Coming Soon To A Temple Near You

[KevinG]

How would that ceremony go?  Much as it would for anyone accepting Christ, but not being valiant in obedience to His laws.  (Many of us unless we repent)

 

"You are sealed for time, you honorable men of the earth, to receive the blessings of and the presence of the Son, but not of the fullness of the Father.  And you shall differ in glory in the resurrection from those who are of the Father as the moon differs from the sun."  (See D&C 76)

 

If the commission of the church is to bring all unto the Father, wouldn't this be an injustice to compromise and give lesser blessings to those who demand them?

 

This to me is the crux of the matter.  While I recognize love, and commitment- and in fact advocate that homosexuals be treated the same under the law, to receive the same government benefits and rights.  Compromising our ordinances and teachings to provide marriage that cannot end in Celestial Glory for these couples, according to the Gospel law, is the alternative.

 

I never seek to impose my beliefs on others, but if my homosexual friends decided they wanted to be Saints, there would be some difficult and heartfelt discussions.  I have been open and honest about this with them.  Of course one of them says his idea of hell is raising children forever, so we're pretty cool with each other about that.

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[Tacenda]

Salt Lake Tribune is saying the church denies the claims of this change happening soon.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58542650-180/temple-lds-mormon-marriage.html.csp

I feel like this may provide a deep disdain for LGBT individuals if this happens, maybe even a hatred. People would be so angry, especially the younger generation who've grown up with marrying in the temple, and it being a fantastically beautiful venue. If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

[KevinG]

I feel like this may provide a deep disdain for LGBT individuals if this happens, maybe even a hatred. People would be so angry, especially the younger generation who've grown up with marrying in the temple, and it being a fantastically beautiful venue. If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

 

That is the choice we all face when decided how far to push when insisting on our rights and privileges.  In a way it is analogous to the LDS Church having to decide between existing on the earth, and practicing the principle of plural marriage.

[HappyJackWagon]

I feel like this may provide a deep disdain for LGBT individuals if this happens, maybe even a hatred. People would be so angry, especially the younger generation who've grown up with marrying in the temple, and it being a fantastically beautiful venue. If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

Tacenda, I understand your point and you may be right but I hope you're wrong. Already there is backlash against LGBT or as I hear them referred to at church "those people" but I can't see how this would be a negative thing in any way.

 

For those not wanting to fork out $$ for a big wedding. No problem. Focus on the sealing piece but before hand go to the county, sign the marriage certificate and voila, you're married. Then go to the temple for the sealing.

 

If you have non member family or friends who would like to participate in a big wedding, great! You can do it without penalty. You can then go be sealed at the temple in the beautiful venue. It's a win/win.

[thesometimesaint]

I oppose this change. I plan to elope and do not want to have to elope to two places.

 

In 1972 my fiance and I eloped to the Oakland California Temple.

[tonie]

I feel like this may provide a deep disdain for LGBT individuals if this happens, maybe even a hatred. People would be so angry, especially the younger generation who've grown up with marrying in the temple, and it being a fantastically beautiful venue. If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

 

Some will very likely point fingers and place blame - even though their finger pointing and blaming would not match with the message from the Church.  I think any anger directed toward homosexuals would be terrible short sighted.

 

In my opinion, there is no real significance to the civil aspect of a LDS Couple getting married. The focus should be the Sealing and Priesthood Power attendant thereto.

[stemelbow]

I feel like this may provide a deep disdain for LGBT individuals if this happens, maybe even a hatred. People would be so angry, especially the younger generation who've grown up with marrying in the temple, and it being a fantastically beautiful venue. If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

Eh...everybody would get used to it. I don't think people would get as upset as you think. Indeed, I doubt many of the younger generation would notice. In a couple years they'd essentially not even realize there was a change.

[Avatar4321]

Ill believe it when I see something official

Edited October 21, 2014 by Avatar4321

[cinepro]

I would hope for this change mostly for the sake of families.

 

But this theorized change would be extremely detrimental to all the LDS who just want to get married in the Temple.  They would then have to spend the time and money planning an unneeded civil wedding (unless it became SOP to just visit a judge the day before the sealing).

 

The only change that is needed is to eliminate the waiting period between civil marriages and sealings (unless there are deeper concerns about what might happen with SSM advocates, which I totally don't buy).

[HappyJackWagon]

But this theorized change would be extremely detrimental to all the LDS who just want to get married in the Temple.  They would then have to spend the time and money planning an unneeded civil wedding (unless it became SOP to just visit a judge the day before the sealing).

 

The only change that is needed is to eliminate the waiting period between civil marriages and sealings (unless there are deeper concerns about what might happen with SSM advocates, which I totally don't buy).

Like you say, couples could simply sign their document at the courthouse and head to the temple. There's no need to schedule or plan an expensive wedding unless they want to. It opens up opportunity. It doesn't remove them.

[Duncan]

Like you say, couples could simply sign their document at the courthouse and head to the temple. There's no need to schedule or plan an expensive wedding unless they want to. It opens up opportunity. It doesn't remove them.

 

I have never thought of that, a couple could, in North America, get married civilly by someone else and then later on-whenever-get sealed in the Temple and skip the whole year wait thing

[stemelbow]

But this theorized change would be extremely detrimental to all the LDS who just want to get married in the Temple.  They would then have to spend the time and money planning an unneeded civil wedding (unless it became SOP to just visit a judge the day before the sealing).

 

The only change that is needed is to eliminate the waiting period between civil marriages and sealings (unless there are deeper concerns about what might happen with SSM advocates, which I totally don't buy).

What do you mean unneeded? The change would make it needed. Everyone would get used to it.

[rockpond]

Are they claiming to be temple workers and did they give their names?

Facebook isn't exactly an original source in this context.

Btw, if the Church was going to make a move it seems likely that PAs would know:

"Church leaders are well aware of the issues surrounding marriage and continue to examine them carefully," LDS Church spokesman Dale Jones said Monday in a statement, "but we are unaware of any meetings where changes to temple marriage policies have been discussed."

 

That is a pretty lackluster denial by Public Affairs, don't ya think?  "We are unaware of any meetings"?  It doesn't say that the church leaders are unaware -- it just says that PA is unaware.  Sounds like "plausible deniability".  For me, that says that this is a possibility and that the rumors could be true.

 

But I am also biased and really hope the rumors are true.  This would be such a great change for so many families!

[USU78]

I feel like this may provide a deep disdain for LGBT individuals if this happens, maybe even a hatred. People would be so angry, especially the younger generation who've grown up with marrying in the temple, and it being a fantastically beautiful venue. If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

 

It's how they've done it under the Code States in Europe for as long as anybody can remember:  first to the courthouse to see the JP; then off to Zollikofen for the sealing.

[Duncan]

That is a pretty lackluster denial by Public Affairs, don't ya think?  "We are unaware of any meetings"?  It doesn't say that the church leaders are unaware -- it just says that PA is unaware.  Sounds like "plausible deniability".  For me, that says that this is a possibility and that the rumors could be true.

 

But I am also biased and really hope the rumors are true.  This would be such a great change for so many families!

 

 

I wonder who the "we" are in his statement

[sdc999]

 If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

If including family was not a priority prior to this possible outcome, why would it be a priority afterwards?  If the main focus is still on the sealing, as the church has always claimed, then that is where the main focus should stay.  But, I would imagine that weddings will become more elaborate  as the restraints (I use that term knowing that some will say couples have always had their free will to do it the way they wished) of temple and temple only wedding/sealing  goals for the faithful are lifted.

[rockpond]

If this goes through parents will have to fork over quite a few bucks to hire a person to marry them and pay for a venue or provide seating elsewhere.

 

I served my mission in Argentina, a county which does not grant our church the authority to marry (or at least they didn't back when I was there, not sure if anything has changed).

 

So LDS couples would frequently go to their local municipal office, get their license, be married by a magistrate in front of a couple witnesses (typically family members), then that day or later they would be sealed with as many friends/family as possible at the temple.

 

The civil wedding was typically done in a municipal office with only a couple family members present.  Not a big ordeal.  They still looked at the sealing as the event.  I think that LDS weddings will still stay that way after this change.  Except for those times when there are loved ones who cannot attend the temple, then the family may choose to host a more significant civil wedding.

 

I am really excited for this change.  And, yes, I believe the rumors.  I wasn't going to believe the rumors until I heard the church spokesman comment -- it was way too weak of a denial.  This change is happening.  And it's just another one of the changes that followed a petition by church members.  

[UtahTexan]

I love it!

[bluebell]

I served my mission in Argentina, a county which does not grant our church the authority to marry (or at least they didn't back when I was there, not sure if anything has changed).

So LDS couples would frequently go to their local municipal office, get their license, be married by a magistrate in front of a couple witnesses (typically family members), then that day or later they would be sealed with as many friends/family as possible at the temple.

The civil wedding was typically done in a municipal office with only a couple family members present. Not a big ordeal. They still looked at the sealing as the event. I think that LDS weddings will still stay that way after this change. Except for those times when there are loved ones who cannot attend the temple, then the family may choose to host a more significant civil wedding.

I am really excited for this change. And, yes, I believe the rumors. I wasn't going to believe the rumors until I heard the church spokesman comment -- it was way too weak of a denial. This change is happening. And it's just another one of the changes that followed a petition by church members.

Do you believe the church deliberately lied in the statement then?

Why do you think they would do that?

[rockpond]

Do you believe the church deliberately lied in the statement then?

Why do you think they would do that?

 

No, I don't think that the church's PA dept lied.  I think that they are genuinely unaware of the meetings where the discussions about the change may have taken place.  I think that was an honest answer.

 

I think that saying "we are unaware of the meetings" is quite different than saying:  "there has been no discussion regarding making such a change" or "there are no plans to make such a change".  I think that PA is doing their job quite well.  When the Brethren want the general church membership or the public to know that an official change has been made, we'll know.

Edited October 22, 2014 by rockpond

[toon]

I oppose this change. I plan to elope and do not want to have to elope to two places.

 

I wanted to elope once, told a friend of the plan, and he called me a cantaloupe.  Made no sense.

[JLHPROF]

I wanted to elope once, told a friend of the plan, and he called me a cantaloupe.  Made no sense.

 

He called you a cantaloupe?   Whatever did your honeydew?

[cinepro]

No, I don't think that the church's PA dept lied.  I think that they are genuinely unaware of the meetings where the discussions about the change may have taken place.  I think that was an honest answer.

 

I think that saying "we are unaware of the meetings" is quite different than saying:  "there has been no discussion regarding making such a change" or "there are no plans to make such a change".  I think that PA is doing their job quite well.  When the Brethren want the general church membership or the public to know that an official change has been made, we'll know.

 

I'm more than willing to be proved wrong, but I think you're delusional.  One of the core tenets of the Gospel is "honesty".  The Church can't have a spokesman come out and deny something, and then go ahead with the change a few months later.  While it would be a major change, it is still just a policy change, not a doctrinal one. 

 

Okay, I did think of one reason to deny the change.  I suspect if word leaked too soon, there might be a rush of young lovers trying to get married before the change was made (so they could be married in the Temple for real).  So it may be a logistics issue. 

 

But I'm still putting my money on "not happening". 

[rockpond]

I'm more than willing to be proved wrong, but I think you're delusional.  One of the core tenets of the Gospel is "honesty".  The Church can't have a spokesman come out and deny something, and then go ahead with the change a few months later.  While it would be a major change, it is still just a policy change, not a doctrinal one. 

 

Okay, I did think of one reason to deny the change.  I suspect if word leaked too soon, there might be a rush of young lovers trying to get married before the change was made (so they could be married in the Temple for real).  So it may be a logistics issue. 

 

But I'm still putting my money on "not happening". 

 

I'm not sure why you think it would be dishonest.  I am not in any way accusing the PA department of being dishonest or even deceptive.  It would be very easy for the Brethren to be working on this change in the background with the temple presidents without having informed public affairs.

 

And I think your point with the logistics issue is spot on.  We could probably brainstorm a few other reasons why they would want to wait on the announcement.

[sdc999]

"one of the core tenets of the Gospel is "honesty"'.     Line upon line, precept upon precept.  That is code speak for selective divulged information.  Honest information will only be doled out when it needs to be announced.  Not necessarily being dishonest.  Given enough time, I could study 1000's of past posts that state just that from church members.  'They weren't being dishonest by not presenting ALL of the information they knew'.