Temple Sealings

[creekster]

Maybe the atonement guarantees salvation but the temple leads to exaltation

[Northwestcoug]

Ha. Good catch. Yes, the BOM explicitly says that those who die in ignorance are automatically saved and do not need baptism:



On the other hand, it also says that those who have died in sin, are damned to hell for eternity and nothing can be done for them (Alma 34:33) and that men must repent “while in the flesh” (2 Nephi 2:21). But we don't really believe either of those scriptures. So I suppose you could argue that the current LDS doctrine of "do temple work for everybody and let God sort it out" extends the atonement broadly to everyone.

That's a good way of putting it.

[SoonerCoug]

Why are the bride and groom required to wear all the temple clothing when getting sealed?

Lunacy.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm pretty sure I read it right. She said:



I'm simply saying she shouldn't assume like that. Now, if by chance she is accusing other people of making those assumptions, I think it's a pathetic and judgmental comment on her part because the majority of people I know don't roll like that.

If she did assume that then it came from the CHOI, which was quoted:

In trying to understand how the policy came about, Bodie traced it to a 1960 church handbook stating, “Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage for reasons of their own, and afterward desire a sealing, they should be asked to wait for at least a year in which to demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing.”

Therefore, couples that have to wait a year are assumed to be not worthy. Clearly it is the church [as in the author(s) of the CHOI] that is making or had made that assumption.

I know a couple that had to wait a year because the husband was married once before. The wife had never been married and was worthy. She was very upset about the entire situation given it had been pounded into head in YW that she should get married in the temple.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If she did assume that then it came from the CHOI, which was quoted:



Therefore, couples that have to wait a year are assumed to be not worthy. Clearly it is the church [as in the author(s) of the CHOI] that is making or had made that assumption.

I know a couple that had to wait a year because the husband was married once before. The wife had never been married and was worthy. She was very upset about the entire situation given it had been pounded into head in YW that she should get married in the temple.

Good catch. This policy doesn't make a lick of sense on any level. We want everybody to get married in the temple and then we throw up arbitrary roadblocks that haven't a thing to do with worthiness. Argh...

[Marvin Hardtospell]

I was married/sealed this July and ended up being extremely frustrated by the whole thing.

My wife and I live in London. My wife's family lives in northern Germany. My family lives in the US. In the UK and Germany, temple sealings are not recognized as marriages so the general procedure is for couples to have a civil ceremony first and then later that day or the next have the temple sealing. My wife and I were quite happy with this arrangement as we wanted my family and her family to be able to attend the actual ceremony and feel a connection to us through the shared experience.

Because of where my wife's family lives in Northern Germany, the closest temple is in Copenhagen. It is about a three hour drive from their home. The Frankfurt temple is about 8 hours away and the Freiburg temple is about 6 hours away. The obvious choice is to get married in Copenhagen as it reduces travel time and facilitates easy international travel for my friends and family coming from the US and the UK. However, temple sealings are recognized as civil marriages in Denmark. We were told that if we were to have a civil marriage in Germany we would need to wait a year to be sealed in Denmark. However, we could have the civil ceremony in Germany and then drive 6-8 hours and have the temple sealing in a German temple that day. We could also have the civil service and fly to London and have the temple sealing that same day.

The Copenhagen temple president, the UK Stake President, and the German Stake President were all unable to provide a reason for this policy. My wife's father who was a Stake President in Germany for many years didn't know this policy even existed. He just assumed everybody had the civil ceremony and then was sealed afterwards.

Ultimately the practicalities of travel led to our decision to have the wedding in Copenhagen even thought it meant that many siblings and nieces/nephews etc were unable to participate.

I would love to understand why this policy is in place.

[Paperback Writer]

Good catch. This policy doesn't make a lick of sense on any level. We want everybody to get married in the temple and then we throw up arbitrary roadblocks that haven't a thing to do with worthiness. Argh...

I agree. But in my view there will always be a relic of Mormon culture...consider this hypothetical:
An engaged couple have relations prior to marrying (very common in society including Mormons). They have their planned civil wedding and honeymoon. At some point afterwards, they confess to their Bishop. What counsel can a Bishop give at that point? "Ugh, OK then. Keep sleeping together but don't sleep with anyone else." Then the couple wants to be sealed in the Temple. Should they have to wait as punishment? If so, it would seem unwarranted at that point.

So I think the cultural relic is that such a couple should have the shame of not being married in the temple and have to wait a year to be sealed. Notwithstanding the high probability that many couples go ahead with their temple wedding to avoid the shame. I do hope LDS church leadership get past this and allow married couples to be sealed together without the 1-year wait requirement. I think it will help mend fences with society at large and perhaps bring more importance to being sealed together for time and all eternity. It will also give brides a much better selection of wedding dresses.

[Northwestcoug]

I would love to understand why this policy is in place.

As would we all. It's ridiculous on the face of it, and becomes more so when you realize it isn't a church wide policy.

[RC Vikings]

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...ml?id=14035549

What does it mean to be sealed to the Priesthood?

[clackamascoug]

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...ml?id=14035549

What does it mean to be sealed to the Priesthood?

I believe that is another way of saying that we are sealed to Jesus Christ, which we are.

Also, in a multiple dimension scenario, we all need to be sealed to Jesus Christ for logistical purposes.

[RC Vikings]

I believe that is another way of saying that we are sealed to Jesus Christ, which we are.

Also, in a multiple dimension scenario, we all need to be sealed to Jesus Christ for logistical purposes.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I love how simple the gospel is.

[clackamascoug]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I love how simple the gospel is.

It's not my Gospel... It's Jesus', talk to him about it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...ml?id=14035549

What does it mean to be sealed to the Priesthood?

Linky no worky. What was in the post?

[RC Vikings]

Linky no worky. What was in the post?

Here it is.

When somebody is sealed, they are being sealed to the priesthood. If one of the couple keeps their covenants, that sealing doesn't go away. They still fully experience the blessings of being sealed to the priesthood. It would be similar to a faithful child being sealed to unfaithful parents.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here it is.

Interesting. Where do people get this stuff?