Jump to content

Preview of coming attractions? BSA, marriage, Temples


Recommended Posts

So now that President Nelson has shown us how he roles and how the inspiration he receives roles, I can't help but ask/ponder aloud with my cyber-ward-family/friends (I don't know any of you well enough to consider our relationship to be that of frenemies, my apologies):

- I figure we have maybe two years until the BSA program (love it or hate it) will be replaced

- Several years ago, maybe 10+ years, there was talk about mini-Temples being created in levels other the main entry level of stake centers; wondering if this idea might come back?  Really I'm just looking for an excuse to goto Ireland and a Temple openhouse seems to be that opportunity; slainte!

- Wondering if any of you have written to General Authorities and asked about topics like these; anyone received a response?  Since "marriage" has been legally "redefined," I'm curious to ask the GA's if redefining marriage in the vein of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many others defined marriage.  Waiting for SCOTUS to "redefine marriage" again (before reinstituting), would be more palatable no doubt, but aren't we on kind of an accelerated time schedule/ last days etc.?  And when you attend the Temple, don't the Sisters outnumber the Brothers by a factor of 3 to 1, on average?

Link to comment

I don't think we'll end our BSA involvement within two years.  I think the Brethren will continue the "phase-out" by ceasing to enroll 8 year old boys in cubs.

I love the idea of creating endowment and sealing rooms in stake centers but I don't see anything that suggests we'll go in that direction.  Seems like we tried smaller temples but then went back to the big, glamorous edifices.

Polygamy isn't coming back.  We'll continue to practice eternal polygamy but avoid discussing it.  And we're still decades away from when I foresee gay marriage being accepted within the Church.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I love the idea of creating endowment and sealing rooms in stake centers but I don't see anything that suggests we'll go in that direction.  Seems like we tried smaller temples but then went back to the big, glamorous edifices.

Are we taking an either/or approach?  Are we no longer building smaller temples at all?

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Polygamy isn't coming back.  We'll continue to practice eternal polygamy but avoid discussing it. 

I think it's fair to "avoid discussing it."  There are plenty of Christians who believe that families will be together in some sense in the hereafter.  They just don't have any particularized mechanism for it.  But if pressed, I think plenty of them would venture to say that Dad will be with Mom again, but that Joanne (the nice lady he met and married five years after Mom died) will also be part of the family.  God will sort it all out in the end.

I think we are just a bit more structured in our approach to this question.  It's all a matter of faith, anyway.

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And we're still decades away from when I foresee gay marriage being accepted within the Church.

I don't think we'll ever see that.  Social mores have radically changed, such that fornication is widely accepted and acceptable.  But here we are, 50 years out from the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s (which some say actually started in the 1920s), but has the Church altered its stance on fornication?  Nope.  Adultery?  Nope.  Masturbation?  Not really.  

All of these are seen as unacceptable forms of otherwise acceptal behavior: heterosexual sex.  Homosexual behavior, however, is categorically and necessarily a violation of the Law of Chastity.  There is no set of circumstances where it has ever been acceptable.  And with the advent of same-sex marriage, the Church has been unequivocal in not accepting homosexual behavior, regardless of whether in or out of a marital relationship.

Time will tell, I suppose.  But it seems like wishful thinking to suggest that the Church is headed toward accepting same-sex marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

So now that President Nelson has shown us how he roles and how the inspiration he receives roles

President Nelson did mention in conference that the discussions that led to the changes he announced had started earlier under President Monson.  I wonder if it wasn't for President Monson's declining health if the changes wouldn't have been made earlier

Link to comment

Will we see a change in the way temple marriages are done in the worldwide church , ie, that the couple are joined by the state first in all cases, before the sealing ordinance is performed in the temple? Personally I would approve of a 1 year waiting period between state ceremony and temple one. Rather than reducing the importance of the temple, it would place a higher value on a more eternal covenant and might lessen the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages that can fall apart so easily nowadays. Ya , I  know , heresy, but ...

Edited by strappinglad
Link to comment

Thank you all for your replies.

I forgot to ask in my original post:

- When will we a Second Quorum of the Twelve be announced? Since this structure existed when the Savior visited the America's - to say nothing of a Quorum of the Twelve amongst the Lost Tribes - it's possible, right?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think we'll end our BSA involvement within two years.  I think the Brethren will continue the "phase-out" by ceasing to enroll 8 year old boys in cubs.

I love the idea of creating endowment and sealing rooms in stake centers but I don't see anything that suggests we'll go in that direction.  Seems like we tried smaller temples but then went back to the big, glamorous edifices.

Polygamy isn't coming back.  We'll continue to practice eternal polygamy but avoid discussing it.  And we're still decades away from when I foresee gay marriage being accepted within the Church.

As a Libertarian wouldn't liberty include privacy in the bedroom, and thus warrant a SCOTUS ruling, in time?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thank you all for your replies.

I forgot to ask in my original post:

- When will we a Second Quorum of the Twelve be announced? Since this structure existed when the Savior visited the America's - to say nothing of a Quorum of the Twelve amongst the Lost Tribes - it's possible, right?

Possible, I suppose, but unlikely.  A quorum of twelve disciples (not apostles) in the New World was necessary to preside over and guide the Church there, as they were isolated from (but still technically subordinate to) the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency headed by Peter.

These days, advances in technology allow the Quorum of the Twelve to have a worldwide reach. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
8 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

And when you attend the Temple, don't the Sisters outnumber the Brothers by a factor of 3 to 1, on average?

Nope, not even close. Depending on the day and time, many of our sessions are heavily male.

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

... the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages...

I really dislike it when people attempt to universalise a cultural phenomenon by naturalising it. Everybody on this planet has hormones; not all young people are raised in oversexed cultures.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

I really dislike it when people attempt to universalise a cultural phenomenon by naturalising it. Everybody on this planet has hormones; not all young people are raised in oversexed cultures.

True enough, but should we discount the stories of the " trip to Las Vegas to get married so as to technically not sin " from BYU ? Several countries in the world require a civil marriage , or better said, do not recognize a Temple marriage as legal. So the Church already allows a civil marriage before the Temple sealings. Why not make it a universal ' policy' ?

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

True enough, but should we discount the stories of the " trip to Las Vegas to get married so as to technically not sin " from BYU ? Several countries in the world require a civil marriage , or better said, do not recognize a Temple marriage as legal. So the Church already allows a civil marriage before the Temple sealings. Why not make it a universal ' policy' ?

I think because the church wants its Solomon's ations to be on equal footing with other solemnizations where the jurisdiction allows it. If the jurisdiction recognizes such things, then let's go with it. Otherwise, we accommodate the laws of the land as necessary.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, ksfisher said:

President Nelson did mention in conference that the discussions that led to the changes he announced had started earlier under President Monson.  I wonder if it wasn't for President Monson's declining health if the changes wouldn't have been made earlier

You get a little more detail on how he receives revelation from his wife  on the devotional they just gave to the saints in Hawaii  Go to about the 52 min. mark.  It's pretty interesting and worth a listen.  

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/hawaii-broadcast/2018/04?lang=eng

 

As for other things - I heard rumors that scouts may go in 2019.  From the rumors I have heard these are just the beginning of the changes and there will be more.  

Link to comment
17 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Will we see a change in the way temple marriages are done in the worldwide church , ie, that the couple are joined by the state first in all cases, before the sealing ordinance is performed in the temple? Personally I would approve of a 1 year waiting period between state ceremony and temple one. Rather than reducing the importance of the temple, it would place a higher value on a more eternal covenant and might lessen the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages that can fall apart so easily nowadays. Ya , I  know , heresy, but ...

Any children born in the first year would be born out of the covenant. Not ideal.

