Civil Marriages And Temple Marriages And Waiting A Year Policy ?

[Tacenda]

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.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/templeweddingpetition/

This by no means sufficeth but is a little better than sour grapes, possible sweet ones?

[Tacenda]

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!"

I'm not all for displaying temple covenants. It was just a thought on my part. I'm more in favor of giving the couple a choice. Right now it really isn't a choice. They are taught in YM's and YW's to start out marrying in the temple, no sealing later, not a good choice.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

This by no means sufficeth but is a little better than sour grapes, possible sweet ones?

Considering that its exactly the same self-rigteous, contentious, and idiotic tripe that's been peddled here, you're right- it is not sufficient.

[selek1]

I'm not all for displaying temple covenants. It was just a thought on my part. I'm more in favor of giving the couple a choice. Right now it really isn't a choice. They are taught in YM's and YW's to start out marrying in the temple, no sealing later, not a good choice.

Making (and keeping) Temple covenants a priority in our lives is an essential, inescapable part of being worthy of a Temple marriage.

Couples who are eligible for a Temple wedding have a choice- they can either make the Temple and their sacred covenants their priority or they can kowtow before Babylon.

Contrary to the myth you and the rest are peddling, that is not a choice the Church forces on them- but is an inescapable fact of life.

The requirement to choose between Zion and Babylon will not end once the vows have been read, the rice thrown, and the honeymoon is over- it will follow them all the days of their lives.

Their decision whether to honor their sacred covenants or to subordinate them to other demands will set the pattern for their lives.

Subordinating the eternal in order to make others happy is not a good habit to get into- especially in something as important as the Sealing Ordinances,

We are cautioned in Scripture to lay up our treasures in Heaven rather than to accumulate them here.

The choice between obeying God and obeying our family reveals where our hearts truly lie.

Edited August 11, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

I'm not all for displaying temple covenants. It was just a thought on my part. I'm more in favor of giving the couple a choice. Right now it really isn't a choice. They are taught in YM's and YW's to start out marrying in the temple, no sealing later, not a good choice.

Really it is the best choice. Those who make the the commitment to temple marriage have a much lower divorce rate. See this:

http://graceforgrace.com/2008/08/30/mormon-temple-marriages-have-only-6-divorce-rate/

However, there is one exception: Mormon Temple marriages. Those Mormons that Marry in the Temple have only a 6% divorce rate. You can view this information at this site: In Era of Divorce, Mormon Temple Weddings Are Built to Last. You will notice that this article gives reasons of why the divorce rate for temple marriages is significantly lower. This list includes the following reasons:

1. They Date within their Faith
   
2. They Make Sure they’re Committed to their Faith
   
3. They get their Lives Squared Away before Marriage (that’s why I was 30 before I was married! : )
   
4. They Make the Wedding Ceremony Sacred
   
5. They Marry for Eternity
   
6. They Believe the Family that Prays together Stays together
   
7. They Get Help when they have a Problem
   
8. They Believe Children Create a Happy Marriage
   
9. They have Family Home Evening every Monday Night
   
10. The LDS church and active members discourage divorce.
    

Of particular note is #4

[Tacenda]

Really it is the best choice. Those who make the the commitment to temple marriage have a much lower divorce rate. See this:

http://graceforgrace...6-divorce-rate/

However, there is one exception: Mormon Temple marriages. Those Mormons that Marry in the Temple have only a 6% divorce rate. You can view this information at this site: In Era of Divorce, Mormon Temple Weddings Are Built to Last. You will notice that this article gives reasons of why the divorce rate for temple marriages is significantly lower. This list includes the following reasons:

1. They Date within their Faith
   
2. They Make Sure they’re Committed to their Faith
   
3. They get their Lives Squared Away before Marriage (that’s why I was 30 before I was married! : )
   
4. They Make the Wedding Ceremony Sacred
   
5. They Marry for Eternity
   
6. They Believe the Family that Prays together Stays together
   
7. They Get Help when they have a Problem
   
8. They Believe Children Create a Happy Marriage
   
9. They have Family Home Evening every Monday Night
   
10. The LDS church and active members discourage divorce.
    

Of particular note is #4

Totally agree and that is why it is such a heart wrenching thing for some families. Because couples know of what you speak of and believe it is true. So to alleviate the pain all around, wouldn't it be better if they could get sealed a day or two later? Like what was said earlier in the thread, like the people did in the past?

