Temple wedding policies

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Did I miss something that posted that made it clear that the Church has held that the sealing should be the marriage?  What is the principle behind that?

I agree that right now the policy would likely be extended to every country if it were possible.  But that, in itself, is not a justification for the policy.

As for statistics on couples who choose to honor parents and are forced to wait a year for their sealing... that's a symptom of the policy.

Again, I am seeking to understand the doctrinal support for the policy not the desire of the institution to have maintain such a policy.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

You are assuming unhappiness, rongo.  That's not cool.  I put it in quotation marks to make that point.  My questions go unanswered huh? 

ok.  I guess there's something telling in that.  One thing I've noticed about you, that I would consider unhappy, is you seem to really want to peg people and assume their problems in order to justify yourself.  Seems like a miserable practice.  But maybe I'm wrong. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Did I miss something that posted that made it clear that the Church has held that the sealing should be the marriage?  What is the principle behind that?

I agree that right now the policy would likely be extended to every country if it were possible.  But that, in itself, is not a justification for the policy.

As for statistics on couples who choose to honor parents and are forced to wait a year for their sealing... that's a symptom of the policy.

Again, I am seeking to understand the doctrinal support for the policy not the desire of the institution to have maintain such a policy.

Why do you think that the policy would likely be extended to every country if it were possible? 

I've said what I think (that the Brethren feel that only the sealing would be ideal, because that's the crowning ordinance of the Church). 

Do you think there is a different reason?

[rockpond]

28 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. 

 

I agree.  They have the keys.  Sometimes mistakes are made with those keys.  Many from our nearly 200 year history are obvious and have been rectified.  Others likely still need to be rectified.  Perhaps this is one.  Perhaps not.  The restoration continues.

This is a church that honors questions so there is nothing wrong with asking about the policy.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You are assuming unhappiness, rongo.  That's not cool.  I put it in quotation marks to make that point.  My questions go unanswered huh? 

ok.  I guess there's something telling in that.  One thing I've noticed about you, that I would consider unhappy, is you seem to really want to peg people and assume their problems in order to justify yourself.  Seems like a miserable practice.  But maybe I'm wrong. 

Maybe I've completely misread your tone in your posts, but it sure seems to me that you (and your wife, you've said) aren't very happy at or with the Church, and you often ask yourself if you should pull away and stop coming (you've mentioned that your wife is more in favor of this than you are).

Maybe I've misread this, but this doesn't sound very happy to me.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  They have the keys.  Sometimes mistakes are made with those keys.  Many from our nearly 200 year history are obvious and have been rectified.  Others likely still need to be rectified.  Perhaps this is one.  Perhaps not.  The restoration continues.

This is a church that honors questions so there is nothing wrong with asking about the policy.

Much agreed.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Why do you think that the policy would likely be extended to every country if it were possible? 

I've said what I think (that the Brethren feel that only the sealing would be ideal, because that's the crowning ordinance of the Church). 

Do you think there is a different reason?

Because the policy is beneficial to the institution by creating increased loyalty to the institution.

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.)

I'm not sure why it's funny.  I report stuff occasionally, sometimes the mods agree with me and sometimes they don't.  It's not a big deal.  But I can't really complain about posts or posters getting away with stuff if i don't report them and give the mods a chance to respond.  

I agree that Nehor probably gets away with stuff that other posters don't, probably because his personality (for outright snarkery) is so well known.  

[rongo]

Just now, rockpond said:

Because the policy is beneficial to the institution by creating increased loyalty to the institution.

Do you think that this is overtly the consideration, in secret council, with the Brethren? Or, do you think that this is the practical outcome, but that they, in their minds, see it as something more doctrinally fundamental?

[ttribe]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I think I was quite justified in assuming your post was in direct response to mine given that you quoted me and addressed the subject matter.  If you weren't directly addressing my situation, you either shouldn't have quoted me or should have explicitly stated otherwise.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you think that this is overtly the consideration, in secret council, with the Brethren? Or, do you think that this is the practical outcome, but that they, in their minds, see it as something more doctrinally fundamental?

I actually think this is the primary consideration, and from an institutional consideration it is not unreasonable and certainly not sinister.

But I really can't think of some "doctrinal" purpose for the policy. I haven't seen any reason to conclude doctrine has any part of this.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think I was quite justified in assuming your post was in direct response to mine given that you quoted me and addressed the subject matter. 

My post was in response to yours, but it did not address your specific situation. I steered clear of doing that. I was speaking generally in principle about how occasionally we face the difficult choice of doing what we believe is right, knowing that some who are close to us will not like the choice we make.

