Civil marriages prior to temple sealing to be the norm? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 10-20-2014, 08:53 PM

http://thisweekinmormons.com/2014/10...world-america/

Interesting.

MikeWaters · 10-21-2014, 03:54 AM

Church squashed this rumor. SLtrib article.

MikeWaters · 10-21-2014, 07:55 PM

My brother is dating a woman that is planning to be baptized. So this has direct bearing on them should they get engaged and married. It's already become a topic of disappointment in her family (that her family may be excluded from any wedding).

Hmmm, they'll have to figure things out.

BlueK · 12-05-2014, 06:08 PM

It seems to make sense that they go in this direction eventually. It also doesn't seem to me like one policy for the US and a different one for most other countries should be considered to be ideal. I suppose one concern would be that the sealing might not happen as often if there was a two-step process, but it could also be argued that it would also elevate the ordinance to its proper place. If a member isn't going to take the time to go to the temple to do the sealing, then maybe they don't have a sufficient enough appreciation for it and aren't yet ready. In that case, spiritually they're better off waiting until they aren't just doing it as an afterthought to having their relationship recognized by the state. Perhaps another concern is that the church would be giving up an authority the state gives them currently. I wouldn't think that's a big deal, but I'm sure some might be uncomfortable with that thought.

MikeWaters · 12-05-2014, 07:53 PM

In my mission, there were several small nations. In part of the mission, common-low marriages were accepted as valid by the church. In other parts of the mission, they were not accepted as valid and every member had to be married before baptism.

It never made sense to me why the policy was different. It just happened that the area requiring a marriage ceremony was the high-baptizing area. So they could put up a hurdle and still get people baptized.

A lot of things are "just because" and you figure someone at some point had some inspiration, and you roll with it, until someone else has different inspiration.

10-20-2014, 08:53 PM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Civil marriages prior to temple sealing to be the norm? http://thisweekinmormons.com/2014/10...world-america/ Interesting.

12-05-2014, 06:08 PM	#4
BlueK Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 2,368	It seems to make sense that they go in this direction eventually. It also doesn't seem to me like one policy for the US and a different one for most other countries should be considered to be ideal. I suppose one concern would be that the sealing might not happen as often if there was a two-step process, but it could also be argued that it would also elevate the ordinance to its proper place. If a member isn't going to take the time to go to the temple to do the sealing, then maybe they don't have a sufficient enough appreciation for it and aren't yet ready. In that case, spiritually they're better off waiting until they aren't just doing it as an afterthought to having their relationship recognized by the state. Perhaps another concern is that the church would be giving up an authority the state gives them currently. I wouldn't think that's a big deal, but I'm sure some might be uncomfortable with that thought. __________________ I am a libertarian Last edited by BlueK; 12-05-2014 at 06:19 PM.

10-21-2014, 03:54 AM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Church squashed this rumor. SLtrib article.

10-21-2014, 07:55 PM	#3
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	My brother is dating a woman that is planning to be baptized. So this has direct bearing on them should they get engaged and married. It's already become a topic of disappointment in her family (that her family may be excluded from any wedding). Hmmm, they'll have to figure things out.

12-05-2014, 07:53 PM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	In my mission, there were several small nations. In part of the mission, common-low marriages were accepted as valid by the church. In other parts of the mission, they were not accepted as valid and every member had to be married before baptism. It never made sense to me why the policy was different. It just happened that the area requiring a marriage ceremony was the high-baptizing area. So they could put up a hurdle and still get people baptized. A lot of things are "just because" and you figure someone at some point had some inspiration, and you roll with it, until someone else has different inspiration.