Coming Soon To A Temple Near You

[mfbukowski]

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.

Uh, I thought that one had to be "legally and lawfully wed" before one could have sex, otherwise it is a serious sin.

 

I think maybe God sanctions civil marriage a little more than you think.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Only in your mind.

 

The priority is where you decide to place it.

[carbon dioxide]

Only in your mind.

 

The priority is where you decide to place it.

Right.  I was only speaking for myself.  If one of my son gets married in the future and there is a requirement to have a civil marriage before a temple one, I will tell them to go ahead and get their civil marriage done at the courthouse but I am not taking time off work.  I will be there at the temple sealing.

[cinepro]

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? 

 

So how do you feel about the Lectures on Faith, which were part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921?

 

If the Church removed the Book of Abraham from the Pearl of Great Price, I don't think very many people would even notice, fewer would care, and within a generation, it would only be a trivial footnote in the history of the LDS canon.

Edited November 3, 2014 by cinepro

[Rock_N_Roll]

 If one of my son gets married in the future and there is a requirement to have a civil marriage before a temple one, I will tell them to go ahead and get their civil marriage done at the courthouse but I am not taking time off work.  I will be there at the temple sealing.

 

And if for some reason they decide not to marry in the temple? Will you take time off work for that? 

[Rock_N_Roll]

 

 

The priority is where you decide to place it.

 

Exactly.  With more and more couples getting divorced these days, I would even be in favor of the church requiring all couples, no matter where they live, to be married for at least two years before being sealed in the temple.  That way the temple sealing would be a more spiritual matter, where the entire focus of the day would be on that ordinance alone. It would be something they could look forward to without all the pressures of wedding cakes, colors of dresses, decorations, receptions, honeymoon jitters, mothers-in-law, etc. With most LDS temple weddings I've attended - including my own - it seems the temple sealing is only a small part of the preparation, cost, and overall focus of the day.  Maybe there would be less divorce among temple sealed couples if they had to wait a few years before getting sealed?  - maybe not, but I believe it would hold more meaning. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Rock_N_Roll

[Raingirl]

Exactly.  With more and more couples getting divorced these days, I would even be in favor of the church requiring all couples, no matter where they live, to be married for at least two years before being sealed in the temple.  That way the temple sealing would be a more spiritual matter, where the entire focus of the day would be on that ordinance alone. It would be something they could look forward to without all the pressures of wedding cakes, colors of dresses, decorations, receptions, honeymoon jitters, mothers-in-law, etc. With most LDS temple weddings I've attended - including my own - it seems the temple sealing is only a small part of the preparation, cost, and overall focus of the day.  Maybe there would be less divorce among temple sealed couples if they had to wait a few years before getting sealed?  - maybe not, but I believe it would hold more meaning.

So the church should follow the ways of the world in their approach to marriage? Try it out, see if you like it/her/him and then a few years down the line - if everything is as you like it - then get married? Why even bother with the civil part if you can't/won't actually commit?

As for "pressures of wedding cakes, etc.", the only pressures there are self-inflicted. None of that is necessary to being married.

If the sealing is "only a small part" of the focus of the day that is the fault of the participants who are making it thus because they are focusing on the wrong things. They have only themselves to blame.

[Rock_N_Roll]

So the church should follow the ways of the world in their approach to marriage? Try it out, see if you like it/her/him and then a few years down the line - if everything is as you like it - then get married? Why even bother with the civil part if you can't/won't actually commit?

As for "pressures of wedding cakes, etc.", the only pressures there are self-inflicted. None of that is necessary to being married.

If the sealing is "only a small part" of the focus of the day that is the fault of the participants who are making it thus because they are focusing on the wrong things. They have only themselves to blame.

 

No.  I didn't say wait 2 years to get married.  I said wait 2 years to be "sealed".  Two separate things.   We don't give new, adult converts the priesthood the day they are baptized. Why not? You are correct, none of those things are "necessary" for a marriage, but an LDS temple wedding without those things are so rare in my neck of the woods, I don't think I've even heard of one.  Although I don't doubt they exist.  Yes, it is the fault of the participants that they are focused on much more than the just the temple sealing on their wedding day.  But do you blame them?  Wedding receptions, and all that go with them are big business, even in my, highly LDS community. 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Rock_N_Roll

[Raingirl]

No.  I didn't say wait 2 years to get married.  I said wait 2 years to be "sealed".  Two separate things.   We don't give new, adult converts the priesthood the day they are baptized. Why not? You are correct, none of those things are "necessary" for a marriage, but an LDS temple wedding without those things are so rare in my neck of the woods, I don't think I've even heard of one.  Although I don't doubt they exist.  Yes, it is the fault of the participants that they are focused on much more than the just the temple sealing on their wedding day.  But do you blame them?  Wedding receptions, and all that go with them are big business, even in my, highly LDS community.

Well, yes, I do "blame" them. If you use your free agency to put the emphasis on cakes and receptions and dresses and flowers and other such unnecessary items, then the blame - or responsibility - rests squarely on your shoulders. You can't claim it's someone else's fault.

It's unfortunate that you and others in your neck of the woods put little importance on a temple wedding. But again, that is your's - and their's choice.

If you are not ready to make a real commitment, be it a civil wedding or a religious one, then don't get married. Easy to do.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Well, yes, I do "blame" them. If you use your free agency to put the emphasis on cakes and receptions and dresses and flowers and other such unnecessary items, then the blame - or responsibility - rests squarely on your shoulders. You can't claim it's someone else's fault.

It's unfortunate that you and others in your neck of the woods put little importance on a temple wedding. But again, that is your's - and their's choice.

If you are not ready to make a real commitment, be it a civil wedding or a religious one, then don't get married. Easy to do.

 

You really like to put words in my mouth, don't you?  I never said we "put little importance on temple weddings".  I'm just saying that it's easy to be distracted on that important day by all of the other things going on.  I was both married and sealed in the temple on the same day.  It would have been nice if I could have focused solely on the temple sealing that day and not so much on all of the other "wedding" niceties.  And it is obvious that you still don't understand that a marriage and a sealing are two different things. Did you have a temple marriage and sealing on the same day, and forgo the wedding cake, the decorations, the maid of honor dresses, etc. so you could fully appreciate and concentrate on the sealing ordinance?

Edited November 3, 2014 by Rock_N_Roll

[ksfisher]

So how do you feel about the Lectures on Faith, which were part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921?

 

If the Church removed the Book of Abraham from the Pearl of Great Price, I don't think very many people would even notice, fewer would care, and within a generation, it would only be a trivial footnote in the history of the LDS canon.

 

Did the Lectures on Faith ever claim to have to have been given by revelation or translated by a seer?  I think people would notice and a great many would care.

[shinedown]

As a new member, I find this fascinating.  I know that I will never be sealed in the temple, which saddens me greatly.  At the same time though, I can see how such a change could be a good thing overall. 

[JLHPROF]

As a new member, I find this fascinating.  I know that I will never be sealed in the temple, which saddens me greatly.  At the same time though, I can see how such a change could be a good thing overall. 

 

I don't mean to pry, and feel free to tell me to mind my own business, but why would you say you "will never be sealed in the temple".  The blessings are available to pretty much every member if they will repent of their sins and prepare accordingly.

 

Oh, and welcome!

Edited November 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

So how do you feel about the Lectures on Faith, which were part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921?

 

If the Church removed the Book of Abraham from the Pearl of Great Price, I don't think very many people would even notice, fewer would care, and within a generation, it would only be a trivial footnote in the history of the LDS canon.

 

As to the last couple of LoF - I believe them to be truly inspired. The first few read very differently, and come across as a catechism.

 

And as much as it pains me to agree with you, I think if the Church removed the Book of Abraham from canon/scripture that nobody would notice or care within 1 generation.

[USU78]

As a new member, I find this fascinating.  I know that I will never be sealed in the temple, which saddens me greatly.  At the same time though, I can see how such a change could be a good thing overall. 

 

Today is not forever, so . . . never say never.

[shinedown]

Today is not forever, so . . . never say never.

 

The church would have to change it's policies towards SSMn (since I'm a lesbian) for me to be able to get sealed in the temple.  Until that happens, I'll be content living a life of chastity.

[cinepro]

Did the Lectures on Faith ever claim to have to have been given by revelation or translated by a seer?  I think people would notice and a great many would care.

Just to be clear, the School of Prophets was established by revelation, and Joseph Smith taught there. The Lectures were published in the Church's official newspaper under the following heading:

 

THEOLOGY.

LECTURE FIRST

On the doctrine of the church of the

Latter Day Saints.

Of Faith.

Whether more people care about the Book of Abraham than the LoF, I don't know.