Exclusion?

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I wondered that as well.

[volgadon]

I wondered that as well.

Wonder no more.

[Bob Oliverio]

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

I clearly never said what you are insinuating with that comment and do resent it.   I simply said how I thought those who believe in group think may react to my comments.  I leave the guilt of association, or lack thereof, to each individual.

And I meant no offense to anyone in the Church with respect to what I have found as the rarity of my wife's professional decision relative to other women in the Church.  We don't have children and if we did I'm sure one of us would give up our careers for a while.  But I can honestly say that she pursued her MBA and career in Investment Banking from a young age where I do not find that desire and commitment from any other women in our ward or stake to my knowledge.  And I have no less respect for the stay at home parent.  I'm sure one of us will be there at some time. And I know there are many women in the Church who do work out of needs, especially today.  And if we had a dollar for ever time a ward member asked: "when will you be having (or adopting) children"? - trust me, neither of us would ever have to work again!!

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I get the disquieting impression from Bob's post that because he thinks (falsely) that female "working professionals" are "rarely heard of" in the Church, that women in the Church are, by-and-large, incapable of avoiding "group-think." That is to say, only after his wife became "a working professional" did she begin to develop a mind of her own by coming around to his way of thinking.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Matthew J. Tandy]

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.

Bob, you have left off about why can we not just allow non-members into the temple to witness the sealing. But you haven't attempted to address my explanation of tokens and sacred names. Can we assume that you have humbly accepted that it is not actually possible to allow them in without violating our most sacred covenants?

Again, I accept that the question of outside ceremonies around the same time is a valid discussion. I just want to make sure we've settled the "inside" the temple non-member guest aspect.

[Bob Oliverio]

I get the disquieting impression from Bob's post that because he thinks (falsely) that female "working professionals" are "rarely heard of" in the Church, that women in the Church are, by-and-large, incapable of avoiding "group-think." That is to say, only after his wife became "a working professional" did she begin to come around to his way of thinking.

Mr. Lloyd, make you a deal.  I won't try and project on your wife, family and loved ones if you will try and show the same Church like attitude towards mine.  I find your comment reprehensible and mean spirited.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mr. Lloyd, make you a deal. I won't try and project on your wife, family and loved ones if you will try and show the same Church like attitude towards mine. I find your comment reprehensible and mean spirited.

I'm only giving feedback on how your posts are coming across, Bob. I'm charitable enough to think that perhaps she had a mind of her own even before you took her away from the influence of family and the stultifying atmosphere of Utah.

[Bob Oliverio]

But you haven't attempted to address my explanation of tokens and sacred names.

Mr. Tandy,

Without showing any disrespect to what I committed to and the ceremony itself, I would have to go back to my original questioning of this entire process and ceremony.  I have concluded that it's origin in not found in Christian or Jewish history.  I also see no current doctrine supporting it's requirement for exclusion.  But that does not mean I find it offensive (except where it causes exclusivity), or without sacred meaning to many members.  But so does the sign of the cross to Catholics.    To me me it's a matter of Christian doctrine or Church policy when it comes to the painful exclusion of others.  Catholics bless themselves w the sign of the cross.  Call it their sacred token or symbol.  When they are confirmed, they receive a sacred name.  I just don't find the need for excluding outsiders seeing the same thing I've seen sacred in other beliefs as a reason to believe they become less significant.  I'm quite sure it would not seen negatively by our Heavenly Father.  Frankly I think he would welcome the exposure to His greatness.  He always had!!

[jwhitlock]

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.

And there you go again.

It would be nice to have you actually address the points made in the thread, instead of generating this kind of gas. Responding to Matthew Tandy would be a good start.

As Scott noted, you really do have a condescending attitude towards anyone who points out the flaws - and they're big ones - in what you post. But you keep plowing forward with the same old irrelevant phrases.

[volgadon]

But I fail to find scriptural support anywhere for not sharing it's beauty with anyone - even after dedication!

Exodus 19:11-12. And be ready against the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death;

[volgadon]

I just don't find the need for excluding outsiders seeing the same thing I've seen sacred in other beliefs as a reason to believe they become less significant.

Would you be allowed behind one of these?

