Why is there a 1 year waiting period to get a temple sealing after civil marriage?

[salgare]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not painful to me in the slightest. I rather enjoyed my experience in the military. 8-5 five days a week; Worked in an air conditioned office. Drove my car to my off base apartment every week day evening; Saturdays and Sundays off; Made Sgt in record time. Met some of the nicest people around. Used the GI Bill to further my education.

You missed the point, its the Church that has the culture where you felt guilty with my even mentioning it (and knowing nothing about you) and you felt you had to explain to me how you did the culturally acceptable alternative to a mission, the military.  So check that one off, that requirement for Exaltation is covered for you just fine.

Still in that early adolescent stage I see. if you're insubordinate in civilian life you'll get fired from your job. Heck I was a C.O.O of medium sized company. I'd fire you if you were insubordinate to me. I have no fear of being out of line. I'm far from perfect but I like being the person I've become. I honestly believe this Church is God's only one true and living Church on the face of the earth.

Sure, but the Church stacks eternal consequences on the insubordination.  Not only do I get fired from the mortal organization, I'm separated from my family through out all eternity.

Since you chose the consequences what the heck are you complaining about? I don't care much for the the taste of coffee so it was no sacrifice to me to not drink it. Tobacco makes me gag. No sacrifice there. I value my leaders opinions and idea's on many subjects. Why shouldn't I respect and honor them? 

I'm not complaining about the consequences, I'm saying the eternal consequences don't exist.  Only a cruel and immoral God would inflict such severe punishments for such trivial non-sinful acts.  

I see nothing wrong with obedience. It is just your childish idea that actions shouldn't have consequences.

It is just your childish belief that such severe consequences could possible follow trivial non-sinful acts.

Edited January 18, 2016 by salgare

[Gillebre]

Let me ask you this. Humor me if you will. The day comes for final judgment, Christ is there, and you discover that everything the Church stood for was true (including the direction the Prophets took it). It goes against everything you had come to believe in your life about what is fair. You realize that the God standing before you is that same "cruel and immoral" one you vilify right now. Would you choose to stay with Him knowing that you hate everything about the Church that bore His name on earth? Could you tolerate that for eternity? Or would you rather be somewhere else where you aren't reminded forever of the One you hate.

I'm convinced that people at the final judgment will send themselves away, rather than being exiled by Christ. They will find it intolerable to abide where He is, which would in fact be a worse hell for them than living outside His presence.

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, salgare said:

You missed the point, its the Church that has the culture where you felt guilty with my even mentioning it (and knowing nothing about you) and you felt you had to explain to me how you did the culturally acceptable alternative to a mission, the military.  So check that one off, that requirement for Exaltation is covered for you just fine.

Still in that early adolescent stage I see. if you're insubordinate in civilian life you'll get fired from your job. Heck I was a C.O.O of medium sized company. I'd fire you if you were insubordinate to me. I have no fear of being out of line. I'm far from perfect but I like being the person I've become. I honestly believe this Church is God's only one true and living Church on the face of the earth.

Sure, but the Church stacks eternal consequences on the insubordination.  Not only do I get fired from the mortal organization, I'm separated from my family through out all eternity.

Since you chose the consequences what the heck are you complaining about? I don't care much for the the taste of coffee so it was no sacrifice to me to not drink it. Tobacco makes me gag. No sacrifice there. I value my leaders opinions and idea's on many subjects. Why shouldn't I respect and honor them? 

I'm not complaining about the consequences, I'm saying the eternal consequences don't exist.  Only a cruel and immoral God would inflict such severe punishments for such trivial non-sinful acts.  

I see nothing wrong with obedience. It is just your childish idea that actions shouldn't have consequences.

It is just your childish belief that such severe consequences could possible follow trivial non-sinful acts.

No guilt on my part. It was the better of two options. Stay and be drafted or join the military and have some say. Serving a Mission for the Church at that time wasn't a viable option. Brand new to the Church, only member in my family.

Since you obviously don't believe what the Church teaches. What is your complaint? That you won't get what you don't want?

If they don't exist what is your complaint? You get exactly what you wanted. Nothing.

If consequences don't exist what is your complaint? You get exactly what you wanted. Nothing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

My two-month old didn't.

You are right. Children under the age of 8 don't need recommends since they have not yet reached the 'age of accountability' (though you will have been required to take a family group sheet proving her/his relationship to you). Those 8 and older require recommends, boys who are 12 or older must hold the Aaronic Priesthood, and children who are 21 or older or who are married must have been endowed.

Additional requirements exist for children witnessing the sealings to parents of brothers and sisters: 'If children do not live the majority of the time in the same house as those being sealed, First Presidency approval is required for them to observe the sealing'.

Has anyone mentioned yet that children being sealed to parents don't actually witness the sealing of their parents?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[salgare]

9 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

Let me ask you this. Humor me if you will. The day comes for final judgment, Christ is there, and you discover that everything the Church stood for was true (including the direction the Prophets took it). It goes against everything you had come to believe in your life about what is fair. You realize that the God standing before you is that same "cruel and immoral" one you vilify right now. Would you choose to stay with Him knowing that you hate everything about the Church that bore His name on earth? Could you tolerate that for eternity? Or would you rather be somewhere else where you aren't reminded forever of the One you hate.

I'm convinced that people at the final judgment will send themselves away, rather than being exiled by Christ. They will find it intolerable to abide where He is, which would in fact be a worse hell for them than living outside His presence.

I'm a father and a grandfather.  I've been married one time, been 35 years now.  I'm not a perfect father like my Father in Heaven, and yet I know of my love for my wife and posterity.  You can give me slightly altered Pascal's wagers all day long and it does not change the fact that it would be impossible for a loving Father to ever put his children in such a situation.  This is your fear, this is your indoctrination.  It simply is not reality.

But this is all so grand scale, let's stick within the scope of the OP for a minute.  You have an organization that has a policy that forces members and non-members alike into decisions that cause hurt relationships within family and friend circles, FOR NO GOOD REASON.  It is a cult that seeks to separate insiders from outsiders for elitist insider indoctrination.  This policy has hurt thousands of people, for what? control? money?

No one in the thread seems to want to give any reason for such a brutal policy.  And of course the leaders are silent on the issue.

[salgare]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No guilt on my part. It was the better of two options. Stay and be drafted or join the military and have some say. Serving a Mission for the Church at that time wasn't a viable option. Brand new to the Church, only member in my family.

Since you obviously don't believe what the Church teaches. What is your complaint? That you won't get what you don't want?

If they don't exist what is your complaint? You get exactly what you wanted. Nothing.

If consequences don't exist what is your complaint? You get exactly what you wanted. Nothing.

My posterity is into their eyeballs with it.  Just like the immoral actions of leaving the unworthy in the parking lot, they have left loving family with nothing but the hopes of freeing the enslaved from such an overboard authoritarian organization

When my posterity is out, I can rest and leave it be.

[Gillebre]

You want to know a reason? I can only give you my own belief about it.

I believe that God has always expected us to be willing to put Him first as part of coming to earth and living a mortal life. Can we choose Him over all other considerations at the end of the day? That's the question to which our life is the answer. Throughout the Bible Jesus is quoted several times talking about the concept of complete obedience to God's commandments even to the sacrificing of all earthly possessions, relationships, and concerns. Do you disagree that anyone could find examples of such teachings in the Bible? 

To me I see this policy as one way that we show a growing commitment to His teachings over other distracting concerns. Of course we are never perfect, and we can always repent and turn back to Him. Does the Church say to not love your family? Not at all. It says to love God first, and everything else will come together. That's my understanding anyway.

The policy is a means of showing who cares more about what God thinks than their own family. It's a true test of faith because who doesn't love their family? To paint it in the light of the Church versus your family is to set the stage for perpetual misunderstanding. This is about caring more about God than anything, and no one is saying it's supposed to be easy. No one is trying to devalue the worth of your family to you or anyone else that struggles with this policy. It's simply a matter of not misunderstanding what it's really about: can we be faithful to His teachings even in the face of social pressure to do otherwise?

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, salgare said:

My posterity is into their eyeballs with it.  Just like the immoral actions of leaving the unworthy in the parking lot, they have left loving family with nothing but the hopes of freeing the enslaved from such an overboard authoritarian organization

When my posterity is out, I can rest and leave it be.

Mine aren't, sorry about yours.

What is immoral about allowing someone something they worked so hard at getting?

I don't find the Church as authoritarian at all. If you want the rewards do the work. If you don't want the rewards what's your complaint?

[salgare]

9 minutes ago, Gillebre said:

The policy is a means of showing who cares more about what God thinks than their own family. It's a true test of faith because who doesn't love their family? To paint it in the light of the Church versus your family is to set the stage for perpetual misunderstanding. This is about caring more about God than anything, and no one is saying it's supposed to be easy. No one is trying to devalue the worth of your family to you or anyone else that struggles with this policy. It's simply a matter of not misunderstanding what it's really about: can we be faithful to His teachings even in the face of social pressure to do otherwise?

So you are convinced that God instructed the leaders to start and to continue this policy for the purpose of a test for one's love of the Father?

Once again my experience is that it would be unthinkable for me as a father to give a dictate to one of my children that they need to exclude their mother or siblings from life events for no other reason than to show their love for me.

Sorry Gillerbre that would be an immoral act.  I'm looking for a GOOD reason (i.e. not evil/corrupt fruit)

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, salgare said:

When my posterity is out, I can rest and leave it be.

Well, you have certainly set yourself a task there.

[salgare]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Mine aren't, sorry about yours.

What is immoral about allowing someone something they worked so hard at getting?

I don't find the Church as authoritarian at all. If you want the rewards do the work. If you don't want the rewards what's your complaint?

wow

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, salgare said:

Once again my experience is that it would be unthinkable for me as a father to give a dictate to one of my children that they need to exclude their mother or siblings from life events for no other reason than to show their love for me.

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"

Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/12.htm

So was Jesus wrong?

[salgare]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Well, you have certainly set yourself a task there.

Two are stuck like thousands of other NOM's who fear divorce etc. from TBM spouses.  I'm sure you know some of whom I speak right?

 

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"

Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/12.htm

So was Jesus wrong?

So you are also convinced that this is God's will and the policy is in place as a test of love?

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, salgare said:

So you are convinced that God instructed the leaders to start and to continue this policy for the purpose of a test for one's love of the Father?

Once again my experience is that it would be unthinkable for me as a father to give a dictate to one of my children that they need to exclude their mother or siblings from life events for no other reason than to show their love for me.

Sorry Gillerbre that would be an immoral act.  I'm looking for a GOOD reason (i.e. not evil/corrupt fruit)

SEE Matthew 10-37

SEE Luke 14:26

SEE Matthew 10:29

[Calm]

Just now, salgare said:

So you are also convinced that this is God's will and the policy is in place as a test of love?

I am asking you if you agree or disagree with Jesus as described in that scripture.  Please answer this.

[busybee]

4 hours ago, salgare said:

 

My God "gives me all the goodies" without asinine requirements with outrageous consequences for the likes of drinking coffee or not sustaining a corrupt organization.

Your God seems to be an organization that demands obedience to it above all else.

As for complaining about being deemed unworthy, its all in showing just how immoral and unjust your God is (all over a "policy" with no doctrinal backing ... see Nehor's comments upthread).

My God's better than your God na na na na. Yes I'm being juvenile. But so are you. There is only one God.

[Jeanne]

8 hours ago, busybee said:

I had a very small wedding due to lack of finances. We had a tiny reception at home of a friend just so that family that had travelled a distance didn;t starve on their way home. Literally snacks and sandwiches.

My husband was not a member at the time. He was baptized 3 months after we were married and we went to the temple when once he had been a member for a year. But my Daddy did walk me down the aisle to the traditional Wedding March  He passed away less than a year later so that is a memory I cherish.

So many daughters miss out on that.  My IMO.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

So many daughters miss out on that.  My IMO.

I don't understand why it is so important to have one's dad walk one down the aisle.  Why not one's mother?

The premise it was built on was that the daughter belonged to the father and it was his right to give her away.  The same reason why the groom asks the dad for permission to marry his daughter and not the mother.  I actually find that rather offensive myself (I understand that most do not understand it in that way, that new meaning has attached to it, but for myself the ceremony ties back to the earlier attitudes a bit too strongly to want it).  I am quite grateful it never occurred to my husband he should ask my father or mother for permission to marry me since I was not a minor at that point.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't understand why it is so important to have one's dad walk one down the aisle.  Why not one's mother?

The premise it was built on was that the daughter belonged to the father and it was his right to give her away.  The same reason why the groom asks the dad for permission to marry his daughter and not the mother.  I actually find that rather offensive myself (I understand that most do not understand it in that way, that new meaning has attached to it, but for myself the ceremony ties back to the earlier attitudes a bit too strongly to want it).  I am quite grateful it never occurred to my husband he should ask my father or mother for permission to marry me since I was not a minor at that point.

That's true too,,Cal  Father is just a tradition.  I would like to see both parents walk their child down the aisle..and even perhaps their son before he stands up there.  But..I guess I am being kind of glad I did it this way.  Both parents..(Dad and stepmother) have cancer now..and I am just glad that for all the highs and lows in our relationship, that I have a wonderful memory.  That being said..I wish Mom had took my other arm..

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That's true too,,Cal  Father is just a tradition.  I would like to see both parents walk their child down the aisle..and even perhaps their son before he stands up there.  But..I guess I am being kind of glad I did it this way.  Both parents..(Dad and stepmother) have cancer now..and I am just glad that for all the highs and lows in our relationship, that I have a wonderful memory.  That being said..I wish Mom had took my other arm..

I have no problem with others doing it and giving whatever meaning they want to it.  It just doesn't work for me and I also don't think that one should assume that daughters are missing out just because they didn't experience it.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

I'm sorry to hear you cannot accommodate for other viewpoints.

I can.  I just find that attempting dialogue with people who cannot to be futile.

Let me clarify with an illustration: I have spent the last several months in litigation with a homeowner (I'll call him "Paul") who was foreclosed on by my client  (a bank).  Having worked in foreclosure and eviction law for more than five years, I have developed a pretty thick skin and am accustomed to working with people like Paul, some of whom make some rather horrible and utterly unsupportable assumptions about me, and are either so overcome with anger and vitriol at having been foreclosed on, and/or are so lacking in basic manners, civility, and decorum, that they spew forth invectives against me.  On the phone, in writing to the court, in person in the courtroom or in the hallway, in online rants, etc.

Over time I've become accustomed to such things.  If anything I have become more patient with these types of folks.  Foreclosure of one's home is a stressful, emotional, embarrassing thing.  And it's impersonal.  These folks receive documents in the mail, and may try to communicate with the bank by phone, but for many I am the first "person" with a first and last name, an address, a phone number, a face, to communicate with directly.  By the time they get to me (usually just before or after the actual foreclosure), frustration and anxiety and embarrassment and anger can be at a fever pitch.  

I get it.  They are angry.  Some have a legitimate and material grievance (not often), and so they lash out at me.  Some have a less-than-legitimate-but-still-understandable grievance (they are being foreclosed on after having failed to make payments for quite a while, and they are simply unhappy about it), so they lash out at me (this is by far the most common).  And some are just uncouth jerks who somehow think that publicly maligning someone they hardly know, for conduct relating to a subject about which they know very little (except that they don't like it), is somehow acceptable or healthy conduct.

Nevertheless, my job is to resolve litigation (foreclosure disputes, title disputes, eviction actions, etc.) as quickly and amicably as possible.  To that end I attempt to work with these people in affecting a resolution to the legal dispute.  In doing so I sometimes have to ignore a fair amount of insults and jabs.  I am generally able to persuade these folks that I understand their predicament, that I empathize with the difficulties they are facing, but that hurling insults at me or my client is not going to be helpful in resolving the issue.  Thankfully, the vast majority of people recognize this and are able to open meaningful and relatively civil channels of communication with me, such that we can work out the legal dispute fairly quickly.

On occasion, however, I'll get someone like "Paul" mentioned above.  Paul cannot bring himself to be civil.  He cannot comprehend that I, disagreeing with him as I do about the substance of the litigation, might have a good faith basis for that disagreement.  So I am the bad guy.  The liar.  The fraudster.  He has said as much several times to the court, both in writing and in hearings where I am present.  Paul is so tied up in knots with anger about having been foreclosed on that anyone who has a different viewpoint about it is necessarily dishonest, necessarily a bad person.  He is not willing to even consider that I have been proceeding in good faith, that I have a legitimate factual and legal basis for my arguments, or that I am a basically decent person.

So Paul is, sadly, part of a small cadre of litigants who are so unreasonable, so scabbed over with animosity, that attempting to confer or communicate with them is essentially impossible.  In fact, my efforts to communicate directly with Paul have, more often than not, done more harm than good.  He has taken my overtures to open civil dialogue as a sign of weakness, as some sort of cover for nefarious tricks, or something.  Having recognized this a few months ago, I gave up attempting to communicate with him and resorted to straight-up litigation.  I conducted some investigation and discovery, responded to his efforts, then filed a motion for summary judgment, then attended a hearing at which the court found in my client's favor.

So there you have it.  I have all sorts of willingness to engage in discussion with people who disagree with me.  That's my line of work, so I'm rather comfortable with it.  And in terms of discussing the LDS Church and its doctrines and practices, I have been discussing topics such as the one in this thread in an adversarial-but-civil manner for many years now.  I can and do mess up in such discussions.  I sometimes let my temper get the better of me.  But I try hard.  And I also try to understand people whose viewpoint is markedly at odds with mine vis-à-vis the LDS Church.  This is why over time I have developed a sort of personal mantra: "Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things."

That said, there are times when I simply decline to engage a person in meaningful discussion about my faith.  My reason for doing so is not that I am afraid of examining differing opinions or points of view.  Rather, when someone is so markedly, demonstrably, expressly hostile against and/or ignorant of and/or closed-minded to me and my fellow adherents that they cannot even grant the mere possibility that we believe what we believe and do what we do based on good faith . . . well, there's not much point in attempting to enter into discussion with such a person.  I am quite willing to extend an assumption of good faith (as embodied in the above personal mantra), but if the other guy is not willing to reciprocate that assumption, then I must, as I did with Paul, withdraw from attempts at civil discourse.

I asked: "Do you think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?."  You replied: "No."  If that is what you really think, then - for the reasons set forth above - I have no interest in speaking with you.  Perhaps some day you will re-consider your position.  I honestly hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have no problem with others doing it and giving whatever meaning they want to it.  It just doesn't work for me and I also don't think that one should assume that daughters are missing out just because they didn't experience it.

Well..to me it was very special.  Perhaps not for everyone.  If a daughter has always dreamed about that..(and most little girls do)..yeah..they are missing out IMO.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Two are stuck like thousands of other NOM's who fear divorce etc. from TBM spouses.  I'm sure you know some of whom I speak right?

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know a single person who fits that description. We do have one couple in our ward, the husband of which is an unabashed apostate who attends with his faithful wife, but he isn't putting on any pretences. I can't imagine the difficulty that must accompany building a marriage, family and home on shared beliefs only to have one partner reject that foundation, but to their credit, this couple seem to have made it work for the past 20 years or so, and never once have I heard the husband speak ill of the two youngest girls' decisions to marry in the temple.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

50 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If a daughter has always dreamed about that..(and most little girls do)...

I think you may be dealing with something here that is culturally specific and then only applicable to a certain segment of that culture. Most little girls where I live don't dream about any such thing.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan