Exclusion?

[volgadon]

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

I take it that's a Russian Orthodox altar?

Regards,

Pahoran

An iconostasis. The altar is behind it. This is what replaced the veil in Orthodox churches and I have a great Ouspensky quote, but I'd love to hear from Bob first.

[ERayR]

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!!

Why should a sacred ceremony be recorded in the everyday texts of Christian or Jewish history?

Edited June 11, 2012 by ERayR

[volgadon]

I came across a very relevant quote from the introduction to Fuad I. Khuri's "Being a Druze." This is what I've been saying all along, that instead of opening our temple ceremonies to the world, a much more effective way to build bridges between members and non-members is to increase understanding of what the temple means to us.

Nothing dispels bias, prejudice and intolerance more forcefully than mutual understanding of the world of symbols that shapes the actions and reactions of the 'other'. Being empathetic and looking at symbolic reality from the point of view of another is not an easy task; it requires both knowledge of one's self and knowledge of the 'other'. Lack of empathy places people in straightjackets and leaves them exposed to standard stereotypes that blur understanding and confuse relationships. A large part of our symbolic life is contained in religion, where beliefs and behaviours are thought to be truly sui generis for the simple reason that we believe in them: hence, symbolic reality is an act of faith.

[volgadon]

Bump.

[volgadon]

Would you be allowed behind one of these?

Well, Bob, would you?

[Flyonthewall]

I am wondering if there really is a suggestion by some to profane the sacred to appease the world?

It seems the sacred has already been profaned in the mind of those who suggest this.

[Aliwe]

I am wondering if there really is a suggestion by some to profane the sacred to appease the world?

It seems the sacred has already been profaned in the mind of those who suggest this.

The world is sacred. God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.

[Wants2know]

Somebody can do Molly and Peter's sealing after their death. It's no problem. If they really want the parents to be at their wedding then they should have a civil ceremony and then wait a year,

Softball is a diversion from real life, getting sealed is real life. I'm a fully believeing member as is my wife but we can't be sealed because we can't uphold our covenant not to smoke tobacco, are we going to start lowering the standards to accomodate everyone?

Dude, you are still smoking? I thought you'd quit? I sincerely pray you can quit. I did. I've had my ups and downs but I'm somehow managing I hope you will find the ability to let go of it someday… .it's worth it !!! I know it's not easy. Man, do I know.

[Wants2know]

As for the "exclusion" of the temple wedding. I am all for it. Firstly, I've been married twice now, and I can't wait to be sealed to my husband and have it be about he and I and the Lord. I won't have to plan a reception. A lot of those ceremonial worries will not be necessary. I will be surrounded by the people who love us and understand us most. And I won't drain the bank account. If my one sister cares to wait and have pictures with me… great. If not… I really don't think I'll be bothered by it. Now if it were my first wedding and my parents were really feeling excluded, I would have participated in a civil wedding for them and worried about the sealing later. I'm very glad I was able to be married civilly and have my father present, as he died less than a year later and he really had wanted to see me married again.

[ERayR]

Somebody can do Molly and Peter's sealing after their death. It's no problem. If they really want the parents to be at their wedding then they should have a civil ceremony and then wait a year,

Softball is a diversion from real life, getting sealed is real life. I'm a fully believeing member as is my wife but we can't be sealed because we can't uphold our covenant not to smoke tobacco, are we going to start lowering the standards to accomodate everyone?

rodheadlee What I am going to post worked for me. I came to a point that I had to decide two things first - did I want to be a slave with my master as cigarette. Second - what was more important, the eternal family or my lungs full of smoke. Beleive me some days the lung full of smoke almost won but I had decided I wanted to quit more than I wanted to smoke. May you get the help you want to overcome.

[rodheadlee]

As for the "exclusion" of the temple wedding. I am all for it. Firstly, I've been married twice now, and I can't wait to be sealed to my husband and have it be about he and I and the Lord. I won't have to plan a reception. A lot of those ceremonial worries will not be necessary. I will be surrounded by the people who love us and understand us most. And I won't drain the bank account. If my one sister cares to wait and have pictures with me… great. If not… I really don't think I'll be bothered by it. Now if it were my first wedding and my parents were really feeling excluded, I would have participated in a civil wedding for them and worried about the sealing later. I'm very glad I was able to be married civilly and have my father present, as he died less than a year later and he really had wanted to see me married again.

rodheadlee What I am going to post worked for me. I came to a point that I had to decide two things first - did I want to be a slave with my master as cigarette. Second - what was more important, the eternal family or my lungs full of smoke. Beleive me some days the lung full of smoke almost won but I had decided I wanted to quit more than I wanted to smoke. May you get the help you want to overcome.

Thanks for caring. I'm at that point where it is seriously interfering with my work I should be doing for my family and my Lord. I quit for a week a while back and then got sideways. I'm going to give it a serious shot starting in the morning.Thanks for the support.

