Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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. 

No.  Joseph Smith was not pretending.  He really was writing for God by revelation from God.  Please stop making false allegations.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

No.  Check the records.  He said not in the resurrection.  Because we need to take care of that stuff before we get resurrected.  If you're not sealed before that event then you will not be getting sealed.  So if you want to be sealed then you need to do it before then.

Edited by Jamie
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jamie said:

No.  Check the records.  He said not in the resurrection.  Because we need to take care of that stuff before we get resurrected.  If you're not sealed before that event then you will not be getting sealed.  So if you want to be sealed then you need to do it before then.

This is basic doctrine on marriage.  I'm surprised you have to reiterate it.  I'm not surprised the unbelieving disagree, but it's basic doctrine.

It used to actually be considered a violation of the chastity covenant for an endowed person to marry anyone except in a temple marriage/priesthood ordinance.  That's why there were marriages for time only, so widows could remarry and keep that covenant.

But since we changed the temple covenant I guess it makes sense to end an ordinance.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jamie said:

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.

And that answers my question*** how?
 

***If God didn’t recognize a marriage, why would we bother to proxy seal?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It used to actually be considered a violation of the chastity covenant for an endowed person to marry anyone except in a temple marriage/priesthood ordinance.  That's why there were marriages for time only, so widows could remarry and keep that covenant.

Not questioning, but would like a reference for info so please CFR 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not questioning, but would like a reference for info so please CFR 

I can't quote temple covenant wording on the board.  But prior to the 1920s the covenant of chastity required marriage for endowed people to be performed by priesthood authority.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I can't quote temple covenant wording on the board.  But prior to the 1920s the covenant of chastity required marriage for endowed people to be performed by priesthood authority.

So no other documentation you are aware of?  How did you learn of it?  (Just curious)

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

So no other documentation you are aware of?  How did you learn of it?  (Just curious)

It's not a friendly source (which leads to immediate dismissal by many).  It was a 1931 published expose account of the endowment.  It is quoted in a few anti publications and online.

But I see no reason to doubt it is an accurate account.  Ex members existed in the 1930s too.  Ann Eliza Young and Fanny Stenhouse provided historically contemporary accounts of the early Utah temple ordinances that have been shown mostly accurate.

(ETA Actually, just reviewed Ann Eliza's account and she also states this and so does Stenhouse).

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Jamie said:

No.  Joseph Smith was not pretending.  He really was writing for God by revelation from God.  Please stop making false allegations.

This is your personal belief and the only evidence you have is that you have had some metaphysical experience that you believe is enough to give you certainty.  Good for you.  You can live your life based on that. But to insist that this is God's (if there even is a God) mandate and thus is imposed on all human kind is the ultimate hubris. Of course this is what religion does and results in much of the evil and dark parts of religion. You think your God tells you things and others think as much that their God is telling them things.  You both cannot be right and are likely both wrong. 

An objective study of Joseph Smith and his history for me at least, as well as most others quite frankly, lend to a conclusion that he was likely a charlatan.  The nonsense around plural marriage and Section 132 are at the top of the list for what charismatic religious charlatans do. Feel free to apply this to yourself but don't be surprised when most other simply reject the notion and find notion arrogant and spiritually immature nonsense.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Jamie said:

No.  Check the records.  He said not in the resurrection.  Because we need to take care of that stuff before we get resurrected.  If you're not sealed before that event then you will not be getting sealed.  So if you want to be sealed then you need to do it before then.

The LDS Spin. All the rest of Christendom rejects your provincial interpretation.  And I thought there was such a thing as proxy sealing for the dead.  There was the last time I went to the temple.  But it has been a few years. 😏

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The LDS Spin.

Actually, it's a pretty straightforward reading of the passage. The words used by Christ in his response are referencing marriage as an event - not as a state of being. 

 

Quote

All the rest of Christendom rejects your provincial interpretation.

Two quick points here: (1) you may or may not remember, but Latter-day Saints have this notion about 'the rest of Christendom' not being 100% right about everything; and (2) there are actually traditional Christian theologians who take a similar reading. See, for example, this commentary from Ben Witherington:

"In conclusion, our text argues that the act of marrying will cease in the life to come. It does not follow that Jesus or the Gospel writers envisioned the dissolution of all marriages in the resurrection, or that mankind will live a sexless, genderless existence in that age."

 

Quote

And I thought there was such a thing as proxy sealing for the dead.  There was the last time I went to the temple.  But it has been a few years. 😏

Last I checked, the resurrection has yet to occur. But maybe you know something I don't. ;) 

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

An objective study of Joseph Smith and his history for me at least, as well as most others quite frankly, lend to a conclusion that he was likely a charlatan.

My long take is that Joseph Smith was a fallible, imperfect bonehead - which is a good thing IMO. It aligns him with OT prophets who brought tons of dodgy character traits to the table. JS had the privilege, however, of being the best documented of the lot.

The lessons for me aren't about these men but what they accomplished under the mantle. Outside of that, they tended to have some fairly strong issues.

Also, this is why I'm not inclined to revere religious leaders. At best, they're just guys.

note: I'm omitting notable religious women because all the ones I can recall seem to be clear thinkers.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Chum said:

My long take is that Joseph Smith was a fallible, imperfect bonehead - which is a good thing IMO. It aligns him with OT prophets who brought tons of dodgy character traits to the table. JS had the privilege, however, of being the best documented of the lot.

