Temple wedding policies

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So what would then make it clear "that the First Presidency, acting under divine inspiration (as opposed to social pressure) opted to change it"? If you generally assume divine direction is received, why make this a special case?

 

Your question is not coherent. If the policy is in place, obviously the leadership of the Church formulated it. Policies don't just flare into being on their own.  And I don't understand what you mean about "a special case."

 

[ttribe]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

Personal experience in discussing things with people. I see a lot of affinity and alignment on political issues often going hand-in-hand with wish lists of policy changes in the Church. 

Don't you?

Obviously, there are exceptions, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. At least in my experience.

So, you are relying upon anecdotal evidence to support a biased stereotype that allows you to dismiss out of hand an entire group of members because they don't fit the mold you consider to be the right one.  Just wanted to make sure I understood correctly.

Edited May 15, 2017 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, your use of the word "uninspired" seems to be a little loaded, so I think I'll leave it alone.  That being said, I can't recall any member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve having claimed inspiration relative to this policy.  I freely admit I could have missed it, though.  If you can point me to something, I'd be glad to check it out.

As I've tried to make clear, I believe that the Brethren seeking and receiving divine direction relative to administering the Church happens so routinely that if there ever were an instance when that did not happen, it would very much be the exception. So my assumption, based on past observation and trust, is that this policy was adopted under inspiration like virtually every other policy they make.

If you dispute that, we'll just have to chalk it up to fundamental disagreement about the behavior of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So what would then make it clear "that the First Presidency, acting under divine inspiration (as opposed to social pressure) opted to change it"? If you generally assume divine direction is received, why make this a special case?

 

Your question is not coherent. If the policy is in place, obviously the leadership of the Church formulated it. Policies don't just flare into being on their own.  And I don't understand what you mean about "a special case."

I wonder if the situation about Women saying prayers in Sacrament meeting might apply here? It seems it was merely a tradition that women could not say prayers in Sacrament meeting and therefore the First Presidency came out with this letter:
“The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”
(Marvin K. Gardner, “News of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1978, 100)

If there is no scriptural prohibition or official doctrine against having a civil ceremony along with the sealing ordinance it may provide an opportunity to easily make the change. I do think that divine direction could also be involved in the decision. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your question is not coherent. If the policy is in place, obviously the leadership of the Church formulated it. Policies don't just flare into being on their own.  And I don't understand what you mean about "a special case."

 

Sorry, I have not made myself clear. It's a minor point to be sure. To clarify, you were asked by JulieM:

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Would you care if it were changed in the U.S. to correlate with what takes place in other countries with civil marriages and the the sealing?

You responded:

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not if it were clear that the First Presidency, acting under divine inspiration (as opposed to social pressure) opted to change it.

This seemed to me to imply that some church policy changes could be a result of social pressure as opposed to inspiration. Given that you would want "clear" evidence this particular change was divine inspiration, I was wondering what that would look like. How can we tell which church actions are the result of clear divine inspiration vs social pressure?

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, you are relying upon anecdotal evidence to support a biased stereotype that allows you to dismiss out of hand an entire group of members because they don't fit the mold you consider to be the right one.  Just wanted to make sure I understood correctly.

Not even anecdotal. Just my own experience and impressions. 

Just like you.  

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've tried to make clear, I believe that the Brethren seeking and receiving divine direction relative to administering the Church happens so routinely that if there ever were an instance when that did not happen, it would very much be the exception. So my assumption, based on past observation and trust, is that this policy was adopted under inspiration like virtually every other policy they make.

If you dispute that, we'll just have to chalk it up to fundamental disagreement about the behavior of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

I'm not disputing that, and there's no need to create a divide that doesn't necessarily exist.  However, there is a difference in policy between the U.S. and almost every other country and it's not clear why, other than the fact that the local laws of the land in those other countries are different than the U.S.  I'm simply trying to ascertain if there is any information from leadership out there that I should consider in evaluating this situation.  The Church has many policies which change with time and there is no apparent assumption of inspiration other than the general one you are invoking; but even that assumption does not imply infallibility does it?  I mean, policies can range from the mundane (no candles in the church buildings, for example) to the more significant policies which relate directly to religious practice (for example, changes in the administration of temple marriages in the cases of divorce, etc.).  Was it uninspired when women had to obtain a dissolution of a previous sealing in order to get remarried in the Temple for both time and eternity, but now they don't? If not, then is the reverse now uninspired? The dichotomy you are invoking appears, at least on the surface, to assume a level of involvement by the Divine in the day-to-day affairs of the administration of the Church that is not necessarily consistent with scripture (D&C 58:26).  So, it would also appear, that there is room for both interpretation and error in the administration of policy.  Do you not believe that to be the case?

