cfi Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 My father is a sealer. The bride and groom are invited to kiss after the ordinance while still keeling at the altar. Rings may be exchanged in the sealing room after standing up. The only "instruction" is that rings should not be exchanged across the altar, to provide a distinction between the ordinance itself and the separate symbolism of the rings.
Duncan Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 20 minutes ago, cfi said: My father is a sealer. The bride and groom are invited to kiss after the ordinance while still keeling at the altar. Rings may be exchanged in the sealing room after standing up. The only "instruction" is that rings should not be exchanged across the altar, to provide a distinction between the ordinance itself and the separate symbolism of the rings. that's the way I remember it too, mind you you have to be alert and attentive to do it and not passed out on the floor from nerves................ 1
pogi Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, ksfisher said: Mine as well. It's in the back of my mind as something that's changed in the last 5 or so years. They exchanged rings at my cousins ceremony in the sealing room, beside the alter, just as cfi mentioned. So, it is still a thing. 1
Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 5 hours ago, ksfisher said: Haven't they asked that the ring exchange be done elsewhere? I believe it was suggested it could be done at the reception so that nonmembers could be part of the rituals as long as it didn't imply marriage vows were being exchanged at the time.
changed Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, pogi said: There were rings exchanged (as invited by the sealer), there was a kiss over the alter (as invited by the sealer), there were vows which absolutely entail loyalty and love, there were extended friends, probably 60-80 people attended in the largest sealing room in the Draper temple. The sealing ceremony in no way includes polygamy. Give me a break! My parents were not allowed to come into the temple with me - I had no one from my family there, they were not allowed. It was one of the worst most painful days of my life. What kind of a sick church does not let family members attend their child's marriage? The new and everlasting covenant is a covenant to submit to polygamy. Section 132. Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Edited January 19, 2019 by changed
Popular Post Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Popular Post Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, changed said: What kind of a sick church does not let family members attend their child's marriage? The kind that wants to create a very sacred space to help members come face to face with God, imo. 5
Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, changed said: The new and everlasting covenant is a covenant to submit to polygamy. No, As taught to the Saints, The New and Everlasting Covenant is the Gospel, which has us submit to God. Plural marriage, which appears to me to be a subset of Eternal Marriage, appears to be one of the covenants that have been part of it. Some everlasting covenants appear to have been commandments applied to a particular group and only that group, such as circumcision (Genesis 13) Plural marriage may be one of those. This is not something added postplural marriage to add an out, it is in earlier sections of the D&C. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng Quote This covenant, often referred to by the Lord as the “new and everlasting covenant,” encompasses the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including all ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation of mankind. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/66.2?lang=eng#p1 Part of The New and Everlasting is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131.1-4?lang=eng#p1 Baptism is also one of the new and Everlasting covenants that fit into the fullness of Gospel. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/22.1?lang=eng#p1 This obviously (to me at least) includes more than just one type of covenant: Quote 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. 7 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. God speaks of various Everlasting covenants in the Bible, the rainbow is the symbol of one, he makes another in Isaiah 56, speaks of a future one in 61, the tablets hold the Everlasting covenant of Priesthood (according to JST), the ark of the covenant refers to it. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&options=verse&options=highlight&options=text&query=+everlasting+covenant&testament=ot&type=word Then there is Hebrews: Quote Hebrews 13:20 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Edited January 19, 2019 by Calm 2
Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 Quote What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, and I want to prove it. In the 66th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 2, I read: "Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old." More definitely stated is the definition of the new and everlasting covenant given to us in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Now I am going to say before I read this that marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant. If there are any here that have that idea I want to say that right to them. Baptism is not the new and everlasting covenant. In section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that baptism is "a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." Marriage in the temple of the Lord for time and for eternity is "a" new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrine of Salvation, 1:156.) As to why it is called a new covenant, President Smith wrote: Each ordinance and requirement given to man for the purpose of bringing to pass his salvation and exaltation is a covenant. Baptism for the remission of sins is a covenant. When this ordinance was revealed in this dispensation, the Lord called it "a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." This covenant was given in the beginning and was lost to men through apostasy, therefore, when it was revealed again, it became to man a new covenant, although it was from the beginning, and it is everlasting since its effects upon the individual endure forever. Then again, whenever there is need for repentance, baptism is the method, or law, given of the Lord by which the remission of sins shall come, and so this law is everlasting. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:152.) This covenant includes all ordinances of the gospel--the highest of which are performed in the temple. To quote President Smith again: Now there is a clear-cut definition of the new and everlasting covenant. It is everything--the fulness of the gospel. So marriage properly performed, baptism, ordination to the priesthood, everything else--every contract, every obligation, every performance that pertains to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to his law here given, is part of the new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:158) http://www.ldsliving.com/President-Packer-Why-Most-Mormons-Misunderstand-What-the-New-and-Everlasting-Covenant-Actually-Is/s/81522
Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 Even Brigham Young didn't see plural marriage as The New and Everlasting: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/11/the-covenant-of-baptism-to-be-in-the-kingdom-and-of-the-kingdom?lang=eng Quote President Brigham Young said: “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the Devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, … that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 62–63).
