“Punishing” Mormon Newlyweds?

There seems to be continuing dissatisfaction among Mormons over the workings of their church. In addition to the “wear pants to church” movement, the “give women the priesthood” movement, and the “pull The Not Even Once Club off the bookstore shelves” movement, Slate magazine recently published an article about the exclusivity of temple sealings (weddings).

MormonBrideGroomIn “Sorry, Your Friends Can’t Come to Your Mormon Wedding,” journalist Holly Welker explores the Mormon Church policy of, as she puts it, “punishing couples who have separate civil ceremonies by making them wait a year for a temple marriage.”

This is the policy in a nutshell: Unless required by law, Mormon couples are urged to eschew inclusive civil marriage ceremonies in favor of exclusive temple sealing ceremonies. If a couple chooses to proceed with a civil ceremony in order to include their family and friends in the wedding, they are then required to wait a full year before being allowed to be sealed “for time and eternity” in a Mormon temple. During this waiting period, according to a 1960 Church handbook, the couple will “demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing” (the 2010 handbook continues the policy, but gives no reason for it).

This does sound a bit like punishment, doesn’t it?

The Mormon marriage policy, which comes into play in only a few countries throughout the world, causes great distress, not only for the engaged couples whose temple sealings would exclude parents, grandparents, siblings and treasured friends from their weddings, but also for all those excluded.

According to Ms. Welker (and others), it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it isn’t this way outside of the US, Canada and South Africa. And it wasn’t this way anywhere before 1960. But today the choice seems to be a measure of a couple’s faithfulness.

“Over time, the policy of exclusion has become so important that ‘young Mormons think it’s a commandment, and they think they’re breaking a commandment and doing something sinful if they get married outside the temple,’ says [Jean] Bodie. ‘Rejecting and excluding your inactive or nonmember family is a mark of being a good Mormon,’ because the alternative is so shameful.”

Because this whole thing is based on Church policy (not doctrine or commandment),

“some faithful Mormons are asking leaders to reconsider the policy of forcing couples wherever possible to wait a year for the sealing if they also have a civil ceremony. A new website, Family First Weddings, collects statements about the policy and encourages members to write respectful letters to the church hierarchy explaining how the policy hurts them and their relationships.”

For example, “Dreading the Happiest Moment of My Life” tells the story of a young woman who grew up knowing that her non-Mormon father would not be allowed to attend her future wedding. She wrote,

“I wonder how many tears I wouldn’t have had to shed during my teenage and college years worrying and wondering what would happen when the moment [of my temple wedding] came… I wonder how much I sacrificed for the sake of a policy that I assumed was the eternal word of the Lord.”

Many more stories on the Family First Weddings site describe various ways this Mormon Church policy wounds people, as their titles testify: “Heartbreak on a Day of Joy,” “Supporting but in Pain,” “My Empty Wedding,” “My Wedding Sans Siblings,” and “Painful Wedding Day,” to name but a few.

Family First Weddings explains, “…we are asking our Church leaders to inquire of the Lord if the one year wait on the temple sealing can be changed…” Ms. Welker contacted a Church spokesman for a comment about this new campaign and was told only that “Church leaders are aware of, and sensitive to, this issue.”

One might also wonder if Church leaders are aware of Doctrine and Covenants Section CI (101) from the 1835 edition, which reads in part,

“…we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.” (1835, Section CI:1)

This Section of Doctrine and Covenants was included in Mormon scripture for over 40 years, but was removed from the D&C for the 1876 edition. Since the prevailing thought is that Section CI was deleted due to its denial of plural marriage (while the practice of plural marriage was in full swing in the 1876 Mormon Church), its statement that Mormon marriages should be solemnized in a public meeting need not be discarded as if throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Perhaps Mormon Church leaders will be moved to compassion by the pleadings of the people over whom they hold spiritual sway. One can only hope that they will remove “the heavy burdens, hard to bear,” that they have laid on the shoulders of these couples for the sake of mere policy (Matthew 23:4).

 “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart,
and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
(Matthew 11:28-30)

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.

This entry was posted in D&C and Pearl of Great Price, LDS Church, Mormon Culture and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to “Punishing” Mormon Newlyweds?

  1. jaxi says:

    Do they have to wait a year for having a civil ceremony or for consummating their marriage before having the temple ceremony? I can understand the policy for the latter based on how Mormonism works but the former seems ridiculous.

    I am actually “renewing my vows” or “having my marriage blessed,” whatever its called, soon. I just want to redo my horrendous temple marriage. You don’t even get to get married in your dress. And I remember looking across at my husband in his funky garb. No pictures or video of the event. Not that I care about that too much, except for laughs at how we looked. But Im excited to get new video and pictures. My parents claim my marriage covenants are broken anyhow and my marriage doesnt count anymore. Im okay with it being invalid in their eyes, (hurts my feelings a little) but Im more excited to have a do over that I dont dwell on it too much. I think back on my grandparents (now passed) sitting outside, unable to watch their one and only granddaughter get married. I don’t have too much guilt about having been Mormon because I know I was brought up in it and brainwashed but I really feel awful about all the family members that I loved sitting outside (left out, unwelcome, and made to feel “unworthy”) and me not giving it a second thought. Still pains me to this day. Im thrilled that my sister can come who was too young at the time. My only regret is that I didn’t figure all this out before my grandparents (and a few other close family members) now passed away.

  2. MJP says:

    I’ve always found the idea of a separate Temple wedding odd. I don’t see what it gets you. Of course, I don’t think we are married into eternity, either.

    Oddly, my take home point from this article is that the church would change doctrine to appease newlyweds. In all honesty, I hope it doesn’t, as that indicates its caving to social pressure. The LDS church has done so before, and I find that a sign of its ultimate weakness.

  3. Rick B says:

    In the Article it said

    we are asking our Church leaders to inquire of the Lord if the one year wait on the temple sealing can be changed…

    This will never happen, and if it does it will lead to the Bigger question that I have said for years.
    When will the LDS leaders pray to the Lord and ask for confusion to be cleared up over issues like Adam God, Blood Atonement, Changes to the BoM and all these other issues.

    If people can pray for me that would be great. I have a few friends who help me out by setting me up with Mormon Missionary’s. One of these friends meet some MM and said they would like to talk with them, but they have a friend (Me) thats wants to join them. So once I get a time worked out they set it up. So this Sat at 3pm I will be meeting my friend and two MM, and the funny thing is, we will be meeting at a caribou coffee house.

    So I will offer to buy them a drink, I will be drinking my favorite, a large black dark roast coffee, and I suspect that the issue of the WoW will come up.

