Coming Soon To A Temple Near You

[The Nehor]

There you go again.  Thundering down from Horeb.

 

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

It is great. I have not tried it yet but via revelation I know a few things with certainty.

[rockpond]

 

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. 

 

 

You oughta work to give that rumor some legs.    j/k

 

If this change is about the legalization of gay marriage, then taking the "marriage" piece out of the temple ceremony would not be enough to solve the perceived problem.  It would take what your rumor describes -- removing Bishops' ability to marry.

[mfbukowski]

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

Not surprised.

 

Well I was all keyed up for the big announcement when I went to our training meeting for my shift. (not   )

 

Nothing but the usual training on ordinances and how to do them well.  The whole thing sounds bogus to me- that's effectively 2 trainings for me with no "announcement".

[Tacenda]

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.

Luckily my own son was able to have my bishop marry he and his wife, whew!  Which I was very grateful for.  Now if the rumor is true, that's going to be a major problem for folks, the dilemma of "who will marry us?". 

 

Today I sat with our ward's Primary and practiced for a program.  We sang "Families Can Be Together Forever".  There is a line that says something like, I can marry in God's Temple.  Now what are we to do, change the lyric to, I can be sealed in God's Temple?  I guess it's no big deal.  But that's a lot of hymn books that will need to be changed. 

 

   

I have a family here on Earth

They are so good to me

I want to share my life with them

Through all eternity

Families can be together forever

Through Heavenly Father's plan

I always want to be with my own family

And the Lord has shown me how I can

The Lord has shown me how I can

While I am in my early years

I'll prepare most carefully

So I can marry in God's temple

For eternity

Families can be together forever

Through Heavenly Father's plan

I always want to be with my own family

And the Lord has shown me how I can

The Lord has shown me how I can

 

[sheilauk]

Sigh. We sing this song in the UK too and the youth are taught to prepare for a temple marriage but we are not allowed to marry in the temple only, we have to be married civilly (which can be by a bishop) first and I have not heard anyone suggest a change in wording. Instead I warrant that most think we in effect get married twice - first a civil marriage and then a temple 'marriage'. No need to change words, just perceptions! (If folks can do it with polygamy and SSM, it shouldn't be a problem...)

Edited October 25, 2014 by sheilauk

[rockpond]

Sigh. We sing this song in the UK too and the youth are taught to prepare for a temple marriage but we are not allowed to marry in the temple, we have to be married civilly (which can be by a bishop) first and I have not heard anyone suggest a change in wording. Instead I warrant that most think we in effect get married twice - first a civil marriage and then a temple 'marriage'. No need to change words, just perceptions! (If folks can do it with polygamy and SSM, it shouldn't be a problem...)

Yeah, we need to remember that if this change happens, it is only bringing us in line with the rest of the world (except Canada and S. Africa, but they'll probably follow).

[Hamba Tuhan]

Yeah, we need to remember that if this change happens, it is only bringing us in line with the rest of the world (except Canada and S. Africa, but they'll probably follow).

 

Nonsense. There is not a single nation in my corner of the world that has usurped the Church's right to perform legally binding marriages in its temples.

[sheilauk]

Yeah, we need to remember that if this change happens, it is only bringing us in line with the rest of the world (except Canada and S. Africa, but they'll probably follow).

Yep.

I would just modify this a little - to most of the rest of the world as Finland also allows temple only marriages with no requirement for a civil wedding and there may be other countries. In fact, I wonder how many countries are like the USA and how many like the UK?

Edited to add - I see Hamba Tuhan's area is aligned with the USA's practice. I suspect there are more.

Edited October 24, 2014 by sheilauk

[Calm]

I looked for a list of countries that have a mandatory civil ceremony, but even wiki failed me.

[sheilauk]

Let's compile one! Only kidding, but its something when wiki doesn't come through. Is the Church hiding "the Truth"?

[rockpond]

Nonsense. There is not a single nation in my corner of the world that has usurped the Church's right to perform legally binding marriages in its temples.

That last article I read said that only the US, Canada, and S. Africa could perform legally binding marriages in the temple. I don't know where that article is now though.

What part of the world are you in Hamba?

[Pahoran]

That last article I read said that only the US, Canada, and S. Africa could perform legally binding marriages in the temple. I don't know where that article is now though.

What part of the world are you in Hamba?

Here in New Zealand, the old requirement for a legal marriage to be solenmised "with open doors" went by the board some years ago. We've had legally binding temple marriages for quite a while.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hamba Tuhan]

That last article I read said that only the US, Canada, and S. Africa could perform legally binding marriages in the temple. I don't know where that article is now though.

 

The article was clearly wrong ... though to some people parts of Europe are 'the rest of the world'. In the temple I attend, I have three times signed a marriage licence as witness due to having been the witness to the sealing. I strongly suspect that most nations wherein we have temples recognise the sealings performed in those temples as legally binding.

 

What part of the world are you in Hamba?

 

None of the above nor anywhere near.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Guest]

Oh, fair enough. I did say (and so did the article) that this isn't official yet.

But if there's any truth to the stories of temple workers getting the heads up, I thought this might lend some credence.

 

I seriously believe that the Church is undergoing it's biggest overall change in decades.  More openness, more "administrative" methodology changes, less sacred cows (or perhaps just less sacred). 

 

I have never seen so much change in the way the Church is behaving in my lifetime.  And I have only read about such huge changes in the entire makeup of Mormonism a few times in Church History - approx 1840, 1852, 1904, 1929, 1951, 1978, 1990, and now.  Each of those times featured fundamental changes in the way the Church approached its beliefs and its practices.  I think we are on the cusp of another such time.

I have only seen how the Church has had Christ and his mission as it's focus, second the family and how it relates to the first. Everything else is window dressing and window dressing changes and evolves to keep on us on mission. As does any properly operating compass needle would do.

[sunstoned]

I have only seen how the Church has had Christ and his mission as it's focus, second the family and how it relates to the first. Everything else is window dressing and window dressing changes and evolves to keep on us on mission. As does any properly operating compass needle would do.

Many of those changes go beyond window dressing IMHO. Priesthood and temple are just two areas that have seen significant changes.

[carbon dioxide]

I'm more interested in hearing about the possible elimination of the Pearl of Great Price.

Why would the Church remove that?  Might as well remove the Book of Mormon as well.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

If a change is done and a civil wedding is required first, I will say that I will not be attending that civil marriage. For me that would just be a waste of time and have no more significance than getting a license at the DMV.

[carbon dioxide]

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?

People can sue about anything.  The fact is one can't force the Church to marry anyone nor is being sealed in a Temple a civil right.  A gay couple has as much right to get sealed in the temple as a homeless man has a right to come into my house and eat my food iwthout my permission. 

[cinepro]

Why would the Church remove that?  Might as well remove the Book of Mormon as well.

 

I recommend studying the history of the Pearl of Great Price as it has appeared in the canon over the years.  There is nothing that says the current configuration is somehow 100% perfect and must stay that way until the end of time.

 

But if they wanted to remove the Book of Mormon as well, I guess that would work too.

[carbon dioxide]

I recommend studying the history of the Pearl of Great Price as it has appeared in the canon over the years.  There is nothing that says the current configuration is somehow 100% perfect and must stay that way until the end of time.

 

But if they wanted to remove the Book of Mormon as well, I guess that would work too.

If one is looking for 100% perfection in any of the books, one would have to throw out the entire standard works.  Given that the Pearl of Great Price is has been made as part of the standard works, it would be pretty much impossible to remove it.  What would it say to the other books if it was removed.  What confidence could anyone have that anything else is correct? 

[omni]

If a change is done and a civil wedding is required first, I will say that I will not be attending that civil marriage. For me that would just be a waste of time and have no more significance than getting a license at the DMV.

So you view the marriages of your non-Mormon friends and family as having no more significance than getting a license at the DMV?

[JLHPROF]

So you view the marriages of your non-Mormon friends and family as having no more significance than getting a license at the DMV?

 

Before God yes.  Between them no.  There is something to be said for the promises they make to each other.  But in the eyes of God this is not marriage as he created.

[Calm]

And yet we are instructed to honour those promises eternally by having married couples sealed by proxy.

[omni]

Before God yes.  Between them no.  There is something to be said for the promises they make to each other.  But in the eyes of God this is not marriage as he created.

He would still view these as legitimate marriages (although according to Mormon doctrine not the highest form of marriage), or else all non-temple married couples would essentially be living in sin. How would a civilly married couple ever qualify for a TR if they weren't already viewed as married in the eyes of God?

[carbon dioxide]

So you view the marriages of your non-Mormon friends and family as having no more significance than getting a license at the DMV?

If I could have been sealed to my wife without getting a marriage license from the state, I would have done so.  I think it is offensive that people need permission from the government to get married. I really don't even know where my marriage license is in the house and I really don't care.  If all a person has availiable to them is a civil marriage that is one thing but when it comes to temple sealing, the civil marriage part is way done on the list.  To require a civil marriage before a temple sealing puts too much emphasis or priority on the civil part and degrades the temple sealing as it places the civil part first.