argue cultural difference.

I do not buy that you didn't see the posts. I took extra care to put on a show for them. I and everyone else can only conclude you are willfully choosing to continue the fight by avoiding the elephant in the room.

volgadon · June 3, 2012

I will accept however that I believe there could be more adaptation for outside ceremonies and time frames involved. My view is that as long as the Sealing is performed first, and there is no ceremony claiming they are being married "again" by the authority of God without his actual Priesthood authority, then I am ok with it. Ring ceremonies are fine. Promise ceremonies. Just no church-based ceremonies.

My wife and I were sealed in the temple. Not all of our friends and family who could attend, including siblings who flew in from overseas, were active members of the church or old enough to be endowed. We took pictures with everyone on the temple grounds after we were done, while a couple of hours later we had a marriage ceremony combining Jewish and Ukrainian traditions. Standing under the chuppah, I slipped the ring on my wife's finger, but skipped the traditional portion that goes, "Now you are consecrated unto me according to the law of Moses and Israel." We had after all been sealed in the temple according to the restored gospel. I smashed a glass with my foot, the Jewish way, then my wife and I smashed a plate together, the Ukrainian way.

I should clarify a bit and say that my sister was inactive and in the proccess of converting to Judaism (my mom was never Jewish) and my brother isn't old enough to be ordained an elder. If Bob wants to rant on about how offensive and exclusionary temple sealings are, perhaps he'd do well to consider other POVs. My father was unable to attend due to ill health. None of my wife's relatives, not even her mother, were able to attend either, having no visas to the USA. We could have gotten married secularly in Ukraine or Cyprus (not in Israel due to its millet system) and spared ourselves a long separation and would have had all of our parents able to attend. The temple is important to us, it played a leading role in our wedding plans. Bob can dismiss it as groupthink if he wishes, but shouldn't pretend to some great open-mindedness or tolerance.

volgadon · June 3, 2012

*******************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Bob, twice I have asked you specifically about how we are to address the key tokens and names with a non-LDS audience in the wedding ceremony which we have taken the most sacred oath never to reveal, and which it is impossible to remove from the ceremony since it is integral to it.
Twice you have completely ignored the questions and comments for it and instead derided concepts of sacred space instead, where you can argue cultural difference.
I do not buy that you didn't see the posts. I took extra care to put on a show for them. I and everyone else can only conclude you are willfully choosing to continue the fight by avoiding the elephant in the room.

Bob I'm sure will continue to ignore it. Your post cuts right to the heart of the issue, as names, signs and tokens are central to the endowment and sealings. No way round that.

volgadon · June 3, 2012

There are many practices of the Church that are worth their history and legacy. And the Temple has it's role for those who find the spiritual needs it may provide. But, not growing up in the Church and living outside the confinements of Utah, I obviously have, and take, a different perspective on many things.

Not everyone on the board here grew up in the USA, if you want to look at different perspectives outside the "confinements of the USA."

Edited June 3, 2012 by volgadon

volgadon · June 3, 2012

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.

Matthew's post hit the nail on the head. One enters the temple by adhering to certain moral/ethical criteria.

The district/stake/mission president can't do that for non-members and if members don't pass they can't be admitted. Once admitted, as you know, there are names, tokens and signs administered with covenants, the former being bound by secrecy. Opening up the temple ceremony to non-members or non-worthy members at any point, be it baptisms, initiatories, endowments or sealings, would require violating at least one of the conditions of entry. This would diminish the sanctity of the temple ceremony, its sanctity being predicated on adherence to selective entry.

BlueDreams · June 4, 2012

Will we ever see the light???

There is no light to see....to better fit into the larger christian community is a poor reason to change it. It is what it is and I would never ask for it to be changed. I'm saying that knowing full well that if I married in the next year or so none of my 10 siblings could see it and out of 4 parents, only 1 could attend the sealing.