  4. SR says:

    The idea of exclusive temple sealings makes me so very very sad. A wedding ceremony is meant to be celebrated, the love and union between two people choosing to spend their lives together and being blessed by God. My best friend is Mormon and, if I’m completely honest, the idea of her getting married makes me want to cry and my heart hurt because I won’t get to see it. Oh, I’ll get to go to a party or whatever, but it’s not the reception that I care about. It’s the vows and the union.

  5. falcon says:

    I think I’ve mentioned that when one of my older sisters got married circa 1950s, she married a non-Catholic and therefore they couldn’t be married in the church (building). Instead they had to be married in the entrance to the priest’s residence. When my older brother got married circa early 1960s, he also married a non-Catholic but by that time the rules had changed. They could get married in the church (building) but there could be no music. I think the music rule was one imposed by the parish priest. He had thoughts that my brother should have become a priest!
    Anyway I could go on and on about the wedding “rules” in the Catholic church and how they have changed. I’m not so up-to-speed now because of my several decades long lapse in the faith.
    The point is the Catholic church changed. Would the Mormon church change? I doubt it. There’s too much at stake. That temple wedding is a big deal on the road to becoming gods and goddesses. It’s a great way to control people and also give that impression of exclusivity; you know the “outies” and “innies”; sort of like belly buttons.

  6. Mike R says:

    Mormons on , Family First Weddings are asking their church leaders to inquire of the Lord
    to change the church law concerning waiting a year on the Temple sealing .

    This sounds similar to how some Mormons were asking their leaders why Negroes could not
    receive the priesthood , that this should be changed etc .

    Hopefully Mormons will stop long enough in their busy lives to ask themselves if this whole
    situation with temple marriage , recommends , waiting a year , is from God in the first place .
    Mormon leaders have taught LDS that they are the true apostles of Jesus’ church today and
    that other religious leaders have corrupted the gospel because they’ve added their own ideas
    to it . Yet this whole scenario with the temple and the rules, church laws, relating to it is
    clearly not from God , rather, it’s not unlike those who teach” their own wisdom and their
    own learning ” as authority [ 2Nephi 26:20] .

  7. Mike R says:

    Falcon , you said : ” Would the Mormon church change ? I doubt it .”

    I think they will change . When this movement gets to public , when it gets to well known that
    it starts to hamper proselytizing efforts and/or causes enough unrest in new members , then
    church leaders will change it and they may be quite creative in how they do it .

    I’m wondering where this church position is taught in the Standard Works ?

  8. sky says:

    I think this is silly how narrow minded people are being inside and outside the church on this issue. My wife and I were married and sealed in the temple. Later that evening we had a ring ceremony where everything that you see that accompanies a traditional wedding were there (Groomsmen, bridesmaids, exchange of rings etc.) All family and friends regardless of religious or non religious persuasion were included and everyone was happy. It even allowed a chance for the bishop to describe a little of what went on earlier that day at the sealing. A sore spot for some turned into a great blessing and missionary opportunity for truth. You can have your cake and eat it too.

  9. falcon says:

    Mike,
    Yea, maybe they would make a change if enough pressure comes to bear especially when it comes to recruiting.
    I think it’s pretty tough sledding now days any way for the LDS church. They use to be able to sell the Joseph Smith story without any questioning from prospects. The more restrictive and weird stuff they can jettison the better off they are.
    However they still have to deal with Smith himself and the 19th century history in particular. Recruits aren’t likely to swallow the simpleton explanations that those raised in Mormonism do. There’s a reason why people are jumping the LDS ship and my guess is that it’s a combination of the restrictive nature of the rule bound Mormon religion and also the narrative which just is beyond belief.
    The Community of Christ opens their temples to all. But they aren’t doing all the hocus pocus Masonry rituals either nor are they into the god maker program.

  10. Mike R says:

    I think this issue is another example of why people should dismiss the claim of Mormon
    leaders . They claim to have been appointed by Jesus to take the place of His original apostles
    who died off near the end of the first century . The gospel of salvation which they preached
    was efficient and sufficient to save all those who embraced it —Jude 3 . It still is .
    But now we have prophets arising in the latter days who claim to have the very same gospel , and
    who claim that Jesus appointed them to introduce secret temple rituals as necessary in order
    for a person to receive eternal life and it’s highest blessings . We see the frustration with
    sincere Mormons who are questioning certain policies related to the Temple . Hopefully they
    will began to see that these policies are man made , not from God . Hopefully they will pursue
    this farther and ask themselves about whether temple marriage is actually required of them
    as part of Jesus’ gospel of salvation . Hopefully they come to the conclusion that the ” restored
    gospel ” is not the authentic gospel which Jesus’ apostles preached long ago , it’s a imitation .
    The Mormon people don’t need to follow prophets who keep , ” teaching for doctrine the
    commandments of men ” . They can be free from these prophets .

  11. Mike R says:

    sky,

    You really did’nt address the main point of this thread . Why ?

  12. falcon says:

    Sky,
    Help me out with this.
    “………….missionary opportunity for truth.” What exactly happened that this was a “missionary opportunity” and what “truth” are you referring to.
    So were there missionaries at your wedding who got some leads for prospects that they would follow-up with later?
    Was the truth that there are millions perhaps billions of gods in the universe, that these gods were all formerly men who by obedience to the LDS religious system became gods also, that the man going through the temple ritual will be the god and the woman will be a goddess according to LDS beliefs and that they will rule their own planetary system and procreate spirit children into eternity who will populate the god’s planets?
    Was this all explained during the wedding service.
    I bet this would really get a lot of non-LDS folks who were attending this second wedding service interested in becoming Mormons. What a great opportunity!

  13. johnnyboy says:

    @sky

    I’m just guessing, but your wedding must have been within the last 10-20 years. The trend of “2 ceremonies” seems to be a recent one.

    My mother was a convert in the 60’s, and I can tell you they didn’t do two ceremonies back then. My grandparents were furious and my moms idiotic bishop had to write them a letter explaining the doctrine of sealing and why they couldn’t attend it.

    I should go see if I can fish it out of a box somewhere. It’s sad.

  14. falcon says:

    I think “Sky” should dash a note off to the LDS authorities and explain to them what a great opportunity for missionary work these secular ceremonies are. I doubt having someone come into the temple and witness the sealing ceremony there would be much of an advantage for doing missionary work. It would probably serve to scare possible prospects off. I’m guessing the more prospects know about Mormonism and its secret ceremonies and rituals, the less likely they are to want to sign-up for the program. I think a better plan from the LDS perspective, is to keep the temple rituals as secret as possible but put some sort of attractive wedding ceremony together to give the impression that Mormonism is just like an actual Christian religion. The LDS has to keep the weird stuff as secret as possible. How many Mormons have we heard about who go through the temple the first time and are entirely freaked out by it? I know of a couple who personally left the LDS church in part because of one of the rituals. That’s why the LDS church has had to change at least one of the ceremonies.

