Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

First Presidency Discontinues Time-only Marriages in the Temple

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced that time-only marriages in the temple will no longer be performed.

Of course they did. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if the temple will change to sealings only, and no marriages in the future. 

 

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I actually hope it does.

A marriage sealing is a marriage.  There is no separate ordinance called sealing where a husband and wife are involved.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Amulek said:

But couldn't something be good, wonderful, and magnificently beneficial, yet still not be the most importing thing?

What important principle or doctrine is at issue, what is being saved by refusing to allow some women to be sealed to multiple husbands and allowing others?

Bottom line for me is the policies have already been changed to show this is okay (for the dead even if a woman was a member and therefore can be said to have already made a choice of what husband she wants to be sealed to if we are assuming a woman can only have one husband in the eternities) and there are enough exceptions out there for the living to show the First Presidencies for at least 20 years have been okay with it for some (and I have heard of some exceptions made over a hundred years ago, so I am guessing they have been going all along, only now with the internet we hear occasionally about them).  Please explain why exceptions are allowed for some of the living and why the dead are allowed to be sealed to multiple husbands if it is so important a woman be sealed to only one man?

There is a reason why the Church is attempting to be consistent for all members across the world, to have temples everywhere, to have the same hard copy hymn book with no patriotic songs, the same manuals and magazines in a mass of native languages and that is in my view to create a church where no one feels a second class citizen or sees elitism in any policy, where we are one.

I am just suggesting let’s be consistent with the same standards for everyone, not just the dead and not just those who luck out with a knowledgeable or open Bishop or who have relatives in higher positions that will go to bat for a female relative or friend in a tragic situation.  I am not suggesting a redefinition of anything, save making a policy consistent to all members.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

What important principle or doctrine is at issue, what is being saved by refusing to allow some women to be sealed to multiple husbands and allowing others?

Bottom line for me is the policies have already been changed to show this is okay (for the dead even if a woman was a member and therefore can be said to have already made a choice of what husband she wants to be sealed to if we are assuming a woman can only have one husband in the eternities) and there are enough exceptions out there for the living to show the First Presidencies for at least 20 years have been okay with it for some (and I have heard of some exceptions made over a hundred years ago, so I am guessing they have been going all along, only now with the internet we hear occasionally about them).  Please explain why exceptions are allowed for some of the living and why the dead are allowed to be sealed to multiple husbands if it is so important a woman be sealed to only one man?

There is a reason why the Church is attempting to be consistent for all members across the world, to have temples everywhere, to have the same hard copy hymn book with no patriotic songs, the same manuals and magazines in a mass of native languages and that is in my view to create a church where no one feels a second class citizen or sees elitism in any policy, where we are one.

I am just suggesting let’s be consistent with the same standards for everyone, not just the dead and not just those who luck out with a knowledgeable or open Bishop or who have relatives in higher positions that will go to bat for a female relative or friend in a tragic situation.  I am not suggesting a redefinition of anything, save making a policy consistent to all members.

The way I look at it is that ordinances for the living take effect immediately when they happen, but ordinances for the dead have not really gone into effect until the dead accept them. So a man or a women are not really sealed to several people until things get sorted out in the next life. But the ordinance has been performed for when that happens.
It's called the plan of happiness for a reason. What ever happens in the eternal future will be for the good and happiness of all involved.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The way I look at it is that ordinances for the living take effect immediately when they happen, but ordinances for the dead have not really gone into effect until the dead accept them. So a man or a women are not really sealed to several people until things get sorted out in the next life. But the ordinance has been performed for when that happens.
It's called the plan of happiness for a reason. What ever happens in the eternal future will be for the good and happiness of all involved.

This doesn’t explain the decades of exceptions being made for living women.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Calm said:

This doesn’t explain the decades of exceptions being made for living women.

No it doesn't but my last sentence is the most important principle and somehow it will happen.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No it doesn't but my last sentence is the most important principle and somehow it will happen.

But it is irrelevant to my comment as I am not debating that at all.

Link to comment

The older I get, the more ridiculous much of the pomp and pageantry associated with modern western weddings seems to me.  IMHO, the more of this materialistic silliness that we can excise from our temples—the better off we will be.

I imagine that the Church will continue to require some sort of legal wedding as a prerequisite for temple sealings for the foreseeable future; but it’s probably worth noting that this hasn’t always been the case (e.g., pretty much every polygamous sealing the Church ever solemnized).

