Civil Marriages And Temple Marriages And Waiting A Year Policy ?

[selek1]

The one year waiting period after a civil marriage is not doctrine. It is only policy.

Which does nothing to contradict my point.

This policy is a slap in the face to non-member family members.

Oh, bull----

Can you name any other area of the wedding or marriage in which a healthy couple cedes veto authority and their sense of right and wrong to "interested observers"?

By your logic, doing anything that your extended in-laws disapprove of is a "slap-in-the face".

Marry in the Temple?

You've offended cousin Festus.

Wear taffetta rather than silk?

You've offended Aunt Gertrude.

Hold the wedding in Montreal rather

La Belle Paris?

You've offended cousin Rene, the avant garde nude-sidewalk-body-art street artist.

Serve ham and apple juice at the reception instead of Pabst Blue Ribbon and chitlins?

You've offended

all three

of the groomsmen who still have all their teeth.

Use a condom the first night?

You've offended Aunt Agatha, the sex-is-for-procreation zealot and her thirty-seven kids.

No- your rather silly assertion just doesn't hold up under any kind of thoughtful or reasonable analysis.

Let's turn this on it's side for a moment.

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the mother-of-the-bride suddenly (and loudly) begins objecting about being locked out of the honeymoon suite on the wedding night.

In her mind, she's justified in being there: after all, she likely helped pay for it. She's got a deep emotional investment. That's her daughter, and poor Mom has waited all her life for her baby girl to become a bride in deed as well as word.

It's just not fair to exclude her. (You'll note that these are all arguments being used to demand access to the Temple).

I'm quite certain that such a person would feel that being told "No"- no matter how gently or civily phrased- was a "slap in the face". (We won't get into what she'd think of being maced and then insitutionalized.)

However much such she feels justified in her demands, the bottom line is that her presence is neither reasonable, justifiable, or appropriate.

Nor is it reasonable, justifiable, or appropriate for those who refuse to properly prepare themselves to enter the Temple to start suddenly huffing and puffing about their "right" to be there.

We are not expected to surrender our agency on any other aspect of marriage- but critics, fools, and arksteadiers all love to harp on this one.

I wonder why...

[selek1]

We claim to be a family oriented church but that only applies to family members that are also active members of our church.

More B.S. You are taking a single example of a policy you don't like, and spinning a foul and deceitful fantasy world from it.

While that makes for good day-time television drama (in as much as such a thing is theoretically possible) , it bears no more resemblance to reality than any other faux-crisis sandwiched in between ads for laundry detergent, band-aids, and feminine hygiene projects.

That we have standards for Temple attendance- and our policies are geared toward perserving that sanctity_ doesn't make us "anti-family", any more than telling our children "no cookies till after dinner" makes us "anti-child".

It doesn't mean we love our families any less.

It doesn't mean we want anything less than the best for them.

It doesn't mean we that don't wish everyone could attend with us.

It simply means we have covenanted to keep certain standards- and that we intend to comport ourselves with honor and integrity.

Let's set this on its side for a moment:

Joe and his son Bob are both alcoholics, from a culture in which Friday-and-Saturday night binges at the Elk's Lodge are common, routine, and accepted.

Prior to marrying his blushing bride Ella, Bob swears off alcohol- promising Ella that he will never drink again.

The day of the wedding, Joe is deep in his cups- and demands loudly and self-righetously that Bob join him in toasting the new bridge two or three hundred times.

Is Bob justified in breaking his oath to Ella simply to appease his in-law?

Is Joe justified in demanding that Bob accomodate him over the promise made?

If we were truely a family oriented church, the church would encourage worthy couples that have family members that cannot enter the temple to have a civil wedding first and then within the next couple of weeks, go with the family that are temple worthy and have the marriage sealed for eternity.

My- what a dandy "No True Scotsman" fallacy!

It's got all the bells and whistles- envy green upholstered interior, shiny self-righteousness trim, and even the new Bloviate 7.0 moral compass.

The only problem is that it puts making the in-laws happy ahead of making and keeping eternal covenants. That is where the priorities are misplaced.

When you claim this is an exercise in misplaced priorities, I totally agree however placing a bad church policy over family is the misplacement.

And it's got the automatic question begging accesory!

Neither you nor anyone else here has demonstrated that this IS a "bad church policy".