  15. Ralph says:

    ”According to Ms. Welker (and others), it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it isn’t this way outside of the US, Canada and South Africa. And it wasn’t this way anywhere before 1960.”

    I don’t know about before 1960 but it is definitely the same in Australia now as it is in the USA. This has been since the Australian Temple was built back in the early 80s. Before that time the couple were allowed to be civilly married according to law, then they had 3 or 4 days to get to the New Zealand Temple, else they had to wait a year before getting sealed. Finland was the same when I went there on my mission as their temple was in Sweden, so they had their civil marriage in Finland and were allowed a few days travel time to get to the temple; or if they couldn’t get to the temple in that time they had to wait a year. As far as I know, it was and still is the same for every other country that did not have a temple – they were/are allowed to get married to fulfill local law, then given enough time to get to the closest temple; otherwise they wait a year.

    As far as not admitting family and loved ones that aren’t members into temple marriages – Luke 12:51-53. It’s all a matter of faith and what one believes in. If we are the true church and this is what Heavenly Father requires, then it’s a fulfillment of this scripture. Just like the families that break apart and divorce or don’t talk to each other anymore because various members have changed religion – seen that many times. There are also other ways in which this is fulfilled with families being torn apart because of God and Jesus and belief in Them. It’s unfortunate but that’s what happens. It is better to offend your fellow man than offend God.

  16. Mike R says:

    Ralph, you can’t be serious . Using Lk 12:51-53 to justify barring non Mormon and even
    some Mormon family members from attending a marriage ceremony ?
    Then you said , ” It’s all a matter of faith and what one believes in .” That’s one thing , but this
    is supposedly a “restored” doctrine of Jesus’ church . Did He ever have His apostles introduce
    a secret marriage ceremony as a saving ordinance in His church ?
    Ralph , you don’t need Mormonism .

  17. Old man says:

    Ralph
    In the United Kingdom a marriage is lawful only if it is a ceremony performed in a building accessible to the general public. As the LDS Temples are not open to the public any marriage performed in them is not recognised under English law, they are in fact illegal. A couple may however be married in an LDS chapel providing of course that it is open to the public & is performed by a person registered to perform marriages. This raises numerous questions so here’s just a few.

    1) If a Temple marriage is not legal in the UK does the Mormon church believe that Mormon couples legally married here are actually ‘living in sin?
    2) If they aren’t living in sin & are recognised by the LDS as being married then why does the corporation need to tear families apart by putting pressure on people to be married in the Temple when obviously it isn’t necessary & cannot be supported by scripture?
    3) Why isn’t there a single example of Temple marriage to be found anywhere in the Bible? (Answer below)
    Answer. Temple weddings are yet another example of the deception practised by the LDS when they inform us that they are restoring that which was not lost. The Temple in Jerusalem, the only temple not one of many, was NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, used for marriages. Therefore those who marry outside of the Temple are the ones who are actually following that which was supposedly lost.

    “As far as not admitting family and loved ones that aren’t members into temple marriages – Luke 12:51-53. It’s all a matter of faith and what one believes in. If we are the true church and this is what Heavenly Father requires, then it’s a fulfilment of this scripture.”

    What you say is typical Mormon-speak, if you cant find anything to prove your point twist scripture to make it fit what you want to believe. What on earth does that passage in Luke have to do with Temple marriage? The truth is blindingly clear, it is your false prophets with their man made laws who have destroyed families, not Gods word.
    Finally, please be good enough to show where in scripture we are required to be married in a temple. Be honest & admit that you can’t. See the answer to Q. 3 above to know why.

  18. falcon says:

    Ralph,
    You have a major problem from the get-go and that is that the SLC LDS sect you belong to is not the “one true church”. What it is, is the invention of a 19th century false prophet who borrowed heavily from multiple sources and called it “revelation”. Even within the various Mormon sects, there is major doubt as to who has the true Mormon “restoration”.
    Where your sect goes wrong is that it has a “god” who once was a man but who supposedly became “a god” by adherence to some useless rituals and rules of behavior. There are Mormon sects that totally reject the doctrine of the nature of god that your sect promotes. In fact Joseph Smith went through four do-overs before settling on his “man to god” invention.
    Brigham Young, not to be out done, came up with his own revelation of who the Mormon god is pronouncing him “Adam”. Smith in the BoA identified the Egyptian fertility god Min, sitting on a throne exposing himself, as the Mormon god. So when you speak of what “Heavenly Father” requires, it’s dubious because he doesn’t exist.
    You know what the first century church believed in regarding the nature of God. Andy Watson walked you right back to the second century and proved that there was no “lost gospel” and that the SLC LDS church is lying when it says that the doctrine regarding the nature of God was an invention of the Council of Nicea.
    The tragedy is that even knowing this you reject God and worship a former man who is one of a pantheon of gods of which you hope to become one too.
    So the major problem of your quoting Luke 12: 51-53 is that it relates to the Gospel message. What your particular Mormon sect preaches is not the Biblical gospel. It’s a false gospel and as such has no claim on anything the Bible tells us. You may as well be a Hindu trying to apply this particular Bible verse to that religion. In fact SLC LDS has more in common with the Hindu religion than it does with orthodox Christianity.
    The “one true church” is the Mystical Body of Christ which is composed by all born again believers in Jesus Christ regardless of what denomination a person belongs to. As one of your own prophets proclaimed, the LDS Jesus is not the Jesus of traditional Christianity.

    The LDS Church News reported: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times'”
    http://www.watchman.org/lds/gbhjesus.htm
    We Christians trace our belief in Jesus back to the first century Church. Your sect of Mormonism traces the false Christ you believe in back to about 1840.
    I’d suggest you come to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and in so doing assure yourself and then your family of eternal life.
    Going through a bunch of man made rituals in a false temple isn’t going to get it done.

  19. falcon says:

    I think the theme of Sharon’s article is the concept of “change”.
    SLC LDS Mormons should be right at home with this prospect because their sect is quite accustomed to change.
    As I pointed out above, Joseph Smith went through four renditions of who he said God is. He went through eight renditions of his supposed first vision. He tried all sorts of social experiments, one of which resulted in a failed bank. Polygamy was out, in and out again. Blacks in the priesthood was out than in. The BoM went through approximately 4,000 changes, some directly effecting doctrine. One of the major temple rituals got changed when it became apparent that the throat cutting and bowel dissecting motions weren’t sitting well with the lady folk. The intro to the BoM was changed. I think it had something to do with the words “white” or “pure” or some such thing. I can’t remember right off hand. The idea that the leadership boys had actually “seen” Jesus was changed to them having a “witness” of Jesus. That’s a big switcheroo.
    So changing the temple wedding ceremony or the rules governing it would be no big deal. With a new generation coming along, who knows what the SLC LDS bunch will look like in the future. It certainly doesn’t look like anything it did in other generations.
    Ah, the beauty of progressive revelation.

