Coming Soon To A Temple Near You

[bluebell]

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.

 

 

 

The PA department has stated in the past (when the whole Kate Kelly thing was so nuts) that they don't ever announce anything without getting a go ahead from the church leaders.   They do not speak independently of the 12.

[bluebell]

"one of the core tenets of the Gospel is "honesty"'.     Line upon line, precept upon precept.  That is code speak for selective divulged information.

No it's not.  It's a very basic principle which teaches that you can't learn something advanced until you have mastered it in a simpler form and therefore it is presented in pieces and not all at once.  

 

It's the equivalent of saying that you have to learn addition before you can be taught about multiplication, and about multiplication before division, and division before fractions, etc. and that's why kindergärtners are not taught that calculus exists or is necessary in mastering math.  

 

In order to apply "line upon line" to this discussion you would have to be saying that the church is refusing to tell people they are going to change the marriage/sealing policy because the members need to first understand and apply some other simpler policy that the new policy will build upon.

 

If you aren't saying that, then the gospel tenet of  "line upon line" is not at all related to the current topic.

 

[rockpond]

The PA department has stated in the past (when the whole Kate Kelly thing was so nuts) that they don't ever announce anything without getting a go ahead from the church leaders.   They do not speak independently of the 12.

 

So is a statement that they are "unaware" of something considered an "announcement" that would require leadership approval?  It doesn't seem like it to me.  But I don't know exactly how PA interacts with the Brethren.  Or if they did ask the Brethren and the Brethren told them that they didn't have anything to say at the time, isn't the "unaware" statement still an honest and appropriate response by PA?

 

I guess my point is... the PA is doing their job.  They are not being dishonest.  But they also are not offering us any conclusive evidence that this change is *not* a possibility.  Nor are they offering any conclusive evidence that the change is being worked on.  They are just staying neutral which would very well have been what Church leadership asked them to do.

[UtahTexan]

I don't see it as dishonest. I got married to my LDS wife in Honduras. We had to get civilly married borrow going to the Guatemala Temple. How does requiring that here a bad thing?

Plus, I see it allows the church to only seal people who follow the LDS teachings.

[Buckeye]

FWIW, I had the same impression as rockpond. If there was nothing to the rumors, I would expect a flat denial of the rumors. To phrase the denial as relating to "meetings" suggests that something is happening but not yet ready for prime-time. Most likely, some of the decision makers have internally expressed a desire for this change and others are actively considering it.

[JAHS]

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

My wife's parents were not church members when we were sealed in the temple, so they considered our marriage an elopement since they did not witness it. After 40 years I think they are accepting it as a good thing, since there other nonmember kids have gone through multiple marriages and divorcements.

[bluebell]

So is a statement that they are "unaware" of something considered an "announcement" that would require leadership approval?  It doesn't seem like it to me.  

 

The use of the word 'announce' was my word, not the PA's.  They weren't suggesting that only 'announcements' need that kind of approval.  

[mfbukowski]

To be clear - this is not official in any way (yet).

 

http://thisweekinmormons.com/2014/10/mormon-temple-wedding-changes-say-hello-rest-world-america/

 

This is what many people have been waiting for.  The US will now follow the pattern of other countries once this becomes official policy.

Just an observation or two which calls the whole post into question in my opinion:

 

First of all, it talks about trainings "this weekend".  The only possible day that might have happened would be Saturday since temples are closed Sundays.  In my experience, Saturdays are very busy- by far the most busy day of the week- and training meetings are usually non-existent or cut short due to all that needs to be done serving patrons.  It's not likely that such an important announcement would be given at such a quick meeting.

 

Second of all, this paragraph:

Actual, legal weddings will take place at civil institutions, not at the temple. This applies to everyone, even to multi-generational Mormon families with nary a card-lacker among them.

"Card-lacker"?  I presume this means temple recommend holder.  But I find this an odd term for a credible source.

 

Further- the presumption is that for some reason such a policy might NOT hold for "multi-generational Mormon families" as if that has any importance whatsoever.

 

It doesn't seem to me that a credible source would include such a presumption.

 

I could be wrong, but as an ordinance worker, in a state where gay marriage is legal, I have not heard anything like this as yet.

Edited October 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

Just an observation or two which calls the whole post into question in my opinion:

 

First of all, it talks about trainings "this weekend".  The only possible day that might have happened would be Saturday since temples are closed Sundays.  In my experience, Saturdays are very busy- by far the most busy day of the week- and training meetings are usually non-existent or cut short due to all that needs to be done serving patrons.  It's not likely that such an important announcement would be given at such a quick meeting.

 

Second of all, this paragraph:

"Card-lacker"?  I presume this means temple recommend holder.  But I find this an odd term for a credible source.

 

Further- the presumption is that for some reason such a policy might NOT hold for "multi-generational Mormon families" as if that has any importance whatsoever.

 

It doesn't seem to me that a credible source would include such a presumption.

 

I could be wrong, but as an ordinance worker, in a state where gay marriage is legal, I have not heard anything like this as yet.

 

The writing is consistent with the "This Week in Mormons" podcast.  It's their style.

 

The Denver temple (my temple district) has its last session at 4pm on Saturdays.  So there could, conceivably, be time afterwards for a meeting of temple workers.

Edited October 22, 2014 by rockpond

[mfbukowski]

The writing is consistent with the "This Week in Mormons" podcast.  It's their style.

 

The Denver temple (my temple district) has its last session at 4pm on Saturdays.  So there could, conceivably, be time afterwards for a meeting of temple workers.

So that means they would be getting out around 6:30 and getting dressed and wanting to go home.

 

Usually the only workers left would be the ones who did not work that session- the others would be dismissed early, so depending on the size of the veil (number of patrons) some would be kept, others released early.

 

It's tough to work on Saturdays, because everyone has one less day to do laundry, prepare talks etc, if they still work for a living.  We rotate, and everyone who usually works on weekdays only work on Saturday once every six weeks.  I don't know if that is usual for other temples or not, but it would be hard to work a full shift every single Saturday AND do all the preparation for Sunday that LDS usually do- it would be like two Sundays every week.

 

I don't think that is a likely scenario.  Possible, clearly but not likely.   Imagine getting off work early- usually, but now your boss tells you that you get to wait an extra hour BEFORE an "important meeting", AFTER your services are no longer needed, and this is your usual day off anyway.

 

Not likely.

[ksfisher]

Just an observation or two which calls the whole post into question in my opinion:

 

First of all, it talks about trainings "this weekend".  The only possible day that might have happened would be Saturday since temples are closed Sundays.  In my experience, Saturdays are very busy- by far the most busy day of the week- and training meetings are usually non-existent or cut short due to all that needs to be done serving patrons.  It's not likely that such an important announcement would be given at such a quick meeting.

 

 

A training meeting is even more unlikely to have been held in Utah this weekend as school was closed Thursday and Friday for the Utah Education Association Conference.  Many families plan vacations around this weekend.  Our sacrament meeting attendance was low, and I imagine any training meetings held in temples wouldn't have very high attendance either.

[mfbukowski]

Plus, I see it allows the church to only seal people who follow the LDS teachings.

????

 

That is kind of usual.

[bluebell]

Does anyone think it's odd that there have been some temple workers who have confirmed that they had a training meeting that have disclosed that no such thing was talked about in their location?

 

If the church was going to change this policy, why would they only do it at a few temples?

[rockpond]

So that means they would be getting out around 6:30 and getting dressed and wanting to go home.

 

Usually the only workers left would be the ones who did not work that session- the others would be dismissed early, so depending on the size of the veil (number of patrons) some would be kept, others released early.

 

It's tough to work on Saturdays, because everyone has one less day to do laundry, prepare talks etc, if they still work for a living.  We rotate, and everyone who usually works on weekdays only work on Saturday once every six weeks.  I don't know if that is usual for other temples or not, but it would be hard to work a full shift every single Saturday AND do all the preparation for Sunday that LDS usually do- it would be like two Sundays every week.

 

I don't think that is a likely scenario.  Possible, clearly but not likely.   Imagine getting off work early- usually, but now your boss tells you that you get to wait an extra hour BEFORE an "important meeting", AFTER your services are no longer needed, and this is your usual day off anyway.

 

Not likely.

 

What your saying makes sense... I am not familiar with the "behind the scenes" of temple operation.  And it would also seem odd to me to involve every temple worker in such a meeting.  Wouldn't it just need to be communicated to the temple presidency and the sealers?

Edited October 22, 2014 by rockpond

[mfbukowski]

Does anyone think it's odd that there have been some temple workers who have confirmed that they had a training meeting that have disclosed that no such thing was talked about in their location?

 

If the church was going to change this policy, why would they only do it at a few temples?

Yeah in fact that is the reason I mentioned that I lived in a state where gay marriage is legal.

 

If the policy was going to changed selectively, I imagine that might be the reason.  In states where gay marriage is not legal, the change would not be necessary.

 

total speculation, though---

Edited October 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Duncan]

Does anyone think it's odd that there have been some temple workers who have confirmed that they had a training meeting that have disclosed that no such thing was talked about in their location?

 

If the church was going to change this policy, why would they only do it at a few temples?

 

 

odd too, we had stake conference this past weekend and behold and lo, the Temple President and his wife were in attendance, so................................................. if their were training meetings some key people weren't there dot dot dot! hahhahahhahahhahaha! more to come as the plot thickens I guess!

[rockpond]

A training meeting is even more unlikely to have been held in Utah this weekend as school was closed Thursday and Friday for the Utah Education Association Conference.  Many families plan vacations around this weekend.  Our sacrament meeting attendance was low, and I imagine any training meetings held in temples wouldn't have very high attendance either.

 

 

Does anyone think it's odd that there have been some temple workers who have confirmed that they had a training meeting that have disclosed that no such thing was talked about in their location?

 

If the church was going to change this policy, why would they only do it at a few temples?

 

 

If the rumors are true, it would seem that they are doing the meetings on different dates at the various temples.  *If* those rumors are true.

[mfbukowski]

What your saying makes sense... I am not familiar with the "behind the scenes" of temple operation.  And it would also seem odd to me to involve every temple worker in such a meeting.  Wouldn't it just need to be communicated to the temple presidency and the sealers?

Well the presidency would already have been notified by the temple department, but yes it is possible that it was announced to the sealers only at this time.  That would account for it being more of a rumor than anything.  Sealers are a tight-lipped lot. 

 

 

Another thing is that if it was being announced at temple worker training meetings generally, as the week progresses, and each shift gets trained, we would hear more and more about it as more workers hear about it.

 

Of course the workers might have been told to keep it confidential, but we know how well secrets are kept in the church....

Edited October 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

????

 

That is kind of usual.

What I meant was that it would be more difficult for activists to sue to force The Church to "marry" them (gays). sealing would be more an LDS "benefit"

Does that make sense?

[rockpond]

Yeah in fact that is the reason I mentioned that I lived in a state where gay marriage is legal.

 

If the policy was going to changed selectively, I imagine that might be the reason.  In states where gay marriage is not legal, the change would not be necessary.

 

total speculation, though---

 

It wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with gay marriage.  Although, if it does, it would seem that they'd implement it at a national level since it's pretty clear where the law is headed.

[Pahoran]

I'm a Temple worker. I live in a "same sex marriage" jurisdiction (although fortunately not an "enforced conformity" jurisdiction like the US.) I haven't heard anything about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

I would bet money that these rumors are based on wishful thinking. They would not be telling general temple workers first in any case. There would be no need for "preparation" there.

[USU78]

If the rumors are true, it would seem that they are doing the meetings on different dates at the various temples.  *If* those rumors are true.

 

I agree, big "If."

 

My own version of the rumor is a letter in draft form having circulated for a few months amongst those at 50 East North Temple in which Bishops are instructed not to conduct any more "for time" weddings, either in the meeting houses or elsewhere.

 

If we are only in the "sealing" business, they will have a much harder time imposing the horror that is SSM upon us in our Temples. 

 

No mention in any of my sources of any refusal to allow future wedding receptions in the cultural halls.

 

And don't for a minute tell me no "technically a member" homosexual would sue the Church because he was refused a wedding reception by his bishop.

[The Nehor]

And don't for a minute tell me no "technically a member" homosexual would sue the Church because he was refused a wedding reception by his bishop.

No such member will successfully sue the Church.

[USU78]

No such member will successfully sue the Church.

 

There you go again.  Thundering down from Horeb.

 

It must be just swell to be omniscient as well as omnipotent.