Edited May 15, 2017 by ttribe

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not even anecdotal. Just my own experience and impressions. 

Just like you.  

Ummm, your "own experiences and impressions" is the very definition of "anecdotal."  As to me, I don't think I've expressed any opinions on this; so, no, not just like me.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sorry, I have not made myself clear. It's a minor point to be sure. To clarify, you were asked by JulieM:

You responded:

This seemed to me to imply that some church policy changes could be a result of social pressure as opposed to inspiration. Given that you would want "clear" evidence this particular change was divine inspiration, I was wondering what that would look like. How can we tell which church actions are the result of clear divine inspiration vs social pressure?

 

OK. Got it.

I tend to view all policies coming from the Brethren as being inspired unless I have good reason to believe otherwise.

I guess I don't know what it would look like if social pressure forced the Brethren to change a policy, since I've never seen it happen.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ummm, your "own experiences and impressions" is the very definition of "anecdotal." 

When people invoke anecdotal evidence, they relate case studies and stories of others. And their own, too --- you're right about that.

As to me, I don't think I've expressed any opinions on this; so, no, not just like me.

Okay, since you brought it up:

So, what is your view on this issue (waiting at least a year after civil marriage to be sealed in the U.S.)? What about women being ordained? Do you want there to not be any worthiness interviews any more for temple attendance at all? What about bishops interviewing youth without parents present?

These are just some examples of unrelated areas that I think often indicate how people will come down on the civil marriage/sealing quesion

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not disputing that, and there's no need to create a divide that doesn't necessarily exist.  However, there is a difference in policy between the U.S. and almost every other country and it's not clear why, other than the fact that the local laws of the land in those other countries are different than the U.S. 

That seems to be the obvious explanation.

Quote

I'm simply trying to ascertain if there is any information from leadership out there that I should consider in evaluating this situation. 

I don't know what it is you're looking for, but it's not of any concern to me, since I see reason enough in the difference in local laws and customs.

Quote

The Church has many policies which change with time and there is no apparent assumption of inspiration other than the general one you are invoking; but even that assumption does not imply infallibility does it? 

I've never seen any good reason not to assume automatically that there was inspiration involved when it's God's anointed servants who are acting.

I don't say they are infallible, but when they are acting in a unified council, invoking faith and seeking the Lord's will in humility, individual quirks and foibles tend to blow away like chaff as they strive to attain unified consensus.

 

Quote

I mean, policies can rage from the mundane (no candles in the church buildings, for example)

I recently learned that candles in Church buildings came about as a matter of practicality. In Europe during World War II, it was common to black out the windows of Church meetinghouses so as to make them less visible for bombing raids. The candles gave needed light during the sacrament service.

 

Quote

to the more significant policies which relate directly to religious practice (for example, changes in the administration of temple marriages in the cases of divorce, etc.).  Was it uninspired when women had to obtain a dissolution of a previous sealing in order to get remarried in the Temple for both time and eternity, but now they don't? If not, then is the reverse now uninspired?

I believe divine direction can change depending upon prevailing circumstances. (I think I already said that earlier in this thread.)

Quote

The dichotomy you are invoking appears, at least on the surface, to assume a level of involvement by the Divine in the day-to-day affairs of the administration of the Church that is not necessarily consistent with scripture (D&C 58:26).  So, it would also appear, that there is room for both interpretation and error in the administration of policy.  Do you not believe that to be the case?

I see no reason not to believe the Brethren seek and receive divine direction in administering the Church -- even with day-to-day affairs.

This scripture you cited does not seem to me to preclude the Brethren from trying to ascertain the Lord's will on administrative matters. If, as you say, there is "room for error in the administration of policy," that is reason enough to seek and wait for inspiration from the Lord on this or that matter, don't you think?

Why do you assume the policy pertaining to temple weddings would be so mundane that the Brethren would not seek and receive inspiration?

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

When people invoke anecdotal evidence, they relate case studies and stories of others. And their own, too --- you're right about that.

 

 

Okay, since you brought it up:

So, what is your view on this issue (waiting at least a year after civil marriage to be sealed in the U.S.)? What about women being ordained? Do you want there to not be any worthiness interviews any more for temple attendance at all? What about bishops interviewing youth without parents present?

