rockpond Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 They had the opportunity to say public vows. If they wanted to say public vows, they should have chosen a non-Mormon venue and someone other than a Mormon clergyman to conduct the ceremony. Right... cause asking a clergyman from another church to conduct a ceremony (that is prohibited by our church) will put you in the good graces of your bishop.
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Awesome, and makes sense, especially since you aren't an active member anymore, right? But I think a lot of members find a lot of value and logic in believing that the leadership of the church does seek inspiration before they create policies which will cause hurt feelings for some people, which is valid, in my opinion. It would be odd for an active church member with a testimony NOT to believe that about the apostles and prophets. I'm not a member at all. Whatever members value is fine especially if it helps them sleep better at night. I have nothing wrong with that. However, I do not entertain similar lines of thinking and logic as they do.
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I have two relatively thick handbooks on my shelf (the latest editions of Handbook 1 & 2). They are chock full of policies. Some policies that we reference frequently in administering our ward. Other policies that we are not even aware of until some circumstance calls on us to search for them. They are very, very useful handbooks and I am grateful to have them for my calling. That said, I do not believe that every policy in those handbooks is the result of inspiration. The handbooks nor the general authorities of the LDS church give reason to believe that all the policies in the handbooks are inspiration. It is, flawedly, assumed.
bluebell Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I'm not a member at all. Whatever members value is fine especially if it helps them sleep better at night. I have nothing wrong with that. However, I do not entertain similar lines of thinking and logic as they do. Of course not. If you did, then you would be a member.
bluebell Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I have two relatively thick handbooks on my shelf (the latest editions of Handbook 1 & 2). They are chock full of policies. Some policies that we reference frequently in administering our ward. Other policies that we are not even aware of until some circumstance calls on us to search for them. They are very, very useful handbooks and I am grateful to have them for my calling. That said, I do not believe that every policy in those handbooks is the result of inspiration. So you believe that sometimes the apostles and prophets don't seek inspiration before they make a policy for Christ's church?
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Of course not. If you did, then you would be a member. So true! I'm not cut out to be LDS (dead serious)...otherwise I would be LDS. Waaaayyyy too much faith involved and I like my doubt waaaaayyyy too much. Besides, I wanna kick it with Lucifer in the next life by having a nice Canadian or German beer and picking his brain about what went wrong. You know...get his perspective. He definitely gets a bad rep...and bad actors to portray him like the guy in the last endowment video. Or this guy:
rockpond Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 So you believe that sometimes the apostles and prophets don't seek inspiration before they make a policy for Christ's church? I believe that they always seek inspiration. But I don't believe that every policy in those two handbooks is necessarily a product of inspiration. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 So what is the difference between offering vows and talking to one another about how you hope your marriage will be in a public forum? Seems to me vows is a specific wedding concept that culminates in I do. Seems to me the bishop may have exceeded his mandate by misunderstanding the more narrow idea of a wedding vow. A vow is a solemn promise or pledge. That is quite different than merely talking about how you hope your marriage will be. In my experience, it is not all that uncommon for couples to talk about their hopes at their wedding receptions. Presumably, one of the greatest hopes of a couple that has just been married in the temple is that their marriage will endure for the eternities. Ironically, the poster who related this story thought the bishop’s brief mention of the difference between temple marriage and civil marriage (something not unreasonable to explain, given the fact that some of the attendees were probably wondering why there seemed to be two different ceremonies on the same day) was out of line. In the story, an hout before the ring ceremony, the couple had made what are arguably the most solemn and comprehensive vows that a Mormon can make. One concern may be that a couple’s own vows may be inadvertently inconsistent with the temple vows they had just made. (There are reasons why certain things in the temple are said verbatim). I believe that the primary concern is that the focus be on the temple sealing, not on the ring ceremony, especially since there is a tendency to make the ring ceremony into virtually a second marriage ceremony (to some extent, a competitive marriage ceremony) with all of the worldly pomp that is deliberately excluded from the temple ceremony. One poster stated: . It would be cool if the Church would move towards a practice where couples can have storybook weddings where the dad gives away the bride after walking her down the aisle, and let the sealing do what it is intended to do, seal that marriage in heaven. If so, this would be a good reason to require a significant time interval between a civil marriage and the temple sealing. Then the couple can focus on the storybook wedding (with a storybook officiator and storybook venue) with nary a mention by some fuddy duddy bishop of eternal marriage or any other Mormon belief that might not go over well with some of the guests. And some time later, (say a year or so) do the temple sealing when the couple can focus exclusively on it.
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I believe that they always seek inspiration. But I don't believe that every policy in those two handbooks is necessarily a product of inspiration. Agreed. I would say the same about Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 but that is for a different message board all together.
bluebell Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I believe that they always seek inspiration. But I don't believe that every policy in those two handbooks is necessarily a product of inspiration. I agree. That's why I specifically said in my post to Valentinus that it's logical for members to believe that their leaders seek inspiration, but said nothing about those leaders always being inspired.
