Church may do away with...

[PaloAltoCougar]

An adjacent stake has HC speakers every other month. On the off months the stake provides speakers from the stake auxiliary presidencies, mainly women from the Primary, YW and RS leadership. I endorse this practice.

[RC Vikings]

It wouldn't surprise me if there were lots of exceptions. It is a policy that has no scriptural or logical basis.

So what would the policy be if a couple is bumping uglies before they get married.

[Uncle Ted]

Is this thread for speculating on the consequences of SU's apostasy? Or to express hope and support for the LDS church eliminating the 1-year waiting period between civil and temple marriages? Or is this thread for listing things that we hope the church will "do away" with?

Yes (to all of the above).

If that's the case, I submit doing away with tithing settlement. Most teenage youth should already be interviewed by their Bishop annually. Adults are interviewed every two years for a TR if they so desire and if they don't then the Bishop is free to request an interview. Any issues over donation amounts can be taken up individually with the ward financial clerk once the tax forms are released. Tithing settlement needs to go. No one will miss it except maybe some of the suits in the COB.

It seems to me that tithing settlement is optional anyway. Except for the bishop but that doesn't apply to me.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

So a couple could enjoy some time of enjoying the view before wanting to post in the "LDS Garments: Why I Want Out of This Club" thread?

[Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

[QUOTE=wuapinmon;1068499]1. Telling hometeachers to teach the First Presidency message from the Ensign when they visit their families.
2. High councilor talks once a month.
3. Only men as physical facilities reps.[/QUOTE]

My wife and I served as physical facilities reps together, then when I got moved into another calling she stayed on and did it herself for several months. We currently have another couple serving together in that calling in our ward.

[wuapinmon]

My wife and I served as physical facilities reps together, then when I got moved into another calling she stayed on and did it herself for several months. We currently have another couple serving together in that calling in our ward.

There's hope for all among those who love the Lord. Maybe it's no longer the Lord's will that the Church be run by grumpy old men. Of course, I mean the stake-level people and above. Ever see any women in those ranks?

[Northwestcoug]

So a couple could enjoy some time of enjoying the view before wanting to post in the "LDS Garments: Why I Want Out of This Club" thread?

[LA Ute]

An adjacent stake has HC speakers every other month. On the off months the stake provides speakers from the stake auxiliary presidencies, mainly women from the Primary, YW and RS leadership. I endorse this practice.

We do this in our stake.

[MarkGrace]

This would be a great move.

[Green Monstah]

Didn't Detmer get an exemption? Am I misremembering?

IIRC, it didn't become a hard and fast requirement until the mid-90s. Or, at the very least, there were many exceptions to the rule before that time.

[LA Ute]

IIRC, it didn't become a hard and fast requirement until the mid-90s. Or, at the very least, there were many exceptions to the rule before that time.

I think it's been around for a long time, as long as I can remember and I'm getting up there. The folklore I've heard suggests that the brethren were unhappy about people getting married civilly so that non-member relatives could see the ceremony, then running off to the temple to make the union spiritually legit, so to speak. That practice devalues the sealing, it is thought. I personally think there are other ways to avoid that problem, but one thing that happens a lot in the church is that because a few people engage in abuses, a general rule gets imposed that affects everybody. There are tons of examples of this. It bugs me.

[chrisrenrut]

My wife and I were allowed to be civilly married in February 1997, and then sealed in April 1997. She was waiting for a cancellation of sealing from her first husband, which might have influenced the decision.

Our civil marriage was also done at the temple, so it didn't help with our family members who weren't TR holders getting to observe. I am pretty sure they don't civil marriage in the temple anymore.

[Uncle Ted]

I think it's been around for a long time, as long as I can remember and I'm getting up there. The folklore I've heard suggests that the brethren were unhappy about people getting married civilly so that non-member relatives could see the ceremony, then running off to the temple to make the union spiritually legit, so to speak. That practice devalues the sealing, it is thought. I personally think there are other ways to avoid that problem, but one thing that happens a lot in the church is that because a few people engage in abuses, a general rule gets imposed that affects everybody. There are tons of examples of this. It bugs me.

It seems to me that a couple could have a wedding ceremony, exchange vows, break a glass, etc. without actually getting legally married (nothing has to be signed) and then get sealed/married in the temple. If I had to do it all over again that is the way I would have done it so folks near and dear to me wouldn't be excluded. What would Jesus do?

[Green Monstah]

I think it's been around for a long time, as long as I can remember and I'm getting up there. The folklore I've heard suggests that the brethren were unhappy about people getting married civilly so that non-member relatives could see the ceremony, then running off to the temple to make the union spiritually legit, so to speak. That practice devalues the sealing, it is thought. I personally think there are other ways to avoid that problem, but one thing that happens a lot in the church is that because a few people engage in abuses, a general rule gets imposed that affects everybody. There are tons of examples of this. It bugs me.

Well, I know of at least three couples who didn't have to wait a year. They were married in rural Maine when the closest temple was a 15 hour drive. A letter was read in the 90s that made it clear that was noonger an option.

[FMCoug]

I think it's been around for a long time, as long as I can remember and I'm getting up there. The folklore I've heard suggests that the brethren were unhappy about people getting married civilly so that non-member relatives could see the ceremony, then running off to the temple to make the union spiritually legit, so to speak. That practice devalues the sealing, it is thought. I personally think there are other ways to avoid that problem, but one thing that happens a lot in the church is that because a few people engage in abuses, a general rule gets imposed that affects everybody. There are tons of examples of this. It bugs me.

What a ridiculously provincial worldview those brethren must have had. The practice of excluding family members from one of the most significant days of someone's life is okay as long as the sealing isn't devalued? Give me a break. For a church that is supposedly so family focused this is one practice that is 100% anti-family. I guess what they really mean is 100% card carrying Mormon family focused.

This policy is a huge pet peeve of mine if you can't tell.