Civil Marriages And Temple Marriages And Waiting A Year Policy ?

[Deborah]

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.

These "policies" have been good tests of faith and where one's priorities are. I admire greatly people like Darius Gray who joined the church when he could not have the Priesthood and now is a very high profile and wonderful spokesman for the church.

But I suppose some people would rather not have their faith tested. It's like not studying for the final and knowing you'll probably fail so you'd rather get out of taking the test.

[CV75]

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.

Again, these reflect elemens of the spirit of the law and are acceptable by policy. I assumed these kinds of cases in my responses--did you really need them parsed out?

Edited August 11, 2012 by CV75

[Closet Doubter]

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.

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.

Considering who this poster is and the typical flavor of anything he posts, I will disregard anything he is saying.

[thesometimesaint]

A soft answer turns away wrath.

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . 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.

So you are in a calling where you make church policy, or are you just steadying the arc?

[Closet Doubter]

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.

You seem to be saying the reason a person whose parents aren’t members have to make a choice between being married in the Temple without them present or having to wait a year after being married civilly with them present is to determine where their loyalty is. The 1 year wait is a penalty for their loyalty not being properly placed. They have to prove their devotion to the church by following a policy that excludes their family. It is scary that so many members and leaders can’t seem to comprehend what is wrong with this line of reasoning or why loving parents and relatives are upset when this occurs. Especially when the option of allowing them to be sealed within a short time of the civil wedding would resolve the entire issue.

[selek1]

Considering who this poster is and the typical flavor of anything he posts, I will disregard anything he is saying.

In other words, you cannot answer my challenge, and thus have broken out the Handwavium-113 to avoid admitting it.

I accept your concession of defeat in the spirit in which it was offered.

[Calm]

You seem to be saying the reason a person whose parents aren’t members have to make a choice between being married in the Temple without them present or having to wait a year after being married civilly with them present is to determine where their loyalty is.

While I agree with Gillebre, I think "priority" is a better term for it than "loyalty" because one can be both loyal to God and family when making either choice, it is what loyalty gets priority that is indicated by the choice one makes. Plus a temple marriage indicates a loyalty to eternal family, couples may choose temple marriage over civil marriage because of their strong loyalty to their family and their desire for it to be an eternal one, even to making the sacrifice of having other members being angry at them for a time. By showing the importance of the ordinance in their lives, perhaps their nonmember family members may wonder and begin to investigate why such a thing is so important to them and in time come to the knowledge of the importance of this covenantal ordinance themselves as well as taking the steps to be able to participate themselves.

The 1 year wait is a penalty for their loyalty not being properly placed.

Absolutely not. It is a 'weight'/'handicap' given to that choice in order to demonstrate the importance of temple marriage just as not having all family or friends present may be a 'weight'/'handicap' given to the choice of temple marriage. It would make the choice meaningless if someone could have both consequences at once.

They have to prove their devotion to the church

Not to the Church, but to God and eternal companionship and the eternal family since that is who are involved in the temple covenant.

It is scary that so many members and leaders can’t seem to comprehend what is wrong with this line of reasoning

It is important to deal with the actual line of reasoning before making judgements such as these.

or why loving parents and relatives are upset when this occurs.

Assuming that simply because one favours temple marriage over civil marriage even when family and friends can't all attend means that one doesn't "comprehend....why loving parents and relatives are upset" is silly.

Especially when the option of allowing them to be sealed within a short time of the civil wedding would resolve the entire issue.

But would remove an opportunity for us to find out how much we value certain things in our lives, including the priorities we have. Since the purpose of this life is to a great extent to learn about ourselves, then such opportunities are very important. It would also remove an opportunity to teach others of our values in a very clear and obvious way that may not be available for some at any other time in their lives.

Edited August 13, 2012 by calmoriah