These are just some examples of unrelated areas that I think often indicate how people will come down on the civil marriage/sealing quesion

You didn't ask me, but I would tend to agree that the issues are correlated. Once one questions one policy, its hard to stop there. For me I think the one year waiting policy is silly, I hope to see the day where further light and knowledge expands on women's exercise of the priesthood, don't want to get rid of temple worthiness interviews, and think that parents should have the option to be present with their children. To the original point (walking down the aisle and giving away the bride), I think the latter is stupid (ymmv), and have no issue with the former. I see no irony in advocating for the option of civil marriage, liking the idea of walking down the aisle, and being feminist in one's thinking. If we got rid of every tradition that had some root in racist, classist, sexist thought, we wouldn't be able to do much in life. And many times the original meaning in a tradition is lost and entirely supplanted by new meaning overtime. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But what if that divine inspiration was really a "wrong road" like Elder Holland describes? They simply need to recognize they are on the wrong road so they can get onto the correct path. Can we ever really know if the inspiration is correct or if they're are giving in to social pressure?

Whoops. Wrong thread.  

 

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I wonder if the situation about Women saying prayers in Sacrament meeting might apply here? It seems it was merely a tradition that women could not say prayers in Sacrament meeting and therefore the First Presidency came out with this letter:
“The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”
(Marvin K. Gardner, “News of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1978, 100)

If there is no scriptural prohibition or official doctrine against having a civil ceremony along with the sealing ordinance it may provide an opportunity to easily make the change. I do think that divine direction could also be involved in the decision. 

These are excellent points.  As I've said, I see not doctrinal reason why a couple cannot have both a civil wedding and a temple sealing without the punitive year long waiting period.  Perhaps it is just a "wrong road" that we needed to go down and it may take many decades (like women praying) before it gets corrected.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Okay, since you brought it up:

So, what is your view on this issue (waiting at least a year after civil marriage to be sealed in the U.S.)? What about women being ordained? Do you want there to not be any worthiness interviews any more for temple attendance at all? What about bishops interviewing youth without parents present?

These are just some examples of unrelated areas that I think often indicate how people will come down on the civil marriage/sealing quesion

It think it has to do with a certain mindset and how an individual has built their faith.  There are certain people who believe that everything the FP and Q12 do is a result of inspiration and/or revelation.  For them, the fact that the Brethren wrote a policy or approved a decision is the evidence of inspiration/revelation.

Others believe that when a prophet or apostle has received revelation or inspiration to do something it is part of their calling to share that with the church.  In the absence of that, it is fair to believe that they were acting as men.

I don't see either faith perspective as better or worse than the other.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It think it has to do with a certain mindset and how an individual has built their faith.  There are certain people who believe that everything the FP and Q12 do is a result of inspiration and/or revelation.  For them, the fact that the Brethren wrote a policy or approved a decision is the evidence of inspiration/revelation.

Others believe that when a prophet or apostle has received revelation or inspiration to do something it is part of their calling to share that with the church.  In the absence of that, it is fair to believe that they were acting as men.

I don't see either faith perspective as better or worse than the other.

To the extent that quite a few individuals seem prone to seize upon excuses to contend against the Brethren, I do see one perspective as worse than the other. I touched on this earlier in my exchange with ttribe, but I don't see anything wholesome in the automatic assumption that what one chooses to call "policy" was not inspired.

Furthermore, it would be beyond cumbersome for the Brethren to be expected to  publish a written revelation for each and every procedural decision they made. To a believing and faithful people, that should not be necessary. And I earnestly doubt such a thing would make most unbelieving people more believing and faithful.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to have to do that in your own life, even if you had made efforts to seek and receive the Lord's will on various courses of action.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That seems to be the obvious explanation.

I don't know what it is you're looking for, but it's not of any concern to me, since I see reason enough in the difference in local laws and customs.

I've never seen any good reason not to assume automatically that there was inspiration involved when it's God's anointed servants who are acting.

I don't say they are infallible, but when they are acting in a unified council, invoking faith and seeking the Lord's will in humility, individual quirks and foibles tend to blow away like chaff as they strive to attain unified consensus.

 

I recently learned that candles in Church buildings came about as a matter of practicality. In Europe during World War II, it was common to black out the windows of Church meetinghouses so as to make them less visible for bombing raids. The candles gave needed light during the sacrament service.

 

I believe divine direction can change depending upon prevailing circumstances. (I think I already said that earlier in this thread.)

I see no reason not to believe the Brethren seek and receive divine direction in administering the Church -- even with day-to-day affairs.

This scripture you cited does not seem to me to preclude the Brethren from trying to ascertain the Lord's will on administrative matters. If, as you say, there is "room for error in the administration of policy," that is reason enough to seek and wait for inspiration from the Lord on this or that matter, don't you think?

Why do you assume the policy pertaining to temple weddings would be so mundane that the Brethren would not seek and receive inspiration?