Hormone driven marriages are not a new phenomenon.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's fair to "avoid discussing it."  There are plenty of Christians who believe that families will be together in some sense in the hereafter.  They just don't have any particularized mechanism for it.  But if pressed, I think plenty of them would venture to say that Dad will be with Mom again, but that Joanne (the nice lady he met and married five years after Mom died) will also be part of the family.  God will sort it all out in the end.

 

It's true that other Christians don't have a mechanism for eternal families but I think that's because they view it as a natural state where no mechanism would be needed. Why wouldn't families be together? Is God going to tell people they can't be with the ones they love? In fairness, we don't really know how things will work either with Dad and that nice lady and her kids from a previous marriage etc. So whether Mormon or "other" Christian, I think we all look at it similarly; God will sort it all out in the end. For most Christians, no mechanism or bureaucracy needed.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I am also wondering if the singles program(s) will be phased out.  Where I live it is already mostly useless.

Yes! Please! Please get me out of this stupid calling. My other two callings are actually enjoyable and fulfilling but planning Single activities I do not go to is just awful.

Keep YSA around but if you graduate without marriage then finding other Singles to date or spend time with is your own problem.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Any children born in the first year would be born out of the covenant. Not ideal.

Hormone driven marriages are not a new phenomenon.

I agree. The 1 year wait is simply a policy and it seems to be unique to North America. In other countries which require a state wedding first, they are permitted to be sealed within a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why that would cause any problems if instituted church-wide and I don't know why anyone would want to maintain a 1 year wait in which children will be born outside of the covenant.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, e-eye said:

As for other things - I heard rumors that scouts may go in 2019.  From the rumors I have heard these are just the beginning of the changes and there will be more.

In one way that wouldn't break my heart, but both of my sons really enjoyed their experience in scouting.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. The 1 year wait is simply a policy and it seems to be unique to North America. In other countries which require a state wedding first, they are permitted to be sealed within a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why that would cause any problems if instituted church-wide and I don't know why anyone would want to maintain a 1 year wait in which children will be born outside of the covenant.

The 1 year wait policy, in my mind, helps to further emphasize the importance of marriage as a divinely instituted. 

As you mentioned, in some areas the state mandates a public wedding.  The church is right to make exceptions in these instances.

However, when a temple wedding is possible from the outset I believe the church is right to place covenants and the sealing power of the priesthood at the forefront of a marriage.

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Will we see a change in the way temple marriages are done in the worldwide church , ie, that the couple are joined by the state first in all cases, before the sealing ordinance is performed in the temple? Personally I would approve of a 1 year waiting period between state ceremony and temple one. Rather than reducing the importance of the temple, it would place a higher value on a more eternal covenant and might lessen the tendency for quicky hormone driven marriages that can fall apart so easily nowadays. Ya , I  know , heresy, but ...

Can you imagine how many marriages would struggle without the sealing power and blessings of the temple that first year of marriage. I am not so sure many people understand the power of the covenants we make in the temple - That includes me.  If anything I would think waiting a year may promote hormone driven marriages - most couples just struggle to stay worthy during the engagement and I think knowing they want to be worthy to be sealed helps check those urges but if you were just getting married then hey what's a little slip up here and there.  

Link to comment

I am probably arguing against myself but just for my curiousity, in countries that require a state wedding , what is the problem with a couple going to the Temple to be sealed first and then going to the magistrate to be wed ? Yes, it is out of order . I could quote J Golden on such but I will refrain.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

I am probably arguing against myself but just for my curiousity, in countries that require a state wedding , what is the problem with a couple going to the Temple to be sealed first and then going to the magistrate to be wed ? Yes, it is out of order . I could quote J Golden on such but I will refrain.

