This was a question on a Mormon message board that I found intriguing. It is a bit provocative in that it assumes not all thinking has been done and that members should not be slugged for the temerity of making suggestions.
Is petition-writing to General Authorities effective or appropriate?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was invited today to sign a petition being created by a person who would like the Church leaders to consider lifting the one year waiting period for people who choose to get married civilly in certain countries around the world. They cite hardship on non-member families and also family members who aren't worthy to enter the temple.
This petition was very nicely worded, very professional, with an overtone of respect. It asks for a signature, a location, and the person's religious affiliation (optional). This means members and non-members alike are able to sign the petition.
I'm curious, would you consider this form of encouragement for consideration of change appropriate in our Church? Would this or any other respectfully-worded petition be received and considered seriously by our leaders?
Will this petition be accepted in a gracious manner by the General Authorities and be given due consideration?
I don't think petition writing is particularly effective when it comes to communicating disaffection to the Church's leaders.
Both of the most recent significant changes in Church policy/doctrine/practice have come as a result of financial implications.
1. Polygamy was going to cost the Church a lot of money if they didn't relinquish the practice. 2. The Priesthood ban likewise would have cost the Church financially had there not been a timely 'revelation' to rescind it.
I suspect that only a mass withdrawal of tithing donations or some kind of federal fiscal sanction would be required for COB to sit up and take notice.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Temple changes happened based on a survey, so why not?
My view about the temple vs. Civil ceremony is that it should be the same across the board. If those in other countries can do the civil first, and then turn around and do the temple ceremony, then the option should also be offered in the U.S.
However, having just gone through a wedding with my daughter, and the situation of her fiancé's parents not being members, I feel that if more ring ceremonies were handled the way ours was, there would be less cause for hurt feelings. In essence, they had the best of both worlds...the formal line, Mom and Dad walking her down the aisle, the kids wrote their own vows, and the bishop did a beautiful job officiating. I didn't sense that my son-in-law's folks felt left out in any sense. It did, however, make for a very long day, after a morning temple ceremony.
Petitions and/or suggestions from the members (the bottom of the food chain) is not how this church is run. The Brethren don't care what the members think or want. The only survey the Brethren will pay attention to is one they wrote and you can bet they won't be letting anyone else know what the results were (thinking of the mythical survey a few years ago of women in the church, the results of which were not released to the public).
Give it up, people. They don't care what the peons think and they won't be changing things any time soon.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
bcspace wrote:I don't think petition writing is inappropriate. But I don't think this particular concern deserves any consideration.
Of course you don't. This is because you cannot think for yourself on church matters. If the Church changed the policy tomorrow you would not protest at all.
I hope someday you can experience the pain and discord this asinine policy causes.
And you wonder why outsiders think the LDS Church is a cult. It is polices like this and attitudes like yours that brings on the accuasation.
liz3564 wrote:Temple changes happened based on a survey, so why not?
My view about the temple vs. Civil ceremony is that it should be the same across the board. If those in other countries can do the civil first, and then turn around and do the temple ceremony, then the option should also be offered in the U.S.
However, having just gone through a wedding with my daughter, and the situation of her fiancé's parents not being members, I feel that if more ring ceremonies were handled the way ours was, there would be less cause for hurt feelings. In essence, they had the best of both worlds...the formal line, Mom and Dad walking her down the aisle, the kids wrote their own vows, and the bishop did a beautiful job officiating. I didn't sense that my son-in-law's folks felt left out in any sense. It did, however, make for a very long day, after a morning temple ceremony.
I am surprised you bishop did a ring ceremony that looked so much like a wedding. The handbook says that is a no no. And it specifically says no vows should be exchanged at a ring ceremony.
liz3564 wrote:Temple changes happened based on a survey, so why not?
My view about the temple vs. Civil ceremony is that it should be the same across the board. If those in other countries can do the civil first, and then turn around and do the temple ceremony, then the option should also be offered in the U.S.
However, having just gone through a wedding with my daughter, and the situation of her fiancé's parents not being members, I feel that if more ring ceremonies were handled the way ours was, there would be less cause for hurt feelings. In essence, they had the best of both worlds...the formal line, Mom and Dad walking her down the aisle, the kids wrote their own vows, and the bishop did a beautiful job officiating. I didn't sense that my son-in-law's folks felt left out in any sense. It did, however, make for a very long day, after a morning temple ceremony.
I am surprised you bishop did a ring ceremony that looked so much like a wedding. The handbook says that is a no no. And it specifically says no vows should be exchanged at a ring ceremony.
Gotta love bishops who put the members first and the CHI last.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Well, the Bishop had no problem with what we did. There were no official vows exchanged as far as "do you take...". The kids just each shared their thoughts about how much they loved each other.
And, as far as how much it resembled a traditional wedding...it was less formal than a traditional wedding, since it was outside, etc....but our bishop is a wise man. He knew that it was important for my son in law's family to feel included, and he looked at the overall happiness of the couple being married taking precedent over some handbook..going with "the spirit of the law" as opposed to the letter, which any good bishop does. I actually thought that he did a nice job of tying in the two ceremonies. My daughter's song that she walked down the aisle to was "Forever will never be long enough for me". He mentioned that, like the song they chose, earlier that day, they had taken vows which allowed them to be with each other forever according to the beliefs of our Church. It was a lovely way to tie in the LDS beliefs and share them with non members in a non confrontational way. I would like to see more bishops have this type of insight and take this approach when these types of extenuating circumstances arise.
Jason Bourne wrote:
liz3564 wrote:Temple changes happened based on a survey, so why not?
My view about the temple vs. Civil ceremony is that it should be the same across the board. If those in other countries can do the civil first, and then turn around and do the temple ceremony, then the option should also be offered in the U.S.
However, having just gone through a wedding with my daughter, and the situation of her fiancé's parents not being members, I feel that if more ring ceremonies were handled the way ours was, there would be less cause for hurt feelings. In essence, they had the best of both worlds...the formal line, Mom and Dad walking her down the aisle, the kids wrote their own vows, and the bishop did a beautiful job officiating. I didn't sense that my son-in-law's folks felt left out in any sense. It did, however, make for a very long day, after a morning temple ceremony.
I am surprised you bishop did a ring ceremony that looked so much like a wedding. The handbook says that is a no no. And it specifically says no vows should be exchanged at a ring ceremony.