Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

3 hours 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. 

Everybody has the power to SAY they are speaking for God.  But to SAY that does not mean that is true.  The power God gives us is the power to know WHEN God is speaking to US to let US know when someone else is speaking for God.

And it doesn't make any difference when or if other people do not agree with each other.  God can speak to US even when and if other people do not agree with each other.  We just need to accept the power God gives us to know when God is speaking.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, esodije said:

It really was pointless, anyway.

More accurate to say it became pointless when the body of the Church changed their perspective on marriage.

It wasn't pointless under the belief system that established it.

But in the Church today ordinances instituted before the foundations of the earth are fully changeable and can be added, subtracted, or diminished as we feel is right.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

of course it isn't.  You think you are right and have God's truth and they think the same. You are likely both wrong.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Amulek said:

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?

 

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

 

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?

 

I don't think it means a ting to you since you are certain you have God's "truth."  My point is there are a lot of others that disagree.  Who is right?  Who is wrong.  Likely you and they are equally wrong.  Nobody really knows what God thinks if God is even real.

 

As of for...

Quote

 

"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?

 

....Well Mormons believe a heck of a lot that is not in scripture including their own scripture. But you illustrate my point and further prove the hubris of the religious when they convince themselves they have God's truth and are correct while all other are not. It reveals the dark under belly of religion and is a danger to the progression and well being of human kind and rights.  I mean after all God does not sanction  a marriage that YOU think is not what God wants, right?  Mormons have worked hard in the past to prevent other humans of their rights to marriage simply because Mormons  think God is on their side.  Other religions have done this as well. It was done by other religious people to Mormons  over polygamy. So much certainty by people who think they know....

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

of course it isn't.  You think you are right and have God's truth and they think the same. You are likely both wrong.

We are probably all wrong about some things. 

But those other religions base doctrine entirely on how they (or in most cases a group of men centuries ago) interpret a closed book of scripture.

We on the other hand (at least if we believe) have our doctrine largely straight from the mouth of God with only some interpretation and we are open to God correcting us with new information.

In other words, we are basically the only religion still claiming to listen to God when he speaks.  These other Christian religions mostly believe him silent.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We are probably all wrong about some things. 

But those other religions base doctrine entirely on how they (or in most cases a group of men centuries ago) interpret a closed book of scripture.

We on the other hand (at least if we believe) have our doctrine largely straight from the mouth of God with only some interpretation and we are open to God correcting us with new information.

In other words, we are basically the only religion still claiming to listen to God when he speaks.  These other Christian religions mostly believe him silent.

This use to make me happy knowing this but not anymore, now that I've seen harms with some so called revelations.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This use to make me happy knowing this but not anymore, now that I've seen harms with some so called revelations.

The harm is NEVER in the revelation.  It's in men misunderstanding it or worse, misusing it.

Link to comment
On 5/25/2021 at 3:20 AM, JAHS said:

I have to agree this makes sense and I never really understood the purpose of time-only marriages. Worthy civilly married couples can still serve in the temple together and in so doing maintain a righteous sacred marriage.

It gave a certain extra "piquancy" to a wedding that was otherwise not going to be eternal. The Handbook used to have verbiage to the effect that couples who could not be sealed due to a prior sealing were "encouraged" to be married for Time-only in the temple.  When my now late wife and I were married back in 1980, she was still sealed to her excommunicated husband, so we couldn't be sealed together, but at least we could have been married for time-only in the sacred precincts of the temple. But circumstances militated against it, and we were married by a justice of the peace. That was so not very memorable, or inspiring. As it turned out, her sealing cancellation was signed by President Kimball on the same day as our wedding, and later we were sealed in the Swiss Temple. Much later, after she passed away, I remarried with a widow who had been previously sealed, and so, again, we could have done a Time-only wedding. That would have been nice, actually, but again circumstances militated against it.

If you've never been in a position where you might have emotionally benefitted from a Time-only wedding, then of course you wouldn't understand it. The Temple is a special place, even for such mild things as prayer and quiet contemplation.

I'm a little puzzled by your reference to civilly married couples serving in the temple together. What does that have to do with the subject?

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm a little puzzled by your reference to civilly married couples serving in the temple together. What does that have to do with the subject?

I just meant that if a civilly married couple remain temple worthy their marriage can still be a sacred God approved union as they serve together in the church.

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I just meant that if a civilly married couple remain temple worthy their marriage can still be a sacred God approved union as they serve together in the church.

 

Agreed, of course. I just thought that went without saying. 

I did take my shortly-to-be wife to the Portland Oregon temple for a session a few days before the wedding, and promised to treat her as if we were sealed together.

Link to comment
On 5/28/2021 at 6:57 PM, JLHPROF said:

We are probably all wrong about some things. 

But those other religions base doctrine entirely on how they (or in most cases a group of men centuries ago) interpret a closed book of scripture.

We on the other hand (at least if we believe) have our doctrine largely straight from the mouth of God with only some interpretation and we are open to God correcting us with new information.

