Is It Time To Change The One-Year Waiting Policy For Temple Sealings?

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Most Presidents of the Church have at one time been Bishops, and we know from the Bible that Bishops are to be married to at least one wife.

[Damien the Leper]

Most Presidents of the Church have at one time been Bishops, and we know from the Bible that Bishops are to be married to at least one wife.

 

But that says nothing about a sealing. A guy can be a bishop without being sealed can't he? Historically speaking, I believe I may be correct.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

 

So I was right. Someone else is saying stuff about Lucifer but may not have the story right. Got it. I'm good with that.

 

See...I don't want to be someone else's meat puppet for all eternity. That's just not gonna work for me.

 

If the story of Job is somehow literal, then shame on God. It is clearly much more complicated than a simple lesson on His divine sovereignty.

[thesometimesaint]

But that says nothing about a sealing. A guy can be a bishop without being sealed can't he? Historically speaking, I believe I may be correct.

 

I would think that in areas of the world without a Temple. A Bishop would normally be married. As the Church builds more and more Temples that will cease to be a problem.

[Damien the Leper]

I was asking if it was necessary to be sealed to a woman for a man to be president of the church. This has yet to be answered.

[Bikeemikey]

Seems to me that only the bishop really knows that though.

I don't know the bishop-maybe he's a real jerk-but sometimes it's nice to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when we don't know them, or even really know much about the circumstances which brought them into the discussion.

Being a bishop seems like a pretty tough job and maybe is deserving of a tiny bit of mercy.

Being a bishop is tough precisely because when you make an error it is likely something very substantial, like messing up someone's wedding day!

The bishops job is hard because of the need for them to act in away that avoids these kind of errors...

Their job being hard is not an excuse that gets them out from under responsibility when they do screw up.

Hopefully it was all worked out and was water under the bridge. However, messing with someone's wedding day is a massive risk. The negative potential is huge.

[omni]

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:

Wow, what a horribly insensitive story. I pray the young couple's families never heard (or read) the talk.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Echoing this sentiment: I believe a policy can be inspired and in the hand book with out necessarily being inspired for all circumstances.

Policies are context specific and a handbook can not cover all possible contexts.

[thesometimesaint]

So I was right. Someone else is saying stuff about Lucifer but may not have the story right. Got it. I'm good with that.

 

See...I don't want to be someone else's meat puppet for all eternity. That's just not gonna work for me.

 

If the story of Job is somehow literal, then shame on God. It is clearly much more complicated than a simple lesson on His divine sovereignty.

 

We have multiple Scriptural sources for the War in Heaven. Plus modern day prophets that speak often about it. As a member of the Church I accept what they say as authoritative.

 

You are not nor never will be a meat puppet to God. That Idea comes from that other guy whom would force all men to never sin, and give him all the glory. Just like my mortal parents will always be my mortal parents, and I will have no other mortal parents. I am now a parent and Grandparent myself. That fact takes nothing away from my parents, in fact I believe it adds to their glory.

 

Why? If this life is a time to be tested and tried. To see for ourselves if we will do whatsoever God has commanded us to do. God knew Job wouldn't fail, but Job certainly didn't.

[thesometimesaint]

I was asking if it was necessary to be sealed to a woman for a man to be president of the church. This has yet to be answered.

 

I know of only one occassion where they haven't. That being JS whom was President of the Church before there was the doctrine of Sealing.

[Bikeemikey]

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. For that matter, they are still free to say before their family and friends how they intend to commit to theirs spouses. Any time they want, and as often as they want.

What is a tad silly is to ask a clergyman to conduct a ceremony in his official capacity as a clergyman, but expect him to do so in a manner that violates his church’s rules.

I agree with you about the flower girl. It is one thing to tell the couple that a flower girl walking down the aisle is not permitted; quite another to stop the little girl from doing so.

Under the circumstances, her error should have been overlooked.

I am of the understanding that the wedding vow is a specific part of the traditional wedding ceremony when where the officiator turns from one couple and says do you so and so take so and so to be your spouse etc etc followed by I do. The reading of a prepared statement about a couples love for each other, absent the official till death so you part and I do etc is just a public statement of love... Not a vow.

In New Zealand all the ring ceremonies I have seen have seen accompanied by a little speech from one partner to the other ... It is normally very moving.