[Flyonthewall]

The world is sacred. God so loved the world that he gave his only Son.

Then what did Jesus mean when He said: "Give not that which is ^bholy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your ^cpearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Apparently He knew that some things would be too holy or sacred to be placed in front of some people.

Why wasn't everyone invited in to the Holy of Holies in the temple?

Why did Jesus teach in parables? The Apostles asked Jesus why he taught in parables. He told them that it was given to them to know the mysteries of the kindom of heaven, but not others? Why wasn't it given to others? Why were they excluded from it?

He told them that their eyes see and ears hear...but others have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear.

Then he went into the parable of the sower, where not all seeds will grow and thrive.

Why is it He taught the multitudes ONLY in parables?

[Aliwe]

Then what did Jesus mean when He said: "Give not that which is ^bholy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your ^cpearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Apparently He knew that some things would be too holy or sacred to be placed in front of some people.

What it means is this: You don't cram your religion down the throat of people who won't accept the things of God with reverence. You live the Kingdom life instead, and the people who seek God with sincerity will come to you.

[Pahoran]

What it means is this: You don't cram your religion down the throat of people who won't accept the things of God with reverence. You live the Kingdom life instead, and the people who seek God with sincerity will come to you.

There may be some validity in that approach, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jesus said.

The fact is that if all the world is sacred, then nothing is sacred in any meaninful way. It's as if the colour purple decided it wanted to be "inclusive" and not exclude any other colours; that would work just fine until people started to realise that calling something "purple" no longer actually described anything or conveyed any information.

Jesus lived in a sacral society, in which the world was infused with the holy; but even in that context, some things were significantly more sacred than others. How much more so, then, in a thoroughly secularised society! God didn't give His Only Begotten to save the dross of the world, but to save His children. Both from death and from the corrupting influences with which we are daily surrounded.

And part of His plan for that is to create sacred spaces from which profane things are excluded.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Aliwe]

And part of His plan for that is to create sacred spaces from which profane things are excluded.

In the afterlife, when Christ puts all things under his feet, will there be anything but sacred spaces? I don't think so. But some people will exercise their free will to be profane. And to be profane when there is nothing but sacred spaces is hellish. King Benjamin touched on this, and it is another example of LDS doctrine that I find intriguing:

Mosiah 3:25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls.

In other words, two souls can be in the same place, and depending on their spiritual disposition, one will think it heaven, the other hell.

[Pahoran]

In the afterlife, when Christ puts all things under his feet, will there be anything but sacred spaces? I don't think so. But some people will exercise their free will to be profane. And to be profane when there is nothing but sacred spaces is hellish. King Benjamin touched on this, and it is another example of LDS doctrine that I find intriguing:

Mosiah 3:25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls.

In other words, two souls can be in the same place, and depending on their spiritual disposition, one will think it heaven, the other hell.

Very good, but we're not there yet. In the meantime, we are still in this fallen world, where we must daily choose what we value most: the Tree of Life or the Great and Spacious Building.

And the one is sacred, and the other, profane.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

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

It is exclusion. Why would we explain that it is not? Things may get worse upon the judgment of God. Jesus was fine with exclusion: Matthew 25:1-13

[Calm]

never mind, answered in a later post

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In other words, two souls can be in the same place, and depending on their spiritual disposition, one will think it heaven, the other hell.

Doesn't that assume that heaven and hell occupy the same space and time? What if they don't? What if in the next life the profane cannot tolerate to be in the presence of the sacred? Are you suggesting they will have no choice but to remain there? Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[Flyonthewall]

What it means is this: You don't cram your religion down the throat of people who won't accept the things of God with reverence. You live the Kingdom life instead, and the people who seek God with sincerity will come to you.

So even in your beleif, there are some things you do not give without conditions being met. That is all we are doing.

Things in our temples must be accepted with reverence. When one has a temple recommend, and has come by it honestly, they have demonstrated the required level of reverence to receive those things of God.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Flyonthewall

[Aliwe]

So even in your beleif, there are some things you do not give without conditions being met. That is all we are doing.Things in our temples must be accepted with reverence. When one has a temple recommend, and has come by it honestly, they have demonstrated the required level of reverence to receive those things of God.

Yes, but it also means you ought not legislate holiness. The state cannot compel love for God and still call it love.

[volgadon]

Yes, but it also means you ought not legislate holiness. The state cannot compel love for God and still call it love.

I agree, but your statement is totally irrelevant. Nobody is talking of having the state compel love for God. It is all pretty simple, really. I consider our temples holy, you do not. As long as you allow me the liberty of worshipping as I please, then I am fine with that.

[Flyonthewall]

Yes, but it also means you ought not legislate holiness. The state cannot compel love for God and still call it love.

I agree with you on this, but wondering what the state has to do with anything where our temples are concerned.