  20. Ralph says:

    MikeR,

    Jesus said in those verses that His ‘peace’ would divide families – isn’t this what all of you here, and the premise of this article, is all about – how the admittance of worthy members only into the temple, and consequently only worthy family members and friends can see the nuptials, dividing families?

    The temple ordinances are performed by the Melchizedek Priesthood which was only restored during the mortal ministry of Jesus. I don’t know what happened back then but it was only on this earth until all of the apostles, apart from John, were killed. So my thoughts are they did not have enough time to start temple work especially with all the persecution of the Christians that was going on, or that they did but it was kept secret from the outside world thus we have no records about it.

    Old Man,

    Just a question – does everyone here understand that there are 2 things performed in the temple –
    1. A civil marriage in the countries that it is legal in. This can be performed as a single event if it’s the couples’ second marriage and one or both of them have been sealed to another spouse who is deceased;
    2. A sealing of the marriage for time and all eternity. This can be performed with a civil marriage in countries that allow it, or by itself after a civil marriage.

    If you ask the LDS there in England I believe you will find that they have a certain number of days (I believe that it would be about 3 days max) to get to the temple after their civil wedding or else they will have to wait a year before they can have the sealing performed – that is if it is illegal to be married in the temple. Part of what we believe is that we must be legally and lawfully married, so those who are married by the law and not sealed in the temple are not living in sin. Here in Australia, we are allowed to perform civil marriages in the temple and our temple presidency are all marriage celebrants, so anyone who wants to get married in the temple need to get married and sealed on the same day in the temple, otherwise they need to wait a year after their civil marriage outside the temple.

    There is no direct reference to temple sealings in the Bible that I know, as you stated, but there are a number of areas where it can be seen to be hinted to. These can be found on other LDS apologist sites so I won’t go over them here.

    Falcon,

    No one here has proven to me that the LDS church is not God’s one true church on this earth; and they certainly have not proven to me that their brand of Christianity is God’s one true church on this earth either. So you can go on to your accusations about the LDS church being incorrect as much as you want, it doesn’t bother me.

  21. falcon says:

    Ralph,
    When someone says “….it doesn’t bother me” it generally means that it does bother them. I think you are bothered a lot and that bravado aside, you do have doubts about your brand of Mormonism.

    On another point “……..their brand of Christianity”. Now Ralph I would think that after all of this time you’d have at least learned something. I wrote about it in my last post above. We’re not talking about a “brand of Christianity”. This reminds me of the interaction Jesus had with Nicodemus over the concept of being born again.
    What we’re talking about is you coming to grips with who God is. He clearly reveals Himself in His Holy Word the Bible and He’s not a former man who became a god because He followed some system that you recognize as Mormonism; whatever that happens to be.
    Ralph God brings you back here intermittently so that you might hear the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ. That you would come to know Him in a personal way and in so doing put your faith and trust in Him, not some man-made invented religious system, for eternal life.

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the majority of those posting here lately are former Mormons, all who thought as you do now, not that long ago. They’ve yielded to God’s Holy Spirit and have found new life in the Lord Jesus Christ.
    I will continue to pray for you Ralph that you will come to an understanding that this isn’t about a particular type of religion but that it’s about knowing who God is and what His plan of salvation is all about.

  22. fifth monarchy man says:

    Ralph said,

    No one here has proven to me that the LDS church is not God’s one true church on this earth; and they certainly have not proven to me that their brand of Christianity is God’s one true church on this earth either.

    I say,

    This is an interesting statement. Could you please tell us what sort of information you would consider to be proof or evidence for those propositions?

    Thanks in advance

    peace

  23. falcon says:

    Ralph,
    What you’re telling us, quite literally, is that you reject the Biblical Jesus.
    I could care less if you reject Lutheranism, Catholicism, Presbyterianism, the Baptists, Episcopalians, or any other denomination.
    Those of us who post here aren’t promoting a “brand” of Christianity. What we are promoting is Christ and Him crucified. You are rejecting Jesus and the plan of salvation that God clearly presents in His Holy Word, the Bible.
    In fact, in order to make Mormonism work, you have to reject the Bible as a corrupted revelation. The reason for that is that SLC LDS Mormonism can’t be found in the Bible. In fact it can’t be found in the writings of the Church Fathers or even the heretics. There is no tradition of anything “Mormon” in Christian history. In-other-words Ralph, you are embracing the words of a 19th century guy who had trouble settling on exactly who God the Father and Jesus actually are. Add to that that another one of your prophets, Brigham Young, got so full of himself that he promoted Adam as God.
    And you follow these guys Ralph? This is called spiritual blindness.
    I would hope that you would reject the Smith Jesus and the god promoted by Young. Who did Young say that Jesus is?
    Within the pages of the Bible you will find who Jesus is and in finding Him I would hope that you would come to Him in faith and secure for yourself eternal life. As it is, the god you’ve embraced can’t save you because he doesn’t exist.

  24. jaxi says:

    Ralph,

    <" It is better to offend your fellow man than offend God."

    I agree. But I would insert the word "true" before God. Because the problem is that Mormonism has a different god. A god that is completely the invention of Joseph Smith. A Kolob living man that's primarily interested in perpetuating his own species. The true God, the traditional Christian God, is completely different. So yes, you may not be offending the invented Mormon god, (who doesn't exist, so really your only not offending your church authorities/leaders and fellow Mormons) but this sort of exaltation of one's self through marriage and handshakes is offensive to the Christian God. And it does remove one from family but for no eternal or spiritual benefit.

    <"There is no direct reference to temple sealings in the Bible that I know, as you stated, but there are a number of areas where it can be seen to be hinted to. These can be found on other LDS apologist sites so I won’t go over them here."

    That is regrettable that you won't share your Biblical scripture. The Bible is one thing that Christians listen to.

    <"The temple ordinances are performed by the Melchizedek Priesthood which was only restored during the mortal ministry of Jesus."

    You do realize that Melchizedek was person both king and priest and he was show us Christ. The scriptures are very clear that Christ is the only King and High priest. LDS Mechizedek priesthood was another invention by Joseph Smith to allow people to keep moving up the ranks. That is one of the major draws for men to this day,that they will be "priesthood holders" and it is usually one of the hardest things for men to let go of when they figure out the LDS Church is a sham. They don't like to let go of their "superpowers." I quote "superpowers" because those are the exact words I have heard a few ex LDS men say they felt they had on their way out of the LDS Church.