[jwhitlock]

Mr. Tandy,

Without showing any disrespect to what I committed to and the ceremony itself, I would have to go back to my original questioning of this entire process and ceremony. I have concluded that it's origin in not found in Christian or Jewish history. I also see no current doctrine supporting it's requirement for exclusion. But that does not mean I find it offensive (except where it causes exclusivity), or without sacred meaning to many members. But so does the sign of the cross to Catholics. To me me it's a matter of Christian doctrine or Church policy when it comes to the painful exclusion of others. Catholics bless themselves w the sign of the cross. Call it their sacred token or symbol. When they are confirmed, they receive a sacred name. I just don't find the need for excluding outsiders seeing the same thing I've seen sacred in other beliefs as a reason to believe they become less significant. I'm quite sure it would not seen negatively by our Heavenly Father. Frankly I think he would welcome the exposure to His greatness. He always had!!

You're beating the same old drum.

Your sole point is that any form exclusion, as you want to define it, trumps anything else.

That's simply false. People have given you plenty of examples and reasons why that's not the case, and you dismiss it as mere "group think". Not a particularly deep rationalization that you're presenting here.

Edited June 7, 2012 by jwhitlock

[Bob Oliverio]

I'm only giving feedback on how your posts are coming across, Bob. I'm charitable enough to think that perhaps she had a mind of her own even before you took her away from the influence of family and the stultifying atmosphere of Utah.

You're digging your hole deeper with even more chauvinistic character.  You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.  I never met my wife in Utah.  And she has a very capable, educated, experienced and spiritual mind of her own.  She can think for herself and no one leads her conclusions.  Obviously far more than you give her credit for in your chauvinistic assumptions.  Do yourself a favor and let people "THINK" you are ignorant to women as opposed to posting and removing all doubt!!!   You have no clue in life buddy.  You do not do our Church any favors with your remarks about my wife and it may well show how you view women unfortunately.

[volgadon]

You're digging your hole deeper with even more chauvinistic character. You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. I never met my wife in Utah. And she has a very capable, educated, experienced and spiritual mind of her own. She can think for herself and no one leads her conclusions. Obviously far more than you give her credit for in your chauvinistic assumptions. Do yourself a favor and let people "THINK" you are ignorant to women as opposed to posting and removing all doubt!!! You have no clue in life buddy. You do not do our Church any favors with your remarks about my wife and it may well show how you view women unfortunately.

You really cannot blame Scott for drawing the logical inference from your own words.

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.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Without showing any disrespect to what I committed to and the ceremony itself, I would have to go back to my original questioning of this entire process and ceremony. I have concluded that it's origin in not found in Christian or Jewish history. I also see no current doctrine supporting it's requirement for exclusion. But that does not mean I find it offensive (except where it causes exclusivity), or without sacred meaning to many members. But so does the sign of the cross to Catholics. To me me it's a matter of Christian doctrine or Church policy when it comes to the painful exclusion of others. Catholics bless themselves w the sign of the cross. Call it their sacred token or symbol. When they are confirmed, they receive a sacred name. I just don't find the need for excluding outsiders seeing the same thing I've seen sacred in other beliefs as a reason to believe they become less significant. I'm quite sure it would not seen negatively by our Heavenly Father. Frankly I think he would welcome the exposure to His greatness. He always had!!

Bob,

1) Sacred and secret tokens, names, and rituals have been around for thousands of years. They were used from the Egyptians to the Persians to Islamic Esoterics to Craft Guilds to Masons. They also played a significant role in many of the largest early Christian sects. That you are not aware of these is not a knock against you, but I suggest your understanding is based on a very limited historical reference. My degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, ie, the Middle East from the dawn of history (and before) to 300 A.D. I feel confident in my assessment.

2) Comparison of the Cross to the signs and tokens is an apples to oranges comparison. I love the cross (though I don't venerate it). It however has no sacred tokens and names associated with it that anyone has covenanted to never reveal. It is a sacred symbol, but not a sacred token, and without a covenant "before God, Angels, and these Witnesses" that it must never be revealed, it is completely and totally incomparable. As such, you have not once ever witnessed in another faith anything comparable. The best comparison to the Catholic ceremonies are those of LDS baptism and sacrament, as well as priesthood ordination and a multitude of other Priesthood functions that are available for all witness but are a sacred experience.

