mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I just heard a "delicious" rumor that the Church is removing the one-year waiting period so couples can get married in front of non-member friends and family and then be sealed immediately thereafter in the temple. This was originally reported in SLT back in February (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57531159-180/temple-lds-mormon-policy.html.csp)%C2'> I bring this up in this thread for two reasons: (1) I am accused (perhaps rightly) of being critical of our beloved leaders so I wanted to be the first to say, "Praise to the Man!" This is inspired prophetic leadership that gives me great confidence that our church is being led by true men of God. And I mean it! Allowing the families and friends of recent converts to share in part of the blessed event will avoid the hard feelings that sometimes resulted in the past. Hallelujah! You go, boys! (2) It might be a coincidence but this change is coming on the heels of a massive letter-writing campaign urging this new policy. This should serve as evidence that it can be helpful to the church for members to mobilize, organize and agitate for change. It would seem that starting a popular podcast or organizing a protest (and criminal trespass) during GC weekend might not be the most effective ways to get those changes enacted. However, it does show that our wonderfully-inspired leaders are not completely averse to a little "ark steadying" from time to time.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I just heard a "delicious" rumor that the Church is removing the one-year waiting period so couples can get married in front of non-member friends and family and then be sealed immediately thereafter in the temple. This was originally reported in SLT back in February ( I bring this up in this thread for two reasons: (1) I am accused (perhaps rightly) of being critical of our beloved leaders so I wanted to be the first to say, "Praise to the Man!" This is inspired prophetic leadership that gives me great confidence that our church is being led by true men of God. And I mean it! Allowing the families and friends of recent converts to share in part of the blessed event will avoid the hard feelings that sometimes resulted in the past. Hallelujah! You go, boys! (2) It might be a coincidence but this change is coming on the heels of a massive letter-writing campaign urging this new policy. This should serve as evidence that it can be helpful to the church for members to mobilize, organize and agitate for change. It would seem that starting a popular podcast or organizing a protest (and criminal trespass) during GC weekend might not be the most effective ways to get those changes enacted. However, it does show that our wonderfully-inspired leaders are not completely averse to a little "ark steadying" from time to time.If it's a rumor, aren't you jumping the gun a bit? And why the quotation marks round "delicious"? Whom are you quoting?
mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 If it's a rumor, aren't you jumping the gun a bit? And why the quotation marks round "delicious"? Whom are you quoting? Actually, you're right. I shouldn't be reporting unconfirmed rumors. Bad poster! No! Here is the SLT story from February. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57531159-180/temple-lds-mormon-policy.html.csp If things really are moving along on this front, then this is a big win for the Church, its leaders and perhaps, even its ark steadiers.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Actually, you're right. I shouldn't be reporting unconfirmed rumors. Bad poster! No! Here is the SLT story from February. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57531159-180/temple-lds-mormon-policy.html.csp If things really are moving along on this front, then this is a big win for the Church, its leaders and perhaps, even its ark steadiers.Old news. It sounds like you're reacting to what is merely the recirculation of what was going around in February -- which was rumor in itself. Other than a four-month-old newspaper blog post, what's your source? I think you should keep the crowing in check until you have something more substantive to pass along. Edited June 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I just heard a "delicious" rumor that the Church is removing the one-year waiting period so couples can get married in front of non-member friends and family and then be sealed immediately thereafter in the temple. This was originally reported in SLT back in February ( I bring this up in this thread for two reasons: (1) I am accused (perhaps rightly) of being critical of our beloved leaders so I wanted to be the first to say, "Praise to the Man!" This is inspired prophetic leadership that gives me great confidence that our church is being led by true men of God. And I mean it! Allowing the families and friends of recent converts to share in part of the blessed event will avoid the hard feelings that sometimes resulted in the past. Hallelujah! You go, boys! (2) It might be a coincidence but this change is coming on the heels of a massive letter-writing campaign urging this new policy. This should serve as evidence that it can be helpful to the church for members to mobilize, organize and agitate for change. It would seem that starting a popular podcast or organizing a protest (and criminal trespass) during GC weekend might not be the most effective ways to get those changes enacted. However, it does show that our wonderfully-inspired leaders are not completely averse to a little "ark steadying" from time to time. The fact you think this had anything to do with a letter writing campaign is...naive. This is in response to the tidal wave sweeping the country known as SSM.
Storm Rider Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I just heard a "delicious" rumor that the Church is removing the one-year waiting period so couples can get married in front of non-member friends and family and then be sealed immediately thereafter in the temple. This was originally reported in SLT back in February ( I bring this up in this thread for two reasons: (1) I am accused (perhaps rightly) of being critical of our beloved leaders so I wanted to be the first to say, "Praise to the Man!" This is inspired prophetic leadership that gives me great confidence that our church is being led by true men of God. And I mean it! Allowing the families and friends of recent converts to share in part of the blessed event will avoid the hard feelings that sometimes resulted in the past. Hallelujah! You go, boys! (2) It might be a coincidence but this change is coming on the heels of a massive letter-writing campaign urging this new policy. This should serve as evidence that it can be helpful to the church for members to mobilize, organize and agitate for change. It would seem that starting a popular podcast or organizing a protest (and criminal trespass) during GC weekend might not be the most effective ways to get those changes enacted. However, it does show that our wonderfully-inspired leaders are not completely averse to a little "ark steadying" from time to time. This is interesting. For decades there have been those with temple marriages that were followed that afternoon/evening with a ring ceremony. No waiting for a year; no wounded parents or relatives. I have a friend who son was married in California where two General Authorities attended the ring ceremony. This does not begin to address the number of similar weddings that occur in non-US nations where civil unions are required prior to a temple marriage. Are you aware of any doctrine that directs a period of waiting between a sealing and a civil ceremony? I am not. Do you have any evidence of the "massive" letter writing campaign to have the policy changed? I missed that memo for some reason and I have never heard about it. I never understood the waiting period of any kind. The temple sealing is a very personal, private ordinance. What I hope does not result from this change is that LDS families will jump on the band wagon of spending outlandish sums of money for public events. Still haven't heard the rumor, but it would be nice to see the change. However, I strongly doubt it is the result of a deluge of letters and more about the Brethren questioning why this policy. 1
mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Do you have any evidence of the "massive" letter writing campaign to have the policy changed? I missed that memo for some reason and I have never heard about it. All's I know is what I read in the papers ... http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57531159-180/temple-lds-mormon-policy.html.csp Recently, a group of Mormons launched a letter-writing campaign asking for a change."We are collecting emails, stories and letters," organizers at familyfirstweddings.com write, "to help format a letter that will be sent, through official channels, to our leaders in Salt Lake City."In 2007, two Canadian former Mormons, who shared the pain of being left out of family weddings, gathered nearly 1,000 signatures on a petition asking for a policy change. They continue to care about the issue, Jean Bodie, one of the women, said Tuesday, but have not kept up the website.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 All's I know is what I read in the papers ... http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57531159-180/temple-lds-mormon-policy.html.cspSo are you admitting here that you have nothing more to go on than a four-month-old blog post?
mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 So are you admitting here that you have nothing more to go on than a four-month-old blog post?I never claimed to KNOWING anything. I reported on a RUMOR I saw floating around the Internet this evening that this change was to be announced "soon" (whatever that means). I realized that its probably best to not report Internet rumors and would have deleted my post if not for the fact that you quoted my original post in your previous response.All of that being said, something in your reaction makes me think that there is some truth to this rumor (I think you journalists call it a "hunch"). If I stole your thunder (or "scooped" you), please accept my apologies. Bad poster! No!
mormonnewb Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 The fact you think this had anything to do with a letter writing campaign is...naive. This is in response to the tidal wave sweeping the country known as SSM.You and Dehlin agree on this point (one point for you). I'm a little less cynical and believe that our loving leaders are responding to the heartfelt pleas of their beloved sheep. Naive me!
Scott Lloyd Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) I never claimed to KNOWING anything. I reported on a RUMOR I saw floating around the Internet this evening that this change was to be announced "soon" (whatever that means). I realized that its probably best to not report Internet rumors and would have deleted my post if not for the fact that you quoted my original post in your previous response.All of that being said, something in your reaction makes me think that there is some truth to this rumor (I think you journalists call it a "hunch"). If I stole your thunder (or "scooped" you), please accept my apologies. Bad poster! No!I was aware of the rumor four months ago when it first materialized. Someone started a thread on this message board about it back then. When, out of the blue, you posted here about it just now, I thought perhaps you had something new and substantive. Apparently not. Was what you saw "floating around the Internet" indeed new information, or was it, as I suspect, merely residual chatter about what came up in February? Can you give us a link so we can each make our own determination? And if that's all it was, why post about it here and now, other than an endeavor to use your own supposition (that the Brethren are caving in to a letter-writing campaign) as ammo for your contention that social and media pressure really do intimidate the Church leaders? Edited June 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Pahoran Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 And the yet the question still is whether either in question fit the awful boggie monster straw-man you paint for them above. What "awful boggie monster straw-man" is that? Those who paint such an extreme are lying outright as well. I regret that you appear to be projecting. While both may be in some state or element of apostasy both are a far cry from being enemies of the church or active proselytizing anti-Mornmons. Mister Dehlin is unquestionably an active proselytizing anti-Mormon. And Ms Kelly has put together "six discussions," aping the discussions used by our missionaries. For what purpose do our missionaries use their discussions? For proselytizing. For what purpose does the OW "movement" use theirs? Can you connect the dots yourself, or do I need to draw you a picture? Well I am sorry to disappoint you and perhaps others here but for at least Dehiln the outcome is much less clear. Here is a recent post from John's Facebook page: A quick update - My stake president has agreed to meet with me on June 29th, expressing a desire for de-escalation. The June 18th timeline has been suspended. The outcome for John may still be the one you seem to be drooling over in glee but perhaps not. Speaking of "lying outright," I regret that you have no good faith basis to believe your accusation, bolded above. We will see. For Kelly my guess is her web site,discussions and protests may put her beyond the bounds of working put something less harsh. Maybe. For my money, she seems the more benign of the two. But in any event, the decision is not up to me, and I don't claim to have all the facts. Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 My first question is 'How much of a problem is he?" Is he seeking out people who have firm testimonies and trying to weaken them or is he reaching people who are already undergoing a faith crisis? In my case, it was the latter. Yes, it's the latter. Mister Dehlin's self-appointed mission in life is to sucker the weak, drag on the hands that hang down, and weaken the feeble knees. Regards, Pahoran 4
Tsuzuki Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Yes, it's the latter.Mister Dehlin's self-appointed mission in life is to sucker the weak, drag on the hands that hang down, and weaken the feeble knees.Regards,PahoranYes, and then give them reasons to stay in the church, and in his profession as a psychologist, counsel them not to commit suicide. What an evil person he is. 1
Pahoran Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Yes, and then give them reasons to stay in the church, and in his profession as a psychologist, counsel them not to commit suicide. What an evil person he is. His "reasons to stay in the church," as you call them, consist (among other things) in ways to rationalise lying in interviews. Furthermore, that piece of window-dressing is something he stopped doing. He brags to his anti-Mormon buds that many more people have left the Church than stayed because of his efforts. Regards, Pahoran 2
Storm Rider Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Yes, and then give them reasons to stay in the church, and in his profession as a psychologist, counsel them not to commit suicide. What an evil person he is. You seem to perceive what Dehlin does in life as significantly different what I perceive. I did not that he spent the majority of his time counseling those with severe depression and either thinking about or having acted on those feelings of suicide as a valid choice. What perplexes me is why the spin? It is so obviously not factual as it stuns those who read your comment. Earth to Tsuzuki; Dehlin's main efforts are not what you have just stated. 2
why me Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 When does contention promote harmony? About as often as agency promotes harmony. Before the beginning, there was a plan of the table that would have guaranteed perfect harmony amongst the saints. We would have ALL walked lockstep together in righteousness. And for some strange reason, we all chose messy agency, virtually guaranteeing that we would never have harmony -- inside or outside of the Church. I have no idea what this means. Contention for contention sake usually accomplishes very little. You seem to be full of complaints about lds policy. In fact, I have never seen anyone who has complained and moaned as much as you. And of course, this is okay. But...I find it amazing that one can be fillled with so much angst about this policy or that policy that the church has. Here is what I want you to do. Start a thread about what the Church of Mormonnewb of LDS would look like. What policies would it have and what would you want the members to talk about on sunday. 1
why me Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) I just heard a "delicious" rumor that the Church is removing the one-year waiting period so couples can get married in front of non-member friends and family and then be sealed immediately thereafter in the temple. This was originally reported in SLT back in February ( I bring this up in this thread for two reasons: (1) I am accused (perhaps rightly) of being critical of our beloved leaders so I wanted to be the first to say, "Praise to the Man!" This is inspired prophetic leadership that gives me great confidence that our church is being led by true men of God. And I mean it! Allowing the families and friends of recent converts to share in part of the blessed event will avoid the hard feelings that sometimes resulted in the past. Hallelujah! You go, boys! Okay, so the church of mormonnewb of lds would allow everyone into the temple to see their relative get married. This would include apostates, nonmembers, etc. Right? And the church of mormonnewb which depends on divine revelation would allow its members to challenge such divine revelation through letter writing campaigns. Right? Edited June 15, 2014 by why me
Tsuzuki Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 You seem to perceive what Dehlin does in life as significantly different what I perceive. I did not that he spent the majority of his time counseling those with severe depression and either thinking about or having acted on those feelings of suicide as a valid choice. What perplexes me is why the spin? It is so obviously not factual as it stuns those who read your comment. Earth to Tsuzuki; Dehlin's main efforts are not what you have just stated.I must admit that I've been out of the John Dehlin loop for a while until all this came down, and am taking him at his word from his recent interviews. Is he not a psychological counselor by profession?
why me Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Yes, it's the latter.Mister Dehlin's self-appointed mission in life is to sucker the weak, drag on the hands that hang down, and weaken the feeble knees.Regards,PahoranDon't you wish that you were like mormonnewb? It is so easy to keep tearing something down. My gosh if I were a critic or like mormonnewb my internet life would be much more easy. If I became a critic, I would be a great critic. I would moan about this and groan about that. I would go on and on and on about the same old things and cause people to defend the church's belief system. So much stress could be released this way. But alas, here I am defending the church like you. Sad. This is the second insulting derail about another poster from you today. Thread ban. 1
cdowis Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) So you think Uzzah would have been killed had he yelled out, "Careful! The ark is tipping over"'? That it would only be okay if he mumbled it under his breath so the men who could actually correct it couldn't hear him? Or would that be inadvisable too? "You can prove anything with an analogy". You are demonstrating that your analogy does not fit this situation. There is no physical ark here, there is no one physically touching an object, there is no crossing of the Jordan River, my friend. This is about subjecting the leaders of the church to public criticism and questioning their authority. That members of the church should shout their opposition to their decisions when they are "on the wrong side of history" But, as I said, there is Someone who will some day explain this to you. I'll be happy to join my brothers and sisters who were shouting about lifting the priesthood ban for blacks in the 60s and 70s. Yes, we see that you have made "shouting at the brethren" a signature issue. I would hope that you have made the bishop and stake pres aware of your feelings -- those who shout should not hold back when talking with the local leaders. Edited June 15, 2014 by cdowis 2
maxrep12 Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Mister Dehlin is unquestionably an active proselytizing anti-Mormon.And Ms Kelly has put together "six discussions," aping the discussions used by our missionaries. And such a powerful anti mormon that he has general authorities on speed dial, who would be willling to give the Maxwell Institute a good kick in the teeth at his request. There are 5 missionary discussions. 1
Calm Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 And such a powerful anti mormon that he has general authorities on speed dial, who would be willling to give the Maxwell Institute a good kick in the teeth at his request. If you believe him. More credible sources disagree. 1
Calm Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 Okay, so the church of mormonnewb of lds would allow everyone into the temple to see their relative get married. This would include apostates, nonmembers, etc. Right? reread what he said…married outside of temple among friends and family, sealed inside the temple with the same restrictions as now. I dont have a problem with this at all myself as long as the wedding doesnt overshadow the seal in the couples' mind. it may even help them focus not being distracted by wondering what others are feeling, etc. 3
Storm Rider Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 I must admit that I've been out of the John Dehlin loop for a while until all this came down, and am taking him at his word from his recent interviews. Is he not a psychological counselor by profession? He had said that he is pursuing his doctorate in counseling - or maybe that is what I read. I have learned by sad experience to not listen to what people say, but what they do. Dehlin, quite often, tends to spin a story rather than just tell the facts. He is not alone in this behavior, but he has certainly mastered it.
Recommended Posts