Deborah Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 This is in reference to the Pure Mormonism blog site. And that might be your opinion Deborah but you are still mistaken. The man who runs the blog is as he quotes himself is "...a devout believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith." So don't read it if you don't want to but it's out there for others to check out for themselves.Yes, but this group doesn't consider the current church as having any authority and considers the church not themselves in apostasy.
Maureen Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I don't dispute that it is doctrine that only temple recommend holders can enter the temple. What is NOT doctrine is that a person cannot have a beautiful church wedding and then within the next few weeks, go to the temple with those that are worthy to enter the temple and have the marriage sealed for eternity. That is merely policy and a devisive policy at that.I agree.M.
Deborah Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 That btw is Alan Rock Waterman's site and he is an apostate and has led many people out of the church. 1
Closet Doubter Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I seriously question it's because he couldn't attend a brief ceremony in the temple and if it is they were probably never as close as she thought.I must not know what I am talking about. I'm glad you are more informed about the situation than I am. By the way, he was remarried about 4 months before us and we and the entire family were invited to his wedding and reception. Then we let him know as kindly as possible that he could come to our reception but not to the wedding.Then don't tell her she's not invited to the "wedding". Ask her to be in charge of the reception.I'm sure a non-mormon mother that is told she cannot be present at her daughters wedding will feel really good when she is told "but by the way, you can do all the work for the reception.Honestly I have a hard time understanding this because if people saw how simple the temple ceremony actually is they wouldn't get so bent out of shape.That's the same thing my sister told a friend that had to stand outside the temple while her daughter was getting married inside. She basically told her friend that if she new what the temple ceremony was like, she wouldn't feel at all bad about missing it.
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I don't dispute that it is doctrine that only temple recommend holders can enter the temple. What is NOT doctrine is that a person cannot have a beautiful church wedding and then within the next few weeks, go to the temple with those that are worthy to enter the temple and have the marriage sealed for eternity. That is merely policy and a devisive policy at that.Depends on where your priorities are. If you want the accolades of family and friends and the opportunity to spend thousands on ostentatious pageantry or do you simply want to go and solemnize ones covenants before God, in his presence, in his house. 1
CV75 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Personally, I'm a little more uncomfortable with having cashiers and rental services for temple robes in modern temples, than with the idea of a non-Mormon entering the temple.I would not equate the goings on in the temple Jesus cleansed (twice) with the current practice of renting ceremonial clothing in modern temples and the way this transaction is conducted.Jesus cast out those who were there for the sole purpose of making a living. The requirement to use temple coin devolved the temple into a company store (“Make not my Father's house an house of merchandise”). That is not what is going on with clothing rental in the temple proper.It is a far more serious defiling than clothing rental when the uninitiated to pass beyond the lobby areas. As the spirit of hawking animals for a living differs from the spirit of renting clothing at a break-even, the spirit of not having made temple covenants differs from the spirit of making them. One spirit belongs in the temple and the other does not.The marriage ceremony is not about love, but about love in the covenants. It doesn’t matter who understands this, those with the keys and the responsibility to exercise them do, and they aim to protect everyone in exercising them. Sometimes people in their discomfiture fight the lifeguard when he’s just doing his job. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I would not equate the goings on in the temple Jesus cleansed (twice) with the current practice of renting ceremonial clothing in modern temples and the way this transaction is conducted.Jesus cast out those who were there for the sole purpose of making a living. The requirement to use temple coin devolved the temple into a company store (“Make not my Father's house an house of merchandise”). That is not what is going on with clothing rental in the temple proper.I don't know. You really think that Jesus would have been perfectly happy had the dove vendors been selling their doves at cost? I don't think it would have made a difference. He didn't ask the vendors how much profit they were making.
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I disagree that this is necessarily doctrine. The doctrine is that "no unclean thing" shall be allowed in the temple so that it is not defiled. It does not say "no unworthy person." In the Jerusalem temple, Jesus did not get upset about the public rabble who had access to the temple. He got upset about the money changers, and the cashiers who sold sacrificial doves to patrons as a convenience to those who did not have access to their own animals. The "unclean things" were money-changing and sales inside the temple. Modern "unclean things" would undoubtedly be tobacco, alcohol, guns, etc., as well as behaviors like cursing, backbiting, etc. The first revelations that mention the "no unclean thing" restriction came not long after the Word of Wisdom, which was a response to the fact that members of the School of the Prophets were using tobacco during their early meetings, which were an early form of the Endowment.Personally, I'm a little more uncomfortable with having cashiers and rental services for temple robes in modern temples, than with the idea of a non-Mormon entering the temple. Although there would certainly be serious implementation issues that would need to be solved before a non-member could be allowed into a functioning temple, I don't think the presence of a non-member in a temple would "defile" it. Everyone, Mormon or non-Mormon alike, is equally unworthy to be in the presence of God, absent his grace. If the temple were defiled every time a sinner entered its doors, it would never be undefiled.That would be an awesome thing, to let non members attend a wedding ceremony and a great missionary tool to boot! Just like they do before a temple is dedicated! Unless someone on here is embarrassed about something that might be said. IMO it's a sweet experience for most.
selek1 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I must not know what I am talking about. While we appreciate your candor, the admission doesn't exactly come as a surprise to the rest of us.You keep insisting that the Church is at fault- but you consistently dodge the real issue- that neither you nor any of the other critics, apostates, and arksteadiers have (as yet) given us a valid reason to make the changes you are demanding.I'm sure a non-mormon mother that is told she cannot be present at her daughters wedding will feel really good when she is told "but by the way, you can do all the work for the reception. Hyper-emotional and largely fictitious sob stories (one wonders why this is the only arrow in the critic's quiver) not withstanding, this is not a reason to change our policy or practice.
Maureen Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Yes, but this group doesn't consider the current church as having any authority and considers the church not themselves in apostasy.That btw is Alan Rock Waterman's site and he is an apostate and has led many people out of the church.It's good to know you figured out that "this group" is actually one man.Your other claims are very questionable. In fact I would say your views about Mr. Waterman and his beliefs and thoughts are wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion.M.
selek1 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 That would be an awesome thing, to let non members attend a wedding ceremony and a great missionary tool to boot! I agree. And all we have to do to accomplish this great good is abdicate our sacred responsibilities, violate our sacred covenants, and "cast pearls before swine".But hey- so long as critics, fools, and the pomp of Babylon approve, what could go wrong? Just like they do before a temple is dedicated! Thank you- you just obviated your own point. Tours are offered before the Temple is dedicated (or rededicated, as the case may be)- not after.Unless someone on here is embarrassed about something that might be said. The only one here who should be embarrassed offered us Post #108. IMO it's a sweet experience for most. It's simply amazing to me how often and how glibly people will devalue the sacred and dismiss the profound in pursuit of some sort of lowest-common-denominator kumbaya moment. The "sweet experience" to be found in the Temple is irrevocably tied to its sanctity and special nature.One does not simply wander in to the Temple- but must prepare oneself physically, metally, morally, and spiritually to do so.It is those preparations, and sacred, set-apart nature of the Temple which facilitates the quickening of the Spirit of God.That sacred, special, covenental nature would be irrevocably altered, if not destroyed were we to turn the Temple into "just another place to meet".The Temple is neither a tourist attraction nor a curiousity for mere gawkers- and no one who understands and honors their sacred covenenants would wish it to be so. 1
Deborah Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 By the way, he was remarried about 4 months before us and we and the entire family were invited to his wedding and reception. Then we let him know as kindly as possible that he could come to our reception but not to the wedding.Well, gee wasn't the entire family invited to your reception? If this truly was the reason for the schism then the latter part of my statement must be true, either that or the guy isn't very mature.I'm sure a non-mormon mother that is told she cannot be present at her daughters wedding will feel really good when she is told "but by the way, you can do all the work for the reception.It would depend on how it's presented and how close the mother and daughter are and how mature or unselfish the mother is.She basically told her friend that if she new what the temple ceremony was like, she wouldn't feel at all bad about missing it.Once again it's how someone presents something. I certainly wouldn't say it like that but emphasize the simplicity and sacredness of the ceremony.I honestly question some of these relationships where people are so sensitive they let something like this create a wedge or they hold a grudge or they act so hurt.
Tacenda Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) I agree. And all we have to do to accomplish this great good is abdicate our sacred responsibilities, violate our sacred covenants, and "cast pearls before swine".Swine, whatever. The only people making covenants are the couple getting married not the observers who usually are friends and family who've raised, loved, helped, befriended and who have been through all of life's meaningful experiences together.How dare you relate them to swine?? Unless I misunderstood you. Edited August 10, 2012 by Tacenda 1
DH Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 If I were to get remarried in the temple, my own sister could not attend my wedding because she is inactive in the Church. Several of my best friends could not attend, either, because they're not members or don't have temple recommends. That's not what weddings are supposed to be like. They're not supposed to be exclusive little events that shut people out for differences of faith or matters of "worthiness" like drinking coffee. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want to justify the Church's policy, but it's just not right. 1
selek1 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Swine, whatever. The only people making covenants are the couple getting married not the observers who usually are friends and family who've raised, loved, helped, befriended and who have been through all of life's meaningful experiences together.How dare you relate them to swine?? Unless I misunderstood you.As a "life-long Latter-day Saint", surely you are familiar with the following Scriptures:Matthew 7:6Matthew 15:26Mark 7:273 Nephi 14:6Doctrine and Covenants 41:6
selek1 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 If I were to get remarried in the temple, my own sister could not attend my wedding because she is inactive in the Church. Several of my best friends could not attend, either, because they're not members or don't have temple recommends. That's not what weddings are supposed to be like. They're not supposed to be exclusive little events that shut people out for differences of faith or matters of "worthiness" like drinking coffee. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want to justify the Church's policy, but it's just not right.In your opinion.But your antipathy towards the Church is already deep, long-standing, and well-documented.Why then, should we buy what you are selling?Give us a valid reason to change our policy (and placating those who have axes to grind does not qualify) and we might consider it.Until that happens, we have no reason to take your complaints as anything other than sour grapes.
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Swine, whatever. The only people making covenants are the couple getting married not the observers who usually are friends and family who've raised, loved, helped, befriended and who have been through all of life's meaningful experiences together.How dare you relate them to swine?? Unless I misunderstood you.Perhaps you missed Jesus admonition in the new testament. You probably could read it very well as uninitiated. There are some very sacred covenants and ordinances performed in that sealing room. Ordinances we promise to keep sacred and holy. Just how do you expect to keep them sacred and holy if you open the doors to those that do not hold the reverence for them that a temple recommend holder does(should)? Some temple recommend holders fail to grasp the significance of this and then because of their own lack of reverence for them want to open them to the public. 1
selek1 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Some temple recommend holders fail to grasp the significance of this and then because of their own lack of reverence for them want to open them to the public.Bravo Zulu.I 've been trying to figure out how to express this sentiment in a simple, concise fashion.But I couldn't figure out how to work an anvil or a clue-bat into the equation.To quote Admiral Boom: "Well done, sir! Very well hit!"
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 If I were to get remarried in the temple, my own sister could not attend my wedding because she is inactive in the Church. Several of my best friends could not attend, either, because they're not members or don't have temple recommends. That's not what weddings are supposed to be like. They're not supposed to be exclusive little events that shut people out for differences of faith or matters of "worthiness" like drinking coffee. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want to justify the Church's policy, but it's just not right.You can do all the mental gymnastics you want to justify the lack of desire of (in your case) those who know better but want to partake of the blessings of the temple while living in Babalon. You have a choice. If that is not the kind off wedding you want then so be it. To allow those who don't want to meet the requirements to attend sacred ordinances is not what temple worship is about. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want to justify your own selfish outlook but it's just not right. 1
Ahab Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but there would be nothing morally wrong with a man and woman remaining chaste until getting a civil marriage outside of the temple and then soon after going into the temple to perform a sealing ordinance for a deceased couple who had been married for a time, but not eternity. It also wouldn't be wrong for them to be sealed together, although it may be against Church policy.
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but there would be nothing morally wrong with a man and woman remaining chaste until getting a civil marriage outside of the temple and then soon after going into the temple to perform a sealing ordinance for a deceased couple who had been married for a time, but not eternity. It also wouldn't be wrong for them to be sealed together, although it may be against Church policy.You have lost me somewhere. I think it was somewhere between the feel free and the correct me.
Maureen Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) You have lost me somewhere. I think it was somewhere between the feel free and the correct me.I believe what Ahab is saying is that an LDS temple recommended couple who decides to get married civilly first, can still perform proxy sealings in the Temple, even though they are not sealed themselves. And since they're already in the Temple, they could get sealed to each other, but that would be against church policy.M. Edited August 10, 2012 by Maureen
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I believe what Ahab is saying is that an LDS temple recommended couple who decides to get married civilly first, can still perform proxy sealings in the Temple, even though they are not sealed themselves. And since they're already in the Temple, they could get sealed to each other, but that would be against church policy.M.Thanks it must have been the banana peel
CV75 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I don't know. You really think that Jesus would have been perfectly happy had the dove vendors been selling their doves at cost? I don't think it would have made a difference. He didn't ask the vendors how much profit they were making.Evidetly didn't you didn't understand or wish to acknowledge my point that it was the Spirit they were abusing (and now that you mention it, if He approved of substitutions, He would have had no problem with a fair substitution). Now don't go accusing the LDS Church of sanctioning the abuse of the Spirit in its temples by renting clothing... Oy vey! And that this is somehow worse than someone without the proper covenants advancing beyond the lobby of the temple--Oy, gevalt!
CV75 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 I believe what Ahab is saying is that an LDS temple recommended couple who decides to get married civilly first, can still perform proxy sealings in the Temple, even though they are not sealed themselves. And since they're already in the Temple, they could get sealed to each other, but that would be against church policy.M.It's a test of humility for those who are expected, with all their privileges as members of the Church, to be able to bear it.
Recommended Posts