3) I am quite sure Heavenly Father would look quite negatively upon our revealing sacred signs, tokens, and names to placate a certain societies social desires and reflections of Family over God.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're digging your hole deeper with even more chauvinistic character. You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. I never met my wife in Utah. And she has a very capable, educated, experienced and spiritual mind of her own. She can think for herself and no one leads her conclusions. Obviously far more than you give her credit for in your chauvinistic assumptions. Do yourself a favor and let people "THINK" you are ignorant to women as opposed to posting and removing all doubt!!! You have no clue in life buddy. You do not do our Church any favors with your remarks about my wife and it may well show how you view women unfortunately.

You misunderstand me, Bob. I respect your wife (whom I don't know) enough to suggest that she was already capable, educated, experienced and spiritually minded, even before you brought her away from her Utah family and even before she started on the path of a "working professional." Your prior post seemed to imply otherwise.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Matthew J. Tandy]

You're digging your hole deeper with even more chauvinistic character. You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. I never met my wife in Utah. And she has a very capable, educated, experienced and spiritual mind of her own. She can think for herself and no one leads her conclusions. Obviously far more than you give her credit for in your chauvinistic assumptions. Do yourself a favor and let people "THINK" you are ignorant to women as opposed to posting and removing all doubt!!! You have no clue in life buddy. You do not do our Church any favors with your remarks about my wife and it may well show how you view women unfortunately.

Bob, Scott was pointing out that YOU made it seem your wife was not capable of full and rational thought and discourse beforehand. Scott however clearly said he respects your wife and believes she was and is a capable woman, even before you were in the picture.

[jwhitlock]

You misunderstand me, Bob. I respect your wife (whom I don't know) enough to suggest that she was already capable, educated, experienced and spiritually minded, even before you brought her out of Utah and away from family and before she started on the path of a "working professional." Your prior post seemed to imply otherwise.

Scott, you've broken the barrier. You got the real Bob to show his true colors.

Ya gotta love the irony of Bob calling you chauvinistic after what he posted.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bob, Scott was pointing out that YOU made it seem your wife was not capable of full and rational thought and discourse beforehand. Scott however clearly said he respects your wife and believes she was and is a capable woman, even before you were in the picture.

Very concisely and correctly stated. Thank you, Matthew.

[volgadon]

1) Sacred and secret tokens, names, and rituals have been around for thousands of years.

Here is one example.

The Chapter of R. Nehuniah b. ha-Qanah relates how R. Ishmael at thirteen years of age was unable to commit to memory any of the teachings of R. Nehuniah, his teacher.

R. Nehuniah took R. Ishmael to the chamber of hewn stone (lishkat ha-gazit) in the temple grounds, and there instructs him on how to summon the Sar Torah.

"He adjured me by the great seal, by the great oath, in the name of Yad Naqof Yad Nakuy Yad Heras Yad Suqas; by his great seal, by Zebudiel Yah, by Akhtariel Yah, by heaven and by earth. As soon as I heard this great secret, my eyes became enlightened. Whatever I heard- Scripture, Mishnah, anything else- I forgot no more. The world was made new for me in purity, and it was as if I had come from a new world. Now: any student (talmid) who knows what he learns does not stay with him should stand and say a blessing, rise and speak an adjuration, in the name of Margobiel Giwat’el Ziwat’el Tanariel Hozhayah Sin Sagan Sobir’hu , all of whom are Metatron. Marg[obiel] is Metatron; Giw[at’el] is Metatron; Tanariel is Metatron; Hozhayah is Metatron; Sin is Metatron; Sagan is Metatron; Sobir’uhu is Metatron. Because they love him so much in heaven, they call him Ziwat’el servant of Zebudiel Yah, Akhatriel Yahweh God of Israel, Yahweh, Yahweh, merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and full of faithfulness and truth (Exodus 34:6). Blessed be the wise one who knows secrets, the master of mysteries…

R. Ishamel said: When I was thirteen years old, I pondered this matter, and went back to my teacher, R. Nehuniah b. ha-Qanah. I said to him, “What is the name of the prince of Torah (sarah shel torah)?” He said to me, “His name is Yofiel.” I then arose and afflicted myself for forty days, and spoke the great name until I brought him down. He came down in a flame, his face like the appearance of lightning (cf. Daniel 10:6)."[12]

http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/01/power-of-names.html

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, you've broken the barrier. You got the real Bob to show his true colors.