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 So true! I'm not cut out to be LDS (dead serious)...otherwise I would be LDS. Waaaayyyy too much faith involved and I like my doubt waaaaayyyy too much. Besides, I wanna kick it with Lucifer in the next life by having a nice Canadian or German beer and picking his brain about what went wrong. You know...get his perspective. He definitely gets a bad rep...and bad actors to portray him like the guy in the last endowment video. Or this guy: There was once a man when he died wasn't really good enough for Heaven, and not really bad enough for Hell. So God gave him a choice. He allowed the man to visit Heaven first, and then Hell. Well the man visited Heaven and it was alright, but didn't really see himself as fitting in with that crowd. So he visited Hell. There he was shown into a room full of people drinking coffee while stand waist deep in poop.That didn't look to bad. So the man decided to stay in Hell. He was given a cup of coffee, and told to stand right over there. A few minutes later the Devil announced "Coffee Break over, everyone upside down". 3
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 There was once a man when he died wasn't really good enough for Heaven, and not really bad enough for Hell. So God gave him a choice. He allowed the man to visit Heaven first, and then Hell. Well the man visited Heaven and it was alright, but didn't really see himself as fitting in with that crowd. So he visited Hell. There he was shown into a room full of people drinking coffee while stand waist deep in poop.That didn't look to bad. So the man decided to stay in Hell. He was given a cup of coffee, and told to stand right over there. A few minutes later the Devil announced "Coffee Break over, everyone upside down". That's funny! But I do honestly think that Lucifer has gotten a much worse reputation than he should have. I'm on his side to an extent. I don't believe the disagreement was simply over which 'plan' was the best option. Such an assertion sounds more like trying to decide on which insurance to pick. I wouldn't have wanted to be God's meat puppet and slave for eternity either. If I disagree with my parent, I'm going to tell them and continue on my way. Besides, I wonder if the Old Man has ever admitted when He was wrong. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Right... cause asking a clergyman from another church to conduct a ceremony (that is prohibited by our church) will put you in the good graces of your bishop. They could have opted for a marriage ceremony (to suit their taste) conducted by a clergyman from another church and simply waited a year to be sealed. That is not prohibited. As for the good graces of the bishop, that may depend on whether or not he was included on the guest list. Perhaps, like me, he also enjoys attending “storybook weddings” (and storybook receptions).
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 That's funny! But I do honestly think that Lucifer has gotten a much worse reputation than he should have. I'm on his side to an extent. I don't believe the disagreement was simply over which 'plan' was the best option. Such an assertion sounds more like trying to decide on which insurance to pick. I wouldn't have wanted to be God's meat puppet and slave for eternity either. If I disagree with my parent, I'm going to tell them and continue on my way. Besides, I wonder if the Old Man has ever admitted when He was wrong. I don't believe Lucifer and his followers were kicked out for simply having a different idea. For me it is that he(they) rebelled and fought against God seeking to overthrow him. Lucifer would replace himself, and his followers, with God. I don't know as God has ever made a mistake. But I do know that we do. 2
rockpond Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 They could have opted for a marriage ceremony (to suit their taste) conducted by a clergyman from another church and simply waited a year to be sealed. That is not prohibited. As for the good graces of the bishop, that may depend on whether or not he was included on the guest list. Perhaps, like me, he also enjoys attending “storybook weddings” (and storybook receptions). I wonder what kind of ward you live in wherein a couple could get married in a special ceremony performed by a clergyman from another denomination and NOT have the bishop find out? I guess maybe if you don't invite anyone from your stake. But, yes, couples do have the option of a civil marriage and the one year waiting period to get married. I have a recollection of a conference talk that strongly discouraged this and suggested that the couple might not be able to be posthumously sealed because of their decision to wait, but I can't recall when/who so I could be wrong. Anyone remember that?