[Bikeemikey]

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:

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.

It is up to the wedding couple to decide if their wedding is to become a missionary teaching moment for nonmember friends and family, not the bishop.

[Damien the Leper]

We have multiple Scriptural sources for the War in Heaven. Plus modern day prophets that speak often about it. As a member of the Church I accept what they say as authoritative.

 

That's fine. But that is still hearsay.

 

You are not nor never will be a meat puppet to God. That Idea comes from that other guy whom would force all men to never sin, and give him all the glory. Just like my mortal parents will always be my mortal parents, and I will have no other mortal parents. I am now a parent and Grandparent myself. That fact takes nothing away from my parents, in fact I believe it adds to their glory.

 

This makes me wary of God's motivation. Creation wasn't simply a ploy for a narcissistic need to be idolized or some recycled plan implemented by another deity before Him and is carried on because it is tradition. I question whether or not the Old Man really knew what He was doing. Perhaps this is a totally weird and awkward test tube experiment and we are the insects under the microscope. What the heck...I wanna sit down with the Old Man and Lucifer, have a couple of beers with them or maybe some old school wine like they had way back when, and talk about what happened. Get the story straight from the sources.

 

Also, I wonder how well the Archangels and angels took God showing favor for us talking apes in place of the "perfectly obedient" first born of heaven.

 

Why? If this life is a time to be tested and tried. To see for ourselves if we will do whatsoever God has commanded us to do. God knew Job wouldn't fail, but Job certainly didn't.

 

I dunno. Perhaps God was just messing with Job. I think about Jesus being tempted and all I think I see is Lucifer having fun messing with the Kid. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be cynical or pessimistic. I'm just questioning the testimony given by numerous witnesses.

[Damien the Leper]

I know of only one occassion where they haven't. That being JS whom was President of the Church before there was the doctrine of Sealing.

 

That still doesn't mean that a man must be sealed in order to be president of the church.

[Duncan]

I think with that example of Pres. Kimball and the young couple. I am not judging anyone but maybe Pres. Kimball would have gone to the Temple if he had the cash to get sealed in and then maybe the young couple could have but didn't go, kind of like the same spirit which posesses your body when you leave this earth type of thing. Also maybe Pres. Kimball could have gone to the Temple and regretted it and didn't want that for other young couples, who knows eh?

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

 

In my ward, even the bishop’s dog, cat, and goldfish would know about it. My lame attempt at humor was to the effect that even bishops who refuse to conduct storybook weddings probably enjoy attending storybook weddings. Hence you would only be deprived of being in the bishop’s good graces if you failed to invite him as a guest.

[Sleeper Cell]

I am of the understanding that the wedding vow is a specific part of the traditional wedding ceremony when where the officiator turns from one couple and says do you so and so take so and so to be your spouse etc etc followed by I do. The reading of a prepared statement about a couples love for each other, absent the official till death so you part and I do etc is just a public statement of love... Not a vow. In New Zealand all the ring ceremonies I have seen have seen accompanied by a little speech from one partner to the other ... It is normally very moving.

In my experience with non-LDS weddings, many of these public statements have included promises made to each other. Even as general a promise as “I will love you forever” is a vow (“a solemn promise or pledge“) if made as part of a church-sanctioned ring ceremony conducted by your bishop. (If said on your first date, not so much).

 

A reasonable argument can be made to allow expressions of love that do not involve any promises (e.g., “I love you and that this is the happiest day of my life“). But this could easily morph into making promises. Then, what is a bishop to do? Let it go (at the risk of encouraging vows in future ring ceremonies) or be a jerk?

 

If such expressions were made during the reception, wouldn’t they be just as moving, or do you feel that they are significantly more moving in a formal setting?

 

In New Zealand ring ceremonies, are such prepared statements reviewed and approved in advance by the bishop or does the bishop let the couple say pretty much whatever they want? Do these expressions normally include promises? If so, could you share a few examples?

[thesometimesaint]

 

We have multiple Scriptural sources for the War in Heaven. Plus modern day prophets that speak often about it. As a member of the Church I accept what they say as authoritative.

 

That's fine. But that is still hearsay.