Yes- we know that the pomp of Babylon and various critics don't like the policy- but that doesn't automagically make it a bad policy.

Family is eternal, the gospel is eternal, but the church is an organization to help us in this life that is not eternal and is not infalible.

You forgot one thing: the covenants that we make to preserve and protect the sacred- and to honor the Lord in word and deed- are also eternal. Edited August 8, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

Which does nothing to contradict my point.

Oh, bull----

Can you name any other area of the wedding or marriage in which a healthy couple cedes veto authority and their sense of right and wrong to "interested observers"?

By your logic, doing anything that your extended in-laws disapprove of is a "slap-in-the face".

Marry in the Temple?

You've offended cousin Festus.

Wear taffetta rather than silk?

You've offended Aunt Gertrude.

Hold the wedding in Montreal rather

La Belle Paris?

You've offended cousin Rene, the avant garde nude-sidewalk-body-art street artist.

Serve ham and apple juice at the reception instead of Pabst Blue Ribbon and chitlins?

You've offended

all three

of the groomsmen who still have all their teeth.

Use a condom the first night?

You've offended Aunt Agatha, the sex-is-for-procreation zealot and her thirty-seven kids.

No- your rather silly assertion just doesn't hold up under any kind of thoughtful or reasonable analysis.

Let's turn this on it's side for a moment.

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the mother-of-the-bride suddenly (and loudly) begins objecting about being locked out of the honeymoon suite on the wedding night.

In her mind, she's justified in being there: after all, she likely helped pay for it. She's got a deep emotional investment. That's her daughter, and poor Mom has waited all her life for her baby girl to become a bride in deed as well as word.

It's just not fair to exclude her. (You'll note that these are all arguments being used to demand access to the Temple).

I'm quite certain that such a person would feel that being told "No"- no matter how gently or civily phrased- was a "slap in the face". (We won't get into what she'd think of being maced and then insitutionalized.)

However much such she feels justified in her demands, the bottom line is that her presence is neither reasonable, justifiable, or appropriate.

Nor is it reasonable, justifiable, or appropriate for those who refuse to properly prepare themselves to enter the Temple to start suddenly huffing and puffing about their "right" to be there.

We are not expected to surrender our agency on any other aspect of marriage- but critics, fools, and arksteadiers all love to harp on this one.

I wonder why...

Do you have any point of reference to what you are referring to here? You seem to make fun of alot of things that may be a serious matter for alot of people out there. Especially if the policy to wait a year isn't doctrine or from God. Do you always have to defend and be the opposite of every critic on here? Have you ever conceded on any points? Or are you always the defender, no matter if it's right or wrong?

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[Closet Doubter]

Do you have any point of reference to what you are referring to here? You seem to make fun of alot of things that may be a serious matter for alot of people out there. Especially if the policy to wait a year isn't doctrine or from God. Do you always have to defend and be the opposite of every critic on here? Have you ever conceded on any points? Or are you always the defender, no matter if it's right or wrong?

Thanks Tacenda. There are a few of the posters here, Salek 1 being one of them that actually make me want to distance myself from the church. There happen to be more however that actually appear to have the ability to think things through logically and add perspective to the topic being discussed.

My sister told me about a non member friend of hers in the southern area of the US. Her daughter was in college and had been partying a lot but then started hanging out with the Mormon group. She told my sister that she had mixed emotions. That on the one hand, she was glad her daughter had quit partying and was becoming more serious about her studying but she was afraid the daughter would become mormon herself and then the she (the mother) would not even be allowed to be with her at her wedding. What a sorry situation we are in when people truthfully know that they will be locked out of such a special event in the life of a child if the child converts and has a temple wedding. How easy it would be for the church to change this devisive policy and encourage a church wedding and within the following 2 to 3 weeks go to the temple to have the marriage sealed. It would not violate the sanctity of the temple, and might actually make the sealing even more sacred to the couple knowing that their family was not divided on the day of the wedding. (does this thinking make me an "ark steadier"? funny how people will make this accusation but when they are declaring doctrine that the prophet himself won't clarify or telling us what the prophet joseph meant or thought, they don't consider themselves "ark steadiers")

[Tacenda]

Thanks Tacenda. There are a few of the posters here, Salek 1 being one of them that actually make me want to distance myself from the church. There happen to be more however that actually appear to have the ability to think things through logically and add perspective to the topic being discussed.

My sister told me about a non member friend of hers in the southern area of the US. Her daughter was in college and had been partying a lot but then started hanging out with the Mormon group. She told my sister that she had mixed emotions. That on the one hand, she was glad her daughter had quit partying and was becoming more serious about her studying but she was afraid the daughter would become mormon herself and then the she (the mother) would not even be allowed to be with her at her wedding. What a sorry situation we are in when people truthfully know that they will be locked out of such a special event in the life of a child if the child converts and has a temple wedding. How easy it would be for the church to change this devisive policy and encourage a church wedding and within the following 2 to 3 weeks go to the temple to have the marriage sealed. It would not violate the sanctity of the temple, and might actually make the sealing even more sacred to the couple knowing that their family was not divided on the day of the wedding. (does this thinking make me an "ark steadier"? funny how people will make this accusation but when they are declaring doctrine that the prophet himself won't clarify or telling us what the prophet joseph meant or thought, they don't consider themselves "ark steadiers")

Thank you Closet Doubter. Back when I didn't have any doubt the church was true, (I'm still active) I remember wishing that people could marry civily and shortly after be sealed, since I had had many experiences with people that had to miss ceremonies and wait outside and I empathised with them a great deal.

[selek1]

Do you have any point of reference to what you are referring to here?

I believe my arguments are self-explanatory.

What sort of reference would you prefer?

You seem to make fun of alot of things that may be a serious matter for alot of people out there.

I often try to expose absurdity by being absurd.

Of course, I don't like bullies, and I don't particularly care for arksteadiers who are more interested in being "liked" than in doing what's right.

The sort of pious, pompius, holier-than-thou, you-must-do things-my-way-or-you're-"anti-family" rhetoric which inescapably pollutes this issue is a balloon just begging to be popped.

Especially if the policy to wait a year isn't doctrine or from God.

There are (IMO) only two valid possible responses.

The first (and most eminently reasonable) is to point out that the former question (whether the policy is doctrinal or not) is irrelevant and the second is not something you know to be true. More importantly, it is the Church's stweardship and their policy.

I would not enter your home and demand loudly and at length that you do things my way. It's not my home, it's not my stewardship, and it is- quite frankly- rude.

By the same token, the critics have no right to demand that we alter our policies or practices to suit their whims.

Critics and arksteadiers (by and large) don't seem to have grasped that fundamental concept.

The second possible response- while immenently reasonable, is also considerably more snarky. "Whether by my voice or the voice of my Prophets... it is the same."

Right, wrong, or indifferent (the critics always seem obsessed with the second, and cannot master either the first or third), the leaders of the Church- whom we sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators- have laid forth this policy.

In my opinion the policy- like the rest of our Temple worship- is designed to place our emphasis on the eternal nature of our covenants and our eternal relationship with God.

Whether my speculation is correct or not, I see no justification in gainsaying those called to lead the Church simply to appease those who will hate, despise, mock, ridicule, and scorn us anyway.

Those who wish to find reasons to reject us will do so- no matter how many pretzels we twist ourselves into trying to win their rather fickle approval.

Do you always have to defend and be the opposite of every critic on here?

Of course not. There are several instances (though considering the sheer volume of material, they are comparatively rare) in which I have not only agreed with our critics, but have championed them.

Have you ever conceded on any points?

I think there was one instance in 1972.. involving baby-powder, "big-boy pants" and nappy-time.

Or are you always the defender, no matter if it's right or wrong?

No -sometimes I am the aggressor....no matter if it's right or wrong.

Come now, be serious-

What kind of caricature would I need to be to defend everything without thought or consideration? Would you accuse one of our critics of being so shallow?

For the record- this issue boils down to a single question: Whom do you serve?

Are you interested in holding steadfast to the Iron Rod "right or wrong"?

Or are you more concerned with what the Great and Spacious Building thinks?

