posted
Yeah-- there were three conversations: one about people feeling coerced to put their names on a list of posters who pledged not to delete threads; one about Mormons coercing people (specifically Jatraqueros) to join the Church; and one other that, although I looked at it, I can't remember what it was about.
(Do a search on 'coerce' with TomDavidson as the user. As is common, TomDavidson is the source of the problem... )
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess here's an another attempt to explain the difference. The church is for everyone. There are no levels of membership. People who make you feel that there are are sorely mistaken and need to take a hard look at themselves. Membership in the church is the gateway to many other blessings, including those available in the temple. These are personal and obtained at the person's own speed. Being able to enter the temple is up to that person alone. There is no Club.
I really don't see how this follows. I grant that it is how you perceive things-I don't think you're being dishonest or evasive. The thing is, though, Temple recommend is an outward, quasi-public sign of one's status within the church. It's a sign of something of how the Church, as an organization, feels about a given person's status both with themselves and with God.
Even when the intention is not to make levels of membership, it seems clear to me that there are going to be levels of membership, even among the very best of members. I'm reminded of a line from Gandhi to the British, I'm not sure if this is accurate to history or not, which went something like, "It's in the nature of things, gentlemen, even the best of you must humiliate us to control us."
My comparison isn't at all to say that the intent of having a recommend is to humiliate. It's to point out that, even for the very best of Mormons, a temple recommend serves as a dividing line of sorts, with one group of Mormons on one side and another on the other side. Even when those very best of Mormons follow all the best teachings and don't take on airs or reject people on that basis, the line is still there.
Whether or not someone holds a current temple recommend is actually not made known publicly, although it's not necessarily a secret that the individual is supposed to keep, either. I suppose I could make guesses as to who has one and who doesn't, but that honestly doesn't affect my normal everyday interaction with people in the church. I don't use it as some sort of measuring stick in who I associate with. In Sunday meetings and other times where members of a ward interact, whether they hold a recommend is not a factor. It can become a sore spot--and I freely acknowledge this--at a temple marriage, where not everyone can go in. Again, here, it's up to the individual how they react to that. Bottom line--if the recommend becomes a dividing line between members, it is being perceived and used for the wrong reasons.
Nobody under the age of 18 can hold a recommend that allows them to participate in all ceremonies in the temple. Siblings of the bride who are in good standing with the church but aren't old enough to have a recommend must wait outside the temple as well. That is a distinct division, I guess, and maybe the only one actually recognized in the church. Adult members are all regarded as having the potential to obtain a recommend and enter the temple.
Hmm. There are many people in the world who have written and published a novel. I haven't. That puts me in a different group of people than the novelists, of course, but should I want to put in the time and effort it takes to write and sell a novel, I'd become one of the novelists, too. That's an example full of holes, of course, but it helps to illustrate what the dividing line is.
Another attempt: We require our kids to get their chores and homework done before they can watch TV or play video games that day. When one of our kids takes the initiative and gets her work done quickly, she is able to do what the other kids aren't allowed to yet. The other kids aren't being discriminated against. The privilege isn't closed to anyone, but the kids do have to decide to put in the work before they get to claim it.
Holding a current temple recommend is regarded as a goal for everyone in the church. In fact, one of the former church presidents said that our temple attendance (in which a recommend is required) should be the symbol of our church membership. Inside the church, there is lots of emphasis placed on getting oneself ready to enter the temple. It is a common goal and is regarded as one everyone can achieve. However, at the same time, people aren't generally regarded as "having made it" when they have a current recommend. There's no club of "good" members. Holding a recommend is no guarantee of infallibility. All church members are definitely encouraged to work towards having a temple recommend, even if they live far from a temple and can't attend without great difficulty.
The reason why I said it's up to that person alone is because it's regarded as that person's personal business and responsibility as to when and whether they hold a recommend. It's between you and God, to put it another way. You will not be frog-marched into it. I realize that Matt and others are saying that since they aren't church members and aren't inclined to be, they don't have any choice at all in whether they can attend a temple marriage. That is true. But should they want to enter the temple, it would be up to them alone to make the changes necessary. Nobody is barring the door. That's what I'm saying.
[ September 08, 2011, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another attempt: We require our kids to get their chores and homework done before they can watch TV or play video games that day. When one of our kids takes the initiative and gets her work done quickly, she is able to do what the other kids aren't allowed to yet. The other kids aren't being discriminated against. The privilege isn't closed to anyone, but the kids do have to decide to put in the work before they get to claim it.
another comparison to children?
man, it's like unintentional psychological revelation day here
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bottom line--if the recommend becomes a dividing line between members, it is being perceived and used for the wrong reasons.
OK, but if human nature is such that this is something that can't be prevented, then it's an institutional problem. We can't just say "they are doing it wrong" and point to the idealized intent of the institution rather than the practical result. And it's pretty easy to tell who has a temple recommend if one uses garments as a proxy.
quote:Another attempt: We require our kids to get their chores and homework done before they can watch TV or play video games that day. When one of our kids takes the initiative and gets her work done quickly, she is able to do what the other kids aren't allowed to yet. The other kids aren't being discriminated against. The privilege isn't closed to anyone, but the kids do have to decide to put in the work before they get to claim it.
