Slate Article On Mormon Exclusion Of Friends And Family From Marriages.

[BCSpace]

I'm suggesting that we simply remove a policy that prevents people from having a public wedding ceremony before or after their temple sealing (via the one year wait period).

 

The policy doesn't prevent anything.  However, I'd say the same applies.

 

And I appreciate your quaint view that nothing in our published doctrine has ever changed.  Enjoy that.

 

I never claimed that at any time.  However it is true that our doctrine has not changed on all the major issues such as the ones I listed.  For example, the fact that we no longer practice plural marriage is not a change in doctrine since the doctrine always was that plural marriage was authorized from time to time. Currently, it is merely not authorized.  Hence, no doctrinal change.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm glad that you were able to have your wedding in a way that was pleasing to you.

 

All I'm saying is that I wish we'd remove a policy that prohibits some members from doing likewise.

 

And, yeah, if you have a year & a half long engagement, it allows for people to theoretically join the church and progress towards endowment.  But, they'd also have to receive a spiritual witness first which may not be something that they can do simply because a loved one is getting married.

 

I would have prefered that both sets of parents could have attended. As it was only one parent, my father-in-law to be, could have attended.

 

What policy is that? That the couple has the option of being married in the Temple if that is what they desire? There are other options that are available of equal legal value.

 

That is their choice then. I don't presume to force anyone to believe as I do.

[rockpond]

The policy doesn't prevent anything.  However, I'd say the same applies.

 

 

I never claimed that at any time.  However it is true that our doctrine has not changed on all the major issues such as the ones I listed.  For example, the fact that we no longer practice plural marriage is not a change in doctrine since the doctrine always was that plural marriage was authorized from time to time. Currently, it is merely not authorized.  Hence, no doctrinal change.

 

I'm not sure how you can say that the policy doesn't prevent anything.  The prevention of separate weddings & sealings is exactly what it is designed to do.  The policy prevents couples from having a civil wedding (outside the temple) and a sealing... unless they want to wait a year in between, which we've been counseled against.

 

Our published doctrine on some of the major issues you listed has changed, maybe not in ways you feel are significant, and that's fine.  But, anyone with Google capabilities can show you church-published sources that contradict on things like polygamy and the temple/priesthood restrictions by race.  But I'm not really sure why this is a relevant point in the discussion and don't wish to derail the thread.  Obviously one of the great benefits of living prophets on the earth is the further light and knowledge that they provide to us.  I expect our understanding of doctrines (and policies) to continually grow and change.

 

You started that line of thinking by saying that the church does not give into demands.  I agree.  But the Brethren do seem to listen to the sincere requests of its members.  In just the past year, the women's groups and the response from church leadership has shown that to us.  With respect to women praying in conference, as a church we finally fully implemented the 35 year old counsel from President Kimball.  From my perspective, that's a good thing.

[rockpond]

I would have prefered that both sets of parents could have attended. As it was only one parent, my father-in-law to be, could have attended.

 

What policy is that? That the couple has the option of being married in the Temple if that is what they desire? There are other options that are available of equal legal value.

 

That is their choice then. I don't presume to force anyone to believe as I do.

 

The policy (in the U.S. and a couple other countries) that prohibits couples from being civilly married and sealed in the temple without a one year waiting period in between.

[thesometimesaint]

Some other countries don't accept Temple marriages as being legally binding. We follow the laws of the country in which we reside.

[rockpond]

Some other countries don't accept Temple marriages as being legally binding. We follow the laws of the country in which we reside.

 

Understood.  But that does not explain why, in countries where temples marriages ARE legally binding, we have a policy that prevents civil weddings being held in conjunction with temple sealings.

[thesometimesaint]

Because we put a premium on Temple marriage. Doctrinally we are to be married in the Temple. But recognize that for some that is not possible due to legal requirements, or unavailability of the Temple. Particularly in third world countries, and members are generally much poorer than in the US. Also keep in mind that God will not deprive us of any righteous desires of our hearts. But through no fault of our own were not able to obtain in this life.

[rockpond]

Because we put a premium on Temple marriage. Doctrinally we are to be married in the Temple. But recognize that for some that is not possible due to legal requirements, or unavailability of the Temple. Particularly in third world countries, and members are generally much poorer than in the US. Also keep in mind that God will not deprive us of any righteous desires of our hearts. But through no fault of our own were not able to obtain in this life.

Nope. Doctrinally we are to be sealed in the temple. Joseph Smith taught that we were to be married in public.

[Tacenda]

Nope. Doctrinally we are to be sealed in the temple. Joseph Smith taught that we were to be married in public.

Maybe it's a missionary stradegy. The excluded family members will join the church or/and get TR's since they don't want to miss more temple marriages from the couple's offspring.

[rockpond]

Maybe it's a missionary stradegy. The excluded family members will join the church or/and get TR's since they don't want to miss more temple marriages from the couple's offspring.

 

That's possible.  But I'm not sure we'd really want to get members for that reason.  I'd rather have actual conversions.  

[thesometimesaint]

Nope. Doctrinally we are to be sealed in the temple. Joseph Smith taught that we were to be married in public.

 

Incorrect. We are to be marrried in the Temple along with being Sealed to them. As there will be some members that must be by law married outside the Temple we allow for that. Last time I looked I'm a member of the public. So does my presence at a wedding make it public?

[rockpond]

Incorrect. We are to be marrried in the Temple along with being Sealed to them. As there will be some members that must be by law married outside the Temple we allow for that. Last time I looked I'm a member of the public. So does my presence at a wedding make it public?

 

That may be current church policy, but as I correctly stated, it is not what Joseph Smith taught:

 

"All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..."

 

His instruction for marriage was in section 109 of the first edition of the Doctrine & Covenants.  The instructions were also reprinted in an 1842 Times & Seasons.

 

He also mentions that the man should be on the right and the woman on the left (which makes it clear that he isn't talking about a temple sealing).

 

I'm not sure if I am supposed to take your "public wedding" question seriously.  But, I am using that term to differentiate between a marriage performed within a temple and one performed in a setting in which you could invite anyone you choose regardless of TR status.

[thesometimesaint]

That may be current church policy, but as I correctly stated, it is not what Joseph Smith taught:

 

"All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..."

 

His instruction for marriage was in section 109 of the first edition of the Doctrine & Covenants.  The instructions were also reprinted in an 1842 Times & Seasons.

 

He also mentions that the man should be on the right and the woman on the left (which makes it clear that he isn't talking about a temple sealing).

 

I'm not sure if I am supposed to take your "public wedding" question seriously.  But, I am using that term to differentiate between a marriage performed within a temple and one performed in a setting in which you could invite anyone you choose regardless of TR status.

 

I've never calimed that how JS may or may not have done it is how we do, or even should do it. Ideally every marriage should be for all time and eternity. We should have our family and friends in attendence at our/their weddings. Unfortunately that hasn't been, and for the foreseeable future be, the case for everyone.  We invite all to become members of the Church and partake of every opportunities it presents. But we really can't allow family and friends final say in our weddings, marriages and family lives.

[rockpond]

I've never calimed that how JS may or may not have done it is how we do, or even should do it. Ideally every marriage should be for all time and eternity. We should have our family and friends in attendence at our/their weddings. Unfortunately that hasn't been, and for the foreseeable future be, the case for everyone.  We invite all to become members of the Church and partake of every opportunities it presents. But we really can't allow family and friends final say in our weddings, marriages and family lives.

 

I'm not saying that we give family/friends "final say" in our weddings or lives.  Where did that statement come from?

 

But I would like to see us drop a policy that prevents couples from choosing to have the type of wedding the Joseph Smith described (and beinh able to invite whoever they choose) and still have a temple sealing on the same day/week.