Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m glad for them. 
 

But I still think there is wisdom on the part of the Brethren to express the ideal that both the marriage and the sealing take place in the temple. 

And for many this will work out just fine and immediate family members will be in the temple with the happy couple. I’m grateful the brethren have provided flexibility for families to have a joyous and inclusive day. And, I hope American members don’t judge or look down on those who choose to follow the new guidance whether it be for family reasons or legal reasons.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

In my mind the two are not in competition. My son and daughter in law, who were sealed years after their marriage, at the time said the sacred nature of their sealing was very special and felt they had the time to focus on the temple instead of being rushed in to the ‘next’ thing that day. 

There's some logic in this. Not only is there the being rushed to the next thing, there is the issue of many new brides (and grooms) having just recently gone through the temple for their own endowments which can be a bit of a shock.
When my wife and I were married in the temple she had no family who were members and her parents were not too happy about being excluded from her marriage. Her father made me show him the marriage certificate to prove it really happened. 😊  They eventually accepted it and were very supportive of our marriage while the rest of their kids were married and divorced several times.

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

And for many this will work out just fine and immediate family members will be in the temple with the happy couple. I’m grateful the brethren have provided flexibility for families to have a joyous and inclusive day. And, I hope American members don’t judge or look down on those who choose to follow the new guidance whether it be for family reasons or legal reasons.

I too am glad that those who need it can be accommodated. It doesn’t mean, though, that I’m willing to discard the ideal. 
 

And do you have any compelling reason to conclude that American Church members are apt to look down on members who are obliged to have a marriage ceremony outside the temple?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It doesn’t mean, though, that I’m willing to discard the ideal. 

No one is asking you too. 

 

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And do you have any compelling reason to conclude that American Church members are apt to look down on members who are compelled to have a marriage ceremony outside the temple?

By your own words, everything else is not the “ideal.” 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And do you have any compelling reason to conclude that American Church members are apt to look down on members who are compelled to have a marriage ceremony outside the temple?

I know of many who believe that having a marriage ceremony outside the temple is less than ideal. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

True, but you don’t see their marriage experience as the best it can be and you make it clear that you don’t over and over.  If you don’t think that would lead others to see you as dismissive of their experience, that it wasn’t as good as it should have been even if that wasn’t their fault, that it had less value, you are likely making incorrect assumptions about human behaviour. 

If they viewed me in that manner, they would be wrong. 
 

There are many advantages I enjoy that others don’t (one could probably say the same about you). That doesn’t mean I look down upon them. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If they viewed me in that manner, they would be wrong. 
 

There are many advantages I enjoy that others don’t (one could probably say the same about you). That doesn’t mean I look down upon them. 

Again, not saying they would think you look down on them. But that you look down in their marriage experience as less than it should have been (if the law allowed).  That you identify the difference as an advantage underlines the idea that their marriage was not as sacred as it could have been, as sacred as your own privileged experience.

When you say something is ideal, that implies that other types are not. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again, not saying they would think you look down on them. But that you look down in their marriage experience as less than it should have been (if the law allowed).

When you say something is ideal, that implies that other types are not. 

Some enjoy advantages that I do not. It doesn’t make me feel inferior or looked down upon to acknowledge that fact. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s far less optional than it is after the man has been released. 
 

And I can’t believe you’re doubling down on this. 
 

This is the first time I’ve seen you call another board contributor “Bishop”. Which makes me suspect you don’t really believe it is necessary. 

He’s the only board member I know who has been a bishop. My former bishop just celebrated his 100th birthday. He was released 35 years ago, but everyone still calls him Bishop. 

I was taught to use the title as a mark of respect. That you think there’s some ulterior motive in using it is pretty odd. 

Oh, well. God knows I try to infuse every post with evil. 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some enjoy advantages that I do not. It doesn’t make me feel inferior or looked down upon to acknowledge that fact. 

You appear to keep arguing that I and others are saying you look down in the person since you keep restating you don’t. In no way am I even close to believing or saying that. Looking down on someone’s experiences doesn’t imply you look down on the person. 
 

But if you keep protesting you don’t look down on the person when no one I can see is actually accusing you of that, you might change my mind that you don’t and I might start thinking you are protesting too much, so to speak. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

He’s the only board member I know who has been a bishop. My former bishop just celebrated his 100th birthday. He was released 35 years ago, but everyone still calls him Bishop. 