Ya gotta love the irony of Bob calling you chauvinistic after what he posted.

I was annoyed at the remark that women who are "working professionals" are "almost unheard of" in the Mormon culture. Not that LDS women require professional careers to be validated, but there definitely are a lot of them among the Church membership. As I mentioned, five are among my closest professional colleagues.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sheilauk]

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,

Thank you for your response, its made it a little clearer.

Bob, you have left off about why can we not just allow non-members into the temple to witness the sealing. But you haven't attempted to address my explanation of tokens and sacred names. Can we assume that you have humbly accepted that it is not actually possible to allow them in without violating our most sacred covenants?

I absolutely agree that non members should not be inside the Temple, for all the reasons people have given.

Again, I accept that the question of outside ceremonies around the same time is a valid discussion.

It does seem to me that such a discussion may be useful, if there really are many people being upset by not being able to attend a wedding. Not really for me, I think, to raise, as I live in the UK and it is unlikely to apply. Also, where there is a choice, it will obviously be the choice of the wedding couple, which will depend on their feelings and relationships, but, hopefully not cultural expectations.

[Pahoran]

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.

No, I can't, actually. The answer is very simple: "because it is a legal requirement in those places." For instance, in many countries of the former British Commonwealth, the law requires that a marriage ceremony, to be legal, must take place in daylight hours and "with open doors."

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.

Excuse me, but in this forum you have consistently shown yourself unwilling to acknowledge that you've even received an answer, much less admit that it might be cogent or persuasive.

The Lord understands the circumstances under which we labour, and accepts that the best we can do is the best we can do. He expects no more of us than that. But when we are blessed to live in a country with greater religious liberty, we have something of a responsibility to exercise it.

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.

Which pressure? The pressure from your non-LDS family, mentioned in the first paragraph above, or some other pressure?

Bob, absolutely every Latter-day Saint, without exception, including the children of General Authorities and the descendants of the oldest pioneer families, have relatives and friends who are not able to enter the Temple. When they get married, they are all faced with the same choice as in your ostensible autobiography. Yours is in nowise a unique experience. Rather, it is absolutely the norm for LDS couples seeking a Temple marriage. Indeed, if you weren't so busy dramatising yourself as the star of your own eponymous tragedy, you might have noticed that your wife's family and friends also included such people in their circle.

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.

Note the highlighted points.

Anyone reading the above and coming to the conclusion that your wife was incapable of thinking about these things before "then" or while in Utah and/or under the baleful influence of her family, is not being the least bit "chauvinistic." They are simply accepting at face value what you said about her.

And, just so you know: women being working professionals is entirely unremarkable "in the Church culture." AFAICT, it always has been. Teaching, after all, is a profession.

The more you come out with these sorts of statements, the more I am forced to wonder just how widespread is your exposure to real life Latter-day Saints is.

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.

So let's get this straight: the only way to disagree with you is to be a "group thinker." You seem to assume that anyone who is thinking independently will invariably reach the same conclusion as you do.

This is, of course, arrogant, self-serving nonsense. The reality is that anywhere that you have three genuinely independent thinkers, you'll get at least four opinions. Actually, your not even slightly "humble" opinion, proceeding as it does from wrong-headed assumptions and supported by no facts, is not only fundamentally worthless, it is also completely unoriginal. Others, no less hostile towards the Church of Jesus Christ than your good self, and with no more facts to back them up, have reached the identical conclusion. As such, your opinion doesn't represent "independent thinking" at all, because other "group thinkers" have made the same assumption. Rather, it simply tells us to which "group" you align your "thinking."

And where your real loyalties lie.

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

Would you be allowed behind one of these?

An answer from Bob Oliverio would be nice.

[Pahoran]

An answer from Bob Oliverio would be nice.

It would indeed. I'm not sure we should hold our breath, though.

I take it that's a Russian Orthodox altar?

Regards,

Pahoran