The problem with all of your metaphors is that all of them involve some deliberate effort - things you could compel someone to do by gunpoint or, more realistically, things that can be accomplished through force of will. Temple attendance doesn't only require that you *do* certain things but that you *think* certain things. I think that's incredibly unfair to hold weddings there while dissuading external ceremonies when such ceremonies have become so embedded in our culture. Surely God can abide the presence of a respectful unbeliever even in his most sacred of places. The unbelievers that currently attend through duplicitousness aren't causing any apparent harm.
Out of curiosity - is there a doctrinal basis for the policy on external ceremonies or worthiness standards for temple attendance? (Not participation in ordinances, just observing them).
posted
I don't anticipate Obama's jobs bill to meet with anything by disdain from Republicans. I doubt it will pass with even modifications made to it. It will just be ignored.
The plan is a bit underwhelming, a suped up version of it should have been the stimulus passed in 2008, instead of TARP, but in today's toxic political climate I don't expect the Republicans to take it seriously or try to work with it. They will simply parrot "NO INCREASE IN TAXES!" and then blame Obama as the economy continues to stagnate, or at worse slip into depression.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, are you familiar with D&C 109? I think that has several verses that underpin temple attendance policies.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On facebook, many of my conservative friends have been posting this: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree!
Part of me is amazed- are we really looking to Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea for policy decisions? I know liberals who say that the Republicans seem to be trying to make the US into a 3rd world country (abolish labor protections, etc) and while I have in the past thought this is unfair rhetoric on liberals' part, reading crap like that repeatedly by my conservative friends makes me think maybe the republicans really are trying to get us to lose our first world status.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I've not known of a case where tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple.
Funny story; the guy sitting right behind me playing League of Legends is, well, an ex-Mormon because of two issues. 'tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple' is one of them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: On facebook, many of my conservative friends have been posting this: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree!
Part of me is amazed- are we really looking to Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea for policy decisions? I know liberals who say that the Republicans seem to be trying to make the US into a 3rd world country (abolish labor protections, etc) and while I have in the past thought this is unfair rhetoric on liberals' part, reading crap like that repeatedly by my conservative friends makes me think maybe the republicans really are trying to get us to lose our first world status.
I think the implication is actually: These are third world countries... and they're WAY AHEAD OF US!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK, but if human nature is such that this is something that can't be prevented, then it's an institutional problem. We can't just say "they are doing it wrong" and point to the idealized intent of the institution rather than the practical result. And it's pretty easy to tell who has a temple recommend if one uses garments as a proxy.
I don't know what else to say. At some point, it's up to the individual to determine how they see it and feel about it. I won't try to idealize it anymore. I've tried explaining how I see it. I definitely have only one perspective. The church does many things according to patterns or ideals, and leaves it up to the people to align themselves in relation to those patterns. Obviously, not everybody will see it the same way and not everybody will be pleased all the time.
quote: The problem with all of your metaphors is that all of them involve some deliberate effort - things you could compel someone to do by gunpoint or, more realistically, things that can be accomplished through force of will.
They could lead to the gunpoint thing, but they don't have to. Don't read too much into my examples. They were intended to illustrate one point only.
quote: Temple attendance doesn't only require that you *do* certain things but that you *think* certain things. I think that's incredibly unfair to hold weddings there while dissuading external ceremonies when such ceremonies have become so embedded in our culture. Surely God can abide the presence of a respectful unbeliever even in his most sacred of places. The unbelievers that currently attend through duplicitousness aren't causing any apparent harm.
I do not know if it is stated church policy to discourage outside ceremonies in the U.S. I certainly don't see any harm in having a separate ring ceremony, like scholarette's, perhaps, that everyone can attend. I can't see the church being willing to sponsor a supplemental ceremony for everyone getting married in the temple, but if the family wants to plan one on their own terms, why not? I'm sure there are opinions all across the spectrum on that one.
As far as allowing non-members into the temple, I believe that is considered doctrine. I don't think the church is afraid that non-member observers wouldn't be respectful. It stems more from doctrine on the temples themselves, set forth in scripture. Their role as a place set apart from the rest of the world is taken very seriously. Only those who have taken the prescribed steps to prepare may enter them, whether to participate in one of the ceremonies or to witness a temple marriage.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: On facebook, many of my conservative friends have been posting this: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree!
Part of me is amazed- are we really looking to Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea for policy decisions? I know liberals who say that the Republicans seem to be trying to make the US into a 3rd world country (abolish labor protections, etc) and while I have in the past thought this is unfair rhetoric on liberals' part, reading crap like that repeatedly by my conservative friends makes me think maybe the republicans really are trying to get us to lose our first world status.
IMO, only the most sensational, idiotic, extreme stuff gets passed around in chain emails.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've not known of a case where tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple.