[sheilauk]

How easy it would be for the church to change this devisive policy and encourage a church wedding and within the following 2 to 3 weeks go to the temple to have the marriage sealed. It would not violate the sanctity of the temple, and might actually make the sealing even more sacred to the couple knowing that their family was not divided on the day of the wedding.

if the Church did change its policy, what about those couples who do not want to wait a few days or weeks to be sealed, but who want a temple marriage and who have family members who can't attend? Will they be put under pressure to change their plans to accommodate their family, because "the Church says its okay to wait"? You see, there are two sides to everything. The Church encourages its members to pursue the best course of action they can and even a wait of two weeks could mean a sealing never happens - tragedies do occur.

As for parents missing out on weddings - I have family and friends who are not LDS and held civil ceremonies and were married without their parents present because of circumstances/distance or even choice. Sometimes, we have to miss life's big events and not everything can be made to accommodate everyone.

i do not mean to sound unsympathetic to those who missed out/will miss out, but it sounds a little selfish to me to demand someone does something (particularly with regards to something they belief in) to accommodate oneself.

[selek1]

Thanks Tacenda. There are a few of the posters here, Salek 1 being one of them that actually make me want to distance myself from the church. There happen to be more however that actually appear to have the ability to think things through logically and add perspective to the topic being discussed.

I notice you didn't address the actual substance of either my position or arguments.

One wonders when "thinking things through logically " was redefined to mean "support my prejudices and assumptions, or else".

My sister told me about a non member friend of hers in the southern area of the US. Her daughter was in college and had been partying a lot but then started hanging out with the Mormon group. She told my sister that she had mixed emotions. That on the one hand, she was glad her daughter had quit partying and was becoming more serious about her studying but she was afraid the daughter would become mormon herself and then the she (the mother) would not even be allowed to be with her at her wedding. What a sorry situation we are in when people truthfully know that they will be locked out of such a special event in the life of a child if the child converts and has a temple wedding.

This rather apocryphal and trite tale begs a number of questions(surprise, surprise)- and supports a startling number of anti-Mormon prejudices.

Note that "your sister's friend" isn't interested in finding out what Mormons really believe or practice- instead, she's running from an anti-Mormon stereotype.

Note also that she's less concerned with her daughter's penulatimate spiritual well-being (though she does admit that the Mormons are a good influence) than with whether or not she's going to be able to participate in a one-time, event that will last less than 1/2 hour. Talk about misplaced priorities!

Finally, note too, that the Mother does not hold out even the possibility that what the Mormons beilieve in is good and right- and might be something she herself is interested in.

She is instead, focused on a single instance in time and whether she will get to play the role she desires in that event. Her wishes- rather than her daughter- are foremost in her mind.

How easy it would be for the church to change this devisive policy and encourage a church wedding and within the following 2 to 3 weeks go to the temple to have the marriage sealed.

Again- you are putting the wishes of the family ahead of eternal principles. That's backward, and its wrong.

It would not violate the sanctity of the temple, and might actually make the sealing even more sacred to the couple

It also places the temporal rite ahead of the eternal covenants, prioritizing that which will decay ahead of the celestial.

As the Savior once said, "Let the dead bury their own..."

As for me and my House, we will serve the Lord.

[Tacenda]

I notice you didn't address the actual substance of either my position or arguments.

One wonders when "thinking things through logically " was redefined to mean "support my prejudices and assumptions, or else".

This rather apocryphal and trite tale begs a number of questions(surprise, surprise)- and supports a startling number of anti-Mormon prejudices.

Note that "your sister's friend" isn't interested in finding out what Mormons really believe or practice- instead, she's running from an anti-Mormon stereotype.

Note also that she's less concerned with her daughter's penulatimate spiritual well-being (though she does admit that the Mormons are a good influence) than with whether or not she's going to be able to participate in a one-time, event that will last less than 1/2 hour. Talk about misplaced priorities!

Finally, note too, that the Mother does not hold out even the possibility that what the Mormons beilieve in is good and right- and might be something she herself is interested in.

She is instead, focused on a single instance in time and whether she will get to play the role she desires in that event. Her wishes- rather than her daughter- are foremost in her mind.

Again- you are putting the wishes of the family ahead of eternal principles. That's backward, and its wrong.

It also places the temporal rite ahead of the eternal covenants, prioritizing that which will decay ahead of the celestial.

As the Savior once said, "Let the dead bury their own..."

As for me and my House, we will serve the Lord.

What if down the road, our grandchildren read that the policy was changed and breath a sigh of relief that when a prophet speaks as a man it is from man and when a prophet speaks as a prophet it is from God.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

The thing is nobody knows a mans heart.