 

This last sentence seems to be the crux of the problem in our discussion.  I am not assuming that the Brethren would not seek and receive inspiration.  On the other hand, I'm familiar with the counsel that sometimes we ask for inspiration, wait patiently, and are left to our own devices.  All I was seeking was any insight you might have on whether the Brethren have provided any details on the development of this policy that I might have missed.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To the extent that quite a few individuals seem prone to seize upon excuses to contend against the Brethren,

Contention is another matter, outside of what I wrote.

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... I do see one perspective as worse than the other. I touched on this earlier in my exchange with ttribe, but I don't see anything wholesome in the automatic assumption that what one chooses to call "policy" was not inspired.

Again, not what I wrote.  I explained that the latter group finds it fair to assume that they were acting as men.  That is different than an automatic assumption that something is not inspired.

Going to the earlier example:  Do you feel it was inspiration or revelation that led the Brethren to ignore President Kimball's counsel (to let women pray in all meetings they attend) for several fdecades?

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, it would be beyond cumbersome for the Brethren to be expected to  publish a written revelation for each and every procedural decision they made. To a believing and faithful people, that should not be necessary.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to have to do that in your own life, even if you had made efforts to seek and receive the Lord's will on various courses of action.

And, again, not what I wrote.  I never said that they needed to publish a written revelation for each and every procedural decision that they made.

Also, my full-time calling (and salaried position) isn't as a prophet/seer/revelator so that is not an apt comparison.  I believe that the calling of a prophet is to receive communication from God and share it with members of the church and the world at large.  This seems to be a troubling issue for many and a source of problems within families - definitely something that I feel could be addressed in the many hours of our time that the prophet and apostles have access to.

Either way, your need to change what I wrote in order to respond only confirms that you land squarely in the first group I described.

Edited May 15, 2017 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This last sentence seems to be the crux of the problem in our discussion.  I am not assuming that the Brethren would not seek and receive inspiration.  On the other hand, I'm familiar with the counsel that sometimes we ask for inspiration, wait patiently, and are left to our own devices.  All I was seeking was any insight you might have on whether the Brethren have provided any details on the development of this policy that I might have missed.

Regarding the part I bolded, then why do you assume the Brethren would enact an important decision or policy without having received what they deem to be an answer to their petitions? For example, President Kimball didn't do that until he received the 1978 revelation on priesthood.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

That's interesting.  Did it state what the special circumstances were?

Sadly it didn't.  

[Ginger Snaps]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was digging around on lds.org and discovered that, at least in 1971, it was possible to get special permission to be married after a civil ceremony in the US and Canada before the year anniversary.  That's kind of interesting.  I wonder if they still do that and what special circumstances might be approved.

 

I know in the case of a recent convert marrying a member of >1 year, they can get married civilly and get sealed after the 1yr mark of the baptism (baptism, not marriage). My husband's cousin and her new-convert husband were sealed something like 7 months after their civil wedding under this rule. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Regarding the part I bolded, then why do you assume the Brethren would enact an important decision or policy without having received what they deem to be an answer to their petitions? For example, President Kimball didn't do that until he received the 1978 revelation on priesthood.

Again with the mind reading...I am assuming nothing.  I'm simply looking for additional information that I might have missed.  If you don't have any, just say so.

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

When people invoke anecdotal evidence, they relate case studies and stories of others. And their own, too --- you're right about that.

 

 

Okay, since you brought it up:

So, what is your view on this issue (waiting at least a year after civil marriage to be sealed in the U.S.)? What about women being ordained? Do you want there to not be any worthiness interviews any more for temple attendance at all? What about bishops interviewing youth without parents present?

These are just some examples of unrelated areas that I think often indicate how people will come down on the civil marriage/sealing quesion

Well, now that's a classic attempt at deflection.  I expressed no opinions on the wedding issue in here.  I am quite content that I know I don't fit your stereotype and feel no need to prove it to you.  My criticism was of your dismissive use of a stereotype; not on your defense of the policy.

[mnn727]

DW and I were both single adult converts. We met in Church and decided the only option for us was to be sealed together for time and eternity, even though neither of us could have family or even my best friend see it.

It really is that important.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

DW and I were both single adult converts. We met in Church and decided the only option for us was to be sealed together for time and eternity, even though neither of us could have family or even my best friend see it.

It really is that important.

I'm curious, if you had the option to be married civilly and then immediately be sealed in the temple, what was important about being married (not sealed) in the temple that made you want to skip a civil wedding for your family and friends?

[kllindley]

Why not have the wedding ceremony after the sealing? Make it everything you ever dreamed of. 

But really, Why bother with a sealing at all? A God who doesn't want any hurt feelings surely wouldn't keep a family apart in Heaven just because the couple chose to love their family instead of following a bunch of silly rules set up by a bunch of old men.