Edit: To comment on the red sentence you provided, I've attended a sealing for a couple before. It seemed nearly the same as the wedding ceremony and just as sacred.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Totally agree and that is why it is such a heart wrenching thing for some families. Because couples know of what you speak of and believe it is true. So to alleviate the pain all around, wouldn't it be better if they could get sealed a day or two later? Like what was said earlier in the thread, like the people did in the past?

Edit: To comment on the red sentence you provided, I've attended a sealing for a couple before. It seemed nearly the same as the wedding ceremony and just as sacred.

Reread #4. To make sacred is to not put it in second place.

[Tacenda]

Reread #4. To make sacred is to not put it in second place.

I just gave you my opinion, I don't think it's second best and just as sacred.

[ERayR]

I just gave you my opinion, I don't think it's second best and just as sacred.

That which is most sacred is that which you place first. If a civil marriage is placed first, no matter what the reason, then that puts a temple marriage in second place. However if one is not a member when getting married or is not active then a sealing after the fact is the only option.

Edited August 11, 2012 by ERayR

[Cobalt-70]

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.

And unfortunately, if such a couple hopes hopes to get sealed faster by dying immediately after their civil wedding, I think there is a 1-year waiting period for dead couples, too, but only to make sure they are really dead, and not just faking it.

[ERayR]

And unfortunately, if such a couple hopes hopes to get sealed faster by dying immediately after their civil wedding, I think there is a 1-year waiting period for dead couples, too, but only to make sure they are really dead, and not just faking it.

Your sarcasm is noted even if respect is lacking.

[Cobalt-70]

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!

You don't have to have "the proper covenants" to advance beyond the lobby of the temple. Anyone who is going through for the first time obviously hasn't made covenants yet. They are in the same position as a non-member. They also let non-member EMTs and police into the temple, and I haven't heard any reports of a temple getting "defiled" by the filth of their non-memberhood.

[ERayR]

You don't have to have "the proper covenants" to advance beyond the lobby of the temple. Anyone who is going through for the first time obviously hasn't made covenants yet. They are in the same position as a non-member. They also let non-member EMTs and police into the temple, and I haven't heard any reports of a temple getting "defiled" by the filth of their non-memberhood.

Come now you are not that obtuse. You know that is a gross misrepresentation. They have not participated in the covenants and ordinances of the temple yet but they have prepared themselves to do so.

Again your sarcasm is noted along with your lack of respect.

[Calm]

1. They Make Sure they’re Committed to their Faith
   

One is not affected by faith that is not acted upon. Commitment comes through action. By making a choice to put their faith and commitment to God first in their life by choosing to be married in the temple even if it that causes disappointment due to the feelings of nonmember or nonendowed family and friends, they have acted out their faith and thus strengthened it.

Faith unchallenged is untested and faith untested is weak like a sword that has not been quenched or tempered....it looks as good as a sword that has, but when taken up to be used, it shatters when meeting a significant obstacle.

There is a difference in the faith of someone who can say "I would have made that choice to sacrifice for God if I was required to" and someone who can say "I made the sacrifice". It is why we had to go through mortality even though God could judge the intent of our hearts long before.

Edited August 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[tyler90az]

Even if anybody was allowed to witness a Temple Sealing they would not understand it anyway. I bet most members(likely me) do not even understand the full meaning. It is much more wise to invite them to a reception after the sealing. That is where most of the festivities take place anyways, unlike a five minute sealing.

This is just one of the many things that the American Culture tells us is wrong. It seems like if we honestly think about it the decision is right.

[Gillebre]

I have stated my beliefs on this issue previously, but that was some time ago.

I think we can agree that a primary function of our mortal journey is to be tested, correct? We are determining where our loyalties are, by our actions.

The choice between being married in the Temple, and getting married civilly and sealed a year later, is an inspired and divine directive from the Lord Jesus Christ (in my opinion). Why?

When you have two opposing choices, the result is a good indicator as to your true loyalty. Does one submit to the will of others and ignore the counsel of the Lord and His servants (by having a civil marriage first, and then being sealed later)? Or does one put the Lord first, as we have been commanded (remember the first great commandment) to do?

Having to decide between those two things is one of His methods of testing our devotion and commitment. In all things, we are to love and serve the Lord our God in every single way, at all times and in all places.

Please give that some serious thought. You wonder why He would direct His servants to have the membership make a choice between Him and a parent? Think about it.

