Temple wedding policies

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I disagree with TSS if this is what he means.  Baptism is, I believe, the only required ritual to be ritually pure here in mortality.  Otherwise no member could ever go to the temple as they would be ritually unclean before receiving Temple ordinances.

Plus women and men were not given Temple ordinances until they were missionaries or married or to be married except for rare occasions in the past and there was never any teaching I have come across suggesting that such meant they were somehow less "clean" than those who had attended the Temple.

And one can certainly be morally clean and have clean thoughts etc, outside of being ritually clean through baptism and the sacrament.

Good points.  I will just add that the Endowment theology started in early Mormonism specifically tied to missionary work.  You can find its roots in the NT in Luke and Joseph expanded on this concept from the early 1830s continuing through the Kirtland temple dedication and after.  The Endowment was to give missionaries power to do missionary work specifically.  This tradition has evolved some in our current day with respect to how its viewed and administered.  

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But you would have to first prove that it was a punishment and not a consequence of sin before you could call it punitive.  

If both bride and groom are worthy temple recommend holders who are ready for a temple sealing but have to wait for a year for the sole reason that they decided to have a civil wedding for the benefit of non-LDS loved ones - that is punitive.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

That was regarding whether or not members choose to have a lavish, expensive reception after the sealing (which many do).  

I actually believe it's crazy what people spend on weddings and receptions!  I always think of what the young couple could do with that money towards starting their life together (school, housing, etc.).

But again, it is their choice.

ETA:

I actually know people in our ward where the Dad offered to give his daughters the amount a fancy reception would cost or they could still have a lavish reception.  He has 2 married daughters and one opted to take the money (they added it to their savings and bought a house).  The other one wanted the expensive reception. The first one still had a reception but it was in the cultural hall and just served wedding cake and punch.   I actually liked this reception better than the fancy sit down dinner one! 

If that's what you mean, I accept your clarification.

It's just that I recall from your response to mn, who talked about himself and his bride converting to the Church in young adulthood and eschewing the traditional kind of wedding and all it entails, including a ceremony, for a temple marriage as a demonstration of their faith and devotion. I thought it was then that you emphasized the matter of choice.

Edited to add:

This is from your post:

Quote

I think what mnn and his wife chose to do is great.  Simple can be beautiful and meaningful. I actually prefer small and simple too.   But, the key word here is "chose".

True, it was after that comment that you mentioned receptions. But the context of your statement was mnn and his wife choosing  a temple marriage over a secular or sectarian one.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mnn727]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, good, we've come full circle on the strawman. 

How do you figure that from my post?

[mnn727]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Crocodile tears?  The more I participate in this thread the more I feel like those who support the 1-year wait policy don't actually understand the concern of those who are opposed to it.

The more I participate the more I see people do not understand the Temple and its various ceremonies including Celestial Marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If both bride and groom are worthy temple recommend holders who are ready for a temple sealing but have to wait for a year for the sole reason that they decided to have a civil wedding for the benefit of non-LDS loved ones - that is punitive.

I'd call it a consequence of choice. All choices have consequences.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm recalling your exchange on this thread with Hamba, wherein you said something to the effect that non-Mormon family members "are  not dense" and that they will want the wedding ceremony they attend to be the real deal, valid in the eyes of the state, all legal and legit, etc. It seems to me that it's not much of a jump from there to have family members demanding that the Mormon couple have all the trappings of a traditional secular or sectarian wedding: marching down the aisle, giving away of the bride, the flowery exchange of vows, the whole 9 yards. The prospect seems fraught with the very things I believe the Brethren would want to avoid.

Wanting to see your child married and wanting a lavish ceremony are two separate things.  Are we so worried as a church about people not valuing the temple sealing that we need to impose a punishment that hurts non-LDS loved ones?

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points.  I will just add that the Endowment theology started in early Mormonism specifically tied to missionary work.  You can find its roots in the NT in Luke and Joseph expanded on this concept from the early 1830s continuing through the Kirtland temple dedication and after.  The Endowment was to give missionaries power to do missionary work specifically.  This tradition has evolved some in our current day with respect to how its viewed and administered.  

Also LDS doctrine is baptism is the only required ordinance required at this time to enter the Celestial Kingdom, which would be in the presence of God.  Temple ordinances are necessary for exaltation, which is eternal life and being fully one with God, but that is different than being in his presence.

"They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized, … that by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit.” These are they who overcome the world by their faith. They are just and true so that the Holy Ghost can seal their blessings upon them. (See D&C 76:51–53.) Those who inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, who become gods, must also have been married for eternity in the temple (see D&C 131:1–4). All who inherit the celestial kingdom will live with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ forever (see D&C 76:62)."

Edited May 16, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'd call it a consequence of choice. All choices have consequences.

Yes.  And this one appears to be a man-made consequence, not something that has any basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Speaking generally, the need for repentance for sin is not about punishment.  Consequences are not automatically punitive just because they can seem negative or difficult to bear or they cause pain.

It's the difference between the negative consequences being caused by the sin and the negative consequences being put in place because of the sin.  

Telling someone not to move, and then them doing so and falling and getting hurt is a painful consequence of disobedience but it's not punitive.  Telling someone not to move or you will throw them to the ground is also a painful consequence of disobedience but it is punitive as well.  

obviously what we're discussing is a case of the latter rather than former.  So it sounds like we're in agreement. 

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In the absence of any doctrinal support for the policy - we continue to have posters here create strawmen so that they have something to argue against.

My question still stands, other than "the Brethren said so" what is the doctrinal support for this one-year wait policy?

If you've been through a Temple Sealing, you would know the answer to your question - I won't post Temple content though.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

If you've been through a Temple Sealing, you would know the answer to your question - I won't post Temple content though.

I don't recall the temple ceremony providing any doctrinal support for a one-year waiting policy.  But I'll listen for it next time I go.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  And this one appears to be a man-made consequence, not something that has any basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I quite earnestly disagree.

But we've been over this.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are we so worried as a church about people not valuing the temple sealing that we need to impose a punishment that hurts non-LDS loved ones?

Could you help clarify your position here? Does the "punishment" hurt non-LDS loved ones or the couple? Kinda seems like you want to have it both ways. 

Note on my perspective. I was raised in a very orthodox family. Of the five of us children, two have been married civilly first and waited for their Sealing. My wife's parents are not active members and were not able to attend our marriage. She was adamant that we not have any ring ceremony because she had told her parents for years that she would be getting married in the temple and asked them to be ready to be there with her, and they chose not to. On the other hand, her sister did choose to have a ring ceremony after their Sealing. So this is not just a hypothetical situation for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wanting to see your child married and wanting a lavish ceremony are two separate things.  Are we so worried as a church about people not valuing the temple sealing that we need to impose a punishment that hurts non-LDS loved ones?

I will leave it up to the Brethren to make that determination. It's their call, after all.

 

[Calm]

For some reason the link didn't come through for the above, 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If both bride and groom are worthy temple recommend holders who are ready for a temple sealing but have to wait for a year for the sole reason that they decided to have a civil wedding for the benefit of non-LDS loved ones - that is punitive.

I disagree.

If someone purposefully chooses to reject a blessing from God in favor of embracing something else, it is not unreasonable to interpret that as a sign that they are not yet worthy of that blessing.  The period of time it takes to get worthy of it would be a consequence of the unworthiness and not a punishment for it.  Therefore, not punitive.  

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Could you help clarify your position here? Does the "punishment" hurt non-LDS loved ones or the couple? Kinda seems like you want to have it both ways. 

Note on my perspective. I was raised in a very orthodox family. Of the five of us children, two have been married civilly first and waited for their Sealing. My wife's parents are not active members and were not able to attend our marriage. She was adamant that we not have any ring ceremony because she had told her parents for years that she would be getting married in the temple and asked them to be ready to be there with her, and they chose not to. On the other hand, her sister did choose to have a ring ceremony after their Sealing. So this is not just a hypothetical situation for me.

I'm not looking to have it both ways - not sure what you mean by that.

The punishment either hurts the couple (they have to wait a year to be sealed) or the non-LDS loved ones who are denied the opportunity to see their child/sibling/grandchild/etc get married.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will leave it up to the Brethren to make that determination. It's their call, after all.

 

Yeah -- wouldn't want to answer a tough question.

[mnn727]

Here is your doctrinal basis.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 12:

⁴⁸ But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

⁴⁹ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

⁵⁰ But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

⁵¹ Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

⁵² For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

⁵³ The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.

If someone purposefully chooses to reject a blessing from God in favor of embracing something else, it is not unreasonable to interpret that as a sign that they are not yet worthy of that blessing.  The period of time it takes to get worthy of it would be a consequence of the unworthiness and not a punishment for it.  Therefore, not punitive.  

They aren't choosing to reject a blessing from God.  They are being told, by a policy, that they must choose between honoring family and having the sealing when they are married.

[rockpond]

Just now, mnn727 said:

Here is your doctrinal basis.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 12:

⁴⁸ But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

⁴⁹ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

⁵⁰ But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

⁵¹ Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

⁵² For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

⁵³ The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

That's not a doctrinal basis for the policy.  It is the policy itself that has created the need for a child to choose between father/mother and the temple sealing.

[MiserereNobis]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't ever remember that term being used in that way (nonmembers are unclean)  At best, it is an interpretation from scripture.  Other scriptures would suggest we are all unclean and must continually repent to become clean.  Baptism as far as I am aware is the only ordinance that we speak of washing our sins away, but that is only in conjunction with continuing repentance to stay in that state.

There are other uses of "unclean" that might have members in that category and nonmembers "clean", such as unclean thoughts.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/clean-and-unclean?lang=eng

"Uncleanness referred to being ceremonially or ritually unclean and should not be taken to mean that the touching of a dead body or the bearing of children was morally evil. These regulations (except the prohibition against blood, which was given as early as Noah’s day) were introduced in the law of carnal commandments (of performances and ordinances) of the law of Moses; being fulfilled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, they are no longer required of the believers. See Mark 7:15–23; Acts 10:9–16, 28; 15:29; 1 Tim. 4:4; 2 Ne. 25:24–27; Mosiah 13:29–32."

A talk by an apostle that in my view presents the typical context of how LDS speak of "unclean" in terms of our faith:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/04/washed-clean?lang=eng

 

Thanks.  That talk made sense to me; it's the way I think most Christians think of unclean.

[mnn727]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What do we do with those whom we can't identify because there are no records?  Those who have lived and died and have left no surviving record? 

All will be revealed during the millennial reign of Christ.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't recall the temple ceremony providing any doctrinal support for a one-year waiting policy.  But I'll listen for it next time I go.

I would not say there is any direct "doctrinal" support for it that you would find in the scriptures; but there is inspired direction on the policy that has come from church leaders.
Perhaps this scripture might apply:
"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."  (D&C 68: 4) 

If a policy remains in place we have to assume it is the will of the Lord until Church leaders are inspired to make a change when God feels we are ready for it.