I have. Not many; because by the time you get to the point where you're ready to go to the temple, you already know about tithing, and you've been deceptive or honest about it's payment.
quote:Surely God can abide the presence of a respectful unbeliever even in his most sacred of places. The unbelievers that currently attend through duplicitousness aren't causing any apparent harm.
God is god-- He can abide quite a bit.
Those folks that enter the temple unworthily ARE doing harm to themselves, the same way that people who take the sacrament unworthily are. (See 3rd Nephi 18:29, 1 Corinthians 11:29) They're being dishonest, at the very least.
Which is not to say that the harm is apparent; but that cognitive dissonance is not a positive thing, I wouldn't think.
quote:Out of curiosity - is there a doctrinal basis for the policy on external ceremonies or worthiness standards for temple attendance? (Not participation in ordinances, just observing them).
I'm not sure about external ceremonies. I think the idea behind the policy might be to make sure that the emphasis is on the sealing work done inside the temple. BUT-- my younger brother and his wife were married in a casino in Vegas, and then got married in the Temple a little while later. The worst discipline he received was me and my older brother ribbing him about having Elvis officiate.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:. I think the idea behind the policy might be to make sure that the emphasis is on the sealing work done inside the temple. BUT-- my younger brother and his wife were married in a casino in Vegas, and then got married in the Temple a little while later. The worst discipline he received was me and my older brother ribbing him about having Elvis officiate.
As far as allowing non-members into the temple, I believe that is considered doctrine. I don't think the church is afraid that non-member observers wouldn't be respectful. It stems more from doctrine on the temples themselves, set forth in scripture. Their role as a place set apart from the rest of the world is taken very seriously. Only those who have taken the prescribed steps to prepare may enter them, whether to participate in one of the ceremonies or to witness a temple marriage. [QUOTE]
You must understand the perceived intention and the actual effect of this restriction. In the case of marriages, it is made clear to the families of converts that they are not welcome in nor involved with the marriage of their own family members. To me, this is unconscionable and cultish. Sadly I didn't attend my cousin's wedding, nor did I feel particularly inclined to congratulate him or acknowledge his new wife. Why should I? He chose the church over his family in this event, just as they wanted him to.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:ScottR, in the US the policy is no ceremony that could be mistaken for a wedding. Of course, my exchange of rings, included statements of love (not vows), walking down the aisle (we had to get to the front somehow and my husband was already up there and my dad wanted to walk with me) and flower children (kids are cute and should be included in everything). The bishop did however make a point that the wedding was in the temple, not there.
I'm behind here, but just a few notes from my faulty memory:
My understanding of the country by country policy is that some countries do no allow the Temple ceremony to serve as a legal wedding, and thus the Church permits the legal event to occur prior to the sealing. Though I believe there is a time limit as to how long can go between the two of them. If missed (exceptions made for real reasons, i.e. an emergency doesn't cause a problem, just planning the sealing for a few weeks in the future does) then you're back to the US (and other applicable countries) standard. Which is no sealing until a year after the legal wedding (some exceptions may apply, such as if one of you is a convert who was baptized less than a year prior to the legal ceremony).
The 'ring ceremony' is often suggested by the Church (mostly unofficially) for those who have family or close friends who can not attend the Temple but still wish to participate in the joining of the couple. It often takes place in a LDS church and is run by the Bishop. However, it is not an official Church function and there are no rules or requirements for one. The policy is discourage any ceremony or talks that would make it seem as if this function were the actual wedding and thus detract or minimize the sealing that had taken place. There are no repercussions (outside of the possibility of "more righteous" people haranguing you for it) for not involving the Church, the Bishop, or adding in elements like walking down the aisle into it. Exchanging vows is specifically mentioned as something to be avoided so you'd probably catch some flack for doing that but it wouldn't impact your actual standing in the Church.
As to using the Church, it is a very common venue for non-Temple weddings between two members, receptions and ring ceremonies. Some find it a bit tacky, but as with most things as long as you can schedule it the use of the building is free so for the younger couples who can't afford (or whose parents can't) renting out dining halls or other locations it's pretty popular. I'm surprised to hear of difficulties using it: normally people try pretty hard to work around anything marriage related (any of the above listed events) to make sure the couple can have the ceremony/celebration they want. I spent a decent amount of time in a YSA ward with lots of such activities all held in a building that supported 5 wards and thus was pressed for space on a nominal week. All that being said, unless you are sealed in the Temple, there are no restrictions as to where you must be married, or who can perform the ceremony.
For my part my strongest desire is that should I be lucky enough to get married, my fiance will agree to eloping. The complications of a wedding are too dramatic for me in a secular context. Adding in the fact that my family would not be able to attend the sealing is more than enough to make me want to forgo any unnecessary ceremony and just tie the knot half a world away from everyone I know. Plus, despite the plot of Oragsmo, there's no cost for a Temple wedding (no charge anyway) so eloping makes for a lot more money to spend on the honeymoon.
quote:The bishop did however make a point that the wedding was in the temple, not there.