    <"So my thoughts are they did not have enough time to start temple work especially with all the persecution of the Christians that was going on, or that they did but it was kept secret from the outside world thus we have no records about it."

    If they didn't have enough time to even start the practice than Joseph Smith restored nothing because it wasn't there to begin with. You claiming it was just kept secret and we don't have records is you trying to fit history around an presumed conclusion. If this was a key practice for eternal life with God, what happened to it? Why was it lost? I'm very interested in your answer to that question. How did this very important and dear practice become lost?

    Also, you do know that "Celestial Marriage" was only for polygamous couples right? Monogamous couples weren't allowed until after the Manifesto. The "celestial marriage" that Joseph Smith was restoring was polygamy.

    And another thing, I don't think Joseph Smith could even claim "celestial marriage" was even part of the "restoration." He named it the "new and everlasting covenant." Key word in their "NEW". It was a brand spanking new baby of Joseph Smith. Do you know what the real "everlasting covenant" is? The one mentioned in the Bible. It's Christ, him overcoming death, covering the sins of men, and supporting and restoring all of creation. That is the EVERLASTING COVENANT. By Joseph Smith creating a NEW everlasting covenant, he is slapping Christ in the face. Ralph and all Mormons, please read you Bible for what it says. Please know your history, for what it says. And not what the LDS Church twists and tries to make true. Mormonism is science fiction, please come to the true God.

  25. Old man says:

    Ralph
    “There is no direct reference to temple sealings in the Bible that I know, as you stated, but there are a number of areas where it can be seen to be hinted to.”
    But I didn’t mention temple sealing, what I said was this.
    “Why isn’t there a single example of Temple marriage to be found anywhere in the Bible? (Answer below)
    Answer. Temple weddings are yet another example of the deception practised by the LDS when they inform us that they are restoring that which was not lost. The Temple in Jerusalem, the only temple not one of many, was NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, used for marriages. Therefore those who marry outside of the Temple are the ones who are actually following that which was supposedly lost.”
    As marriage ceremonies were not part of the original Temple ritual but an addition made by the LDS it follows that ‘sealing’ must also be a modern & false addition.

    You said to Mike
    “Jesus said in those verses that His ‘peace’ would divide families – isn’t this what all of you here, and the premise of this article, is all about – how the admittance of worthy members only into the temple, and consequently only worthy family members and friends can see the nuptials, dividing families?……… The temple ordinances are performed by the Melchizedek Priesthood which was only restored during the mortal ministry of Jesus. I don’t know what happened back then but it was only on this earth until all of the apostles, apart from John, were killed. So my thoughts are they did not have enough time to start temple work…….

    Yes the article is about division of families, but not the kind of division that Christ is talking about. It’s about the division of families caused by a false doctrine. To quote Luke in justification of such a totally false doctrine is to misuse & falsely divide Gods word. The practice of temple marriage was unknown to the Jews even before the time of Christ so why was it necessary to restore something that hadn’t been lost?
    The LDS claim that it was apostasy AFTER the death of the Apostles, which caused the gospel to be lost, now you’re claiming that the truth was lost long before that.
    Why can’t you just be honest & admit that these things were dreamed up by false apostles to ensnare vulnerable & gullible people, none of it makes any sense at all when confronted with Gods word. Show me where in Scripture we are told that only worthy people can enter the temple, show me where the Melchizedek priesthood (whatever that is) was practised. The truth is, you can’t because you make it up as you go along. Your leaders invent a doctrine that causes untold distress & then you have the audacity to misuse quote Gods word in a feeble attempt to justify it. Shame on you.

  26. falcon says:

    Ralph,
    “Hinted at”???????
    “Hinted at”???????

    OK Ralph who God is and what His plan of salvation is, is not “hinted at” in the Bible. It’s there plain and simple to see. So you’re going to base your belief system at what is “hinted at”. What pure folly! Run what you believe about the Jewish Temple and what went on there by an orthodox Jew. He would rightly conclude that you are torturing the Scriptures to perpetuate the LDS sect myths. Come on boy, you’re smarter than that!
    I could come up with all sorts of bizarre beliefs and practices based on what I would claim the Bible hints at. There’s a group of people who believe in UFOs and aliens based on what the Bible “hints” at.
    Your problem Ralph is that you love Mormonism and the LDS church and any explanation will do to support your emotional attachment to this myth society you belong to.

  27. falcon says:

    So Joseph Smith “restored” the priesthood also. Well that’s a pretty tall order since the first century church had no such thing. So if it never existed it couldn’t be lost and thus restored. This is all part of the Smith myth making. So if you believe Smith, hold on to your hats because you are going to be treated to all sorts of stories about spirit beings appearing to him.

    Here’s a good summary:

    After the Angel Moroni several other angelic messengers also came bearing “keys” pertaining to the true church of God – priestly powers and consecrations lost in the great apostasy overtaking Christianity after its first centuries. John the Baptist appeared and ordained Smith and a disciple to the lesser, or Aaronic, priesthood, granting the authority to baptize. Next came a visitation of the apostles Peter, James and John, who ordained Joseph to the higher priesthood after the ancient order of Melchizedek. By 1836, Elijah, Moses, and Christ had all appeared to the new prophet, restoring the fullness of God’s power and truth.

    http://gnosis.org/ahp.htm

    I think this not only stretches credulity to the breaking point, it breaks it full on.

  28. Mike R says:

    Ralph, the point that made was that the Mormon church claims to be the same original church
    that Jesus established through His apostles , now restored , and that temple marriage is a
    restored doctrine . But secret temple rituals were not a part of Jesus’ church nor a part of
    the gospel of salvation which the apostles preached , and your last comments only confirm
    that fact .

    You said to Falcon, ” ” No one here has proven to me that the LDS church is not God’s one true
    church on this earth .”

    Ralph , it’s not in our ability to “prove” to you that the Mormon church is a man made
    organization whose officers teach a counterfeit message of salvation . But we are here to warn
    you about the danger that Jesus long ago warned all of us to watch out for —false prophets,
    men who will mimic the claims of Jesus’ true apostles and thus sincere people like you would
    embrace their false teachings . Only the Holy Spirit can get through to your heart about this .

  29. falcon says:

    Absolutely Mike!
    I keep pointing out to these LDS stalwarts that there is no historical basis for their premise for a “restored” gospel. First of all do these LDS folks actually believe that what they believe and practice today is what the first century Church believed and practiced? The LDS church based in Utah doesn’t even practice Mormonism as it was practiced when the “saints” hit Salt Lake City. So the idea of a restoration doesn’t even hold up in their own history much less the history of the Christian faith.
    It’s all a ruse and a fantasy and the fact that Ralph and the others can’t connect the dots says a lot about spiritual blindness. But sometimes a fantasy is fun to believe in. It gives a person some structure in their lives, some connection with like-minded people and a whole lot of false hope.