The pattern of the temple is seen in some of the most sacred moments recorded in the scriptures. In the BoM alone, some major ones to me is Nephi's explanatory vision of what his father saw, the Brother of Jared seeing God, and the coming of Christ to the Americas. In all, there were many who could not experience it for various reasons, from less faith to hard-heartedness, to abject wickedness. All examples represents a higher level of oneness with God and ascending far above the world in understanding, light, and truth. The temple, likewise is not overtly meant to exclude, but it's ground is consecrated and sanctified...it is our exceedingly high mountain. There is no means to bring it closer to the rest of the christian populace because there isn't really an equivalent within the current christian world. This is not the average wedding or even average sacred religious rite. It is the culmination of all sacred covenants that one will make, including the endowment which is to be kept sacred, specific parts to never be talked about outside of the temple. This is not a social/community celebration, it is the commencement of a divine partnership with you, a spouse, and God. To me its comparison can be found in the similar pattern of 3 nephi 17:15-17:

15 And when he had said these words, he himself also ^aknelt upon the earth; and behold he ^bprayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him.
16 And after this manner do they bear record: The ^aeye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father;
17 And no ^atongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father.

and 3 Nephi 19: 29-35:

29 Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me ^aout of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in them.
30 And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they were ^awhite, even as Jesus.
31 And it came to pass that he went again a little way off and prayed unto the Father;
32 And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be ^awritten by man the words which he prayed.
33 And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their^ahearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed.
34 Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed that they cannot be written, neither can they be ^auttered by man.
35 And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of praying he came again to the disciples, and said unto them: ^aSo great ^bfaith have I never seen among all the Jews; wherefore I could not show unto them so great ^cmiracles, because of their ^dunbelief.

It is in similitude of the most sacred communion with the Lord and should be treated as such. It is for all to come unto and receive understanding, but there is no other way to receive it except as the Lord has established (live worthy of it through faith in His restored gospel).

Personally, the temple is a strong and important part of my worship. Its practices are blatantly visible throughout the standard works if one looks for it. The more I understand the temple, the deeper I understand the doctrine and I feel it is an amazing tool to bring all the truth of the scriptures into one. This isn't an emotive response, it is one that I've found from attending regularly and now working at the temple as well. It isn't something that comes down to our level, rather we must have all that we are raised to better understand its deep significance. The policy is not made lightly and I feel that it is right considering its spiritual purpose.

For the record, I hope to have a ring ceremony one day, but not a civil wedding.

With luv,

BD

Edited June 4, 2012 by BlueDreams

Lightbearer · June 4, 2012

As I read over this thread all i could think of is a very, very un-politically correct reason why non-members are not allowed to witness sealings. I think the Prophet Joseph said it in the prayer of the Kirtland Temple:

"And that this house may be a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of glory and of God, even thy house; That all the incomings of thy people, into this house, may be in the name of the Lord; That all their outgoings from this house may be in the name of the Lord; And that all their salutations may be in the name of the Lord, with holy hands, uplifted to the Most High; And that no unclean thing shall be permitted to come into thy house to pollute it; And when thy people transgress, any of them, they may speedily repent and return unto thee, and find favor in thy sight, and be restored to the blessings which thou hast ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 109:16 - 21)

The Temple is the House of the Lord and since it is His house, He has the right to say who is allowed in. It is not a public place, it is not a building funded by tax payers and thus all are entitled to enter it! Those who cry the loudest are Anti-Mormon enemies of the faith, why would I want to allow something like that into the House of the Lord! They certainly will not be allowed into the kingdom of God if they do not repent. I think maybe that is the symbolism of the exclusiveness of the Temple. It would be a sad day indeed if non-members or members who are not worthy of a recommend were allowed in just to satisfy their own selfish desire to see a Mormon wedding! The sealing is a holy ordinance of the Holy Priesthood and that it is why it is separate from the world. The ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood are done outside (baptism, the sacrament etc) Oh course I do not expect non-members to understand or believe it, just respect it.

volgadon · June 4, 2012

There is no light to see....to better fit into the larger christian community is a poor reason to change it. It is what it is and I would never ask for it to be changed. I'm saying that knowing full well that if I married in the next year or so none of my 10 siblings could see it and out of 4 parents, only 1 could attend the sealing.

I won't quote all of your post, but I think it one of the best I've read in this thread.

Scott Lloyd · June 4, 2012

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.

Hmm.

So somebody starts a thread on a public message board to agitate for the Church throwing open its sacred temple rites to the world.