cdowis Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, changed said: What kind of a sick church does not let family members attend their child's marriage? Huh?? I have no idea what you are talking about. It was a decision made between the Lord and the parents themselves, and the church merely respected that decision. I respect any organization that remains true to its obligations regardless of the trash talk it suffers for doing so -- insensitive, sick, etc. Edited January 19, 2019 by cdowis 1
Tacenda Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 10 hours ago, Calm said: The kind that wants to create a very sacred space to help members come face to face with God, imo. Joseph Smith said all marriages should be out in the open, not in those exact words, I'd have to look up the quote. So why has it come to the way they do it now. My cynical side says it is so that members will get their recommend.
Calm Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: My cynical side says it is so that members will get their recommend. I don't see that as a bad thing given it is a good reminder of our desire to seek out God and prepare ourselves to engage with him. What I think is unfortunate is our culture is now trying to have our cake and eat it too. Sounds like in the past the sealings were small affairs, friends and extended family not necessarily invited. While I think nonmember family would wish to be present, if it was just the couple, two witnesses and the sealer...perhaps other couples being sealed that day, there would be less conflict over it. How many parents and extended family would feel gypped if they weren't invited to the kids getting married by a Justice of the peace? (I have a problem with relating given I would have preferred no one I knew besides my husband at my wedding nor would I feel bad if my kids wanted to go that route, but I do get the feeling of being left out of a big gathering...I find that problematic really.) Edited January 19, 2019 by Calm
changed Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 On 1/19/2019 at 8:52 AM, cdowis said: Huh?? I have no idea what you are talking about. It was a decision made between the Lord and the parents themselves, and the church merely respected that decision. I respect any organization that remains true to its obligations regardless of the trash talk it suffers for doing so -- insensitive, sick, etc. My parents are amazing Christians who are more righteous than quite a few I know have been in the temple. They belong to a different religious group, one I respect very much. It was NOT a decision between my parents and the Lord - the Lord is no respecter of persons, and does not exclude anyone. It was the church's policy, NOT the Lord's policy, which I can clearly see now.
Maureen Posted January 20, 2019 Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) On 1/18/2019 at 1:17 PM, Stargazer said: It depends upon the country. In some countries a strictly civil marriage is the order of the day, and whatever else you do is immaterial. In the UK and Canada (where I have some knowledge), the state only recognizes a marriage contracted in front of a civil magistrate appointed for the purpose. In these two countries, an LDS marriage involving a temple sealing is first solemnized in front of the civil magistrate, and then they visit the temple for the sealing ceremony. I think you're maybe confusing Canada with a different country. In Canada, Latter-day Saints sealings in the temple are recognized as legit wedding ceremonies. Just like all other wedding ceremonies in any other church. You just need to make sure you have a marriage licence and a legit Officiator. M. Edited January 20, 2019 by Maureen 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 On 1/19/2019 at 12:38 AM, changed said: My parents were not allowed to come into the temple with me - I had no one from my family there, they were not allowed. It was one of the worst most painful days of my life. What kind of a sick church does not let family members attend their child's marriage? The new and everlasting covenant is a covenant to submit to polygamy. Not feeling sorry for you. My parents did not attend 5 of their kids weddings including mine. They did not complain however because they understood the Church did not keep them out but they kept themselves out. Anyone can go to the temple. It is open to all who are able to get a temple recommend. The temple is a representation of heaven. God does not keep anyone out of the celestial kingdom. All are invited but one must follow the conditions to enter the celestial kingdom. The choices we make matter. We can't expect others including God to change standards to accommodate the choices we chose to make. 2
Danzo Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 On 1/18/2019 at 12:42 PM, ksfisher said: Mine as well. It's in the back of my mind as something that's changed in the last 5 or so years. Eighteen years ago, we exchanged rings in the temple.
rockpond Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) On 1/19/2019 at 12:38 AM, changed said: What kind of a sick church does not let family members attend their child's marriage? On 1/19/2019 at 12:43 AM, Calm said: The kind that wants to create a very sacred space to help members come face to face with God, imo. In countries where the Church does not have the authority to legally marry within the temple, members are permitted to be married outside the temple and sealed inside the temple. With a simple statement by President Nelson, the Church could change its policy and allow ALL couples to marry how they choose with friends and family present and then be sealed in the temple. I don't believe that current policy is about creating sacred space. It hurts families and has been the source of much pain and heartache. It can be fixed and I believe that it will be very soon as President Nelson seems tuned in to such concerns. Edited January 21, 2019 by rockpond
sunstoned Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 20 minutes ago, rockpond said: In countries where the Church does not have the authority to legally marry within the temple, members are permitted to be married outside the temple and sealed inside the temple. With a simple statement by President Nelson, the Church could change its policy and allow ALL couples to marry how they choose with friends and family present and then be sealed in the temple. I don't believe that current policy is about creating sacred space. It hurts families and has been the source of much pain and heartache. It can be fixed and I believe that it will be very soon as President Nelson seems tuned in to such concerns. I believe this will be changed before too long.