[Stargazer]

How would you respond if the church said, "Don't worry about going to the Celestial kingdom. The Terrestial is good enough for you." Whatever the church tells him, that doesn't change the nature of his choice. The polygamist has to choose between exaltation and his family. This is quite ironic in light of D&C 132, which has not yet been rescinded.

Such a one who was told to live as the best non-member he could be, and he does so, does not strike me as ineligible for the Celestial Kingdom. A person who is killed in a car accident on the way to their baptism is likewise not lost -- the work will be done by proxy, eventually. The person who is killed in a car accident the day before the missionaries knock on his door, where he would have received the gospel and been baptised if he had been able to tarry, will also not be lost.

You ought to know this; perhaps you have forgotten.

There are a lot of loose ends to tie up, and we are taught that those loose ends will be tied up during the Millenium. If it were not so, then far too many of Father's children will have been unjustly condemned.

[Cobalt-70]

Such a one who was told to live as the best non-member he could be, and he does so, does not strike me as ineligible for the Celestial Kingdom. A person who is killed in a car accident on the way to their baptism is likewise not lost -- the work will be done by proxy, eventually. The person who is killed in a car accident the day before the missionaries knock on his door, where he would have received the gospel and been baptised if he had been able to tarry, will also not be lost.

You ought to know this; perhaps you have forgotten.

There are a lot of loose ends to tie up, and we are taught that those loose ends will be tied up during the Millenium. If it were not so, then far too many of Father's children will have been unjustly condemned.

The problem is that this is a loose end that could be tied up in this lifetime, but we choose not to because of policy. So it's no different from the situation, pre-1978, where black people were denied temple ordinances in their lifetime, with the expectation that, maybe, "the Millennium will take care of it." That view, and the similar view barring polygamists from baptism, puts an unnecessary policy-based barrier between people and the blessings of either the priesthood or the Holy Spirit, with no doctrinal justification. It's hard to see how that is a good thing. How does denying and/or delaying the blessings of the Holy Spirit bring anybody to Christ? I see a policy-based one-year waiting period for temple sealings as an equally pointless delay in the receipt of priesthood blessings, which is not founded in doctrine.

[Stargazer]

The thing is nobody knows a mans heart. 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. It is easier to get somebody to do what you want by loving them then disciplining them.

I do not think I would have survived in the church when discipline was even stricter. It was like I was put in timeout.

What is the problem with the Church disciplining strictly? Do you believe that repentance for serious offenses should be "easy", and that members should expect that such things as adultery and deliberately teaching false doctrine be treated lightly?

When you screw up badly, you NEED to be put in timeout. I have participated in several disciplinary councils over the years, and in one I was the presiding authority. These were not called for minor offenses, like drinking a beer or smoking a joint -- all the ones I participated in were for sexual immorality. None resulted in excommunication, though all could have done, and in most of the cases those we disciplined were very repentant and were anxious to get back on the road to full fellowship. They also knew that going through the formality of a disciplinary council was the right and proper path.

These councils were invariably full of loving concern and were not at all vindictive. If your experience was different, then that is unfortunate.

[Stargazer]

I would give you a rep point if I could. I didn't witness my sister's marriage, which was a civil marriage, she's not LDS, it was her choice, she didn't want us there. My parents weren't invited either. We did go to a posh restuarant for a meal afterwards! But, though we weren't happy about her choice, it was her choice and her wedding and we accepted it as it was just her! It didn't break up the family or stop us celebrating her marriage.

That's interesting -- had a similar experience. My only nephew (LDS) married a Catholic girl, and for reasons that are still unclear to me, she insisted that the wedding ceremony occur at my nephew's parent's house (my brother's home), and nobody other than the bride and groom's parents were allowed to be there. The only other attendee was the minister performing the ceremony, of course, but the minister was the groom's twin sister -- my niece, who is LDS -- who went to the trouble to get a ministerial ordination recognized by the State of Oregon so she could officiate! Talk about bizarre!! They had a normal reception at the Bride's mother's home afterwards.

And as in your case, it didn't break up the family etc in this case, either.

But that has to take the cake for "Most Bizarre Wedding". At least in my experience.

[Calm]

Having to decide between those two things is one of His methods of testing our devotion and commitment. In all things, we are to love and serve the Lord our God in every single way, at all times and in all places.

Choosing between the good and the bad isn't all that hard of a choice for most people, I suspect.

Having to choose between two "goods" is much more difficult and is, I would agree, a great way to figure out our priorities in life.

If we never have to choose between things that we love, how will we know what we love the most? Some things...knowing this isn't important (is it really important to know if I love my grandmother's waffles more than I love my own cheesecake especially since the next time I'd have to make such a choice is in the CK and I can probably have both anyway?). Other things---because of the implications of what it means for us for eternity---we need to find out, which imo is the main purpose of mortality, either to give us the chance to choose or to set it up so that we will understand what the choice means to us when the opportunity finally comes (sometime perhaps around the "Final Judgment" I suspect).

We need to know we really do want to become one with God in all that it means for us and others eternally speaking. It may seem weird at this point when we speak of being one with God in terms of being an eternal family to be presented with choices that appear to be between God and that family we are working toward being with eternally, but I think in time if one studies and prays and ponders those kinds of choices we are given in this life (between two things of great value that we've been commanded to seek), I think it can make sense...but people need to make sense of it for themselves. It is not the same as asking someone 'which child do you love the most'.

Other people's solutions to this question won't satisfy. God sets things up this way, imo, so that we seek out face to face encounters with him rather relying than on other mortal men.

Edited August 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[selek1]

I see a policy-based one-year waiting period for temple sealings as an equally pointless delay in the receipt of priesthood blessings, which is not founded in doctrine.

We understand that is your opinion.

The problem is that, given your many...uhmmmmm...novel...interpretations of Scripture and doctrine, and your stated and blatant antipathy towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have no reason to prefer your opinion over those of the Lord's appointed stewards.

We have no reason to believe that you are arguing in good faith, let alone that your ultimate interests coincide with ours- or those of the Lord.

[selek1]

...is it really important to know if I love my grandmother's waffles more than I love my own cheesecake...

I offer a trio of tie-breakers, just to ensure my eternal damnation :

Sour Cream Banana Bread

Recipe Yield 4 - 7x3 inch loaves

Ingredients

1/4 cup white sugar

1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

3/4 cup butter

3 cups white sugar

3 eggs

6 very ripe bananas, mashed

1 (16 ounce) container sour cream

2 teaspoons vanilla extract

2 teaspoons ground cinnamon

1/2 teaspoon salt

3 teaspoons baking soda

4 1/2 cups all-purpose flour

1 cup chopped walnuts (optional)

Directions

Preheat oven to 300 degrees F (150 degrees C). Grease four 7x3 inch loaf pans. In a small bowl, stir together 1/4 cup white sugar and 1 teaspoon cinnamon. Dust pans lightly with cinnamon and sugar mixture.

In a large bowl, cream butter and 3 cups sugar. Mix in eggs, mashed bananas, sour cream, vanilla and cinnamon. Mix in salt, baking soda and flour. Stir in nuts. Divide into prepared pans.

Bake for 1 hour, until a toothpick inserted in center comes out clean.

Cream Cheese Pecan Pie

Ingredients:

1 8-ounce package cream cheese, at room temperature

1/3 cup sugar

1 egg

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1/4 teaspoon salt

1-1/2 cups chopped pecans

1 cup light corn syrup (Karo)

1/4 cup sugar

3 eggs, beaten well with a fork

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1 unbaked 9-inch pie shell

Directions:

Preheat oven to 375°F.

Combine the cream cheese and 1/3 cup sugar in a bowl. Beat at high speed with an electric mixer until fluffy. Add 1 egg, 1 teaspoon vanilla and 1/4 teaspoon salt. Blend well. Pour into the pie shell. Sprinkle the pecans evenly over the cream cheese mixture.

Combine the corn syrup, 1/4 cup sugar, 3 beaten eggs and vanilla, mixing well. Carefully pour mixture over the pecan layer.

Bake at 375°F for 35 to 40 minutes or until set. Allow to cool completely, then refrigerate for 2 to 3 hours before serving.

Key Lime Cheesecake

Original Recipe Yield 1 - 9 inch cheesecake

Ingredients

1 1/2 cups graham cracker crumbs

6 tablespoons butter, melted

32 ounces (4 blocks) cream cheese, softened

1 ¼ cup white sugar

1 tablespoon cornstarch

4 eggs

1 tablespoon grated lime zest

1/3 cup lime juice

1/3 cup lemon juice

Directions

Combine cookie or graham cracker crumbs with butter or margarine. Press into bottom and partially up sides of 9 inch springform pan. Refrigerate.

In a large bowl, beat with an electric mixer the cream cheese, sugar, lime peel, and cornstarch until smooth and fluffy. Beat in eggs one at a time, blending just until smooth. Add key lime juice with mixer on low. Finish mixing by hand. Do not overbeat, or cake will crack during baking. Pour batter into prepared crust.

Bake at 300 degrees F (150 degrees C) for 55 to 65 minutes, or until set. To minimize cracking, place a shallow pan half full of hot water on lower rack during baking.

Turn oven off, and let cheesecake stand in oven 30 minutes with the door open at least 4 inches. Remove from oven. Refrigerate cake overnight, and up to three days.

Edited August 11, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

I offer a trio of tie-breakers, just to ensure my eternal damnation :

Sour Cream Banana Bread

Recipe Yield 4 - 7x3 inch loaves

Ingredients

1/4 cup white sugar

1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

3/4 cup butter

3 cups white sugar

3 eggs

6 very ripe bananas, mashed

1 (16 ounce) container sour cream

2 teaspoons vanilla extract

2 teaspoons ground cinnamon

1/2 teaspoon salt

3 teaspoons baking soda

4 1/2 cups all-purpose flour

1 cup chopped walnuts (optional)

Directions

Preheat oven to 300 degrees F (150 degrees C). Grease four 7x3 inch loaf pans. In a small bowl, stir together 1/4 cup white sugar and 1 teaspoon cinnamon. Dust pans lightly with cinnamon and sugar mixture.

In a large bowl, cream butter and 3 cups sugar. Mix in eggs, mashed bananas, sour cream, vanilla and cinnamon. Mix in salt, baking soda and flour. Stir in nuts. Divide into prepared pans.

Bake for 1 hour, until a toothpick inserted in center comes out clean.

Cream Cheese Pecan Pie

Ingredients:

1 8-ounce package cream cheese, at room temperature

1/3 cup sugar

1 egg

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1/4 teaspoon salt

1-1/2 cups chopped pecans

1 cup light corn syrup (Karo)

1/4 cup sugar

3 eggs, beaten well with a fork

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

1 unbaked 9-inch pie shell

Directions:

Preheat oven to 375°F.

Combine the cream cheese and 1/3 cup sugar in a bowl. Beat at high speed with an electric mixer until fluffy. Add 1 egg, 1 teaspoon vanilla and 1/4 teaspoon salt. Blend well. Pour into the pie shell. Sprinkle the pecans evenly over the cream cheese mixture.

Combine the corn syrup, 1/4 cup sugar, 3 beaten eggs and vanilla, mixing well. Carefully pour mixture over the pecan layer.

Bake at 375°F for 35 to 40 minutes or until set. Allow to cool completely, then refrigerate for 2 to 3 hours before serving.

Key Lime Cheesecake

Original Recipe Yield 1 - 9 inch cheesecake

Ingredients

1 1/2 cups graham cracker crumbs

6 tablespoons butter, melted

32 ounces (4 blocks) cream cheese, softened

1 ¼ cup white sugar

1 tablespoon cornstarch

4 eggs

1 tablespoon grated lime zest

1/3 cup lime juice

1/3 cup lemon juice

Directions

Combine cookie or graham cracker crumbs with butter or margarine. Press into bottom and partially up sides of 9 inch springform pan. Refrigerate.

In a large bowl, beat with an electric mixer the cream cheese, sugar, lime peel, and cornstarch until smooth and fluffy. Beat in eggs one at a time, blending just until smooth. Add key lime juice with mixer on low. Finish mixing by hand. Do not overbeat, or cake will crack during baking. Pour batter into prepared crust.

Bake at 300 degrees F (150 degrees C) for 55 to 65 minutes, or until set. To minimize cracking, place a shallow pan half full of hot water on lower rack during baking.

Turn oven off, and let cheesecake stand in oven 30 minutes with the door open at least 4 inches. Remove from oven. Refrigerate cake overnight, and up to three days.

These recipes look very good even if you may be joking around.

[selek1]

These recipes look very good even if you may be joking around.

Those who know me can attest that I never joke around where good food is concerned .

Of course, this is the real reason the moderators tolerate me.

Like a Mario video game character, I randomly drop good things when whacked.

Edited August 11, 2012 by selek1