Temple Marriage and outsiders

[nrajeff]

If I might kindly and lovingly point out gently and politely that this almost seems to be a pattern lately, Jeff. You kinda sorta "ready fire aim" instead of .... well, you know.

You think I didn't see that coming? I expected the old "You did it again" but since I did in fact realize that I could have read more carefully, the right thing to do was to explain and take responsibility instead of just keep quiet, even if admitting to being less than inerrant would incur being reminded that I am less than inerrant.

But thanks for caring enough to point out my sinful nature or unregenerated-status-induced fallibility, on the off chance that I was under the delusion that I had never made a mistake like this one before.

[Cow Poke]

You think I didn't see that coming? I expected the old "You did it again" but since I did in fact realize that I could have read more carefully, the right thing to do was to explain and take responsibility instead of just keep quiet, even if admitting to being less than inerrant would incur being reminded that I am less than inerrant.

But thanks for caring enough to point out my sinful nature or unregenerated-status-induced fallibility.

Come on, Jeff... how much more "gentle" could I have been? But I'll go ahead and also point out you're NOW doing the DRAMA thing!

[Sparko]

you still misread it jeff. it said nothing about "forgoing" the temple ceremony. It discouraged a civil ceremony in addition to the temple ceremony. and it mentioned a 1 year waiting period. Why? and what happens if they did not wait a year, or if they did it the other way around? temple first then a civil right afterward?

The question may come up: Well, then, should we be married civilly so that they can witness the marriage, then we would wait for the necessary year before entering the temple? But that would not be the ideal solution. Prayerful and careful planning in most cases can make the problem transform itself into an opportunity that ultimately will bring the family closer together than it previously had been.

[Cow Poke]

You think I didn't see that coming? I expected the old "You did it again" but since I did in fact realize that I could have read more carefully, the right thing to do was to explain and take responsibility instead of just keep quiet, even if admitting to being less than inerrant would incur being reminded that I am less than inerrant.

But thanks for caring enough to point out my sinful nature or unregenerated-status-induced fallibility, on the off chance that I was under the delusion that I had never made a mistake like this one before.

Had to add some MORE drama, eh?

[nrajeff]

Come on, Jeff... how much more "gentle" could I have been? :

Well, just keeping one's mouth shut is generally seen as a TOTAL absence of nagging, but barring that, I will admit that you could have been harsher.

[Cow Poke]

Well, just keeping one's mouth shut is generally seen as a TOTAL absence of nagging, but barring that, I will admit that you could have been harsher.

And you can be a lot less touchy, Jeff. Sheeeeesh!

[mossrose]

Indeed, temple weddings and temple sealings of spouses are the same thing.

Is every wedding in the temple a sealing?

[nrajeff]

Is every wedding in the temple a sealing?

That is my understanding, yes, since as far as I know, we don't do non-sealing marriages in temples. In our chapels, yes, there are non-sealing marriages done there (they are "Until death do you part" type weddings, and the bishop is legally authorized to perform them) and anyone can attend those.

[nrajeff]

And you can be a lot less touchy, Jeff. Sheeeeesh!

Wait until you see how I responded to your "All LDS people are dishonest" thread, if you're feeling "touched" now.


Oh, yeah, you have seen how I responded to that.

[moreta]

Now my curiosity is piqued. I get why a new convert would have to wait a year before being able to get a temple recommend, so that isn't an issue for me. Assuming that the bride and groom have temple recommends, but they decide to have a civil ceremony for whatever reason, why would they have to wait a year before having the sealing in the temple? Could it be done the other way around? And why is having two ceremonies discouraged?

[OtherCheek]

Seriously, OC -- your religion is not just convoluted at the git-go, but it CHANGES.

Doesn't the Baptist Faith and Message go through CHANGES from time to time? What's wrong with changes?

[Cow Poke]

Doesn't the Baptist Faith and Message go through CHANGES from time to time?

Not in essential doctrine, no. There were some additions to the section on "Family" to make it more clear that it involves a man and a woman... and there have been some minor changes in the description of inerrancy, but since each of the actual sections is references with supporting scripture, no real changes, there.

What's wrong with changes?

It gave us Obama.

[Cow Poke]

Wait until you see how I responded to your "All LDS people are dishonest" thread, if you're feeling "touched" now.

Hmmmm... Did I create a thread called "All LDS people are dishonest", or are you being dishonest?

Oh, yeah, you have seen how I responded to that.

And I still love you, Jeff. I sure don't understand you, but that wasn't what Jesus commanded me to do.

[OtherCheek]

Now my curiosity is piqued. I get why a new convert would have to wait a year before being able to get a temple recommend, so that isn't an issue for me. Assuming that the bride and groom have temple recommends, but they decide to have a civil ceremony for whatever reason, why would they have to wait a year before having the sealing in the temple? Could it be done the other way around? And why is having two ceremonies discouraged?

I'm not sure why, Moreta. Perhaps a civil ceremony afterwards, or a civil ceremony so soon preceding, would detract from the sacredness of the Temple Ceremony. Celestial Marriage is for us, after all, the highest covenant we can make on earth. But others may have more insight than I.

[OtherCheek]

Not in essential doctrine, no. There were some additions to the section on "Family" to make it more clear that it involves a man and a woman... and there have been some minor changes in the description of inerrancy, but since each of the actual sections is references with supporting scripture, no real changes, there.



It gave us Obama.

That's chump change.