Exclusion?

[Thinking]

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

In the Mormon Softball Team Banned From Mercer County Christian League thread, Bob Oliverio wrote

Unusual post-script encounter to this story. Wife and I went to a weekend picnic/BBQ out in Stone Mountain yesterday w friends, some from church and others who are no longer members. Kind of a mixed group of young, older, professional, believing and those on to different ways. We had a beautiful space for activities but not enough for softball until one guy introduced a one of those old tether balls and a small bat to play a game. Was fun and reduced space needs.

This article came up after the game and I was surprised how many had even heard of it. It's interesting for me as a new member to watch and listen from those still active and those who are on to different things.

It really was a fun outing and fun way to play softball - all had a blast. But when the subject was brought up for discussion, and in a most compassionate way by a long time active member who was obviously disturbed by the exclusion of the LDS teams, another member (not sure if he was active or not) simply responded: "exactly how I felt being exclude from seeing my daughter being married in the Mesa temple"! Could have heard a pin drop in a group that was having such a great time up until then. We didn't know this gentleman, but he seemed so nice and gracious the entire day up until that sudden moment.

Kind of puts the meaning of "exclusion" in real context.

To which Storm Rider replied

You really think there is a comparison between the two things? I am sorry, but there are only two people this father should talk to and that is their children that chose to marry in the temple. It has nothing to do with the Church and everything to do with the choice of a couple seeking to be married for all time and eternity. You want to enter the temple there is a clear path to doing so. If you don't want to enter the temple the choice is yours. If the couple wants their parents to see a ceremony, then do one outside the temple for their sole benefit. However, it is totally erroneous to blame a church for setting up rules. No one, zero, zip. personne, has to follow the rules. If they do follow the rules, it is their choice and they bear the consequences of their actions.

It has nothing to do with exclusion!

It’s not as simple as you are trying to make it sound. The following story has happened many times.

Molly joins the LDS Church against her parents’ wishes. She meets Peter, and they fall in love. Peter asks her to marry him in the temple. She accepts, but when she tells her parents, the reality hits that they won’t be allowed to witness the ceremony. She asks Peter if they could hold a civil ceremony, then get sealed later (after waiting one year). Peter tells her the story of the young couple who chose that path but were killed before they could be married in the temple. Molly agrees to marry in the temple and let her parents wait outside.

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

[jwhitlock]

Coming at it from another direction, the right to choose who you associate with is a basic right. In both cases describe here, the parties have set particular rules in order to participate. If one follows the rules, then one can participate in either event. I don't have any problem with that.

The difference lies in the motivation between the exclusion in both cases, and the events in question. While the softball league has every right to exclude whoever they want, it doesn't reflect well on them because it appears to be driven by simple bigotry. If the roles were reversed, and there was an LDS church softball league, I would hope that if an Evangelical church team wanted to participate, they'd be welcome with open arms as a chance for community outreach - if nothing else. Since there is no other particular reason to exclude the LDS team in this case, it does not leave one with the impression that their motivations were particularly wholesome - even though it's their right to do so.

On the other hand, participation in the temple ceremony is specifically driven by a person qualifying him/herself to do so. The rules are clear and simple, and are meant to maintain the sacred nature of the ceremony by only having those who have been prepared participate. No one is excluded for any reason as long as they qualify themselves. The motivation for doing so is not meant to hurt others, but to preserve the power of the ceremony. There is no identifiable bigotry involved, which in my mind, is one of the biggest differences between the two situations.

In addition, it's hardly fair to compare a recreational activity with a sacred ceremony in the first place. They're too very different situations with different perspectives. While one may claim that "exclusion is exclusion", as you indicated, it's not really that simple.

[Alan]

The guy who felt he was excluded from the Temple is looking at it the wrong way. He excluded himself. If he had prepared himself by obtaining a temple recommend (and all that that entails) he could have witnessed the wedding. As we say here, you can't have your cake and eat it.

[beckstcw]

”The Mormons who felt they were excluded from the softball league are looking at it the wrong way. They excluded themselves. If they had prepared themselves by joining a ”real Christian church” (and all that that entails) they could have played in the league. As we say here, you can't have your cake and eat it.”

Seems like it's not really that simple, is it?