changed Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Not feeling sorry for you. My parents did not attend 5 of their kids weddings including mine. They did not complain however because they understood the Church did not keep them out but they kept themselves out. Anyone can go to the temple. It is open to all who are able to get a temple recommend. The temple is a representation of heaven. God does not keep anyone out of the celestial kingdom. All are invited but one must follow the conditions to enter the celestial kingdom. The choices we make matter. We can't expect others including God to change standards to accommodate the choices we chose to make. My parents are Christians. They are amazing people who have lived their life in service to others. They are not LDS, never have been, never will be. I should have followed their example. Anyone can go to the temple? Only those who bow to the arms of flesh can go to the temple. 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? (Do you have a testimony that God left the entire world in darkness, abandoned everyone on the entire planet, for thousands of years? ) 4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? (Do you sustain the local leader - the pedophile who abused your children?) Those are the two questions that and are currently keeping me out, and kept my parents out. I do not believe we are to have a testimony in anyone but the Savior Jesus Christ and God. All those who sustain 'local authorities of the church' have raised their hand to sustain the pedophile who abused my kids. The temple does not represent heaven to me - Cursed are those who put their faith in the arms of flesh. That is exactly what all who answer "yes" to #3 and #4 are doing. Those with TR's look down on those who care more for the "least of these", those who care for victims more than protecting the name of a fallen organization. Look down on those who refuse to hold themselves above others - refuse to believe God only deals with one small group of people. If God is the type of person who forces followers to bow down to adulterers and pedophiles like JS and BY, who still calls monsters such as these to serve - he is not just, loving, or any of the above. The only God I am interested in serving or wanting to live eternally with is one who actually does love everyone, who is just, who is no respecter of persons. Edited January 21, 2019 by changed
bluebell Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 2 hours ago, changed said: My parents are Christians. They are amazing people who have lived their life in service to others. They are not LDS, never have been, never will be. I should have followed their example. Anyone can go to the temple? Only those who bow to the arms of flesh can go to the temple. 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? (Do you have a testimony that God left the entire world in darkness, abandoned everyone on the entire planet, for thousands of years? ) 4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? (Do you sustain the local leader - the pedophile who abused your children?) Those are the two questions that and are currently keeping me out, and kept my parents out. I do not believe we are to have a testimony in anyone but the Savior Jesus Christ and God. Others believe differently. It doesn't seem very fair to accuse someone of believing in the arm of the flesh just because you disagree with their beliefs. If that is the criteria then they can accuse you of the exact same thing (and neither accusations will mean absolutely anything) 4
JAHS Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 2 hours ago, changed said: The only God I am interested in serving or wanting to live eternally with is one who actually does love everyone, who is just, who is no respecter of persons. God being no respecter of persons means that He judges all mortals equally and places the same rules over each one no mater what their position. He requires all that want to enter His kingdom to be baptized. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) In the case of the temple He places all members under the same requirements to enter the temple. 4
Navidad Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Not feeling sorry for you. My parents did not attend 5 of their kids weddings including mine. They did not complain however because they understood the Church did not keep them out but they kept themselves out. Anyone can go to the temple. It is open to all who are able to get a temple recommend. The temple is a representation of heaven. God does not keep anyone out of the celestial kingdom. All are invited but one must follow the conditions to enter the celestial kingdom. The choices we make matter. We can't expect others including God to change standards to accommodate the choices we chose to make. I guess I will respectfully point out that the Church sets the conditions that must be followed. So you are right that "God does not keep anyone out of the celestial kingdom" One must follow the conditions that, in all the Christian community around the world, only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has set. The temple and celestial kingdom restrictions are a classic result of the "onlyism" that the Church has created to heal the wounds of its collective persecution. I love my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but when four-tenths of one percent of the Christians in the world claim that God speaks his conditions only to them, and not to any other, I must break ranks and respectfully disagree with them. Edited January 21, 2019 by Navidad
JAHS Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Navidad said: but when four-tenths of one percent of the Christians in the world claim that God speaks his conditions only to them, and not to any other, I must break ranks and respectfully disagree with them. He speaks His conditions to His Prophets who speak them to the world, regardless of what religion they belong to, which He has always done and will continue to do. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, Navidad said: The temple and celestial kingdom restrictions are a classic result of the "onlyism" that the Church has created to heal the wounds of its collective persecution. I love my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but when four-tenths of one percent of the Christians in the world claim that God speaks his conditions only to them, and not to any other, I must break ranks and respectfully disagree with them. What do think of Philippians 2? Quote 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Navidad Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 54 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: What do think of Philippians 2? I am sorry, I am not sure what your question is? Obviously, I think Philippians 2 is terrific. I don't understand how a member or non-member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would disagree on Philippians 2? It is the essence of the gospel - the Christian gospel as taught by all Christians, including members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Recommended Posts