  30. Clyde6070 says:

    Falcon

    You once directed me to some articles from christian history magazine. They were very good and I enjoyed reading them. One thing that sets in my mind is that the Emperor initiated the council. Now if someone with secular power had to tell the church to pick one-Arianism or trinitarianism. Something must have been missing from the church.

  31. jaxi says:

    Clyde,

    I’m sure Falcon will answer you. But it wasn’t “pick one” as if both teachings were accepted. There was some dispute and the goal was to make it clear to everyone what the sound doctrine was because some heresies (namely Arianism) had arose. The vote that established the Creed ( which is just a statement of core Christian beliefs) was voted positively by nearly everyone except a couple bishops. The number of bishops attending was somewhere between 200-300. The United States government would kill for votes like that.

    What is the “something” that must have been missing that you are referring to? Why is someone hosting a nice safe meeting place a problem? You do know that before Constantine Christianity was illegal, right? And that Christianity had scattered and exploded all over? A large scale meeting like that was about impossible before then.

  32. fifth monarchy man says:

    clyde said,

    Now if someone with secular power had to tell the church to pick one-Arianism or trinitarianism. Something must have been missing from the church.

    I say,

    I don’t follow.

    Suppose a professing Mormon government official asked for a meeting of LDS and Community of Christ leaders so that they might try and come to an understanding about the nature of God would that imply that Something must have been missing from the LDS? It just does not make sense

    To put it more starkly

    Unlike the Christian Church in Constantin’s time your organization actually did change a core doctrine (polygamy) after being pressured by the government does that mean “Something must have been missing” from the LDS?

    use your head man

    peace

  33. Mike R says:

    Clyde , we’re going to keep reminding you that you don’t need Mormonism , and we will never
    stop directing your attention away from that, and over to Jesus . Jesus alone for salvation—–
    no temple , no man ruling at the top as prophet , no Word of Wisdom .

  34. falcon says:

    clyde,
    Why did the Emperor have the Bishops of the Church assemble? If you read the articles, you missed the point. I’m not going down to my basement and dig out the issues dealing with this but one thing was abundantly clear, the Bishops ran the show.
    The other thing that we know about history and that is it must be viewed in the context of the times. The Emperor, like all secular leaders, do not like turmoil within their sphere of rule. He wanted the matter settled. But again, he wasn’t in charge of the Bishops.

    Here’s a short summary:

    Did Constantine impose the doctrine of the Trinity on the church? Let’s respond to a few of the arguments used in support of that belief.

    First, the doctrine of the Trinity was a widely held belief prior to the Council of Nicea. Since baptism is a universal act of obedience for new believers, it is significant that Jesus uses Trinitarian language in Matthew 28:19 when He gives the Great Commission to make disciples and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Didache, an early manual of church life, also included the Trinitarian language for baptism. It was written in either the late first or early second century after Christ. We find Trinitarian language again being used by Hippolytus around 200 A.D. in a formula used to question those about to be baptized. New believers were to asked to affirm belief in God the Father, Christ Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit.

    Second, the Roman government didn’t consistently support Trinitarian theology or its ardent apologist, Athanasius. Constantine flip-flopped in his support for Athanasius because he was more concerned about keeping the peace than in theology itself. He exiled Athanasius in 335 and was about to reinstate Arius just prior to his death. During the forty-five years that Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, he was banished into exile five times by various Roman Emperors.

    In fact, later emperors forced an Arian view on the church in a much more direct way than Constantine supported the Trinitarian view. Emperors Constantius II and Julian banished Athanasius and imposed Arianism on the empire. The emperor Constantius is reported to have said, “Let whatsoever I will, be that esteemed a canon,” equating his words with the authority of the church councils.{10} Arians in general “tended to favor direct imperial control of the church.”{11}

    Finally, the bishops who attended the Council of Nicea were far too independent and toughened by persecution and martyrdom to give in so easily to a doctrine they didn’t agree with. As we have already mentioned, many of these bishops were banished by emperors supporting the Arian view and yet held on to their convictions. Also, the Council at Constantinople in 381 reaffirmed the Trinitarian position after Constantine died. If the church had temporarily succumbed to Constantine’s influence, it could have rejected the doctrine at this later council.

    Possessing the freedom to call an ecumenical council after the Edict of Milan in 313, significant numbers of bishops and church leaders met to consider the different views about the person of Christ and the nature of God. The result was the doctrine of the Trinity that Christians have held and taught for over sixteen centuries.

    http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4220867/k.D04B/The_Council_of_Nicea_and_the_Doctrine_of_the_Trinity.htm

    Now clyde,
    Here’s a little fun fact. Regardless of what you think about the mix of politics in the early years of the Christian faith, do you see anything here that talks about Salt Lake City style LDS beliefs? Run down in your mind what your sect believes, teaches and practices. It’s no where to be found in the early Church. I believe Arius, the heretic he was, would have laughed at Joseph Smith and his claims.
    Bottom line clyde, Mormonism didn’t exist in the early Church but was an invention of a delusional 19th century man who claimed he was a prophet.

  35. falcon says:

    So clyde,
    The irony is that Mormons will look at what was going on historically during the first four hundred years of the Church and say something like, “See, see the gospel was lost and needed to be restored”. To which I will say, “Hog wash!”
    It’s the Mormon blinders; an inability to appreciate what was actually going on during those first four hundred years. The point is that the Trinitarian formula was there during the time of the apostles. Jesus used it in giving the Great Commission.
    The way cults twist and misinterpret the facts is their stock and trade. The Doctrine of the Trinity has been the main doctrine of the nature of God since the beginning.
    So how are you feeling about millions and billions of gods in the universe all of whom are former men who by following the Mormon system became gods themselves. Not only that but their wives can become goddesses and she can bear spirit babies into eternity.
    Do we find any of that any where in the writings of the Church Fathers, the heretics or the history and tradition of the Christian Church? No! Why? Because it was never there in any form.

  36. Clyde6070 says:

    Jaxi
    From what I have read most of the bishops were from the eastern empire not the west.

    Fmf
    It is more like saying the government is demanding we all return to being catholic. No other ideas will be tolerated.
    Falcon
    It was Theodosius Who imposed Trinitarianism as the soul doctrine. Athanasius would have been the heretic if Arius had won. If you are going to be an heir of God and joint-heir of Jesus then there is something to what Arius might have had in mind.
    What we are talking about is not the subject of the blog So we should not discuss this until the subject present itself again.

  37. falcon says:

    clyde,
    I can understand you not wanting to discuss this. It’s a loser for those of you in the SLC LDS sect. The topic of the doctrine of the nature of God is apart of every discussion we have here. It’s the fundamental doctrine where Mormonism goes totally bonkers.
    These young couples asked the leadership to inquire of “God”. Now who would the leadership of the SLC LDS sect inquire to? It’s a god who is one of millions of billions of gods all who were former men.

    The God of the Bible wouldn’t be inquired of.
    You wrote:
    “If you are going to be an heir of God and joint-heir of Jesus then there is something to what Arius might have had in mind.”
    Don’t quote the Bible clyde. You have no idea what is being addressed by us being joint-heirs with Christ. Do you really want to defend Arius?

  38. fifth monarchy man says:

    clyde says,

    It is more like saying the government is demanding we all return to being catholic. No other ideas will be tolerated.

    I say,

    I actually agree. This means only that there was something missing with the government not something missing with the church. I not a fan of Constantine or Emperors in general. Emperors are bad! That fact changes nothing as far as what the church believed or professed.

    If the council did not happen we would have continued to have the vast majority of professing Christians affirm the Trinity and also a small minority of various folks ascribing to various heresy. Sort of what we see in Christianity today.

    What the council did was give us an historic glimpse of what Christians believed at the time. It allowed folks with a theological bent the breathing space to formulate documents that expressed those beliefs articulately and for that I’m grateful.

    God often uses bad things man come up with to accomplish his good purpose

    peace

  39. jaxi says:

    Clyde,

    Why does it matter about the bishops?

    Also, its not anything like the government saying people need to become Catholic. Constantine didn’t create the Christianity he wanted, he let the bishops come to a consensus. He even said something to the effect of let the holy word in the scriptures guide you. I can try and find the quote if need be.

    Clyde, you need to think through your argument for a restoration. There is a big problem with it for you on the spiritual side of things. Now Christ left His Church with the promise that the Holy Spirit would be with His Church. That is the significance of Pentecost. Now you have to come up with a spiritual reason (not historical) on why the Holy Spirit would abandon Christ’s Church. Was it because of teaching false doctrine by its leaders? Well, if that’s the case Mormonism is out. Was it because leadership or membership committed sin? If that’s the case everyone’s out, including Mormonism. So what was it? Was the earth absent of any believers in Christ? That would be a hard sell. This is the conundrum I hit while I was a Mormon. I talked to my Stake President about it and he told me that the answer is that Christ secretly taught his Apostles to purposely take the Church off of the earth. Not I know why he said that. It’s because there is no other argument for the need of a restoration that makes any sense and that can’t be applied to the Mormon Church to show an apostasy there. As soon as a heard my prior Stake President’s argument I was sure that Mormonism is not Christian. He essentially called Christ a liar. And believes in a God that would give people false hope and take it away without even anyone knowing.

    You also must ask yourself, what makes my Mormonism immune to apostasy? Why is your flavor of Mormonism immune to apostasy, yet the Church started by Christ did not have that same immunity?

    We could talk all day about Constatine.We could talk all day about whether this one heretic was really right or not. Or you could find Christ, actually BELIEVE him, and realize He is the ultimate Bridegroom, he is always faithful, and He was faithful to His Bride (the Church). He did not cast His bride away. He did not divorce her. He was always faithful, as God is always faithful.

  40. Ralph says:

    Falcon,
    I never said that I reject the ‘Biblical Jesus’; I do reject the trinitarian Jesus. And no one has proven to me that that is the ‘Biblical Jesus’. All that has been shown to me is that it is one interpretation of the Bible – one among a few. I have read the Bible and came to the conclusion that I am following the Biblical Jesus and so far _ as I said in my previous post, no one has proven to me it is incorrect.

    Also I am not on this site intermittantly, I have been checking in twice a week minimum. I am now on permanent night shifts without any computer acccess so I usually cant answer and when I do have the time the conversation I want to address is usually long gone. I am on my phone right now at work so I cant stay here for long.

  41. jaxi says:

    Ralph,

    The Trinity is a big word. It includes many aspects of the nature of God. It would be helpful if you tell what aspects of the trinity that you reject. And who is the Biblical Jesus that you have accepted and how is that Jesus different than the one that Christians include as a member of the Trinity?

  42. shematwater says:

    I find it amazing how a discussion on one topic is so easily diverted into the common and rather worn out debates that everyone seems to be more comfortable with. So, I am going back to the original topic, and will make no comment on anything else.

    “According to Ms. Welker (and others), it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it isn’t this way outside of the US, Canada and South Africa. And it wasn’t this way anywhere before 1960.”

    Before the 1960’s there were only twelve temples in the world, and seven of them were in the western United States. Here is a list of the twleve:
    St. George Utah Temple 6–8 April 1877
    Logan Utah Temple 17–19 May 1884
    Manti Utah Temple 21–23 May 1888
    Salt Lake Temple 6–24 April 1893
    Laie Hawaii Temple 27–30 November 1919
    Cardston Alberta Temple 26–29 August 1923
    Mesa Arizona Temple 23–26 October 1927
    Idaho Falls Idaho Temple 23–25 September 1945
    Bern Switzerland Temple 11–15 September 1955
    Los Angeles California Temple 11–14 March 1956
    Hamilton New Zealand Temple 20–22 April 1958
    London England Temple 7–9 September 1958

    Notice that until the 1950’s there were only two temples outside the United States, one of which was in Western Canada. In the 50’s four temples were dedicated, one third of the total then in opperation, two of which were outside the United States.
    So, before 1960 the ability of members to get to a temple at all while alive was not easy, and so there was no requirement in waiting after a civil marriage, in large part because they had to wait anyway.
    After 1960, when transportation started to drasticly improve and more temples began to be built around the world a policy was enacted that required members to enter the temple after a given period or wait a year.
    Just so that people know, my parents were married in 1966 in Germany, and three months later were sealed in Swiss Temple. This was because of the cost of travel and the laws of Germany (where my Father was stationed). They only people who witnessed either event was the local bishop and his wife, and the local magistrate in their German town (mandated by law).
    Since temples are now more readily available, especially in the United States and Canada, it is preferable to go to the Temple for the marriage. This policy being enacted in 1960 is simply the church enforcing what was impossible to enforce previously.

    As to Luke 12: 51-53, this is most certainly a fulfillment of that statement. Christ is declaring that his doctrine would devide families, the truth of the gospel. This was seen strikingly in the early church as many families were devided over the Christian issue and some family members even turned each other over to the authorities because of it. In the modern time the division is seen in things like this issue, in which a family becomes devided because some members embrace the gospel and others reject it. That is what Christ was talking about.

    Now, the dual ceremony may be a more recent development, but it usually takes some time for people to adjust to new policy and then work out ways to smooth out the difficulties it may cause. I have seen such ceremonies and have been told of them since the mid 1980’s, so they are not as new as some might think.

    Now, just to let people know, most of my brothers and sisters were married civily before they were sealed, as was I. Two of my brothers eloped. When I finally entered the Temple to be sealed I had only a few of my family members present. Now, while it would have been nice for them all to be there, I feel no sorrow or regret that they weren’t. If it had been only me and my wife I would have been satisfied, because in being sealed I have the assurance that we will be a family forever. That is the important thing.

  43. fifth monarchy man says:

    Ralph said,

    as I said in my previous post, no one has proven to me it is incorrect.

    I say,

    I’ll ask again please tell us exactly what proof would look like. What would it take to convince you that the LDS are not Christ’s chosen organization?

    I could say that no one has proven to me that the moon is not made of cheese but what does that statement mean really? It depends on what kind of proof I’m looking for.

    Do you want to see evidence from the scriptures or history or are looking for an organization to satisfy just your own private desires?

    thanks in advance

    peace

  44. falcon says:

    Ralph,
    So the SLC LDS Jesus is the Biblical Jesus? What version of the Bible are you reading? So in the Bible we are told that there are millions if not billions of gods? We are told that the god of this world lives on or near the planet Kolob with his multiple wives? One of these wives was the spirit mother of Jesus?
    I could go on. Ralph is there anything you won’t believe? Do you believe that your LDS god is really Adam. Do you believe that your LDS god is the Egyptian fertility god Min pictured in the BoA exposing himself. Joseph Smith had a least four goes at it before he settled on Min as the Mormon god. And you want to say this is Biblical?
    Come on pal. As I say, in for a penny in for a pound. What I just wrote is what comes out of your sect of Mormonism. Smith started with a conventional view of the nature of God. I’d think you’d at least recognize that the guy was a total loose cannon.

  45. falcon says:

    Now as to politics influencing religious beliefs.
    Why did the LDS sect drop polygamy as a practice? They dropped it because the government told them to. And this is the principle that is suppose to allow a Mormon male to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
    I think the FLDS is right. As far as Mormonism goes, the LDS sect has gone into apostasy.

  46. spartacus says:

    Shem, long time no read! welcome!

    I didn’t quite catch your justification for a policy that denies sealing to couples who are worthy of the temple and sealing for apparently the singular reason that they decided to do a civil ceremony first. This cannot be seen as anything other than a penalty. So, in all your post or knowledge how does an inclusive-of-family choice lead to the denial of a family unity blessing?

    That’s a separate nuance there. Is it not inconsistent for”the church of families forever” to deny the family blessing, for any amount of time, to those who simply wanted to include family in the beginning of their union?

    It actually makes sense to do the civil first because the sealing is about the future and completion of the joining. So it should, logically, be civil with family first then eternal sealing among believers only-just like time and eternity.

  47. Old man says:

    Shem

    “So, I am going back to the original topic, and will make no comment on anything else.”
    Not so, you make reference to a passage from Luke that has nothing to do with the original topic, so I will add my comments to that.

    You said.
    “As to Luke 12: 51-53, this is most certainly a fulfilment of that statement. Christ is declaring that his doctrine would devide families, the truth of the gospel. This was seen strikingly in the early church as many families were devided over the Christian issue and some family members even turned each other over to the authorities because of it. In the modern time the division is seen in things like this issue, in which a family becomes devided because some members embrace the gospel and others reject it. That is what Christ was talking about.”

    How can you justify the above without first justifying the reason for causing the division. Yes Christ was telling us that HIS doctrine, HIS message of salvation (as opposed to man made rules concerning marriage) would divide families so be good enough to tell me when marriage became part of the Gospel of Christ? Before even attempting to use Christs words as justification for such an offensive practice as barring ‘unworthy’ people from weddings you would do well to show us that weddings & sealings actually took place in the Temple & having done that perhaps you could also show us, again from scripture, where unworthy people were banned from attending their childrens weddings. How dare you use our Lords words concerning His Gospel as justification for man made heretical teachings that have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation?

    Your comments are yet another example of the way scripture is twisted & distorted in order to promulgate the heretical & false doctrines of the LDS Corporation. The things in this ‘modern time’ that are causing division among families are much more likely to result from the above than from Gods word. I would suggest that in truth the family means very little to the leaders of the LDS, except as a way of increasing it’s wealth.

  48. falcon says:

    So Jesus goes to the wedding at Cana, right?
    Was that a sealing in a Jewish temple using the sealing ceremony of the SLC LDS sect? And besides that Jesus made wine for the celebration.
    So if Jesus came to a Mormon sealing and made wine for the guests to drink would that separate people according to what he said in Luke 12:51-53?
    If Mormons can run wild and free with their interpretation of Scripture so can we, right? Just grab a verse here and there, massage it, rework it and spin it to say something to support what you’re premise is.
    Mormons have no idea how to use a systematic approach to interpret Biblical text. It’s all feelings and wild conjecture.

  49. mapleleaf says:

    My daughter married outside of the temple just 2 years ago. At the time I hadn’t quite left the church – I was at the time just starting to learn some of the truths that would eventually cause me to leave. She later told me that she honestly believed that she was the biggest disappointment in my life because she fell in love with someone who wasn’t mormon and wouldn’t be able to take her to the temple. What floored me though was my parents who as temple workers were being taught by their leaders that someone who chooses to marry outside the temple for whatever reason should not be allowed to have a public ceremony. They were being told that it should just be the couple their parents and the bishop in someone’s living room. They felt very strongly that we should follow the leaders advice and not make it a celebration of any kind to help my daughter (their granddaughter) realize that she was making a poor choice. It sickens me that these tactics are being promoted and people are “buying in” to the intimidation tactics of this religion. Every marriage deserves to be celebrated. I know many of my daughters friends who married in the temple “unworthily” (had to have lied to their bishop or had a VERY lenient bishop) so as not to disappoint family. Perception is more important than honesty with the mormon youth in this area. I believe because these kids don’t know and haven’t been taught who the real Jesus is so they continue to put on the charade that their parents have perpetuated as they don’t know the true Christ either. Trying to be your own Saviour will never work and that is what mormonism is all about.

  50. Rick B says:

    Falcon,
    Here is the problem I have. Jesus made wine, it was good, yet years later God says no to wine, other wise your breaking the word of wisdom. Yet jesus said at the last supper, I will drink again in the new kingdon, heaven.

    Yet none of this matters to the lds, all this confusion is ok if your good at making up stories to figure it out.

Leave a Reply