[Thinking]

No one is excluded for any reason as long as they qualify themselves.

This is an easy statement to make if you already believe in the LDS Church.

[rodheadlee]

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

In the Mormon Softball Team Banned From Mercer County Christian League thread, Bob Oliverio wrote

To which Storm Rider replied

It’s not as simple as you are trying to make it sound. The following story has happened many times.

Molly joins the LDS Church against her parents’ wishes. She meets Peter, and they fall in love. Peter asks her to marry him in the temple. She accepts, but when she tells her parents, the reality hits that they won’t be allowed to witness the ceremony. She asks Peter if they could hold a civil ceremony, then get sealed later (after waiting one year). Peter tells her the story of the young couple who chose that path but were killed before they could be married in the temple. Molly agrees to marry in the temple and let her parents wait outside.

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

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?

[BCSpace]

The LDS Church is exclusive as it ought to be since the Gospel of Jesus Christ is exclusive as well. It excludes those not willing to believe and act accordingly. They are NOT exclusive in the sense that anyone is prevented for any reason other than belief and action.

[Somebodyz]

They could marry in the UK, and have a wedding at the chapel, then also fit in a Temple sealing the same day.- I don't recommend it. I wish we here could just have the sealing. My brother (not LDS's) chose to get married in Africa, excluding his mother. It happens to parents all the time, when grown children make choices like a Temple sealing or eloping. The day is for those marrying, not the parents.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not to sure I want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member.

[jwhitlock]

This is an easy statement to make if you already believe in the LDS Church.

With today's attitude of entitlement in our society, which I deplore, I don't have any problem making such a statement.

In reality, the discussion shouldn't be about whether someone who hasn't qualified himself should be allowed to enter the temple. That's a non-issue. You're either qualified to enter or you're not, and that shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

The real discussion is about who has the right to witness a marriage ceremony. In the end, it's up to the couple, and not anyone else. They can get sealed in the temple without family, they can have a civil ceremony with family, they can have a reception with a ring ceremony with family, they can elope to the justice of the peace, they can get married on the beach in Hawaii with or without whoever wants to spend the money to participate, or whatever.

The couple has the final say and the burden of the decision. It's different in every situation, and one size does not fit all. The family may not like the decision, but they aren't the ones getting married.

[thesometimesaint]

Jwhitlock:

We eloped to the Temple.

[Bob Oliverio]

The LDS Church is exclusive as it ought to be since the Gospel of Jesus Christ is exclusive as well. It excludes those not willing to believe and act accordingly. They are NOT exclusive in the sense that anyone is prevented for any reason other than belief and action.

Boy, can't wait to see that in a formal Church press release!

[jwhitlock]

Jwhitlock:

We eloped to the Temple.

What's really interesting about temple sealings is that I can talk with 100 different couples who get sealed with family present, without family present, who got civilly married with and without family present and then sealed later, who eloped and got sealed later, etc., and get 100 very different perspectives on the whole process. From my standpoint, the church's policy is probably fairly well thought out. There are some hard and fast rules about who can go into the temple, there are some contingencies for allowing civil marriages depending on local laws, and there is an encouraged direction (get sealed as soon as possible) with a challenge to exercise faith in the process (you may, depending on where you live, have to wait a year to get sealed in cases of civil marriage first).

I've known couples who dreaded getting married because of the elaborate plans mothers had for the process; they welcomed the simplicity of the temple with open arms. I've known couples who had close, loving relationships with non-member parents who struggled with what to do. Some ended up getting sealed first, others not, but many of them involved their parents in the process of deciding so that there was as much openness about the process as possible. For some, not having their parents attend the sealing is a blessing, for others it's a trial of faith. But it's always ultimately up to the couple, first and foremost.

[cinepro]

I think you have all missed the real point here.

The Mercer County Softball League isn't excluding the LDS team because they want to or because they're "bigots". It's just that the LDS team isn't ready for participation in the league. We may not know why or understand the rule, but we should at least accept that it is for the good of the LDS team, and that allowing them to participate before they are ready would put them at a disadvantage. It's even possible that an LDS team may be accepting Christian softball responsibilities and obligations that they don't understand and aren't ready for.

