posted
Excellent points Rabbit. It really does feel the creation of this choice (us or them) is arbitrary. And once more I believe that should such changes be made, fully LDS families would stick to the way it is already. Seems like the only ones impacted would be those no longer forced to choose between the Church and their non-member family and those who desperately want the showy wedding. And how was forcing the latter group into the Temple actually helping if their hearts weren't in it?
BB, I'm not sure I understand your questions. If there was some sort of sin involved then they'd have to work with the Bishop to get their Temple Recommend anyway. He'd (with them and the Stake President if applicable) set the timetable for them to return to, or just go to the Temple. There's a built in delay in those cases already.
posted
Hobbes: And yet, people do not always want the shame of admitting those sorts of things, to a bishop or stake president. So they go and get married, or move soon after getting married, and it's a new bishop or stake president who doesn't know a thing about their case.
Same thing for those who get married in say Vegas over the weekend, start having sex, and then come back much to the shock of everybody they know, and then indicate they are properly married, they are going to the temple next week to get married for time and all eternity.
On what grounds could a bishop or temple president deny their request for getting married in the temple?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... The policy only applies in the US. It would be so simple to lift it.
Wait, I must have missed this before. How difficult is it for an American couple to simply have a temple wedding in say Canada or Mexico if they wanted more control over who they could invite?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand Blackblade. Yes, people lie about their sins to avoid shame and end up going to the Temple unrighteously. What does this have to do with allowing weddings outside prior to the sealing? Seems like that would make it better...
Also, if someone is under disciplinary action that is marked on their records until it is taken care of. If they transfer their records the new Bishop is automatically notified. If they do not transfer their records they can not get a Temple Recommend.
quote:Same thing for those who get married in say Vegas over the weekend, start having sex, and then come back much to the shock of everybody they know, and then indicate they are properly married, they are going to the temple next week to get married for time and all eternity.
On what grounds could a bishop or temple president deny their request for getting married in the temple?
Why would he want to (and I assume you mean stake president there, not Temple, am I right)? To get sealed you need to procure a 'living recommend' for that particular event, which is rarely given in haste (well LDS haste, as in, not in a day or two, often just a couple weeks though). If they're worthy, if their living the commandments and it's not longer prohibited to be married civilly and then shortly following sealed, why would a Bishop wish to interfere? And if they aren't doing those things, again the Bishop simply doesn't issue the living recommend.
posted
BB- if they are willing to make a temple commitment, why shouldn't they be married in the temple?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: 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?
I don't see this as a serious problem. To be sealed in the Temple, you have to have approval from your Bishop in addition to the normal Temple recommend. I think we can trust the discretion of most Bishops in such cases.
I have a hard time imagining that the first case would be a very common occurance. And when it does happen, if being sealed in the temple helps a couple who married on a whim to commit to making it work -- shouldn't we be encouraging it? At any rate, its better than the alternative where a couple dates for a month, is engaged for a month, marries in the temple and then is divorced within the year. I saw this happen a frightening number of times when I was attending a singles ward. Those couples would have been far far better of getting the quicky Las Vegas wedding.
Besides that, we all ready have a working policy in place for pretty much everywhere outside the US. People who are preparing to be married in the temple, marry in a public legal ceremony and then they have a set period of time(something on the order of a couple weeks) following that when they go to the temple to be sealed. If they don't go in that window, then they have to wait the year. That's all planned and arranged with the Bishops counsel and approval before the wedding. If a couple elopes, they can't come back in that window, get a recommend and go get sealed. They have to wait the year. All I'm suggesting is that the Church should change its US policy to match the policy it has everywhere else in the world.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was a great article on FMH-- thanks, scholarette.
Something stood out to me-- in the original poster's question on FMH, she stated something along the lines of how she was afraid that if she expressed to her family the doubts she had about the church, they would be saddened and upset.
I wonder if, at the bottom of a lot of unresolved guilt and doubt and sin, is this symptom: that the people you love and trust will reject you if they just knew how dirty you are. It's vital, in my opinion, to identify sin. It's as vital to embrace the person committing the sin, and show Christ-like compassion and love to them.
Christ did not shrink from the lepers. He did not let them live in leprosy either, those that came to Him-- but he welcomed them and healed them.
I hope that's something I'm showing my own children, and the children I teach at church-- that there is nothing they can do that will shake my love for them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind, those with doubts, don't necessary feel they are sinning or dirty. But they know that their friends and family will view them that way and having everyone around you think you are sinning sucks, even if it is a loving judgement.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure that's why many people leave the church.
There is a sense of betrayal, IMO, when a friend or family member decides to cut loose from church activity a bit. I've felt it. You depend on those around you to hold up their end and be buoys for you when you need it. You have your faith in common with them. When they let that go, you realize you can't depend on them in that way anymore. I've felt hurt when that happens--inadvertently. I also feel like suddenly I am being perceived as judging them, even though I haven't changed course but they have. I am going through this right now with some friends of mine. I'm doing my very best to treat them the same as I always have, but they must wonder what I think of them. I can't really help that. It's their choice. It's less we have in common now, and of course all of a sudden I feel I have to be guarded when the subject of church comes up, because there are invisible toes all over the place waiting to be stepped on, I imagine. And it goes on and on. Judgment in these cases isn't always very clean cut. It goes both ways and a new relationship has to be worked out of it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Looks like they're going for a similar tact, cut spending, no new taxes. At least Boehner said that closing loopholes is the "right thing" and not against their pledge of "no raising of taxes". We'll see if they remember saying that in the next few weeks when the compromises are hammered out.
Either way, looks like the Republicans don't want to go big on this, and are going to play defense for now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's going to be interesting to see what Boehner will do when and if the Super Committee releases a plan with tax increases. If they really "go big," they'll almost have to have some sort of tax increases along with spending cuts.
Then Boehner has to choose between tax increases and massive cuts to defense spending. That will be fun to watch.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QUOTE] He chose the church over his family in this event, just as they wanted him to.
Yes, this is what they expect in far too many cases (if not all?).
For example, consider LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks' sentiment regarding parents of LGBTQ mormons who follow their children out of the church to adversarial positions.
quote: ELDER OAKS: We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance. We should remember that none of us is perfect and none of us has children whose behavior is entirely in accord with exactly what we would have them do in all circumstances.
We feel great compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary to the Church. *I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love for their children has caused them to get into such traps.
*emphasis added
Lord, have mercy on those who put family first.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I kinda thought 'merciful' was something of a default position. Interesting how an implied threat can be read in that last remark. I don't say that's what was meant, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to see it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: How does the "If ye are not one, ye are not mine" teaching fit into all this?
(Doctrine and Covenants 38:27?)
Well see we are supposed to simultaneously learn the principle of putting God above ourselves, as well as the principle of belonging to a community. Amazing how Christianity requires mastery of multiple skill sets neh?
----
Rakeesh: I've met Elder Oaks, and I absolutely believe that he feels nothing but compassion for parents who out of a sense of protective love for their children turn against the church. I very much doubt he hopes they end up in hell, but rather God helps the church and those people patch things up. The scriptures are quite clear on how God feels about people departing the church for any reason. Everybody loses.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard Richard G. Scott also has a son that left the church, and that this is the reason he always looks at the camera when he speaks in conference, and talks so much about forgiveness.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I've heard Richard G. Scott also has a son that left the church, and that this is the reason he always looks at the camera when he speaks in conference, and talks so much about forgiveness.
I've read the the latter is being more a function of his trying to speak directly to people, I've never heard anything about a son leaving the church he is trying to address.
That seems like something most people would not disclose to the public.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