I wanted to add this is a huge pet peeve of mine. Not that it comes up that often but I've heard it said at a few of the ring ceremonies I've been to and it really bothers me. I don't see why people need to point out that it's not the wedding, or that the sealing was the important part. The whole point of this event is to include those who felt shunned by the sealing, why are we pointing it out to them again!?! Also, I think everyone knew the sealing occurred already and that the couple cared about it, everyone is aware of what's going on, you don't have to inform the masses about this great secret. We're here to celebrate something, not remember when we missed something else!
Should I have such a ceremony, I will inform whoever we ask to run it that any such comments would be highly inappropriate and that if he or she did not feel comfortable not saying them then they should let us know now and we will gladly find someone else. I'm not really sure why everyone uses the Bishop, I guess it just makes a kind of subtle sense. However, I would not feel tied to that concept at all.
posted
My cousin's reception, which happened after the wedding in the temple, included an address by somebody or other from the local ward or stake, I don't know who. He managed to offend both families by apparently talking for about 10 minutes about Mormanism and saying that it was the only path to heaven, and that all outsiders weren't going there. This was an event meant for the non-member relatives, you understand. And hosted in my aunt's house, which seemed poor form for the venue.
And apparently to top that, the moment the guests arrived (for some reason I don't understand, apparently ward members they barely knew arrived with dozens of children in tow, never introduced themselves, and left when the food was gone), the children descended on and ate every last morsel of desert foods they had bought, and the mormon guests consumed all the food, so that the family members were not fed, and somebody had to go and buy sandwiches for the relatives. Apparently a goodly number of people showed up completely uninvited- at least to hear my aunt tell it.
I doubt it's a typical stake, though- if it were, you'd hear more god-awful horror stories about Mormon weddings and their receptions. Because this sounded like an unmitigated disaster.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[EDIT: I misread your post, I thought you were saying the reception in the Temple, the following is in reference to that misunderstanding] [That does sound pretty bad. Though I'm wondering, were you there yourself? Holding receptions in the Temple or on Temple grounds is strictly verboten. Same goes for ring ceremonies, though taking wedding photos around the Temple is ubiquitous and sometimes those things have enough people and organization so as to appear as their own gatherings....]
That being said, I'd certainly believe something like that happened. It's really too bad, I suppose part of the problem is the 'volunteer' status of Bishops. They have little experience and no training in doing this sort of ecclesiastical work and don't necessarily have the tools to say the right thing in these situations nor to help on the planning end. Of course I'd be curious to hear more about some of the strange specifics of this story before I tried assigning blame to anyone in specific.
posted
I don't know who was at fault, honestly. I think probably it was a case of poor communication all around. My aunt (his aunt as well, not his mother) is bossy but efficient, and he's a quiet retiring sort, and his wife is also rather meek. The aunt also pushed them into having the reception, and at her house, so who knows. I made it sound like it was all the fault of the Mormons, but I think the issue there was poor communication that might not have happened had the wedding been planned as a single event. As it was, the exclusivity of the ceremony meant that people didn't communicate about what the reception would be like.
I consider it 100% plausible that he was not able to properly communicate his expectations to the ward members about the reception, was not properly able to communicate the needs of the reception to our aunt, and was overall ill-prepared to stand up for himself about what he wanted to happen, and though I don't know his wife very well, I rather think the case was the same with her. Basically, two newlyweds who got swept up between the church and the family, so nothing really went well.
Now, if you add to that an inexperienced bishop, and just one or two tasteless families with wild kids, you get a disaster. Not a surprise at all. But it was a shame from what I heard about it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" In the case of marriages, it is made clear to the families of converts that they are not welcome in nor involved with the marriage of their own family members"
I understand this happens. But such an attitude is definitely not according to Mormon doctrine.
Sorry about your cousin's wedding. It sounds terrible.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: it occurs to me that I am defining "marriage" as used by Orincoro as the entire day-- not just the ceremony. We had lots of non-Mormon help and participation in our reception, for example.
[ September 10, 2011, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't anticipate Obama's jobs bill to meet with anything by disdain from Republicans. I doubt it will pass with even modifications made to it. It will just be ignored.
The plan is a bit underwhelming, a suped up version of it should have been the stimulus passed in 2008, instead of TARP, but in today's toxic political climate I don't expect the Republicans to take it seriously or try to work with it. They will simply parrot "NO INCREASE IN TAXES!" and then blame Obama as the economy continues to stagnate, or at worse slip into depression.
I'm actually a little suspicious of the GOP reception of the bill. Instead of immediately dismissing it, as McConnell did, Boehner is actually making friendly sounds. Is this a new good cop bad cop ploy they're trying?
Regardless, there's a lot Republicans will like in this bill. The Payroll Tax holiday will be extended, if it's not, it's a tax increase under GOP rules. They define tax increases to include an expiration of a tax cut, so they'd be raising taxes.
They'll like the free trade parts, they'll probably all end up agreeing on patent reform, the GOP will probably go for the infrastructure bank. They might even go for the road construction stuff because the Transportation Bill has been languishing in Congress and needs to be passed anyway. They'll balk at unemployment extensions, but I really don't know how they can justify voting them down without passing something more comprehensive to create jobs.
