- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:nibbler wrote:
SWK sure took the hardline approach.
What about sealings for the dead???? Could not this sealing be accomplished by proxy in temples?
As I read along that was my first thought. SWK tried to cover that base at the end of the citation:
Quote:Sometimes we have people who say, ‘Oh, someday I will go to the temple. But I am not quite ready yet. And if I die, somebody can do the work for me in the temple.’ And that should be made very clear to all of us. The temples are for the living and for the dead only when the work could not have been done. Do you think that the Lord will be mocked and give to this young couple who ignored him, give them the blessings? The Lord said, ‘For all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.’ (D&C 132:7)” (in Conference Report, Japan Area Conference 1975, pp. 61–62).
He thought of it too. I don’t particularly like his answer but he thought of it. I’ve heard of similar logic being employed with people that listened to the missionaries but ultimately didn’t accept baptism. Welp, they had their one shot! I just don’t see it that way.
There’s another orthodox approach that I like better: people are only judged according to their testimony or current knowledge and who are we to guess where other people are in their understanding? Besides, it’s not like we conduct investigations on our ancestors to make sure they were worthy before we perform their temple ordinances.
I think SWK’s comments were his way of communicating the importance of temple marriage over civil marriage. Being charitable, possibly not a deliberate scare tactic so much as a reflection of SWK’s own fears.
What about the parable of the prodigal son? Don’t all get the same blessings regardless of when they finally repent? It seems to me SWK’s explanation was an exercise in convenient selection of data to encourage people to get married in the temple. I heard in a meeting once that “if you can get a man to get married in the temple, and have a child, his changes of remaining active go up dramatically over his life time”. Great for the church, not so great for non-member families, and less-active member of their family. And that is why I think these leaders may sometimes really push for early temple marriage and child bearing. And why they don’t like the civil wedding first concept. I wonder if there was data at one time that showed people who had civil marriages first didnt’ stay married or became less active. So the leaders instituted this terrible policy to address that metric. Pure speculation, but it makes me wonder based on the data I heard thrown around in a meeting at one time.
SilentDawning wrote:What about the argument that allowing a civil wedding on the same day “cheapens the temple ceremony”???
If a couple wants to get sealed then the ordinance obviously isn’t “cheap” to them. Following my previous comment, how is it that we are in the position of deciding what other people view or don’t view as being cheap?
IMO the “cheapness” factor is a problem that the policy has created, not one that it is solving. Consider this:
1) If you’re only allowed to have a civil ceremony which ceremony had more importance, the civil ceremony that actually took place or the sealing that didn’t? If the sealing is allowed to take place it shares at least
someimportance on that day. 2) How much relative importance is a sealing ceremony going to have when the couple has been married for a year? Imagine the non-member family and friends. So? Aren’t they already married? What’s the big deal? The one year waiting period does nothing to address the issue of importance, it just shifts the issue by a year. If the sealing is on the same day non-members get to participate
andsee that the sealing is important to the couple. 3) Which anniversary is the most important? When you hit that milestone of 50 years do you throw a big party for the civil ceremony or the sealing or both?
4) Given the policy of restricting access to the temple it’s a given that some people are going to view the civil ceremony as the “main event.” It’s also the event where the couple gets to be creative and give input. Of course that’s the focus, the temple ceremony is on rails and taken care of for you.
Heber13 wrote:My bishop told me the guideline is under review, and it will likely be changed in the next year or so, and them reducing this so couples don’t need to wait a year.
Interesting but I have heard this rumor for a few years now. I actually do think that it’s coming soon though.
:thumbup: nibbler wrote:Interesting but I have heard this rumor for a few years now. I actually do think that it’s coming soon though.
:thumbup:
If a bishop said it, nibbler…it must be true.I also think I read it on the Internet somewhere. So…there.
I am not sure waiting a year is such a big deal. I would advise everyone to get a civil marriage first. If the choose at some time to go to the temple that is fine. So what does it matter if you have to wait a day or a year. The real issue is the church should not be in the marriage business anyway.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Cadence wrote:I am not sure waiting a year is such a big deal. I would advise everyone to get a civil marriage first. If the choose at some time to go to the temple that is fine. So what does it matter if you have to wait a day or a year.
The real issue is the church should not be in the marriage business anyway.
I don’t disagree with you Cadence, and I think that’s what will bring about the change – I think the church will get out of the marriage business and stick with the sealing business.
However, the argument could be made that it’s not the church (or any religion) that doesn’t belong in the marriage business – rather it’s the government.
Yes, in some cases defined by sin – but time to repent and punitive can be seen as different things. No, in cases of recent conversion. I agree completely with a wait period then, given the nature of the covenants involved.
nibbler wrote:I think SWK’s comments were his way of communicating the importance of temple marriage over civil marriage. Being charitable, possibly not a deliberate scare tactic so much as a reflection of SWK’s own fears.
I think SWK believed a LOT of people were going to hell…and this attitude did have a basis in fear. There are two general poles in the discussion of heaven and why to be there: 1) because you will be happy there and it is a wonderful place; 2) because you are more afraid of going to hell, so you will try for heaven at any cost.