Respectfully, one should always quote J. Golden; let's not be afraid to be bold now

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

I think it's fair to "avoid discussing it."  There are plenty of Christians who believe that families will be together in some sense in the hereafter.  They just don't have any particularized mechanism for it.  But if pressed, I think plenty of them would venture to say that Dad will be with Mom again, but that Joanne (the nice lady he met and married five years after Mom died) will also be part of the family.  God will sort it all out in the end.

It's true that other Christians don't have a mechanism for eternal families but I think that's because they view it as a natural state where no mechanism would be needed.

Yep.  Interesting, though, that this generalized belief is at odds with formal doctrines of most Christian groups ("Until death do you part" and all that).  Also consider Matthew 22:

Quote

23 ¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It seems that "Marriage isn't forever" is a pretty common - perhaps even standard - doctrine outside of Mormonism.

See here:

Quote

In other words, a widow does not need to worry about polygamy in heaven when she remarries, because relationships are going to be so different in the resurrection. No one will think of marriage in a way that makes polygamy a problem. It is just not going to be there. There won’t be marriage and giving in marriage like there are here and now.

And here:

Quote

The reason that there is no marriage in Heaven is that marriage as a means of grace is meant to help prepare us for union with God. It is meant to teach us about the union with God that we will ultimately have. When we are in Heaven, we have that union. The marriage is only an image of this union, the Image of God. But in Heaven we have actual union with God, and through Him, with the entire communion of Saints. It’s not so much that there is no marriage in Heaven as that there is a universal marriage in Heaven, a “marriage” between all the communion of Saints. It is just like in Heaven, priests will no longer be priests. All the Sacraments will “end” in Heaven.

And here:

Quote

So, according to Jesus, people won’t be married in heaven.

And here:

Quote

But to come to your question: we'll admit that your second friend has a point – the one you describe as "bursting your bubble." Jesus did say that life in the world to come will not include "marriage" as we know it here on earth. When questioned by the Sadducees about this, He said, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). Your friend may lack sensitivity, but her comment does have a strong biblical basis.

What Jesus did not say was that "all earthly relationships will be nullified in heaven." There is no good reason to put such a negative spin on His words. We will most certainly be together with those we love in the next life. We just don't know precisely what form that "togetherness" will take.

But see here:

Quote

So, I think it's safe to say you will see your wife again. Your question, however, is more specific: will your marriage continue in heaven?

Most Protestant commentators since the Reformation have not been comfortable going that far. However, there is an earlier strand of interpretation, from the first centuries of the church, that some find intriguing. It suggests that there is a special meaning to the marriage bond that continues in heaven, though we can't know what it will be like. It is based on Paul's description of marriage in Ephesians 5:21-33, which concludes: "This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

Scriptures like the Ephesians passage, and Jesus' well-known teaching that "the two will become one flesh" (Mark 10:8), suggest that the marriage bond has a spiritual meaning different from that of most earthly relationships. If so, God may preserve that mysterious quality in heaven just as he seeks to do on earth. But we'll have to wait and see what form this relationship will take in eternity.

Interesting stuff.

Quote

Why wouldn't families be together?

Well, there are some scriptures that can be construed as indicating that marriages do not last into the eternities.

From and LDS perspective, we have D&C 132:7:

Quote

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

It's a matter of faith.

Quote

Is God going to tell people they can't be with the ones they love?

I tend to think of it this way: God has given His children a way to preserve their relationships with their loved ones.  Whether they choose to accept that way, and live in accordance with it, is up to them.

Quote

In fairness, we don't really know how things will work either with Dad and that nice lady and her kids from a previous marriage etc.

I think the doctrines of the LDS Church account for this.  Dad can be sealed to "that nice lady."  And if he keeps honors his covenants, then he has a marriage "entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise ... for time and all eternity."

Quote

So whether Mormon or "other" Christian, I think we all look at it similarly;

There are some similarities, yes.

But there are also some very significant differences.

Quote

God will sort it all out in the end. For most Christians, no mechanism or bureaucracy needed.

Unless, of course, the Mormons have it right.  If so, then a "mechanism" is needed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...