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I don't believe Lucifer and his followers were kicked out for simply having a different idea. For me it is that he(they) rebelled and fought against God seeking to overthrow him. Lucifer would replace himself, and his followers, with God. I don't know as God has ever made a mistake. But I do know that we do. If you disagree, morally (which I believe is the case with Lucifer), with an authority figure then perhaps it is best to rebel. This is how the US was established. The problem with having a physical body is that you are still subjected to all the mortal flaws that entails such.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 (edited) I wonder what kind of ward you live in wherein a couple could get married in a special ceremony performed by a clergyman from another denomination and NOT have the bishop find out? I guess maybe if you don't invite anyone from your stake. But, yes, couples do have the option of a civil marriage and the one year waiting period to get married. I have a recollection of a conference talk that strongly discouraged this and suggested that the couple might not be able to be posthumously sealed because of their decision to wait, but I can't recall when/who so I could be wrong. Anyone remember that?Japan conference 1975, Spencer W Kimball. Related in this YW manual: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=85578c8fd6c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=d6371b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Edited to add quote: A few years ago a young couple who lived in northern Utah came to Salt Lake City for their marriage. They did not want to bother with a temple marriage, or perhaps they did not feel worthy. At any rate, they had a civil marriage. After the marriage they got into their automobile and drove north to their home for a wedding reception. On their way home they had an accident, and when the wreckage was cleared, there was a dead man and a dead young woman. They had been married only an hour or two. Their marriage was ended. They thought they loved each other. They wanted to live together forever, but they did not live the commandments that would make that possible. So death came in and closed that career. They may have been good young people; I don’t know. But they will be angels in heaven if they are. They will not be gods and goddesses and priests and priestesses because they did not fulfill the commandments and do the things that were required at their hands. Sometimes we have people who say, ‘Oh, someday I will go to the temple. But I am not quite ready yet. And if I die, somebody can do the work for me in the temple.’ And that should be made very clear to all of us. The temples are for the living and for the dead only when the work could not have been done. Do you think that the Lord will be mocked and give to this young couple who ignored him, give them the blessings? The Lord said, ‘For all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.’ (D&C 132:7)” (in Conference Report, Japan Area Conference 1975, pp. 61–62). Edited September 23, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Ironically, President Kimball was not married in the temple (due to lack of funds to make the trip IIRC).
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 If you disagree, morally (which I believe is the case with Lucifer), with an authority figure then perhaps it is best to rebel. This is how the US was established. The problem with having a physical body is that you are still subjected to all the mortal flaws that entails such. I think there is a big difference between disagreeing with a parent, and actively seeking to replace them with yourself. I sometimes disagreed with my parents, but they were always my parents whom deserved my respect. God isn't just an authority figure he is the authority. The US was established on the premise that the people have the ultimate say in how they are governed. It would be like because the South didn't like some of decisions made. They rebelled and fought against the US. It didn't turn out so well for them. Immortal beings aren't subject to the mortal flaws, but that doesn't mean that they can't make poor decisions. A third follwed Lucifer.
rockpond Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Japan conference 1975, Spencer W Kimball. Related in this YW manual: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=85578c8fd6c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=d6371b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Edited to add quote: thanks for the reference!
rockpond Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Ironically, President Kimball was not married in the temple (due to lack of funds to make the trip IIRC). Good thing he lived long enough to get there. 1
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I think there is a big difference between disagreeing with a parent, and actively seeking to replace them with yourself. I sometimes disagreed with my parents, but they were always my parents whom deserved my respect. God isn't just an authority figure he is the authority. I have seen no scriptural evidence to support this assertion. Do we have it on actual record of Lucifer saying "out with the old and in with the new"? Or is this just hearsay? Or someone saying Lucifer said this or alluded to such? The US was established on the premise that the people have the ultimate say in how they are governed. It would be like because the South didn't like some of decisions made. They rebelled and fought against the US. It didn't turn out so well for them. Bolded mine. Exactly! And this is how the eternities should be conducted. We govern ourselves Immortal beings aren't subject to the mortal flaws, but that doesn't mean that they can't make poor decisions. A third follwed Lucifer. Poor decisions is part of the package deal of physicality. God has made poor decisions. If you take Job literally, that would be a case in point.
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Ironically, President Kimball was not married in the temple (due to lack of funds to make the trip IIRC). Ironically if President Kimball hadn't been Sealed to his wife and both had died before that Sealing took place. We'd be asking President Who?
Damien the Leper Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Ironically if President Kimball hadn't been Sealed to his wife and both had died before that Sealing took place. We'd be asking President Who? Wait a minute! Is there a policy that you can't be president of the church unless you're sealed to your wife?!? Married...I get that but the other...never heard it.
thesometimesaint Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 I think there is a big difference between disagreeing with a parent, and actively seeking to replace them with yourself. I sometimes disagreed with my parents, but they were always my parents whom deserved my respect. God isn't just an authority figure he is the authority. I have seen no scriptural evidence to support this assertion. Do we have it on actual record of Lucifer saying "out with the old and in with the new"? Or is this just hearsay? Or someone saying Lucifer said this or alluded to such? The US was established on the premise that the people have the ultimate say in how they are governed. It would be like because the South didn't like some of decisions made. They rebelled and fought against the US. It didn't turn out so well for them. Bolded mine. Exactly! And this is how the eternities should be conducted. We govern ourselves Immortal beings aren't subject to the mortal flaws, but that doesn't mean that they can't make poor decisions. A third follwed Lucifer. Poor decisions is part of the package deal of physicality. God has made poor decisions. If you take Job literally, that would be a case in point. See The War in Heaven. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/war-in-heaven No we won't govern ourselves. We will always be subjects to/of God. We will always reverence, worship, and obey him. I don't take Job literally though I do believe he was a real life human being. So no I don't believe God made a mistake with Job. He knew Job well enough to proudly state that with the lone exception of death Job would remain faithfull to God.
Recommended Posts