Actually, that depends entirely on whether one wears it one their sleeve or not.

As reasoning adults, as children of God, and as partakers and practicioners of our God-given agency, we are required to judge every day of our lives. The warning is that we are to judge righteously.

That is why this and disciplinary policies are so faith killing. Then it gets even better, yout put disciplinary waiting periods in the hands of men(talking bishops or whomever). That then adds another dimension of BS. I see nothing gained by the church disciplining strictly and all to lose.

This statement represents both a profound lack of faith and a fundamental misunderstanding of both revelation and Church discipline.

You are discounting out of hand the presence of the Spirit, of revelation, and that Church discipline is done out of love rather than a misguided impulse towards demanding conformity.

It is easier to get somebody to do what you want by loving them then disciplining them.

Shall I remind you of Doctrine and Covenants 121?

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

"Love" and "discipline" are not mutually exclusive.

Nor is doing or requiring that which will build us up eternally automagically "hateful".

[selek1]

What if down the road, our grandchildren read that the policy was changed and breathed a sigh of relief that when a prophet speaks as a man it is from man and when a prophet speaks as a prophet it is from God.

Then we shall have been obedient to the Counsel we were given- and will have upheld our Covenants with integrity and honor.

Now for the inverse: What if down the road, it is manifest that this policy was the Lord's express desire all along- and you were publically agitating against it?

I think D&C 121:16, :23, and :45 all apply here, don't you?

Calorie-free hypotheticals notwithstanding, the policy as iterated by the Lord's servants is the one we are expected to adhere to.

You either sustain the Church leaders or you do not.

You are either loyal to Zion or to Babylon. You cannot serve both.

Edited August 8, 2012 by selek1

[Somebodyz]

Thanks Tacenda. There are a few of the posters here, Salek 1 being one of them that actually make me want to distance myself from the church. There happen to be more however that actually appear to have the ability to think things through logically and add perspective to the topic being discussed.

My sister told me about a non member friend of hers in the southern area of the US. Her daughter was in college and had been partying a lot but then started hanging out with the Mormon group. She told my sister that she had mixed emotions. That on the one hand, she was glad her daughter had quit partying and was becoming more serious about her studying but she was afraid the daughter would become mormon herself and then the she (the mother) would not even be allowed to be with her at her wedding. What a sorry situation we are in when people truthfully know that they will be locked out of such a special event in the life of a child if the child converts and has a temple wedding. How easy it would be for the church to change this devisive policy and encourage a church wedding and within the following 2 to 3 weeks go to the temple to have the marriage sealed. It would not violate the sanctity of the temple, and might actually make the sealing even more sacred to the couple knowing that their family was not divided on the day of the wedding. (does this thinking make me an "ark steadier"? funny how people will make this accusation but when they are declaring doctrine that the prophet himself won't clarify or telling us what the prophet joseph meant or thought, they don't consider themselves "ark steadiers")

First of I find the comments about wanting to distance oneself from the church because of one or two comments on an internet board, passive aggressive. I maybe wrong, but it comes across as, don't say anything I don't like or I'll leave...so shut up. Leaving over things said, well I don 't get it. I'm not trying to be rude or hurtful and hope it doesn't come over that way. I have issues with being manipulated and am hyper sensitive to it at times. It feels like a dig and threat.

Temple admittance does not have to divide families. That is up to the families. My adoptive mother's only 'real' child, eloped to Africa to marry. His choice, it didn't divide the family. I chose to become a Mormon, they said if I went ahead, I'm dead to the family. RIP me. The church didn't divide us. Their hate and non-acceptance did. The wedding day is one day, if family are so hurt they can't get over it, something else is going on. Be it control issues or whatever.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Somebodyz

[Tacenda]

Then we shall have been obedient to the Counsel we were given- and will have upheld our Covenants with integrity and honor.

Now for the inverse: What if down the road, it is manifest that this policy was the Lord's express will all along- and you were publically agitating against it?

I think D&C 121:16, :23, and :45 all apply here, don't you?

Still leaves out the part where our church is big on families.....maybe if we weren't taught from day one that famiy is the most important but taught what is taught in the scripture below, then it wouldn't be such an issue that it is with some.