 

You are not nor never will be a meat puppet to God. That Idea comes from that other guy whom would force all men to never sin, and give him all the glory. Just like my mortal parents will always be my mortal parents, and I will have no other mortal parents. I am now a parent and Grandparent myself. That fact takes nothing away from my parents, in fact I believe it adds to their glory.

 

This makes me wary of God's motivation. Creation wasn't simply a ploy for a narcissistic need to be idolized or some recycled plan implemented by another deity before Him and is carried on because it is tradition. I question whether or not the Old Man really knew what He was doing. Perhaps this is a totally weird and awkward test tube experiment and we are the insects under the microscope. What the heck...I wanna sit down with the Old Man and Lucifer, have a couple of beers with them or maybe some old school wine like they had way back when, and talk about what happened. Get the story straight from the sources.

 

Also, I wonder how well the Archangels and angels took God showing favor for us talking apes in place of the "perfectly obedient" first born of heaven.

 

Why? If this life is a time to be tested and tried. To see for ourselves if we will do whatsoever God has commanded us to do. God knew Job wouldn't fail, but Job certainly didn't.

 

I dunno. Perhaps God was just messing with Job. I think about Jesus being tempted and all I think I see is Lucifer having fun messing with the Kid. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be cynical or pessimistic. I'm just questioning the testimony given by numerous witnesses.

 

 

It is not hearsay it is Scriptural, confirmed by modern day prophets, and witnessed to by our everyday experiences.

 

I know that my children weren't insects in a test tube experiment. I wanted them to grow and progress to become good fathers(I had only boys). They have become good fathers in their right, and are teaching their children to be good parents. COULD they have become not good parents? Of course, but their mother and I tried to be the best role models we could be. We allowed them to make mistakes. To fall and get back up again. To do better. Such is with God.

 

I never liked the babyhood years. Nothing against them personally. it just wasn't a good time for them. Around the time they learned to talk. They started to become people in their own right. I think it is with God in a somewhat like manner. As we grow, mature, and become more like God the more authority he gives us.

 

While I'm fine with sitting down with God while he tells me how he actually did it. Even sharing a glass of good vintage wine(Never been a beer fan). The Devil is another story.

 

While I don't know exactly at what point God decided that anatomical man was a man. I tend to agree with Hugh Nibley that it was when men finally learned how to read and write their own history(about 10,000 years ago).

 

I think the Devil messes with us all. It is when we do as he asks that gets us into trouble.

[Stargazer]

...and bad actors to portray him like the guy in the last endowment video.

 

 

 

Really?  I thought he did a pretty good job!  He was definitely better than the actor who portrayed him in the other video.  In my opinion, of course.

[Stargazer]

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.

 

Upon due consideration, I think I disagree.  Perhaps the inspiration isn't some dramatic manifestation, but I do believe that the Spirit provides guidance.

[Stargazer]

Ironically, President Kimball was not married in the temple (due to lack of funds to make the trip IIRC).

 

Ironically, lots of LDS without reasonable access to the temple have married civilly and gotten sealed later.  Just because he didn't have reasonable access to the temple does not make him a hypocrite for admonishing those who do have it to go there.  As you seem to imply.

 

That is on one hand.  On the other, I find the story that Elder Kimball told to be somewhat disingenuous.   The couple in the story could have been sealed by proxy one year after their deaths.  It is a commonplace that we seal couples by proxy who theoretically could have been married in the temple but chose not to be.  Are those sealings therefore annulled, because they didn't do it right beforehand, and those who stand proxy wasting their time doing so?  I somehow doubt it.

 

One of my grandsons is inactive in Church, and he married his non-member girlfriend in some civil magistrate's court.  At some point it is possible that she might join the Church, and they might be sealed in the temple.  Is this sealing annulled because he could have chosen otherwise in the first place and found himself a temple-worthy young woman to be married in the temple with?  If so, then, Houston we have a problem.

 

I respect and admonish any who asks to obey the Church policy with regard to marriage in the temple.  But doing so, I hope that that policy will eventually be changed to one in which couples are married civilly but sealed soon thereafter.

 

But another part of me wonders: if the church changes the policy, might not this lead to a larger number of couples delaying their sealing, out of convenience perhaps, and this then leading to many never getting sealed because they didn't take care of it first instead of second?  I suspect that if this were going to be the case, however, that there would be evidence of it in the countries where a civil marriage in public is required.