Dollar for dollar he might not even get half of it, but item for item, he's going to get more than most people think. Lots of economists like the plan, but no one things it will pass.
Part of me kind of questions spending $400 billion to create a million or two million jobs. I think there'd be even more economic activity if we just held a lottery of the unemployed, picked two million people, and evenly divvied up the money. Takes two million people off government assistance, and they'll spend like crazy. They'd each get $200,000. Heck, make it four million people and give them all $100,000. Even if you made it 8 million and gave them all $50,000 that's still higher than the median income level in this country. Unemployment benefits extensions already cost like $100 billion a year, so there's a fourth of the money right there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hah. A state lottery of free benefits. I'd like to see the GOP reaction to that one.
First they'd demand that in order to qualify, you would need to be educated. Then it would turn out you would have to have been employed in a high payed job until recently, then it would end up going to the top 1%.
God forbid those Dave Chappelle skits about reparations payments ever come true, and dusty black people start buying truckloads of Newport cigarettes. *THAT* would not be good for the economy for some reason.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see why people need to point out that it's not the wedding, or that the sealing was the important part.
Well, that's really just how plenty of people get when it comes to exclusive clubs that aren't just a hobby or something. If it's a club that one belongs to as a reward for right behavior, and people don't get in until they behave properly...well, as someone else (I believe it was MattP), that could be described as a fundamental flaw. Because it's going to be very hard to deal with the contradictions here-it's an exclusive thing with lots of emotionally deeply important events happening in it, but members shouldn't feel (much less act) superior to those who cannot get in, but they should also be satisfied/proud/happy/etc. that they're at the level to be admitted, and a sign of that is that not just anyone can stroll in-the group and place is that important, but we mustn't feel or act superior to those who can't get in...
I mean, I don't say that people are being hypocritical or anything like that, or deceptive or anything like that either. But there is a contradiction-at least outwardly. The only way it can be avoided, it seems to me, is if you agree with the initial premise-that there isn't a contradiction, if taught correctly.
quote:Whatever happened to that type of thing? Let's build a couple of Hoover Dams or something.
posted
I disagree with your statement Rakeesh, because it reads to me like you've an inherent assumption as to why people say these things at ring ceremonies: namely that they feel they, or at least "their club" is superior to those who are not part of it. Basically that these statements are emanating from a feeling of superiority over those who are not Mormon. Though I don't claim to know what drives any one specific person to say anything, I doubt that this is the general case.
My theories are that there are several reasons one might do this, and feeling above non-members is really the least likely.
First they genuinely believe both in the importance of a Temple sealing as well as the existence of danger should the couple lose sight of what the important event of the day was. Thus attempt to refocus or retain focus on the spiritual and eternal nature of the act that had previously taken place and a de-emphasis on the more showy aspects of the following celebrations.
A desire for those who could not attend the sealing to understand its importance and why the couple did choose to be sealed despite the pain it caused to some. The fact that this must be done very carefully and even then is likely to just cause further alienation is either lost on the speaker or they think they can do it right.
A desire to 'share the gospel' (i.e. proselytize) in what the speaker considers an ideal situation. (This theory is upsetting to me, but I have reason to believe it is the cause of some of these incidents).
A lack of clearly defined purpose for a ring ceremony ("if we aren't exchanging vows, what exactly are we doing here") leads speakers to ramble a bit and fall back on explaining an event they understand the purpose of. This I think is pretty legitimate: most people's purpose for a ring ceremony is basically to appease the family members who are angry at them and don't really develop a more involved theme or purpose. So when the officiator or anyone else who speaks tries to talk about the event they're kind of at a loss as to what to say. Not a great excuse for essentially insulting those who the thing is designed to make feel better, but understandable when they have no topic to speak on but are asked to talk about the new couple.
These are just some ideas; fundamentally I reject what I read as a suggestion that these kind of snafus are the result of the speaker feeling superior for being Mormon. Perhaps it's not what you said and I misread, but if so then I guess this is a response to a hypothetical someone else.
quote:Whatever happened to that type of thing? Let's build a couple of Hoover Dams or something.
Godless commie!
Yeah, see, what you wanna do is claim credit for being the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD by having those things. But also you want to make sure and deride the very notion of EVER doing anything like that again for some reason.
America is GREAT because of all the socialistic things it has done in the past. And we need to keep it GREAT by never doing anything socialistic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to be at least a little impressed.
The mental contortionist act it takes to be proud of your achievements even while being disgusted with how they were achieved is enough to make Cirque du Soleil jealous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:America is GREAT because of all the socialistic things it has done in the past. And we need to keep it GREAT by never doing anything socialistic.
Though I'm not sure that I'd call it socialist, there is no question that this is an excellent point.
quote:I disagree with your statement Rakeesh, because it reads to me like you've an inherent assumption as to why people say these things at ring ceremonies: namely that they feel they, or at least "their club" is superior to those who are not part of it. Basically that these statements are emanating from a feeling of superiority over those who are not Mormon. Though I don't claim to know what drives any one specific person to say anything, I doubt that this is the general case.
I wasn't speaking of ring ceremonies, not being very familiar at all with them, but rather the separation between those with a temple recommend and those without, and further still those who aren't Mormons at all. I was trying to address what seem to me to be some pretty tricky mental navigation inherent with an exclusive situation such as that.
Having a recommend is something to be aspired towards, something that is evidence of one's spiritual status (and while it's not public, what I meant by 'quasi-public' is that, over time, it will be known who has one and who doesn't-such as by attendance at ceremonies or lack of attendance). So it's something to be grateful for and be satisfied with-it's not just given to anyone, after all.
But, people with a recommend shouldn't feel superior to those without a recommend. That's fine on paper, but in my experience it's sometimes really, really hard for people to make that distinction. And it's understandable. I'm not just talking about overt smugness-it's pretty easy not to do that. I'm talking about not feeling superior to others because you are right with God*, and they aren't.
quote:First they genuinely believe both in the importance of a Temple sealing as well as the existence of danger should the couple lose sight of what the important event of the day was. Thus attempt to refocus or retain focus on the spiritual and eternal nature of the act that had previously taken place and a de-emphasis on the more showy aspects of the following celebrations.
This all serves to highlight the contradictions I was talking about. It's pretty mcuh as difficult as the fact that Christians are supposed to be humble and peaceful, but not be pridefully humble and peaceful. It's all well and good to say, "Well they're not supposed to do that," but that's easy to say and hard to do. And I don't accept that it's exactly uncommon, either. Why would it be any more uncommon than Christians who are proud of their piety, exactly?
quote:A lack of clearly defined purpose for a ring ceremony ("if we aren't exchanging vows, what exactly are we doing here") leads speakers to ramble a bit and fall back on explaining an event they understand the purpose of. This I think is pretty legitimate: most people's purpose for a ring ceremony is basically to appease the family members who are angry at them and don't really develop a more involved theme or purpose. So when the officiator or anyone else who speaks tries to talk about the event they're kind of at a loss as to what to say. Not a great excuse for essentially insulting those who the thing is designed to make feel better, but understandable when they have no topic to speak on but are asked to talk about the new couple.
Eh, not really to me. I mean, to be honest I don't really get the point of a ceremony designed to make people feel better. Particularly in cases of one member of a family going all-out and getting a recommend and a temple marriage, it's a pretty big step away from the rest of the family, not unlike-though on a different scale-someone leaving a community of Amish (not unlike, because there are some pretty clear things you must do, and things you mustn't do, to have a recommend-it's an exclusive community). If you're going to have a ceremony to 'make them feel better', then that should be its purpose. Not proseltyzing to them, not referring back to the meaning of the big indicator that their family member is walking away from them, and not reminding them of how important the actual, clearly defined ceremony is.
When such things happen, it seems to me a pretty clear sign that a ceremony such as that was never-in that case-more than anything but a get-well card.
quote:These are just some ideas; fundamentally I reject what I read as a suggestion that these kind of snafus are the result of the speaker feeling superior for being Mormon. Perhaps it's not what you said and I misread, but if so then I guess this is a response to a hypothetical someone else.
Overall, I wouldn't say such things are a result of speakers feeling superior for being a recommend-bearing Mormon (though frankly it's hard for me to imagine such thoughts aren't somewhere in the mind of someone who, for example, proseltyzes to a family of non-members at their for-appearances ring ceremony). I think they're a result of the difficulty in threading the needle: it's really good to have a recommend and to do things in the Temple, but don't feel superior about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the 9-year-old sister of a childhood friend that was Mormon (I was 12 or so at the time): "We're not better, we're just more specialer." [Looks to brother.] "Right?"
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You have to be at least a little impressed.
The mental contortionist act it takes to be proud of your achievements even while being disgusted with how they were achieved is enough to make Cirque du Soleil jealous.
It's liiiike... bragging about the great gay sex you've had, even though you're a homophobe.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From the 9-year-old sister of a childhood friend that was Mormon (I was 12 or so at the time): "We're not better, we're just more specialer." [Looks to brother.] "Right?"
Out of the mouths of babes and all that. That is, it seems to me, a pretty natural, straightforward way of looking at things-the way that 9-year-old sister of a friend looked at it. There's more to the teachings than 'I'm a member of the thing we're all supposed to be doing, and you're not, therefore...' but it's tough to teach much less embrace.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wasn't speaking of ring ceremonies, not being very familiar at all with them, but rather the separation between those with a temple recommend and those without, and further still those who aren't Mormons at all. I was trying to address what seem to me to be some pretty tricky mental navigation inherent with an exclusive situation such as that.
Ahh, but my statement, to which you were responding there, was entirely about ring ceremonies. Perhaps you were trying to make a broader point, but my issue is that I don't think that broader point (true or untrue) applies to the scenario in question. The scenario being ring ceremonies.
quote:
quote: First they genuinely believe both in the importance of a Temple sealing as well as the existence of danger should the couple lose sight of what the important event of the day was. Thus attempt to refocus or retain focus on the spiritual and eternal nature of the act that had previously taken place and a de-emphasis on the more showy aspects of the following celebrations.
This all serves to highlight the contradictions I was talking about. It's pretty mcuh as difficult as the fact that Christians are supposed to be humble and peaceful, but not be pridefully humble and peaceful. It's all well and good to say, "Well they're not supposed to do that," but that's easy to say and hard to do. And I don't accept that it's exactly uncommon, either. Why would it be any more uncommon than Christians who are proud of their piety, exactly?
I'm afraid I'm not seeing the line between my words and yours; can you help me here?
quote:Eh, not really to me. I mean, to be honest I don't really get the point of a ceremony designed to make people feel better. Particularly in cases of one member of a family going all-out and getting a recommend and a temple marriage, it's a pretty big step away from the rest of the family, not unlike-though on a different scale-someone leaving a community of Amish (not unlike, because there are some pretty clear things you must do, and things you mustn't do, to have a recommend-it's an exclusive community). If you're going to have a ceremony to 'make them feel better', then that should be its purpose. Not proseltyzing to them, not referring back to the meaning of the big indicator that their family member is walking away from them, and not reminding them of how important the actual, clearly defined ceremony is.
Well here I have to tread carefully. The truth is I don't much understand the importance of being at the ceremony, ring, wedding, whatever. Thus I'm really not equipped to understand how the ring ceremony functions as a partial fill-in for those who can not attend the sealing as I appear to be somehow emotionally deficient and just can't quite grasp how one would be offended by missing the event in the first place. The self deprecating language here being genuine, I'm not attempting to minimize the one who do (which make up the vast majority of family and friends) I'm saying I just don't get it.
So with that disclaimer... the hypothetical I had in mind, which I think was reasonable, was this: a couple has some number of family or friends who they know will be hurt by the fact that they can't attend the sealing. They thus decide to hold a ring ceremony to assuage those who have been hurt. They plan out various events at that ceremony but it never occurs to them to develop any kind of theme or purpose beyond the one that forced them there. Thus when they decide to ask their Bishop to speak for a few minutes he finds nothing to discuss in regards to this ceremony and falls back on discussing the sealing. You don't think this is understandable? I'm not saying right, or agreeable, just understandable. I'll side with you if you want to add "unfortunate" or "inappropriate". After all this conversation began with me saying it was a huge pet peeve of mine.
And to be clear, I think this can be avoided. Not just by asking the speaker to steer clear of such subjects, but rather by developing a meaningful theme or purpose for your ceremony. Most good ones I've been to combine it with the reception and have it fulfill the "present the new couple to society" function. But whatever you want, you can make the ceremony about something, make it mean something and thus avoid this problem.
quote:Overall, I wouldn't say such things are a result of speakers feeling superior for being a recommend-bearing Mormon (though frankly it's hard for me to imagine such thoughts aren't somewhere in the mind of someone who, for example, proseltyzes to a family of non-members at their for-appearances ring ceremony). I think they're a result of the difficulty in threading the needle: it's really good to have a recommend and to do things in the Temple, but don't feel superior about it.
To your first point, I would agree it probably is the case in many such scenarios, though I know a few people who I would believe would commit such actions without any feelings or ideas of superiority. However, that's why I added that such things upset me. As to your second, this seems to be the main thesis of your last few posts. My disagreement mostly arose from its application to this specific case, but it's not clear to me what you're saying in general.
Let me try to explain what I'm reading, you can correct my mistakes and then I'll end with what I just don't understand. Your issue here is that the LDS Church, like many other religions or just normal organizations, has created an exclusive set of values and members. The teachings are that these values represent a 'higher' plane of living, and thus the members enjoy, by some definition a higher life than those who have not chosen to so live. The problem then results when trying to interact with those who are not members of the organization as a dichotomy develops when you both treat them as equals and yet hold the belief that your organization and values are superior to what they belong to, or to what morals they are living by.
Is this correct?
My question is, what are you saying about this problem exactly? That is a problem that any organization like this should be aware of and try to deal with? That this scenario is unfix-able and the organization that sets it up is irresponsible and incorrect? I don't understand what you are trying to say about the situation.
posted
We did a ring ceremony because we wanted a public declaration of our commitment to each other. The temple, by nature, is not that. We wanted all of our friends and family to know that we loved each other. We wanted our family to know that we were now family to each other- his brother was now my brother, all that. We spent a ridiculous amount of time learning a few lines of our ring ceremony in Cantonese (ok, I spent a huge amount of time, my husband got it pretty quickly but I am tone deaf and have that auditory dyslexia so English is hard enough) so that it would be inclusive to everyone. The bishop knew our purposes, but he was fairly traditional. I remember there was a section on ring ceremonies in the bishop's handbook, but not what it said but at the time, we were led to believe we had to have someone from bishopric there if we did it at ward. The bishop spent a lot of time looking at our decorations in terror, trying to figure out how we were going to have it clean in time for church the next day. We had a pagoda, kites, umbrellas, a fish pond, lanterns, lion dancers, etc. Ok, lion dancers don't make much mess, but they were awesome.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sounds excellent Scholarette, I do wish I could've seen it myself!
If you were set on having the event at the Church than the Church did get to proscribe the rules. Technically I think the facilities Bishop would be the one in charge of making decisions originally but they would certainly turn that responsibility over to your own Bishop (if they weren't one in the same). By Church policy it is not required that the Bishop preside, but he is permitted to make that a requirement if he feels it appropriate. Most would simply assume you wanted that anyway so it often just kind of happens.
We're starting to get into areas I'm little fuzzier in but my understanding is that if you had your ceremony in the Chapel then a Bishop or someone he assigns would have to preside. Otherwise two Melchizedek Priesthood holders would have to be present, and the Bishop would have to approve the activities you had planned but no more. That being said, these are (I think, my memory ain't what it used to be ) the minimum requirements as specified by the CHI, if the Bishop feels so impressed he could include more qualifications such as him presiding/conducting.
Long story short, if you want to use the Church (for free, it's not a bad gig) you'd definitely have more restrictions on what was feasible and what you could demand (though you can of course, always ask, most Bishops are perfectly reasonable men). If you go off property you're golden as long you don't, you know, actually break commandments. There aren't actual rules about ring ceremonies as it's your business, and not a spiritual function like the sealing.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Your issue here is that the LDS Church, like many other religions or just normal organizations, has created an exclusive set of values and members. The teachings are that these values represent a 'higher' plane of living, and thus the members enjoy, by some definition a higher life than those who have not chosen to so live. The problem then results when trying to interact with those who are not members of the organization as a dichotomy develops when you both treat them as equals and yet hold the belief that your organization and values are superior to what they belong to, or to what morals they are living by.
Is this correct?
My question is, what are you saying about this problem exactly? That is a problem that any organization like this should be aware of and try to deal with? That this scenario is unfix-able and the organization that sets it up is irresponsible and incorrect? I don't understand what you are trying to say about the situation.
Hobbes
I think that, for me, the problem is that even though that kind of pride is a very typical human response, it is something that Christians are generally instructed to avoid.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the problem is that even though that kind of pride is a very typical human response, it is something that Christians are generally instructed to avoid.
Mormons, too. I think that's been stated.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that, for me, the problem is that even though that kind of pride is a very typical human response, it is something that Christians are generally instructed to avoid.
I still don't understand though. Are you saying that the set-up I described (in the part you quoted) is in-itself flawed/evil? Or are you saying that it's something such a group would need to pay attention to and work on? Or something else? I suppose technically I was asking Rakeesh, but I'd be interested in your opinion too.
First, The Temple sealing is a very small intimate affairs. Even if all your friends and family are temple worthy Mormons, they won't all be able to attend. Temple sealing rooms will typically accommodate no more than a couple dozen people. In a large LDS family, that's not many so a lot of friends, cousins, aunts and uncles etc aren't going to be invited, no matter how worthy they might be. Mormons tend to invite a very small number of people to the actual wedding ceremony and an enormous crowd to the reception. People who've grown up LDS, expect that they are unlikely to be invited to the wedding ceremony in the temple unless they are very close friends of immediate family. That however is not what anyone but Mormons expect and so it's certain to cause offense to non Mormon friends and family members. Its a problem that is growing as an every growing fraction of the church are converts with close friends and family members outside the church.
Second, It's my understanding that the church policy which requires members in the US to wait one year to be sealed in the temple if they have a wedding ceremony outside the temple was adopted about 70 years ago because it was perceived that big wedding celebrations distracted people from the seriousness and solemnity of the simple temple ceremony. Presuming that is in fact the purpose, it doesn't work. People have large elaborate receptions even if they aren't wedding ceremonies. Even without any parties or celebrations at all, the logistics and emotions of getting married (particularly for people who haven't lived together and had sex prior to the marriage) are a pretty big distraction from the temple ordinance in and of themselves. According to my Mother who frequently works in the bridal room in the temple, a lot of the brides spend more time primping for the wedding photos than they do in the sealing room.
Furthermore, the policy hurts families. 60 to 70 years ago, most members of the church were either multi-generation Mormons, immigrated to an LDS community to be close to a Temple or lived too far from a Temple for inviting family and friends to the Temple ceremony to be an issue. That simply isn't the case any more. An ever increasing number of LDS couples have close friends and family members who have never been associated with the church and the policy forces them to choose between celebrating their marriage with their parents, syblings and closest friends and marrying in the Temple. That's just stupid. The church is supposed to strengthen families not drive a wedge between them. And its absolutely not necessary. The policy only applies in the US. It would be so simple to lift it. Let people have a wedding ceremony outside the temple with all their friends and family and then (perhaps as part of the honeymoon) they can go to the temple and have an intimate sacred Temple sealing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: How would you address situations where two people get married either on a whim, but don't want the stigma of divorce so they decide to get married in the temple too, or else couples where they have had sex while dating, can't go to the temple, but then decide to have a civil ceremony to formalize their relationship, and now technically are no longer living in sin?
Is there any sort of probationary period, especially in the latter case you feel is warranted?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