The day may come when the LDS are allowed to play in the league, and we will find that no softball privileges have been denied to anyone. It's just that the LDS had to wait a little longer than the other Christian Churches.

Until then, the LDS are more than welcome to buy tickets and come and watch the games, and even work in the snack bar. So obviously we're not being discriminated against. We just need to take lesser responsibilities until we're ready for full participation in the league.

Edited May 28, 2012 by cinepro

[jwhitlock]

I think you have all missed the real point here.

The Mercer County Softball League isn't excluding the LDS team because they want to or because they're "bigots". It's just that the LDS team isn't ready for participation in the league. We may not know why or understand the rule, but we should at least accept that it is for the good of the LDS team, and that allowing them to participate before they are ready would put them at a disadvantage. It's even possible that an LDS team may be accepting Christian softball responsibilities and obligations that they don't understand and aren't ready for.

The day may come when the LDS are allowed to play in the league, and we will find that no softball privileges have been denied to anyone. It's just that the LDS had to wait a little longer than the other Christian Churches.

Until then, the LDS are more than welcome to come and watch the games, and work in the snack bar. So obviously we're not being discriminated against. We just need to take lesser responsibilities until we're ready for full participation in the league.

Nice bit of sophistry - and absolutely irrelevant since there's a difference between the bigotry of man and the designs of God. And while I can probably guess what your response to that will be, and while it seems to be SOP for you to try to twist any situation around to attack the church, what you're trying to infer here has already been resolved.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The intention of not allowing non-members into Temples for sealings is not to hurt them, and there is rich historical precedent for rituals sacralized through secrecy. However, the effect is, in fact, exclusionary, and very painful (and yes, it is us members doing the excluding; to say that non-members exclude themselves is frankly sophistry). While some may choose to see this as necessary, I agree with Brother Peterson:

(skip to 1:11:10 for the relevant bit)

I simply don't see the need to exclude nonmembers from sealings. Initiations and marriages are not just for members, they're statements to the entire community they take part in, most definitely including their families. The "sacred, not secret" argument is pretty limp.

The fact is, non-members are perfectly welcome to observe when we take the sacrament in our chapels, which is a Holy Ordinance. They are welcome at Baptisms, even if they are not being baptized themselves. They are welcome to read the scriptures even if they don't convert, where essentially everything in the Sacred Drama in the Temple can be found or inferred. These things are not "secret", or reserved only for members; does that mean they're not as Holy as our Temple rituals? If we were consistent, we would either bar non-members from these Holy things, or we would let them in as witnesses to our ceremonies. I think letting them in would do a tremendous amount of good, and act as a missionary tool.

Personally, I wish we'd canonize all the First Vision accounts, the Sermon in the Grove, and the King Follett Discourse, so that even more of the background context for the Temple is more readily available. Growing up in Hawaii, I've taken part in Hawaiian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic rituals; the sacredness was not lost on the believers just because a non-member like me was participating, and it gave me insight into their traditions that I would not have had if I had been excluded. Since we are to receive truth, let it come from whence it may, there's no shame in learning something from others. We can claim all we want that we love families, but until families are invited to participate, it's pretty disingenuous. If our families were able to be present, I would find it more Holy, not less.

Brigham Young said that a man is a good man whether in our church or out of it. Joseph Smith said that it don't prove a man isn't a good man just because he errs in doctrine. The Book of Mormon says that God speaks to Jew and Gentile alike, men and women and children alike, and He remembers the "heathen." The New Testament says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. The Old Testament shows how all people are part of the same family of Adam and Eve. Our goal should be to encourage in whatever way we can the binding together of all people, not exclude them from ordinances just because they haven't chosen to take part in them themselves yet.

Edited May 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[BCSpace]

The LDS Church is exclusive as it ought to be since the Gospel of Jesus Christ is exclusive as well. It excludes those not willing to believe and act accordingly. They are NOT exclusive in the sense that anyone is prevented for any reason other than belief and action.

Boy, can't wait to see that in a formal Church press release!

Not needed. One merely has to read the scriptures, say Mathew 10, among others.

