10-20-2014, 08:53 PM | #1 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Civil marriages prior to temple sealing to be the norm?
|
10-21-2014, 03:54 AM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Church squashed this rumor. SLtrib article.
|
10-21-2014, 07:55 PM | #3 |
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, 06:08 PM | #4 |
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. |
12-05-2014, 07:53 PM | #5 |
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|