The lessons for me aren't about these men but what they accomplished under the mantle. Outside of that, they tended to have some fairly strong issues.

Also, this is why I'm not inclined to revere religious leaders. At best, they're just guys.

note: I'm omitting notable religious women because all the ones I can recall seem to be clear thinkers.

Sure but when they say God told me this and I an telling you to do this we better be sure we can trust them. I don't trust Joseph. You know promising exaltation to an entire family for handing him their 14 year old daughter or telling  another women she was picked for him, and angel with a flaming sword threatened him if he did not marry her and she has 24 hours to decide or lose out on her exaltation doesn't build much confidence in me that I can trust him.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Two quick points here: (1) you may or may not remember, but Latter-day Saints have this notion about 'the rest of Christendom' not being 100% right about everything; and (2) there are actually traditional Christian theologians who take a similar reading. See, for example, this commentary from Ben Witherington:

I am acutely aware that the LDS Church believes they possess the truth and are the one and only true church?  So?  Bully for you that you find someone else to confirm the interpretation. It still is a fact most of Christianity does not interpret the passage the was Latter-day Saints do. But then most religions spin scripture to meet their own dogma.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure but when they say God told me this and I an telling you to do this we better be sure we can trust them

Taking a step back, is your position that there isn't a God/deities or that God telling people stuff isn't a thing?

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure but when they say God told me this and I an telling you to do this we better be sure we can trust them. I don't trust Joseph. You know promising exaltation to an entire family for handing him their 14 year old daughter or telling  another women she was picked for him, and angel with a flaming sword threatened him if he did not marry her and she has 24 hours to decide or lose out on her exaltation doesn't build much confidence in me that I can trust him.

No one should say they speak for God, because of the power behind that notion. Almost saying they have the same power as God. We need to take back the power and believe in getting the God given power within ourselves to decide what to do. 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am acutely aware that the LDS Church believes they possess the truth and are the one and only true church?  So?  Bully for you that you find someone else to confirm the interpretation. It still is a fact most of Christianity does not interpret the passage the was Latter-day Saints do. But then most religions spin scripture to meet their own dogma.

How other religions interpret scripture is of no significance to my beliefs.  It's not a majority vote issue.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No one should say they speak for God, because of the power behind that notion. Almost saying they have the same power as God. We need to take back the power and believe in getting the God given power within ourselves to decide what to do. 

I disagree 100%.  That goes against every scriptural example, even that of Christ who gave his Apostles this authority.  You might as well throw out Christ and scripture in favor of such new age "spirituality".

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No one should say they speak for God, because of the power behind that notion. Almost saying they have the same power as God.

It is my experience that speaking with authority is often used to sidestep the process of developing trust.

Instead of developing a relationship where guidance and example can nurture better behavior, authoritarianism prefers uncritical obedience for faster, more powerful, short-term results.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree 100%.  That goes against every scriptural example, even that of Christ who gave his Apostles this authority.  You might as well throw out Christ and scripture in favor of such new age "spirituality".

So when Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory and an apostle says that theory is wrong and will land you in deep trouble for believing it, which of the two was God speaking to? 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So when Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory and an apostle says that theory is wrong and will land you in deep trouble for believing it, which of the two was God speaking to? 

Whichever one received the word of God on the matter (possibly neither).  But contradictory beliefs by those called prophets in no way means God doesn't have a spokesman on earth at any given time.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So when Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory and an apostle says that theory is wrong and will land you in deep trouble for believing it, which of the two was God speaking to? 

I offer that forced choices following a disharmony in beliefs are, at best, counterproductive.  I find this method is frequently a tool for brute-force manipulation.

I feel the wiser course is to note the discrepancy and move on until a broader understanding reconciles the conflicting facets.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Calm said:

And that answers my question*** how?
 

***If God didn’t recognize a marriage, why would we bother to proxy seal?

So that God would then recognize it, if the couple accepted it.  Without that sealing God would recognize that their marriage ended when they died, recognizing that they had not been sealed when they died.  A forever marriage requires the sealing ordinance.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am acutely aware that the LDS Church believes they possess the truth and are the one and only true church?  So? 

So why on earth would you think that an appeal to "the rest of Christendom" would be dispositive to someone who believes that the rest of Christendom has an incomplete understanding of the truth?

 

Quote

Bully for you that you find someone else to confirm the interpretation.

The "someone else" I referenced happens to be a mainstream, traditional Christian theologian. 

 

Quote

It still is a fact most of Christianity does not interpret the passage the was Latter-day Saints do.

So what? Most of Christianity believes lots of things that aren't actually stated in the scriptures. 

Why should we favor those beliefs over what the scriptures actually say?

 

Link to comment

It may already have been said, but any history of divorce on either party’s part was an absolute bar to a time-only temple marriage. That excluded an awful lot of single members from the privilege, even those whose divorces happened long ago and/or through no fault of theirs. I sense that, rather than futz with the rules or give these members one more reason to see themselves as outsiders, the church leaders simply eliminated the practice. It really was pointless, anyway.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...