I was taught to use the title as a mark of respect. That you think there’s some ulterior motive in using it is pretty odd. 

Oh, well. God knows I try to infuse every post with evil. 

Mark (mfb), Bernard, and Rongo have been as well iirc. I am pretty sure others have mentioned relevant experiences in passing, but not enough to fix that they had that calling in my brain. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Calm said:

That you identify the difference as an advantage underlines the idea that their marriage was not as sacred as it could have been, as sacred as your own privileged experience.

You apparently added something to your post that I can’t let go unchallenged. 
 

This is utterly wrong. I would not view someone else’s temple sealing as “less sacred” just because they did not enjoy the convenience or the liberty I do. I never said anything that could reasonably be construed in this way. 
 

It’s almost as if you are taking to making me an offender for a word, which is unlike you. 
 

In the future, if you add something to a post, I hope you will identify it as a later addition, in case I have already responded before it was made. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Calm said:

We give meaning to the ceremonies we are involved in. For me, having them separate would have increased the sacred sense of the temple sealing as the wedding would be before the world, but the sealing we withdraw from the world into uniquely (for me) sacred space before God and those who are with us have been also anointed to appear before him in a special place and time and way. 
 

I can easily see someone who was brought up in places where weddings were separate feeling they had missed out on the special nature of the sealing by having it combined with the wedding. It is all about what we bring to the experience.

I agree with this. My current husband and I were married and sealed in the temple. We are both converts, and our five children are not active, so we had no family at the sealing. We had a dinner for our family members afterwards, but how special it would have been to have our children and grandchildren attend our wedding. Then we could have gone to the temple and been sealed privately, with no attendees. That would also have been special. Our children understood,  but I missed having them with us. 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mark (mfb), Bernard, and Rongo have been as well iirc. I am pretty sure others have mentioned relevant experiences in passing, but not enough to fix that they had that calling in my brain. 

Yeah, there are quite a few. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

None that I can see. It will always be, at best, an accommodation, whether it be to the government or to relatives/friends. 
 

And that’s how I view the recent policy change by the Church, an accommodation. 

I imagine if you were a non member parent you may feel differently. You might want  to put yourself in a non member parents shoes and see if you can generate some empathy for how they may feel.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

You appear to keep arguing that I and others are saying you look down in the person since you keep restating you don’t. In no way am I even close to believing or saying that. Looking down on someone’s experiences doesn’t imply you look down on the person. 
 

But if you keep protesting you don’t look down on the person when no one I can see is actually accusing you of that, you might change my mind that you don’t and I might start thinking you are protesting too much, so to speak. 

I don’t look down on their marriages or the sacredness of their temple sealings either. That’s just as wrong as saying I look down on them personally. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mark (mfb), Bernard, and Rongo have been as well iirc. I am pretty sure others have mentioned relevant experiences in passing, but not enough to fix that they had that calling in my brain. 

I was unaware of that. I just can’t believe anyone would find fault in my using that term. I certainly meant no harm. 

Link to comment
Just now, Teancum said:

I imagine if you were a non member parent you may feel differently. You might want  to put yourself in a non member parents shoes and see if you can generate some empathy for how they may feel.

I’ve already said I sympathize with them. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mark (mfb), Bernard, and Rongo have been as well iirc. I am pretty sure others have mentioned relevant experiences in passing, but not enough to fix that they had that calling in my brain. 

And HappyJackWagon.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said anything that could reasonably be construed in this way. 

Then what do you mean by “ideal”?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Then what do you mean by “ideal”?

The ultimate standard for excellence, which we never fully achieve (no one is perfect, and we live in an imperfect world under less-than-ideal conditions), but which we can and should strive for. Even less-than-ideal experiences can nonetheless be sacred ones, especially when the Lord makes up for our mortal deficiencies. 
 

But we have to try our best. As Hugh Nibley said, “Work we must, but the lunch is free.”

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The ultimate standard for excellence, which we never fully achieve (no one is perfect, a

But people can achieve having the civil ceremony combined with the sealing, so how is this particular ideal defined by that definition?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...