Polygamy-Porter wrote:I post about a religion that I know to be false with complete certainty.
CFR.
I am sure you will have no problem honoring that CFR since you "know with complete certainty."
Polygamy-Porter wrote:I post about a religion that I know to be false with complete certainty.
LDSToronto wrote:Holy s***. Who the hell knew a simple request would bring out all the assholes on the board?
H.
Jason Bourne wrote:Buffalo makes a good point.
And I wonder why this issue so often puts so many defenders into an apoplectic fit. Really, is it devaluing the temple sealing because someone is married civilly first especially if they are doing it for non member family? Why not avoid the pain and have the best of both worlds? Why the scornful remarks that cast Kevin Barney as less than faithful because he thinks differently about this?
liz3564 wrote:Pahoran, I'm curious....what do you think about a ring ceremony AFTER the temple sealing that is a little more in the traditional setting? (i.e. Dad walking the bride down the aisle)
This is what my daughter is having done, and her future in-laws are completely on board. They are exchanging their own vows...no officiator...and having the attendants pair up and walk down the aisle...and then her Dad walks her down the aisle. They say their own little vows that they have written, exchange rings, and kiss. My future son-in-law's Dad has prepared a neat slide show of the kids...showing them from the time they were babies to prom to dating, etc. We have about 80 people invited to the ring ceremony, and then the reception follows. (We have about 200 invited to that).
The temple sealing is being performed earlier that morning.
Just wondered what your thoughts were.
I think that more solutions like this might bridge the kind of gap that folks are worried about.
LDS wedding etiquette concerning ring ceremonies is relatively brief: they should be arranged under the guidance of their bishop, avoid becoming civil wedding ceremonies (that includes exchanging vows or walking down the aisle,) and be held off temple grounds.
The bride and groom can thank reception guests for attending and their family members for providing support in planning the wedding. Without using wedding buzzwords (like "I do" or "I thee wed") or making vows, they can then express their feelings for one another in a simple, heartfelt way before exchanging rings.
Pahoran wrote:That said, if the bishop is okay with it, then I'm sure it's fine.
Pahoran wrote:The current anti-Temple marriage crusade is being marketed as a way to be kind to the non-LDS rellies. But let's be honest here: given that most LDS couples want a temple wedding and look forward to a temple wedding, aren't they frequently if not usually going to take a similar view to that of other couples required to have a civil ceremony they don't really want? "Okay, we've satisfied your possessive in-laws; now let's go and really get married."
How much will that spare the relatives' feelings, really? Aren't they going to (rightly) feel that they've simply been thrown a bone to keep them quiet?
Polygamy-Porter wrote:Who gives a rats ass if the stupid bishop is "okay" with it??
Since when was he given the right to other people's lives?
This is the problem with Mormons.
Stop giving this man rights over you, your personal life and your family.
He is nothing but an unwitting slave to a multibillion dollar corporation.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
Ceeboo wrote:A few words from a non-LDS Christian (For many reasons, I will keep it short by design)
It is my opinion that this topic is one of the most mind-bending, bizarre, sad, offensive, and utterly heart wrenching topics that I have participated in and/or read about on these Mormon boards.
As a follower of Christ, I would suggest that the practice of excluding human beings, for whatever reason (Mom's/Dad's/siblings/etc) and having them wait in parking lots (because other human beings have decided they are not worthy to be present) strikes me as something that falls far short of the most basic and fundamental building blocks/teachings/displays of Christianity.
Simon Belmont wrote:
We don't do this.
We have beautiful waiting rooms and visitor's centers.
No one is excluded.
Anyone can enter the temple, if they are worthy.
Simon Belmont wrote:We don't do this. We have beautiful waiting rooms and visitor's centers. No one is excluded. Anyone can enter the temple, if they are worthy.
Ceeboo wrote:Bump!
In hopes to receive some clarity/correction/understanding from my friend, Simon.
Peace,
Ceeboo
Simon Belmont wrote:Of course you can enter the Temple, provided you are baptized LDS and remain worthy.
MsJack wrote:Are you trolling, Simon, or do you really not get why non-LDS parents don't like being told that they aren't "worthy" to view the wedding of the children they've nurtured for 18+ years?
Polygamy-Porter wrote:Who gives a rats ass if the stupid bishop is "okay" with it??
Since when was he given the right to other people's lives?
This is the problem with Mormons.
Stop giving this man rights over you, your personal life and your family.
He is nothing but an unwitting slave to a multibillion dollar corporation.
Hades wrote:Who gives a s*** about non-LDS rellies? Who gives a s*** about non-LDS anybody? Everyone knows that to be worth anything in the eyes of God a person must become Mormon and pray, pay, and obey. Why should the church change just to appease spiritually unimportant people?
Ceeboo wrote:A few words from a non-LDS Christian (For many reasons, I will keep it short by design)
It is my opinion that this topic is one of the most mind-bending, bizarre, sad, offensive, and utterly heart wrenching topics that I have participated in and/or read about on these Mormon boards.
As a follower of Christ, I would suggest that the practice of excluding human beings, for whatever reason (Mom's/Dad's/siblings/etc) and having them wait in parking lots (because other human beings have decided they are not worthy to be present) strikes me as something that falls far short of the most basic and fundamental building blocks/teachings/displays of Christianity.
There has got to be a way (I am confident that the LDS leaders can figure something out) to extend respect, compassion, and love to the many non-LDS human beings that find themselves sitting in the parking lot as their very own precious sons/daughters are getting married.
Without exception, it is:
Divisive
Pain causing
Exclusionary
Sad
Wrong
Heart-breaking
Offensive
Ceeboo wrote:by the way: Pahoran,
As you know, I rarely engage you on these boards (for my own reasons) but your post above (the one that you end with "or is that just too radical") struck me as being very sad and it also made my stomach hurt.
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:Did you really just ask in sincerity if Simon was trolling? All he does is troll. Here is a video of Simon in action:
Pahoran wrote:"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me?"