[rockpond]

Ironically, lots of LDS without reasonable access to the temple have married civilly and gotten sealed later.  Just because he didn't have reasonable access to the temple does not make him a hypocrite for admonishing those who do have it to go there.  As you seem to imply.

 

That is on one hand.  On the other, I find the story that Elder Kimball told to be somewhat disingenuous.   The couple in the story could have been sealed by proxy one year after their deaths.  It is a commonplace that we seal couples by proxy who theoretically could have been married in the temple but chose not to be.  Are those sealings therefore annulled, because they didn't do it right beforehand, and those who stand proxy wasting their time doing so?  I somehow doubt it.

 

One of my grandsons is inactive in Church, and he married his non-member girlfriend in some civil magistrate's court.  At some point it is possible that she might join the Church, and they might be sealed in the temple.  Is this sealing annulled because he could have chosen otherwise in the first place and found himself a temple-worthy young woman to be married in the temple with?  If so, then, Houston we have a problem.

 

I respect and admonish any who asks to obey the Church policy with regard to marriage in the temple.  But doing so, I hope that that policy will eventually be changed to one in which couples are married civilly but sealed soon thereafter.

 

But another part of me wonders: if the church changes the policy, might not this lead to a larger number of couples delaying their sealing, out of convenience perhaps, and this then leading to many never getting sealed because they didn't take care of it first instead of second?  I suspect that if this were going to be the case, however, that there would be evidence of it in the countries where a civil marriage in public is required.

 

It's possible that some couples might never get sealed but if their testimony of the temple is that weak, you kinda have to ask yourself if they really should have been married in the temple in the first place.

 

I agree that the doctrine that President (then Elder) Kimball implied with his story is questionable.  He suggests that they can never be sealed posthumously because they didn't make the right decision in this life.  Well... my grandparents had the opportunity to join the church during their life, most notably when their son (my dad) was baptized.  We have completed the temple work for them.  Am I to believe, based on the account reprinted in this YW manual, that because they chose to not join the church in this life, the temple work we completed is of no efficacy?

[Stargazer]

I was asking if it was necessary to be sealed to a woman for a man to be president of the church. This has yet to be answered.

 

I'm pretty sure that isn't in Handbook 1 OR 2.  It might be in Handbook 0, however.  That's the one that the Lord keeps locked in his desk drawer.  Given that the President of the Church is whoever is the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Lord is charge of who lives long enough to be in that position, I'd guess that it's a question that we won't see the answer to, except implicitly, by observing what happens.

[Bikeemikey]

In my experience with non-LDS weddings, many of these public statements have included promises made to each other. Even as general a promise as “I will love you forever” is a vow (“a solemn promise or pledge“) if made as part of a church-sanctioned ring ceremony conducted by your bishop. (If said on your first date, not so much).

A reasonable argument can be made to allow expressions of love that do not involve any promises (e.g., “I love you and that this is the happiest day of my life“). But this could easily morph into making promises. Then, what is a bishop to do? Let it go (at the risk of encouraging vows in future ring ceremonies) or be a jerk?

If such expressions were made during the reception, wouldn’t they be just as moving, or do you feel that they are significantly more moving in a formal setting?

In New Zealand ring ceremonies, are such prepared statements reviewed and approved in advance by the bishop or does the bishop let the couple say pretty much whatever they want? Do these expressions normally include promises? If so, could you share a few examples?

I can't comment on all such ceremonies. The ones I have participated in the bishops did not pre-approve any of the statements. Some were prepared, some were off the cuff and some included promises.

All of these statements and events have occurred during a 30mins period immediately preceding the reception (most at the reception venue). A couple of flower girls will often carry in the rings. A father may walk the bride in. Statements are then given and rings exchanged.

If they were to occur in a separate more formal setting that would be fine with me as well.

I think your definition of what constitutes a marriage vow is not the same as mine. In fine with that.

The idea that we should not state our feelings in terms if promises simply seems a little silly to me.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Damien the Leper]

Really?  I thought he did a pretty good job!  He was definitely better than the actor who portrayed him in the other video.  In my opinion, of course.

 

Lol...