In other words, we are basically the only religion still claiming to listen to God when he speaks.  These other Christian religions mostly believe him silent.

I don't think you have a good grasp on what other Christian religions teach about this topic.  It is not as black and white as you think.  For one there is, for Protestants, the priesthood of all believers and the gifts of the spirit.  They believe they have a direct line to God and do not need an intermediary in the form of a Prophet like figure that the LDS church relies on.  They would also disagree that they do not claim to listen to God when God speaks.

Link to comment
On 5/28/2021 at 7:46 PM, Chum said:

How do you know?

I don't claim to know like know like most here on this board seem to think they know.  You know. The comment that God does not sanction same sex marriages is what my original remark was about.  That poster seemed relatively sure about this statement.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't claim to know like know like most here on this board seem to think they know.  You know. The comment that God does not sanction same sex marriages is what my original remark was about.  That poster seemed relatively sure about this statement.  

Okay. Without reasonable knowledge, what is your standing to dispute their assertions?

to qualify: I'm not saying you shouldn't; I'm wondering if your objections have a clear basis.

to qualify that: I'm not looking to setup a gotcha here. Odds are your foundations lie beyond any of my agendas.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Chum said:

Okay. Without reasonable knowledge, what is your standing to dispute their assertions?

to qualify: I'm not saying you shouldn't; I'm wondering if your objections have a clear basis.

to qualify that: I'm not looking to setup a gotcha here. Odds are your foundations lie beyond any of my agendas.

The burden of proof is not on me it is on them.  When someone claims that they know that God does not sanction same sex marriage it is not unreasonable to say how do you know this and what proof do you have other than your on personally belief?  I don't know what God thinks if there even is a God. Nobody really does. They just think they do.

Link to comment
On 5/24/2021 at 9:20 PM, 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.

The discontinuance was addressed in a Monday, May 24, letter to General Authorities; General Officers; Area Seventies; stake, mission, district and temple presidents; and bishops and branch presidents.

Time-only marriages in the temple have been reserved for those who have previously been sealed to a spouse who is deceased, according to the Church’s General Handbook (see 27.3.3). They had to meet the same requirements for a temple sealing — including a valid temple recommend for living ordinances and a marriage license. A marriage in the temple for time only was not authorized for members who were in the process of seeking a cancellation of sealing or a sealing clearance, according to the handbook.

Signed by President Russell M. Nelson, President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring, the letter states:

“A temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the house of the Lord. It is a holy place of worship where individuals make sacred covenants with God and receive promised blessings. These covenants and blessings are eternal in nature.

“Because of the eternal nature of the temple and the work that takes place there, it has been decided that time-only marriages in the temple will no longer be performed. In the case where a couple desires to be married civilly and where a sealing is not contemplated or possible, the couple is encouraged to invite their bishop or stake president — where it is legal — to officiate at the marriage ceremony.”

________________________

I have to agree this makes sense and I never really understood the purpose of time-only marriages. Worthy civilly married couples can still serve in the temple together and in so doing maintain a righteous sacred marriage.

It’s a wise move. We have Seers in the Church

Link to comment
On 5/24/2021 at 10:06 PM, Calm said:

Still...it could lead to time only marriages as being seen as second class.

Why on earth would it be seen as that?

How would we even know where someone is married if we didn’t ask?

not to mention we never treat converts as though their marriage was second class though they are sealed later. Why would this start now?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why on earth would it be seen as that?

How would we even know where someone is married if we didn’t ask?

not to mention we never treat converts as though their marriage was second class though they are sealed later. Why would this start now?

Hopefully, it doesn’t happen any more but when I converted 30 years ago non-temple marriages were treated as second-class by members I came in contact with. Even 20 years ago when I remarried in the chapel the Bishop told me not to invite the young women because it would be promoting non-temple marriage. I felt like a failure. I don’t have that mindset any more, fortunately. 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

It’s a wise move. We have Seers in the Church

The reason they exist seems to be becoming outdated in member thought.  And there may be political considerations too.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Hopefully, it doesn’t happen any more but when I converted 30 years ago non-temple marriages were treated as second-class by members I came in contact with. Even 20 years ago when I remarried in the chapel the Bishop told me not to invite the young women because it would be promoting non-temple marriage. I felt like a failure. I don’t have that mindset any more, fortunately. 

This is sad. The Handbook also encouraged downplaying non temple weddings. Don’t have a Bishop or Stake President perform non Temple weddings. In my experience, they have followed this advice and have not been great officiants. 
 

I recently realized, if any of my kids have a temple wedding, we will probably have a non temple wedding on a Friday followed by a Saturday sealing.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This is sad. The Handbook also encouraged downplaying non temple weddings. Don’t have a Bishop or Stake President perform non Temple weddings. In my experience, they have followed this advice and have not been great officiants. 
 

I recently realized, if any of my kids have a temple wedding, we will probably have a non temple wedding on a Friday followed by a Saturday sealing.

Your child will have no say in the matter? What if he/she wants the marriage to be in the temple? 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...