In the course of that thread, he not only expresses wholesale rejection of LDS belief and faith, but utters a cynical, hostile and unsubstantiated conjecture as to why those temple rites have been private up to now, thereby disparaging said rites.

Color me persuaded!

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

volgadon · June 5, 2012

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:

Of course these are all sacred ceremonies, there are however different grades or degrees of sacredness. I would have no problem stating so while keeping a straight face, it is something I believe. You complain about wedges driven between us and American protestants? A far more helpful approach to public discourse would attempt to understand the way we believe things. We have a different conception of the sacral than the modern, Western and antinomian protestant approach prevalent in Georgia. Shoving that down our throats is not helpful. Understanding (on both sides) an idea does not mean one has to embrace it, but understanding does lead to tolerance which in turn will heal wounds quicker than disparaging people and things held sacred will. It doesn't sound like you want to do that. You want us to conform unconditionally. I want better understanding and tolerance. Whatever our shortcomings, as LDS we do have beautiful teachings and ways of thinking. Even if you disagree it is our own way and we should be allowed to keep it and be proud of who we are. What is tolerance if not that, or do you treat it as hot air and nothing more?

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,

I'm sure you could rationalise away any explanation offered you.

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,

Something tells me that you don't want to listen.

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.

I'm not convinced that you've really gone looking for evidence.

Reading ancient texts, especially Jewish ones, requires a special touch. You need to listen not only to what the text is saying, a=but also how it says it and what it doesn't say. If you want to start a new thread, I can point out some directions for further researching into sacred marriages.

Judaism is not static. Practices and ideas fall in and out of use and even memory. For example, I don't know of anyone who still transmits holy names engraved on a mantle and cap of deerskin while immersed in water, yet it was indisputedly part of Judaism at one time.

volgadon · June 6, 2012

And I respect everyones emotions and rationalizations for the history of this practice.

I am overwhlemed by your sincerity. I wonder, if you were an agent in a call center, would you emphathize with callers by saying things like, "Being such an idiot must be very hard for you."

Edited June 6, 2012 by volgadon

jwhitlock · June 6, 2012

I am overwhlemed by your sincerity. I wonder, if you were an agent in a call center, would you emphasize with callers by saying things like, "Being such an idiot must be very hard for you."

He really has the how-to-influence-people-and-win-friends thing down well, doesn't he?

volgadon · June 6, 2012

He really has the how-to-influence-people-and-win-friends thing down well, doesn't he?

He must have gotten a sneak peek of my upcoming book "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People."

sheilauk · June 6, 2012

^{I live in the UK and haven't been a member long. Can i partly interupt this thread and ask for some clarification on temple marriage? In the UK, the temple marriage is not accepted by the Civil Authorities. You have to be married in public, for anyone to attend. Now, i haven't got much experience of UK LDS marriages, but those I do know generally are married in a chapel, where obviously, non members could attend and the UK official ceremony is conducted. The married couple then try to go to the Temple that day, where they are sealed. If they can't attend on the day, then I believe they have to wait for a year at least, to be sealed. My question is, in the USA, could you be married in the same way as in the UK? That is, have a marriage ceremony in a chapel and then be sealed in the temple the same day, or would you have to wait a year regardless? I accept that there will be couples who do not want to do it this way in any event, I just wondered if it was a compromise that would be accepted by the Church and some couples? Should I marry, I would have to have the two ceremonies. But, if I could marry in a temple, for instance, by travelling abroad (which marriages are accepted by the UK!), I would hope that my non member family and friends (and I'm the only LDS member in my family at present) would accpe that it was my wedding and my choice and my faith and that they weren't being excluded maliciously. People are excluded from weddings for lots of reasons (my parents weren't present at my sister's wedding and that was a civil ceremony) and I would not advocate allowing non members into the Temples, just because of that, whether or not it would build bridges. It is a beautiful, sacred space, apart from the world and non members, however well intentioned or reverent would diminish that. I've been in many cathedrals, which are open to the public and know that a sacred space can easily become prosaic. And i also do not want us to change any practice just because it upsets non members or to make it easier for us to be acknowledged as part of the Christian community. I was once invited to a Catholic Mass in a monastory and was asked to sit apart from everyone else and not allowed to take communion because i was not Catholic, i was not offended as it was their practice and I didn't think of asking them to change it for me. A better way to build a bridge would be to try to understand and respect the way my faith works while I try to do the same for your faith/beliefs.}

volgadon · June 6, 2012

^{I live in the UK and haven't been a member long. Can i partly interupt this thread and ask for some clarification on temple marriage? In the UK, the temple marriage is not accepted by the Civil Authorities. You have to be married in public, for anyone to attend. Now, i haven't got much experience of UK LDS marriages, but those I do know generally are married in a chapel, where obviously, non members could attend and the UK official ceremony is conducted. The married couple then try to go to the Temple that day, where they are sealed. If they can't attend on the day, then I believe they have to wait for a year at least, to be sealed. My question is, in the USA, could you be married in the same way as in the UK? That is, have a marriage ceremony in a chapel and then be sealed in the temple the same day, or would you have to wait a year regardless? I accept that there will be couples who do not want to do it this way in any event, I just wondered if it was a compromise that would be accepted by the Church and some couples? Should I marry, I would have to have the two ceremonies. But, if I could marry in a temple, for instance, by travelling abroad (which marriages are accepted by the UK!), I would hope that my non member family and friends (and I'm the only LDS member in my family at present) would accpe that it was my wedding and my choice and my faith and that they weren't being excluded maliciously. People are excluded from weddings for lots of reasons (my parents weren't present at my sister's wedding and that was a civil ceremony) and I would not advocate allowing non members into the Temples, just because of that, whether or not it would build bridges. It is a beautiful, sacred space, apart from the world and non members, however well intentioned or reverent would diminish that. I've been in many cathedrals, which are open to the public and know that a sacred space can easily become prosaic. And i also do not want us to change any practice just because it upsets non members or to make it easier for us to be acknowledged as part of the Christian community. I was once invited to a Catholic Mass in a monastory and was asked to sit apart from everyone else and not allowed to take communion because i was not Catholic, i was not offended as it was their practice and I didn't think of asking them to change it for me. A better way to build a bridge would be to try to understand and respect the way my faith works while I try to do the same for your faith/beliefs.}

It is also that way in most of Europe. Civil ceremonies held first, however, are a matter of necessity. In countries like the USA, there isn't such a requirement. It will be nice when a Scottish temple is built, as they don't require civil marriages first, either.

Edited June 6, 2012 by volgadon

Calm · June 6, 2012

My question is, in the USA, could you be married in the same way as in the UK? That is, have a marriage ceremony in a chapel and then be sealed in the temple the same day, or would you have to wait a year regardless?

Because it is not a legal requirement in the US to have a civil ceremony outside the temple, in general those who choose to do so in the US have to wait a year to be sealed even if they could have been sealed the same day in the temple. There are exceptions such as a new member getting married who has not been a member a full year only has to wait the remainder of his/her year from baptism to visit the temple, IIRC, since s/he is not allowed to attend the temple prior to a year of membership. Even so, some judge temple marriage of value to wait if they have to, my nephew's wife decided she wanted to wait a year after he baptized her so they could be married in the temple and not just sealed there...this even though her parents were of the baptist persuasion (her dad is a pastor I believe) that they would have preferred my nephew have raped their daughter than baptized her (I understand they think of rape as something purely mortal and baptism as damning her eternal soul...but it is still disturbing) and perhaps a civil ceremony might have softened the parents' feelings (I don't have a clue having never met them). They have a beautiful little girl now and appear to be very happy and the wife is dearly loved as part of her husband's family. Don't know if her parents' attitudes have changed at all. Edited June 6, 2012 by calmoriah

Bob Oliverio · June 6, 2012

My question is, in the USA, could you be married in the same way as in the UK? That is, have a marriage ceremony in a chapel and then be sealed in the temple the same day, or would you have to wait a year regardless?

An excellent question. I was informed of this policy about two months before my wife and I were sealed. As a convert I was under tremendous pressure from family, friends and loved ones to accommodated inclusivity of sharing the marriage ceremony with everyone, including the most important part which is the exchange of vows.

At the delicate objection of my fiancee, I brought this issue up with our bishop at that time and asked him if they are allowed to do so in the Church elsewhere, why not here in the states. You could not imagine the discomfort the mere question caused him in attempting to explain. My point was that: Would the blessing of our Heavenly Father be any different for those outside the US than for us here in the States if we shared the exchange of vows publicly first as a way to be inclusive of everyone as opposed to exclusive. All I wanted to know was the "why"? After receiving the most garbled and incoherent answer, I submitted the same question to our Stake President. It was after that that our temple marriage became jeopardized and my wife to be, with all of her Utah family became very upset with me and my questioning that I thought, and still do, was extremely fair and reasonable. I love my wife and did not want to risk anything at the time - so I capitulated to the pressure.

But since then the two of us have done a lot of soul searching and investigating. Being away from Utah and her family, plus the fact that she is a working professional as well (rarely heard of in the Church culture), she now believes that this is really a fair and interesting discussion.

What is the real reason that same day public exchange of vows, a public ceremony inclusive to all and a later Temple Marriage can't happen in the US? I think we can rule out that the Heavenly Father is more partial to Europeans.

IMHO it is really a matter of Church control, perhaps over tithing loyalty. But that is the the honest, and objective opinion from a convert who still believes independent thinking is a good thing. I suspect many "group thinkers" here will criticize me for such.

Calm · June 6, 2012

rarely heard of in the Church culture

Really?

I think we can rule out that the Heavenly Father is more partial to Europeans.

Since last I heard God was not making the laws in the European or other systems, I think we can rule out anything beyond the law requires it for European and it doesn't for Americans so that the Church is able to choose what it sees as the most optimal situation for its members in their particular location. Edited June 6, 2012 by calmoriah

volgadon · June 6, 2012

I think we can rule out that the Heavenly Father is more partial to Europeans.

Can we? =)

What is the real reason that same day public exchange of vows, a public ceremony inclusive to all and a later Temple Marriage can't happen in the US?

As I mentioned before, in much of Europe it is a matter of necessity. Where conditions allow an ecclesiastical marriage instead of a civil one that is prefered. As a further example of pragmatism, in Israel the church meets on Saturdays, and in Muslim countries, on Fridays. In Israel, Saturday is the day of worship for the majority of the population. Most schools and jobs are open on Sundays. We simply couldn't remain active if we had to meet on Sundays. Yet, in countries where Sunday is the day of worship, you won't see sacrament meeting held on a Saturday.

Calm · June 6, 2012

But that is the the honest, and objective opinion from a convert who still believes independent thinking is a good thing.

And if an individual disagrees with you, does that mean they are not being honest, not being objective and not believing independent thinking?

volgadon · June 6, 2012

Since last I heard God was not making the laws in the European or other systems, I think we can rule out anything beyond the law requires it for European and it doesn't for Americans so that the Church is able to choose what it sees as the most optimal situation for its members in their particular location.

I would add that in most of Europe getting married civilly is not a choice of the couple's, it is required by law. In the USA, it would be a choice, thus showing the couple priority.

volgadon · June 6, 2012

And if an individual disagrees with you, does that mean they are not being honest, not being objective and not believing independent thinking?

Naturally.

Scott Lloyd · June 6, 2012

... a working professional as well (rarely heard of in the Church culture) ....

I too raised my eyebrows at this.

From my desk chair at the moment, I can count eight other working professionals who are my colleagues at the Church publication for which I work. Of the eight, five are female. One of those five is an intern, but two have supervisory responsibilities. Of those two, one is the long-time editor of the publication.

I also deal routinely with a number of female "working professionals" employed by the Church. Just today, I received a news advisory from the female manager of the Riverton FamilySearch Library here in the Salt Lake Valley. Except for the famous Family History Library in Salt Lake City, it is the largest genealogical library in the Church.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

Sign In

Exclusion?

Recommended Posts

volgadon

volgadon

Matthew J. Tandy

volgadon

volgadon

volgadon

volgadon

BlueDreams

Lightbearer

volgadon

Scott Lloyd

volgadon

volgadon

jwhitlock

volgadon

sheilauk

volgadon

Calm

Bob Oliverio

Calm

volgadon

Calm

volgadon

volgadon

Scott Lloyd

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse