Temple wedding policies

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But you (and others) are saying that the policy justifies the policy.  It's circular.  The question is:  Why does the policy need to exist?  If the answer is because the policy forces a choice that determines worthiness than you've just gone into circular logic.

I've said before why it seems like the policy exists (based on the 1960s handbook quote).

It appears that the brethren believe that God cares if a couple, having the choice (which not all do), chooses to put the civil ceremony a head of the temple sealing. It appears that the brethren see such a choice as a sign that something is amiss in the spiritual life/understanding of the couple that needs to be rectified before they can claim that blessing.

With those beliefs in mind, it seems clear that the policy doesn't force the choice.  God's condemnation of choosing to give a civil ceremony precedence over the temple ceremony is what forces the choice.  The policy exists to support what the brethren believe is God's will.

I'm not sure how that is circular logic. 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, most here have said that they would support a policy change.  Which makes me wonder how it is that the policy is a determiner of temple readiness/worthiness but could just as easily be removed.

I can think of three possible reasons off of the top of my head-

1) The brethren learn that the policy does not support God's will (they receive further light and knowledge which changes their understanding of how God had wanted the church to achieve His goals on this topic).

2) The policy use to fulfill the goals that God had asked the Brethren to fulfill but no longer does because of changing society/culture so God gives new direction to keep the church moving in His desired direction.

3) The policy is a form of higher law that people are struggling to keep so God allows a lesser law out of mercy and His love for us.  

Edited May 24, 2017 by bluebell

[rongo]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Regarding the bold part above, we aren't talking about couples who are choosing civil marriage over a temple sealing.

At that moment, they are. When they must choose between the two (like in the U.S.). Even if they have their eye on a sealing a year or more down the road, they are choosing to not be sealed at that time and to instead, be civilly married. 

Nobody is saying that these people are choosing civil over sealing as the "ultimate winner." They are making a choice (yes, because of the policy --- I acknowledge the argument that they wouldn't have to make the choice if the Church would just cry uncle on the policy) at that time that, because of the policy, will result in them needing to wait for a year or longer.

How are they not choosing civil marriage over a temple sealing at that time? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think the easiest way to determine if the policy is justified, is to place yourself in the following scenario: Assume tomorrow the FP changes the policy and allows temple sealings following a civil marriage without commenting as to why the change. 

Now let's assume your spouse to be's parents are not members and have expressed a strong desire to see their child married. Would you still shun a civil marriage?

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've said before why it seems like the policy exists (based on the 1960s handbook quote).

It appears that the brethren believe that God cares if a couple, having the choice (which not all do), chooses to put the civil ceremony a head of the temple sealing. It appears that the brethren see such a choice as a sign that something is amiss in the spiritual life/understanding of the couple that needs to be rectified before they can claim that blessing.

With those beliefs in mind, it seems clear that the policy doesn't force the choice.  God's condemnation of choosing to give a civil ceremony precedence over the temple ceremony is what forces the choice.  The policy exists to support what the brethren believe is God's will.

I'm not sure how that is circular logic. 

The manual said:  "Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage...and afterward desire a sealing..."

That quote does not address the case where a couple desires a civil marriage and a temple sealing at the same time. 

What you've provided from the manual almost makes me think that the original intent of the policy has been transformed to something else.  It's as if the original policy was to tell couples:  if you, of your own choosing, refuse a temple marriage and then afterward decide you want to be sealed, you need to wait a year. 

That is different than a couple choosing both a civil wedding AND a temple sealing.  Not refusing the temple sealing. 

The only thing making them choose one over the other is the policy itself.  So you can't justify the policy by saying that the couple is choosing a civil wedding over a temple sealing because it is the policy forcing the choice. That's the circular logic. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

At that moment, they are. When they must choose between the two (like in the U.S.). Even if they have their eye on a sealing a year or more down the road, they are choosing to not be sealed at that time and to instead, be civilly married. 

Nobody is saying that these people are choosing civil over sealing as the "ultimate winner." They are making a choice (yes, because of the policy --- I acknowledge the argument that they wouldn't have to make the choice if the Church would just cry uncle on the policy) at that time that, because of the policy, will result in them needing to wait for a year or longer.

How are they not choosing civil marriage over a temple sealing at that time? 

The policy is forcing the choice. You are using a choice created by the policy to justify the policy's existence. Circular. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Assume tomorrow the FP changes the policy and allows temple sealings following a civil marriage without commenting as to why the change. 

Now let's assume your spouse to be's parents are not members and have expressed a strong desire to see their child married. Would you still shun a civil marriage?

For the record: yes. Though I would need to petition the Lord with my spouse-to-be to be certain.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

Well, where to begin with this?  Scott, I am not attempting to manipulate anything or anyone.  I am not motivated by a desire to "shut down" the conversation.  In fact, I was trying to add to the discussion by expressing my own opinion based on my personal anecdote.

Since I am the sole expert on what is going on in my head, I am going to kindly ask you to allow me that little bit of control over my own narrative rather than attribute ill intent to my post(s).  Since there is a discussion going on, and all are free to share whatever opinion they have formed, I decided to open up just a little and share an opinion I had formed as a direct result of my personal experience.  Apparently, I made the mistake of sharing something personal on the Internet, where I should have known people rarely have the self-control to accept a comment at its face value and, instead, try to read between every possible line.  In your zeal to defend every perceived slight to your interpretation of the world, the Church, and its doctrines, you seem to have forgotten the weightier matter; namely, that there is a real person on the other end of the message with real experiences and real feelings.  And, Scott, let me assure you that the guilt I feel for how I treated my dad is real and sometimes overwhelming.

You are under no obligation, ever, to respond to anything I say.  Moreover, I respect your right to your opinion and would hope that you would respect my right to mine.  I simply shared my own experience in hope that it might provide some insight into how at least one person feels impacted by this policy.  No other motive, Scott.  None.

You are entitled to contribute to the discussion as you see fit. I've not said otherwise. 

But nothing in my response post pertained to you personally, your dad or your personal circumstances. And nothing in it warranted your lashing out at me in sarcastic indignation. That was quite out of the blue and was what made me wonder about your motive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the easiest way to determine if the policy is justified, is to place yourself in the following scenario: Assume tomorrow the FP changes the policy and allows temple sealings following a civil marriage without commenting as to why the change. 

Now let's assume your spouse to be's parents are not members and have expressed a strong desire to see their child married. Would you still shun a civil marriage?

If I may, I shall propose a counter litmus test to the above for those clamoring for the policy to be relaxed.

Suppose Church leaders were to affirm tomorrow that the policy with respect to choosing a civil ceremony and thereafter having to wait a year for a temple sealing is the will of God, has always been and would continue so for the foreseeable future. Would the clamorers accept that assurance?

My guess is no. My guess is there would be a hue and a cry the like of which has not been seen since a year ago last November. We've seen the typical reaction when Church leaders buck the trend in secular attitudes. 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

The policy is forcing the choice. You are using a choice created by the policy to justify the policy's existence. Circular. 

Nowhere have I done that. I was merely pointing out that people in the U.S. who choose civil marriage over sealing when they could have been sealed are . . . choosing civil marriage over sealing.

I didn't get into the justification for the policy at all. You seemed bound and determined to accuse everyone and anyone of circular reasoning, even when they haven't addressed that at all.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So "disappointed" he lashed out with sarcasm when I endeavored to continue the conversation on an academic, non-personal level.

 

It's always good to see someone vulnerably telling their story and then afterward post something that is dismissive to the story told.  And it really helps if after being called on it to claim you were trying to be academic and non-personal.   
Oh wait....not it's not. 

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As already said, your disagreement is not  conclusive about whether or not there were indeed good reasons given.

Your disagreement is not conclusive about whether or not there were indeed good reasons given.  There weren't in my estimation.  When I've pointed out the reasons given and have explained why they aren't good, or useful, I get nothing in response.  So, there's really nothing to make of this.  You disagree...oh well.  Why you disagree?  Beats me.  You won't support the reasons with an explanation. 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

It's always good to see someone vulnerably telling their story and then afterward post something that is dismissive to the story told.  And it really helps if after being called on it to claim you were trying to be academic and non-personal.   
Oh wait....not it's not. 

 

I usually know what to expect from various posters on this board but the rudeness around a personal story like that is pretty shocking/disheartening.

As I've been reading over a few different threads over the last 20 minutes I've been surprised by the utter rudeness of many "faithful" posters who, by their claims of faithfulness & belief, profess to be better followers of Christ than the rest of us. Some day these very people will recognize that there method of harsh/rude communication accomplishes the exact opposite of what they profess to be attempting.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

The manual said:  "Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage...and afterward desire a sealing..."

That quote does not address the case where a couple desires a civil marriage and a temple sealing at the same time. 

What you've provided from the manual almost makes me think that the original intent of the policy has been transformed to something else.  It's as if the original policy was to tell couples:  if you, of your own choosing, refuse a temple marriage and then afterward decide you want to be sealed, you need to wait a year. 

That is different than a couple choosing both a civil wedding AND a temple sealing.  Not refusing the temple sealing. 

 

That's because the couple can't have the civil marriage and the sealing on the same day.  If they choose a civil marriage, they are deliberately refusing a temple marriage.  There is no reason to address something that's not possible because the brethren seem to believe that God doesn't want it to be possible (for the reasons i've posted a few times).

But you're right, the original intent of the policy defintinely could have transformed into something else.  They haven't explained the policy (that i know of) since that time.

Quote

The only thing making them choose one over the other is the policy itself.  So you can't justify the policy by saying that the couple is choosing a civil wedding over a temple sealing because it is the policy forcing the choice. That's the circular logic. 

If the Brethren believe that God is behind the prohibition on putting precedence on a civil ceremony over a temple sealing, that is what is making the couple choose.   

 

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I usually know what to expect from various posters on this board but the rudeness around a personal story like that is pretty shocking/disheartening.

As I've been reading over a few different threads over the last 20 minutes I've been surprised by the utter rudeness of many "faithful" posters who, by their claims of faithfulness & belief, profess to be better followers of Christ than the rest of us. Some day these very people will recognize that there method of harsh/rude communication accomplishes the exact opposite of what they profess to be attempting.

Like posting a picture of someone and then remarking on how "punchable" their face is?  There have been a lot of personal attacks allowed on that thread!

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Like posting a picture of someone and then remarking on how "punchable" their face is?  There have been a lot of personal attacks allowed on that thread!

Hopefully someone reported it.  If no one reports it then most of the time the mods won't see it.

[Jeanne]

All of this..could be so easy.

Young couple goes to the bishop and states that they are ready to get married..seek Temple prep and/or questions for recommend.  Bishop knows they are good and active people and gives them what is required.  Now..he also states..Bro So and So...I realize that you are a convert and have many family members that may be unable to attend.  Although it is best to get to the Temple soon..we are willing to work with you.  Would the both of you like a ring ceremony after???  If you prefer to have a simple prior wedding before making Temple Covenants..we can set that up...again..preferable as soon as possible.  While the Lord would love to have sealed in the beginning, we realize that it is unnecessary and certainly less painful (to begin a marriage) if feelings are hurt.  Pray and discuss and get back with me in a week.  The sooner the better so we can set up your Temple marriage as soon as possible. We love you..We love your families. 

How hard is that??? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I may, I shall propose a counter litmus test to the above for those clamoring for the policy to be relaxed.

Suppose Church leaders were to affirm tomorrow that the policy with respect to choosing a civil ceremony and thereafter having to wait a year for a temple sealing is the will of God, has always been and would continue so for the foreseeable future. Would the clamorers accept that assurance?

My guess is no. My guess is there would be a hue and a cry the like of which has not been seen since a year ago last November. We've seen the typical reaction when Church leaders buck the trend in secular attitudes. 

I didn't realize answering the hypothetical would be so difficult. As to yours, I assume that the the brethren who implemented the policy sought the will of God when they implemented the policy. I believe that they are wrong. Reaffirming their previous position would not cause me to feel they were not wrong. I judge things by their fruits, per Alma 32. The fruits of this policy appear bad to me. If having a civil ceremony the same day as a temple sealing produced bad fruit, then couples would continue to shun their non-temple worthy relatives and choose to be married and sealed in the temple regardless of a one year waiting penalty (hence my question that you neglected to answer).

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Nowhere have I done that. I was merely pointing out that people in the U.S. who choose civil marriage over sealing when they could have been sealed are . . . choosing civil marriage over sealing.

I didn't get into the justification for the policy at all. You seemed bound and determined to accuse everyone and anyone of circular reasoning, even when they haven't addressed that at all.

I guess I am confused at the point you are making...  Why do couples have to make a choice between civil marriage and a temple sealing? (Aside from the policy)

I am trying to understand the justification for the policy.  Not the reason why couples are now forced to make the difficult choice between respecting and honoring their non-member parents and being sealed.

Edited May 25, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's because the couple can't have the civil marriage and the sealing on the same day.  If they choose a civil marriage, they are deliberately refusing a temple marriage.  There is no reason to address something that's not possible because the brethren seem to believe that God doesn't want it to be possible (for the reasons i've posted a few times).

But you're right, the original intent of the policy defintinely could have transformed into something else.  They haven't explained the policy (that i know of) since that time.

If the Brethren believe that God is behind the prohibition on putting precedence on a civil ceremony over a temple sealing, that is what is making the couple choose.   

 

Yes, if God wants the 1-year wait than that becomes the justification for the policy.  But we don't have any revelation or scripture to indicate that God is behind the 1-year wait.

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully someone reported it.  If no one reports it then most of the time the mods won't see it.

Now that is funny.  And I do know that the poster stated he was just joking or trying to be funny. However many here wouldn't be allowed to get away with that from what I've seen.  

(Let me add that I do usually enjoy Nehor's humor here, but just not that particular post.)

Edited May 25, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess I am confused at the point you are making...  Why do couples have to make a choice between civil marriage and a temple sealing?

They have to because of the policy. But that doesn't mean that I claim that the policy's existence is the reason for the policy. That would be circular, as you point out.

So, the real question is: why does the policy exist? While the Brethren haven't directly addressed this, it is clear from what has already been posted that the Church has held that the sealing should be the marriage; that there should not be a civil and temple ceremony ideally, or "the way it ought to be." As Elder Oaks emphasized, the Church teaches the ideal; it does not teach exceptions. Exceptions exist because of weakness and lack of faithfulness (similar to Jesus' teaching on divorce: divorce ought not to be, but because of fallen man, God countenances it and provides laws governing it. "But in the beginning, it was not so"), but they are the exceptions and the ideal, as with so many other areas in the Church and gospel, receives prominence and precedence over the exception. 

Since most countries do not accept a temple sealing as a recognized marriage (some do, but they are in the minority), it is necessary for the Church to allow a civil marriage in accordance with applicable law, but in these cases, it teaches the importance of sealing to immediately follow, preferably on the same day. 

What would the policy be if every country accepted a temple marriage as a recognized marriage? Do you think that the Church would still allow people to rush off to the temple and be sealed right after their civil marriage? I think it's clear that the answer to that is "No, it would look exactly like it does in the U.S. now. People opting for a civil marriage would need to wait at least a year to be sealed if they opt for that when they could have been sealed --- especially if they could have been sealed instead." I think this tells us that the answer to why the policy exists has everything to do with indications of what the couple are putting first in their lives --- even in the face of difficult family situations where family won't be able to attend the temple for the sealing. 

I know that we don't --- and won't --- have statistics on the long-term activity and commitment rates of couples who could be sealed but choose to wait a year after civil marriage in order to accommodate family, but I suspect that the outlook isn't good. It's a "canary in the mineshaft" about priorities and commitment in the face of difficult family situations, and I think it's an indication of other things and other areas as well. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That's because the couple can't have the civil marriage and the sealing on the same day.  If they choose a civil marriage, they are deliberately refusing a temple marriage.  There is no reason to address something that's not possible because the brethren seem to believe that God doesn't want it to be possible (for the reasons i've posted a few times).

But you're right, the original intent of the policy defintinely could have transformed into something else.  They haven't explained the policy (that i know of) since that time.

If the Brethren believe that God is behind the prohibition on putting precedence on a civil ceremony over a temple sealing, that is what is making the couple choose.   

 

Is it common practice for the leaders to reconsider policies if the policy was put in place by God?  Or is it not possible that policies have been put in place and it is either against God's will or God is abstaining from saying one way or another?  If the brethren are reconsidering the policy, or have done so, it seems likely that the policy was started not per God's will. 

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, if God wants the 1-year wait than that becomes the justification for the policy.  But we don't have any revelation or scripture to indicate that God is behind the 1-year wait.

What I'm finding in the last several years is that members on the liberal end of the spectrum who are unhappy with Church policy, practice, and doctrine in such areas as gay marriage, women ordination, "patriarchy," worthiness standards for the temple, the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc. kind of issue a "CFR" to the Brethren and the Church for every doctrine, practice and policy that they wish didn't exist. That is, they insist on a written revelation, and when none exists, they then insist that they don't have to believe in or support things that weren't presented and ratified in General Conference (a rarity over the last several decades). 

We are very much a Church based on authority, and a litmus test is "following the Brethren." Not blindly, but another "canary in the mineshaft" is one's tendency to issue "CFRs" all the time to the Brethren on things they don't like. There are many policies in the Church that may not (or probably don't) have written revelation behind them, but because of the priesthood keys, there doesn't need to be --- God will own and recognize what is done under these keys. If some egregious thing happens, God will rectify it. I see this at the local level as well. Shocking as it may be to some, confirming revelation is not received for every calling. They are still extended by authority through the priesthood keys, even though there was not a "revelation" driving the calling. 

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

What I'm finding in the last several years is that members on the liberal end of the spectrum who are unhappy with Church policy, practice, and doctrine in such areas as gay marriage, women ordination, "patriarchy," worthiness standards for the temple, the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc. kind of issue a "CFR" to the Brethren and the Church for every doctrine, practice and policy that they wish didn't exist. That is, they insist on a written revelation, and when none exists, they then insist that they don't have to believe in or support things that weren't presented and ratified in General Conference (a rarity over the last several decades). 

We are very much a Church based on authority, and a litmus test is "following the Brethren." Not blindly, but another "canary in the mineshaft" is one's tendency to issue "CFRs" all the time to the Brethren on things they don't like. There are many policies in the Church that may not (or probably don't) have written revelation behind them, but because of the priesthood keys, there doesn't need to be --- God will own and recognize what is done under these keys. If some egregious thing happens, God will rectify it. I see this at the local level as well. Shocking as it may be to some, confirming revelation is not received for every calling. They are still extended by authority through the priesthood keys, even though there was not a "revelation" driving the calling. 

 

Perhaps what you might not really get about those "unhappy" liberals is, for the most part, we do not, as it seems you do, assume all things the Church does is condoned by God, nor that God likes to have the masses sit quietly and go along with it for the sake of going along with it.  yu can assume God will just rectify anything the Church does, but it's possible He lets us figure it out.  Its kind of a God doesn't direct all things, type of thing.  So take the "doctrine" that was preached for 100 or more years "black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else".  Did God completely rectify it?  Perhaps it's finally been fixed in 2013 (when the essay came out), but does that really rectify it? 

You really like the idea that we discriminate against a race for over a hundred years while God waits to rectify error?  Sorry, Rongo, your proposed, "well just trust the brethren, if they make mistakes let it happen..." approach ain't in the cards for me. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps what you might not really get about those "unhappy" liberals is, for the most part, we do not, as it seems you do, assume all things the Church does is condoned by God, nor that God likes to have the masses sit quietly and go along with it for the sake of going along with it.  yu can assume God will just rectify anything the Church does, but it's possible He lets us figure it out.  Its kind of a God doesn't direct all things, type of thing.  So take the "doctrine" that was preached for 100 or more years "black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else".  Did God completely rectify it?  Perhaps it's finally been fixed in 2013 (when the essay came out), but does that really rectify it? 

You really like the idea that we discriminate against a race for over a hundred years while God waits to rectify error?  Sorry, Rongo, your proposed, "well just trust the brethren, if they make mistakes let it happen..." approach ain't in the cards for me. 

Oh, I get the unhappiness, and I also think that I get the why. It is what it is, and I don't see many of them resolving their unhappiness without changing (of course, they hope that the Church changes. Hope springs eternal). 

It's tough. If I felt and believed as you do, I would probably feel the same way.