[jwhitlock]

Brigham Young said that a man is a good man whether in our church or out of it. Joseph Smith said that it don't prove a man isn't a good man just because he errs in doctrine. The Book of Mormon says that God speaks to Jew and Gentile alike, men and women and children alike, and He remembers the "heathen." The New Testament says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. The Old Testament shows how all people are part of the same family of Adam and Eve. Our goal should be to encourage in whatever way we can the binding together of all people, not exclude them from ordinances just because they haven't chosen to take part in them themselves yet.

Since the policy on who can enter the temple is dictated by God, it's not up to you or me. I suggest you take it up with him; I doubt that the First Presidency is going to go against God's instructions on this particular item.

[Bob Oliverio]

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.

I think the Temple marriage ceremony is one of the practices that is simply not worthy of it's claimed history nor heritage.   And I recognize I will be deemed apostate for this view.  But I just don't see what standing the Church can claim to the Christian world for requiring a Temple marriage other than control and loyalty.  

But when I think about it, there  is nothing in either the Bible or BOM requiring this.  And the Church really is  reluctant to explain publicly, and avoids discussions about, anything to so with D&C 132.  Even the D&C's don't specifically require this exclusively.  Even one of the Jewish law partners in our firm brought to my attention the fact that these temple ceremonies are not found in ancient Hebrew cultures and is why even orthodox Jews don't know about them or practice them.  And that is supposed to be the origin of these practices!!  So it really does not bode well for the Church to stand up to the educated Christian world in defending this practice as part of Christian doctrine.  And that may well be why the Church does not do so publicly.

But even the ceremony itself, with the changes from 1990 that were explained to me, should be nothing we need to keep secret from the world.  Most can read about them anyway.  So I simply don't see the benefit of exclusion in what is otherwise displayed as an open and celebrated ceremony in every other Christian church and civilized society.

If the Church is looking for an olive branch to hand out for new membership - this would appear to be some low hanging fruit.  But maybe it's just a control feature that would be difficult to give up - and that does make sense to me.

[thesometimesaint]

When Christ went upon the mount of transfiguration he didn't invite the whole village. He even excluded most of the Apostles.

[Bob Oliverio]

When Christ went upon the mount of transfiguration he didn't invite the whole village. He even excluded most of the Apostles.

Come on, this defense is old and tired, even in LDS circles.

Why not quote what the scriptures say as opposed to what we don't know but just "want to conclude"?

John 18:20

"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

We need to abandone the myths and stick with the written scripture if we have any chance of credibility on this one.

[jwhitlock]

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.

I think the Temple marriage ceremony is one of the practices that is simply not worthy of it's claimed history nor heritage. And I recognize I will be deemed apostate for this view. But I just don't see what standing the Church can claim to the Christian world for requiring a Temple marriage other than control and loyalty.

But when I think about it, there is nothing in either the Bible or BOM requiring this. And the Church really is reluctant to explain publicly, and avoids discussions about, anything to so with D&C 132. Even the D&C's don't specifically require this exclusively. Even one of the Jewish law partners in our firm brought to my attention the fact that these temple ceremonies are not found in ancient Hebrew cultures and is why even orthodox Jews don't know about them or practice them. And that is supposed to be the origin of these practices!! So it really does not bode well for the Church to stand up to the educated Christian world in defending this practice as part of Christian doctrine. And that may well be why the Church does not do so publicly.

But even the ceremony itself, with the changes from 1990 that were explained to me, should be nothing we need to keep secret from the world. Most can read about them anyway. So I simply don't see the benefit of exclusion in what is otherwise displayed as an open and celebrated ceremony in every other Christian church and civilized society.

If the Church is looking for an olive branch to hand out for new membership - this would appear to be some low hanging fruit. But maybe it's just a control feature that would be difficult to give up - and that does make sense to me.

You evidently aren't really familiar with the temple, so perhaps your ignorance about this can be forgiven.

Those who attend the temple and start to understand the power of the temple see things otherwise.

[jwhitlock]

Come on, this defense is old and tired, even in LDS circles.

Why not quote what the scriptures say as opposed to what we don't know but just "want to conclude"?

John 18:20

"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

We need to abandone the myths and stick with the written scripture if we have any chance of credibility on this one.

He then proceeded to teach some very significant doctrine, very privately in Matt 24. John 18 is addressing the Jewish leadership directly, concerning specific things. It is not all encompassing.

As far as "old and tired" concerning the Mount of Transfiguration, we know the following:

- It was a very private situation; it wasn't open to the world.

- What happened on the Mount is not fully recorded in the New Testament.

- Like the 40 days after Christ's resurrection, what was talked about on the Mount was not made public knowledge.

Sounds like a very clear indication that not everything taught is always made immediately public, and for very good reasons. Christ also taught not to cast pearls before swine; given the mockery of the temple ceremony by those who hate us, I'd say that there is good reason to be selective in what we say publicly.

Again, when one has prepared him/herself, then that person is ready to start learning more significant truths. Those who aren't ready steadily lose what little truth they had - another scriptural principle.

[selek1]

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.

This fundamentally misstates both the function of the Temple and LDS theology.

The Temple exists not to "provide the spiritual needs of a few" but to facilitiate communication and covenant between man and God.

No one will achieve the fulness of the Celestial Kingdom who cannot or will not partake of Temple covenants and blessings either in this life or by proxy.

That you would attempt to denigrate the Temple as merely a facet or "experience" of Christianity amply demonstrates that you have no clue about what Temple worship and the authority represents or entails.

I think the Temple marriage ceremony is one of the practices that is simply not worthy of it's claimed history nor heritage.

As is amply demonstrated throughout your post, you are not qualified to offer such an opinion.

Temple sealings are unique in Christendom for the simple reason that they are eternal. Until very recently (historically speaking) Christian marriages were solemnized "until death do you part". Based on a few (misunderstood) verses in Matthew, Christians were taught that every marriage contained its own bill of divorcement. It was (and for the most part remains) an unchallenged truth that a "Christian" marriage was null and void at the moment of death. Mainstream Christians (and their theologians) hoped that their associations and relations might continue after death, but their bedrock theology dictated that had only a hope, rather than any kind of assurance.

And I recognize I will be deemed apostate for this view. But I just don't see what standing the Church can claim to the Christian world for requiring a Temple marriage other than control and loyalty.

Then perhaps you should study the matter a bit before offering us you unalloyed opinion.

So it really does not bode well for the Church to stand up to the educated Christian world in defending this practice as part of Christian doctrine. And that may well be why the Church does not do so publicly.

I'm sorry- but this goes back to your most fundamental weakness- a desire for acceptance and approval from the world at large.

As faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, as a Latter-day Saints, and as a Church as a whole, we are not required to go bowing and scraping for approbation and validation from the pomp of Babylon.

We believe what we do- and worship as we do- because we have been taught and commanded to do so by God. We neither seek the consent of Babylon, nor her approval.

But even the ceremony itself, with the changes from 1990 that were explained to me, should be nothing we need to keep secret from the world.

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.

So I simply don't see the benefit of exclusion in what is otherwise displayed as an open and celebrated ceremony in every other Christian church and civilized society.

Again- we neither want nor need your approval, nor are we particularly concerned about your opinion.

For we do not serve you- but rather we serve our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ- and it is their good opinion, not yours, that drives us.

If the Church is looking for an olive branch to hand out for new membership - this would appear to be some low hanging fruit.

But then again, perhaps the Church is not looking to make an offering and sacrifice at the altar of Babylon. Perhaps we are content to worship and obey as the Lord has decreed.

But maybe it's just a control feature that would be difficult to give up - and that does make sense to me.

And perhaps its something more.

Something beautiful.

Something sacred.

And something utterly beyond your current comprehension.

Edited May 28, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

We need to abandone the myths and stick with the written scripture if we have any chance of credibility on this one.

How can you vomit up idiocy such as this and still pretend to be a Latter-day Saint?

We do not rely on dead words passed down through heathen hands for our doctrine- for we are in constant contact with the Lord.

We need not rely on the speculation of grey-bearded fools who lean on the arm of the flesh to tell us what the Scriptures mean because we have the Holy Spirit and can ask the Lord directly.

Your insistence that we can and should resort to Bibliolatry to win the "credibility" of the world ample demonstrates that you neither understand what it means to be a Latter-day Saint nor have the slightest inkling of the purpose of the Restoration.