Quote

If you weren't directly addressing my situation, you either shouldn't have quoted me or should have explicitly stated otherwise.

Perhaps you should have asked for clarification before flying off the handle.

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Maybe I've completely misread your tone in your posts, but it sure seems to me that you (and your wife, you've said) aren't very happy at or with the Church, and you often ask yourself if you should pull away and stop coming (you've mentioned that your wife is more in favor of this than you are).

Maybe I've misread this, but this doesn't sound very happy to me.

We're happy enough.

I had a friend years ago who always wanted happiness. he brought it up often.  he has since left the Church, but my take with him is, being a happy person can be pretty hard to define.  We're all happy in some sense and we're all not happy in another.  I dont' know what it is about me, but I don't care much about happiness.  But I still chuckle and enjoy people and situations, so I guess I'm happy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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. 

 

 

2 hours 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.

For the record, I will aver that these accusations are manifestly unjust as applied to me.

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

 

For the record, I will aver that these accusations are manifestly unjust as applied to me.

Yep...you've been victimized here. 

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

I know others disagree, but I don't think we need it.  Because I believe that God is behind the 12 apostles and the prophet, I don't think it's necessary to have proof that God is behind every practice or policy.  

I believe God has endorsed those men and authorized them to do things in His name, even in His absence (for lack of a better way to say it).  I believe God can (and will) redirect when necessary.  I don't think there's anything wrong with not agreeing with a policy or asking for it to change.  From my perspective the trouble is when people assign evil motives to our leaders because they see things differently than our leaders do.  

 

[kllindley]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Did I miss something that posted that made it clear that the Church has held that the sealing should be the marriage?  What is the principle behind that?

I agree that right now the policy would likely be extended to every country if it were possible.  But that, in itself, is not a justification for the policy.

As for statistics on couples who choose to honor parents and are forced to wait a year for their sealing... that's a symptom of the policy.

Again, I am seeking to understand the doctrinal support for the policy not the desire of the institution to have maintain such a policy.

Did you completely miss the Spencer W. Kimball talk on temple marriage?

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I actually think this is the primary consideration, and from an institutional consideration it is not unreasonable and certainly not sinister.

But I really can't think of some "doctrinal" purpose for the policy. I haven't seen any reason to conclude doctrine has any part of this.

So you didn't read Kimball either?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Did you completely miss the Spencer W. Kimball talk on temple marriage?

Was this talk posted somewhere in the last 31 pages of comments? I've missed it. Can you post a link?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

So I take it that, in your case, at least, the Church leaders could be as explicit as one could reasonably expect them to be with regard to the policy reflecting the will of God and  you would still accuse them of being on the wrong path. Presumably, you would hold that position no matter what they did. Thank you for your candor.

Quote

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 ...

This is an unrealistic expectation. With any given person, there is a blending of good choices and poor choices. To put it another way, one person's poor choice does not necessarily indicate that all his choices will be bad.

Quote

... (hence my question that you neglected to answer).

In response to someone's question earlier in this thread, I already responded that if the Brethren should change the policy, I would support them in it.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yep...you've been victimized here. 

At least as much as your cohort ttribe has

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Was this talk posted somewhere in the last 31 pages of comments? I've missed it. Can you post a link?

If it was, I guess I missed it too.

But I quickly found this with a Google search. Perhaps klindley is referring to it.

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Was this talk posted somewhere in the last 31 pages of comments? I've missed it. Can you post a link?

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball_marriage-honorable/

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/02/the-marriage-decision?lang=eng

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball_marriage-honorable/

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/02/the-marriage-decision?lang=eng

 

 

Thank you. These are even better than the one I cited.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So you didn't read Kimball either?

 

Yes, I missed this. I was two years old at the time the talk was given at Ricks College 41 years ago and my memory must have failed me. How could I have missed this? (Thanks, Scott for posting a link)

Pres. Kimball seems to be talking primarily about marrying outside the faith or to an unworthy member, neither of which can go to the temple to be sealed. He is comparing celestial marriage (temple sealing) with a temporal marriage. Why would anyone want to choose a marriage that ends at death? As with others, this seems to be missing the point that a person can be both married civilly and sealed eternally. We know this because it happens throughout the church (in other countries). It's not an either/or. Kimball is talking about sealing, not a legal marriage ceremony. Of course "celestial marriage" was originally a euphemism for plural marriage, and who wouldn't want that? Right?