Matt 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

[selek1]

First of I find the comments about wanting to distance oneself from the church because of one or two comments on an internet board, passive aggressive. I maybe wrong, but it comes across as, don't say anything I don't like or I'll leave. So shut up. Leaving over things said, well I don 't get it. I'm not trying to be rude or hurtful and hope it doesn't come over that way. I have issues with being manipulated and am hyper sensitive to it at times. It feels like a dig and threat.

Temple admittance does not have to divide families. That is up to the families. My adoptive mother's only 'real' child, eloped to Africa to marry. His choice, it didn't divide the family. I chose to become a Mormon, they said if I went ahead, I'm dead to the family. RIP me. The church didn't divide us. Their hate and non-acceptance did. The wedding day is one day, if family are so hurt they can't get over it, something else is going on. Be it control issues or whatever.

Amen and Amen!

It is one of the conceits of this conversation that not being able to attend the Temple somehow precludes the family from sharing in the joy and the celebration.

Like so many conceits, it is nonsense offered simply for the sake of argument.

[selek1]

Still leaves out the part where our church is big on families.....

Nonsense- as has been pointed out repeatedly.

This is a false dichotomy at best, and cynical manipulation at its heart.

We can still be "big on families" without violating our covenants, ethics, and principles.

I've asked it several times now: does family have the right to demand that we violate what we know to be right?

Let's assume your mother demands you prove that you "love your family" by helping her rob a bank.

Is she in any way justified in trying to emotionally blackmail you into compromising your ethical standards and violating the law?

Edited August 8, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

Deleted- I want your answer to the question above before I respond further.

Edited August 8, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

Nonsense- as has been pointed out repeatedly.

This is a false dichotomy at best, and cynical manipulation at its heart.

We can still be "big on families" without violating our covenants, ethics, and principles.

I've asked it several times now: does family have the right to demand that we violate what we know to be right?

Let's assume your mother demands you prove that you "love your family" by helping her rob a bank.

Is she in any way justified in trying to emotionally blackmail you into compromising your ethical standards and violating the law?

Let me see, weighing in my hands...rob a bank or marrying my groom in front of my parents? Not the best comparison. Could you come up with a better one?

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

Let me see, weighing in my hands...rob a bank or marrying my groom in front of my parents? Not the best comparison. Could you come up with a better one?

The ethical dilemma is the same- you are being asked to do something you know to be wrong in order to placate a loved one.

Quit dodging and answer the question: Is your mother justified in demanding that you "prove" your love by compromising your ethics? Yes or no?

Edited August 8, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

The ethical dilemma is the same- you are being asked to do something you know to be wrong in order to placate a loved one.

Quit dodging and answer the question: Is your mother justified in demanding that you "prove" your love by compromising your ethics? Yes or no?

My own mother wouldn't ask such a thing.

[selek1]

My own mother wouldn't ask such a thing.

In other words, an honest answer would an an admission against interest.

Thank you for your (inadvertent) honesty on the matter.

[Tacenda]

In other words, an honest answer would an an admission against interest.

Thank you for your (inadvertent) honesty on the matter.

I know. I really don't think my siblings took it too hard when they missed my ceremony. But atleast my parents were there. Only one of my siblings out of 6 was able to witness my temple ceremony. I'm just sympathising with other's out there is all. Is that allowed, in this church?

[selek1]

I know. I really don't think my siblings took it too hard when they missed my ceremony. But atleast my parents were there. Only one of my siblings out of 6 was able to witness my temple ceremony. I'm just sympathising with other's out there is all. Is that allowed, in this church?

Another false dichotomy.

Who said that we cannot or should not sympathize with the desires of those unworthy or unable to attend the Temple?

I certainly never posited any such thing.

One can empathize without compromising one's integrity.

Edited August 8, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

Another false dichotomy.

Another attempt to demonize those who don't happen to agree with you.

No, only demonize (that word's extreme, but you like the word) those that believe in free speech in the church is wrong.

[selek1]

No, only demonize (that word's extreme, but you like the word) those that believe in free speech in the church is wrong.

Call For References- who here has made that claim?

[Tacenda]

Call For References- who here has made that claim?

I was referring to your statements. My CFR is on some of your statements since I've "read" you, wanted to say "met". In my not so humble opinion.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda