Saints Alive Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Do they have teenagers filling them up?I have no idea but I guess I have more faith in the 14 y/o that I know than you do in the 14 y/o you know
Freedom Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Even though my kids are older now I would very much like to see a policy change wherein younger siblings can attend the marriage sealings of their older siblings.Kids of all ages are allowed into the sealings of their own families, why punish great kids from important family events just because they were born in the covenant?The difference of course is that in the latter, they are not witnessing the ordinance, but they are part of the ordinance.
Garden Girl Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Even though my kids are older now I would very much like to see a policy change wherein younger siblings can attend the marriage sealings of their older siblings.Particularly since adults that are non-members of the family can attend and witness the sealing, while younger siblings cannot attend such a sealing of an older sibling. The younger ones could be kept in a waiting area and then escorted into the sealing room... just like they do when they are the ones being sealed to their family. I think such participation could enhance the desire of the younger ones to follow in the older siblings footsteps.GG
blackstrap Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Make 2 men each others home teacher exclusively. That way when they meet they can count it as done.
Freedom Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Particularly since adults that are non-members of the family can attend and witness the sealing, while younger siblings cannot attend such a sealing of an older sibling. The younger ones could be kept in a waiting area and then escorted into the sealing room... just like they do when they are the ones being sealed to their family. I think such participation could enhance the desire of the younger ones to follow in the older siblings footsteps.GGThe reason non-family members can witness is because they are endowed. Only endowed members may witness this ordinance. There is something to be said about keeping it sacred and reserved.
omni Posted November 22, 2012 Author Posted November 22, 2012 Going along with the theme of temple marriages, I would love to see the one year waiting period for non temple weddings be changed. If the Europeans can do it why not us? I think this policy really drives contention between part member families and can often make non TR holders feel like outsiders and embarrassed. I could see the brethren not wanting to make this a habit, but if there's a non member in the immediate family I think the change would be a positive move.
Duncan Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Going along with the theme of temple marriages, I would love to see the one year waiting period for non temple weddings be changed. If the Europeans can do it why not us? I think this policy really drives contention between part member families and can often make non TR holders feel like outsiders and embarrassed. I could see the brethren not wanting to make this a habit, but if there's a non member in the immediate family I think the change would be a positive move.I fully agree, I don't know what difference it makes if you get sealed in the Temple then get civilly married the next day rather then getting civilly married one day and the next a getting sealed in the Temple-why this mumbo jumbo about waiting a year between the Temple and a civil marriage 1
Lightbearer Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 I fully agree, I don't know what difference it makes if you get sealed in the Temple then get civilly married the next day rather then getting civilly married one day and the next a getting sealed in the Temple-why this mumbo jumbo about waiting a year between the Temple and a civil marriageWith all due respect I believe this "mumbo jumbo" has to do with obedience and the consequences of disobedience. When I was sealed to my wife we had a ring ceremony at the reception for all those who could not attend the Temple. It was a concession to those who could not be there. Yet those who would say this is not enough, they need to understand that the Saints of God should be more concerned about pleasing God rather than men. If it offends those in my family who are unbelievers or unrepentant then sorry, but they ought to be more concerned about me being true to my beliefs rather than making consessions to those who do not care enough about showing me respect for my beliefs. The one year waiting is a pentalty for those who would rather please men rather than God. It is equal to the year that new converts must wait because they are not spiritually prepared for the covenants of the Temple, those who would get civily married first need time to understand their covenants too. Sorry if this offends but it is the way I see it. 1
Duncan Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) With all due respect I believe this "mumbo jumbo" has to do with obedience and the consequences of disobedience. When I was sealed to my wife we had a ring ceremony at the reception for all those who could not attend the Temple. It was a concession to those who could not be there. Yet those who would say this is not enough, they need to understand that the Saints of God should be more concerned about pleasing God rather than men. If it offends those in my family who are unbelievers or unrepentant then sorry, but they ought to be more concerned about me being true to my beliefs rather than making consessions to those who do not care enough about showing me respect for my beliefs. The one year waiting is a pentalty for those who would rather please men rather than God. It is equal to the year that new converts must wait because they are not spiritually prepared for the covenants of the Temple, those who would get civily married first need time to understand their covenants too. Sorry if this offends but it is the way I see it.it didn't offend! I only threw it in there to lighten myself up! I think too it's has a penalty attitude as well. My folks were civilly married in 1967, my Mom wasn't a member then and then she joined a few months later. They were sealed in 1978 when my Mom was expecting yours truly. They already had two kiddies and couldn't afford to take the trip to Alberta so they saved up for it and it took awhile. I don't know if what they did was a penalty and God was punishing them or anything but. Isn't God happy when people get married in the Temple? one day or two days difference I don't think makes him less happy Edited November 22, 2012 by Duncan
Freedom Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Going along with the theme of temple marriages, I would love to see the one year waiting period for non temple weddings be changed. If the Europeans can do it why not us? I think this policy really drives contention between part member families and can often make non TR holders feel like outsiders and embarrassed. I could see the brethren not wanting to make this a habit, but if there's a non member in the immediate family I think the change would be a positive move.The reason it is allowed in some jurisdictions is because temple sealings are not recognized as marriages so the law requires them to be married outside the temple first, then go to the temple for the ordinance. marriages are sacred and not to be treated with pomp and circumstance.
Bikeemikey Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 The reason it is allowed in some jurisdictions is because temple sealings are not recognized as marriages so the law requires them to be married outside the temple first, then go to the temple for the ordinance. marriages are sacred and not to be treated with pomp and circumstance.Why is the sacred and pomp and circumstance mutually exclusive?
Traela Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I'd like to see an Evensong-type meeting on Sunday evenings, to practice the less-familiar hymns (and maybe non-hymnal carols in December). Nothing fancy, just one per building that anyone can drop in on. Use the instrumental-only hymnbook cds, so you don't need an accompanist. Just ask someone each week to volunteer to choose and lead the next week's hymns.
Freedom Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Why is the sacred and pomp and circumstance mutually exclusive?Because God is not found in a great strong wind that rents mountains, or in an earthquake,nor in a fire; but he is found in a still small voice.
Freedom Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I'd like to see an Evensong-type meeting on Sunday evenings, to practice the less-familiar hymns (and maybe non-hymnal carols in December). Nothing fancy, just one per building that anyone can drop in on. Use the instrumental-only hymnbook cds, so you don't need an accompanist. Just ask someone each week to volunteer to choose and lead the next week's hymns.We do this already. It's called Choir practice.
Calm Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 I'd like to see an Evensong-type meeting on Sunday evenings, to practice the less-familiar hymns (and maybe non-hymnal carols in December). Nothing fancy, just one per building that anyone can drop in on. Use the instrumental-only hymnbook cds, so you don't need an accompanist. Just ask someone each week to volunteer to choose and lead the next week's hymns.I like that idea.
Calm Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) We do this already. It's called Choir practice.Too intimidating for many, they don't want to perform, just sing for the fun of it. And choir practice is usually held before or after church in my experience. Edited November 25, 2012 by calmoriah
Bikeemikey Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 We do this already. It's called Choir practice.It lacks guitars.
Bikeemikey Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Because God is not found in a great strong wind that rents mountains, or in an earthquake,nor in a fire; but he is found in a still small voice.Here was I thinking god was in everything??Also, god is not in the voice, the voice is gods. The Old Testament also teaches that god is in famine, pestilence, war, and disasters of various kinds.Though all of this has nothing to do with pomp and circumstance.
Popular Post volgadon Posted November 26, 2012 Popular Post Posted November 26, 2012 A minor doctrinal change which I'd like to see is North American bishoprics stop assigning talks about talks. 6
Duncan Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) A minor doctrinal change which I'd like to see is North American bishoprics stop assigning talks about talks.pet peeve of mine. One thing I loved about Elder McConkie, at least in his BYU and General Conference talks, is he rarely had any preamble, he just got into what he wanted to say and I love that! I like personal experiences and all but talking about your talk without actually giving a talk...I lead a very difficult life if you can't tell!!! Edited November 26, 2012 by Duncan 1
Calm Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 A friend observed her husband being blessed as High Priest Group Leader in the presence of all the High Priests and said to me today that she would love to see the same thing done for the Relief Society Presidency. I agreed. Possibly even for the Young Men's and Young Women's groups as well. It might help them feel that their advisers were more a part of their group than simply imposed upon them.
cinepro Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 A minor doctrinal change which I'd like to see is North American bishoprics stop assigning talks about talks.I spoke last February, and told them if they assigned me to "talk on a talk", I would just get up and say "Elder _____ said...." and then read the talk and sit down.I got a topic. 1
Freedom Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Here was I thinking god was in everything??Also, god is not in the voice, the voice is gods. The Old Testament also teaches that god is in famine, pestilence, war, and disasters of various kinds.Though all of this has nothing to do with pomp and circumstance.God is the creator, but just because God has his hand in all things, this does not mean that we can communicate with him through all means. We seek god through solemn assemblys, not at rock concert. The sealing ordinance is sacred, solemn and revelatory.
Freedom Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 A minor doctrinal change which I'd like to see is North American bishoprics stop assigning talks about talks.All I can say is, you try to come up with better ideas year after year.
Duncan Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 All I can say is, you try to come up with better ideas year after year.why don't they just say to members, talk about whatever you want, under the direction of the spirit, that way they get the inspiration and have fun with it. Rather then talking about some subject of which they don't want to. I.E. I once had to give a talk about "what I learned about food storage on my mission" like um, nothing actually is what I said and I talked about something else!!! but if the person assigning me said I am talking about this subject so maybe something that would go well with that-basically let the person and the Holy Ghost figure out what to talk about 2
Recommended Posts