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Calm said:

What important principle or doctrine is at issue, what is being saved by refusing to allow some women to be sealed to multiple husbands and allowing others?

I don't know. But my current thought regarding saving ordinances / covenants is that once you have participated in them it is not necessary for you to do so again unless you have been specifically commanded to do so or unless there is a specific need / requirement for you to do so (i.e., due to having them revoked).

 

Quote

Bottom line for me is the policies have already been changed to show this is okay [...]

Have policies been changed or have exceptions been made?

I mean, there are exceptions to the policy against abortion, but I don't think that means abortions in general are okay.

 

Quote

Please explain why exceptions are allowed for some of the living and why the dead are allowed to be sealed to multiple husbands if it is so important a woman be sealed to only one man?

When I am the prophet I will be happy to do so (note: this is most definitely a don't hold your breath scenario). 

I would speculate, though, that the prophet has simply yet to receive revelation on this as a general guideline that ought to be in effect.

If that is the case, perhaps we will see a change at some point in the future. I would be completely fine with that.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Amulek said:

I would speculate, though, that the prophet has simply yet to receive revelation on this as a general guideline that ought to be in effect.

I agree.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

The older I get, the more ridiculous much of the pomp and pageantry associated with modern western weddings seems to me.  IMHO, the more of this materialistic silliness that we can excise from our temples—the better off we will be.

It is amazing how much of western wedding traditions come from trying to emulate Queen Victoria's wedding to Prince Albert.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is amazing how much of western wedding traditions come from trying to emulate Queen Victoria's wedding to Prince Albert.

Queen Victoria described her choice of dress in her journal thus: "I wore a white satin dress, with a deep flounce of Honiton lace, an imitation of an old design. My jewels were my Turkish diamond necklace & earrings & dear Albert's beautiful sapphire brooch."

Wedding of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.jpg

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert on their return from the marriage service at St James's Palace, London, 10 February 1840. Engraved by S Reynolds after F Lock.
Designer    William Dyce
Royal College of Art
Year    1840
Material    Satin, lace

Before her, royal brides wore wedding dresses in a variety of hues, with red being one of the most popular, while white dresses were reserved for women who were being presented at court.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2021 at 9:32 PM, katherine the great said:

I thought this happened a few years ago. I must have dreamed it. 

 

On 5/26/2021 at 9:06 AM, bluebell said:

I thought so as well.

It has been a long time since I heard of such marriages occurring in the temple. It might be that in practice they have been all but eliminated and this recent announcement merely codifies what has long been the practice. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 5/24/2021 at 11:27 PM, JAHS said:

They already are sort of considered second class compared to an eternal temple marriage, but no less sacred.
God sanctions all marriages. According to Jesus:
"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19: 6)

Therefore all marriages can be considered sacred. 

Sorry I think they are considered second class and less sacred.  It is rather sad IMO.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And you know this how?

D&C 132:7

...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.

Thank you for asking.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Jamie said:

D&C 132:7

...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.

Thank you for asking.

According to Joseph Smith.  Not God.  Happy to correct you.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And you know this how?

In my view...

If God didn’t recognize a marriage, why would we bother to proxy seal?  No, rather it is God’s recognition and desire to allow a marriage relationship to be eternal if the participants desire that has led to proxy ordinances.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

According to Joseph Smith.  Not God.  Happy to correct you.

That was God writing through revelation to Joseph Smith.  Your false allegation is not correction.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

In my view...

If God didn’t recognize a marriage, why would we bother to proxy seal?  No, rather it is God’s recognition and desire to allow a marriage relationship to be eternal if the participants desire that has led to proxy ordinances.

Nobody knows what marriage God recognizes or doesn't.  Jesus said there is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven.  I have never heard a decent explanation of reconciling LDS teaching on marriage with that NT passage.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Jamie said:

That was God writing through revelation to Joseph Smith.  Your false allegation is not correction.

No.  It was Joseph Smith pretending God was talking to him in order to convince his wife (and others) that his fake philandering marriages were from God. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Calm said:

In my view...

If God didn’t recognize a marriage, why would we bother to proxy seal?  No, rather it is God’s recognition and desire to allow a marriage relationship to be eternal if the participants desire that has led to proxy ordinances.

We do the proxy sealing ordinance work for those who were married by the law of the land wherever they lived just in case they might want to be sealed together forever.  Our work doesn't seal them if they don't want to be sealed.  Without that sealing their marriage ended at death because they were not sealed when they died.

Edited by Jamie
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...