I have, most of my life, gotten the feeling of the latter from SWK writings…particularly MofF. Now that I read this quote above,…I am dumbfounded.
Old-Timer wrote:Yes, in some cases defined by sin – but time to repent and punitive can be seen as different things.
There is an interesting disagreement IMHO between the idea of punishment as espoused by SWK and current teachings which I think came mostly from Oaks. When reading SWKs book MofF, I got the feeling that searing horrible pain was necessary, and must be felt and endured as a punishment for sin, so that repentance could take hold and we could learn from our scars as it were to avoid sin in the future. SWK made it clear in his book MofF that the Prodigal Son, for example, lost his inheritance forever, and it could never be regained. This was likened to sinners loosing their souls, primarily through sexual sins (which SWK beats up on vehemently), and once lost, they can never be reclaimed. IN his book, he uses phrases like this: “It appears that these sins are not on the list of the unforgivable ones”. Or, “it seems like perhaps their may be hope” (Now I am paraphrasing, but if someone really wants, I think I can find textual examples that are pretty clear).
He always felt to me like he was hedging his words….giving the impression that things may be forgivable,…but he wasn’t sure,…like maybe not. It was unclear, frightening, and tended to sap hope, at least for me.
Oak on the other hand says that suffering for sin has a purpose other than punishment or payment,..”It purpose is change.” AHHHH…that resonates. The purpose for the suffering is CHANGE!!!!! God is NOT someone who wants to whip us and hurt us…He wants us to change so that we can grow along the pathways that are fruitful and uplifting.
There is a different in the teachings of these two. SWK was very orthodox in his approach, and at least to me, seemed to favor punitive teachings, making it clear that damnation is not only possible, it is likely. But, I think he pushed the line toooooo far, because he used fear as a motive. That is not good. Should someone attend the temple because they are afraid of getting killed and going to hell?…or should they go to the temple because they love their spouse and want to celebrate that love by sealing, so as to have joy?
I am motivated by the latter here,…the former is repulsive. It is also tooooo common.
I also believe that any influence that uses fear, shame, or coercion in ungodly. As far as the current policy does that, I believe it is wicked.
I also think that if the church does away with the time limit, they will have to somehow emphasis that they think civil marriages are still not the way, or loose face with a policy that has hurt a lot of people.
Question: do any of you think this policy has done more good for more people, or has done more damage in the long run?
If feels to me like this policy is about forcing young married people to disown and break way from, even discount their families if they are non-LDS. The general “orthodox” retort is: “Well, if they want to attend the temple, they have to believe God and do what the church says.” This is UTTERLY repulsive to many–and comes across as utterly arrogant from those who espouse it. But, I have met many who believe they are justified in this approach,..this “get with the program or get out”.
DarkJedi wrote:Cadence wrote:I am not sure waiting a year is such a big deal. I would advise everyone to get a civil marriage first. If the choose at some time to go to the temple that is fine. So what does it matter if you have to wait a day or a year.
The real issue is the church should not be in the marriage business anyway.
I don’t disagree with you Cadence, and I think that’s what will bring about the change – I think the church will get out of the marriage business and stick with the sealing business.
However, the argument could be made that it’s not the church (or any religion) that doesn’t belong in the marriage business – rather it’s the government.
There are many legal issues associated with marriage. Just look how hard some fought to legalize gay marriage. It was to obtain those rights and benefits a legal contract between individuals insures. Call it marriage or a binding contract but the government does get involved in marriage
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you think about it the civil portion is what really matters. It is what defines property rights, custody rights, and almost everything else you must go through in this life. The sealing portion is an abstract. A future promise of something that may be or may not. Contrary to SWK there is time for a sealing, but the civil portion you really need to think about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t think it’s possible to take religion or government out of marriage. Government offers a civil option that some people prefer, and religion offers a religious ceremony which others prefer. Religions have always offered a religious marriage ceremony, not just our religion. I think there’s a place for both. What I have a problem with is when somebody is coerced to choose one over the other, instead of being allowed to make their own choice freely. Saying that a couple won’t be married in the afterlife, simply because they chose a civil ceremony over a religious ceremony is what really irks me. Marriage is marriage. It shouldn’t matter where it takes place. This goes right back to the same problem that I keep repeating over and over that I have with the temple; I have a hard time accepting the temple ceremonies (marriage, endowment, you name it) as necessary for our salvation. It feels like motivation from a bully. “Do what I say because I say it,…or I will get you!” That threat can come in the form of a waiting period or the possibility of going to hell. Motivation by fear, which includes deprivation, is oppressive and wrong.
Rob4Hope wrote:Question: do any of you think this policy has done more good for more people, or has done more damage in the long run?
I don’t live near the Mormon corridor and I have seen it do nothing but create bad feelings towards the church by family members of converts. Out of my 3 best friends, one married in the temple to a Mormon family, one married a convert of only 2 or so years (and his in-laws love him, but still are stand-offish to the church), and one that said before he even got serious that he wasn’t going to do it because of his family.For me and my siblings, it has been a problem. We all married converts. I still remember my grandmothers face when she realized she was not able to attend. That hurt’s me even several decades later. She never said anything explicitly, but I have no doubt about how it made her feel as we were quite close.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.