Trinity wrote:My father is remarrying outside of the temple in March, however, and I would think that if he had been through the CAEMS he would have done the marriage ceremony inside the walls of the temple. He is marrying but is not being sealed to another woman as she is sealed to her first husband and dad was sealed to my mom.
None of my business really, but of curiosity, why is he not having a "for time only" ceremony inside the temple instead of getting married outside it?
Not all the weddings that take place inside temples involve sealings.
What would be the advantage? Just that it seem more "special" because it's inside the temple? Since there's no "need" for it to be in the temple, and having it out of the temple would allow the most friends and family to attend, perhaps they're just being practical?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Trinity wrote:My father is remarrying outside of the temple in March, however, and I would think that if he had been through the CAEMS he would have done the marriage ceremony inside the walls of the temple. He is marrying but is not being sealed to another woman as she is sealed to her first husband and dad was sealed to my mom.
None of my business really, but of curiosity, why is he not having a "for time only" ceremony inside the temple instead of getting married outside it?
Not all the weddings that take place inside temples involve sealings.
What would be the advantage? Just that it seem more "special" because it's inside the temple? Since there's no "need" for it to be in the temple, and having it out of the temple would allow the most friends and family to attend, perhaps they're just being practical?
It makes no difference to me personally, as a former member, it's just that my own experience has been that most LDS members remarrying for time only tend to do it inside temples. That's been my own (limited) experience.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
truth dancer wrote:One of the critical aspects some LDS believers have toward mainstream Christians (from my observations which are few), is that they can make mistakes and still make it to heaven (faith not words). But, actually those who have had their CaEMS are similarly free to make whatever mistakes they want.... their actions do not matter at all. Hmmm...
Keep in mind they're not handing out CAEMS invites willy nilly. I'm betting that most of them are going to those old, faithful couples who have shown through long lives a very focused and high-level dedication and commitment to the church and generally being good people. It's not like you can just put your hand on the TV, write a check, and have your CAEMS. I do think there's a difference between CAEMS in the LDS church and the instant salvation of some parts of Christianity.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Skippy wrote:Essentially, if this account is accurate, there is definitely a secret caste system in place in the church, which would seem to run counter to the basic principles taught by Jesus.
This is what concerns me as well. It goes against the Beatitudes taught be Jesus, himself: Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
Something about "the last shall be first" seems appropriate here, as well as the suggestion that it is more difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Or how about Luke 14:11-15?
The way it's currently set up, it seems more to be like being knighted, or having an honorary title bestowed, in recognition for services rendered (including generosity), and sets up a secret society within a secret society. From a New Testament point of view, it would seem to make far more sense if this blessing were given to the least of these, the poor, the meek, the humble, and the oppressed.
I'm not sure I follow you here.
From the OP, it seemed like this guy was very meek and humble. It doesn't say anything about his financial status. After his initial meeting, he pondered whether he was worthy of such a blessing. When asked to name potential future recipients, he had a struggle to make sure the names he submitted were worthy.
While it might not be universally true, it's generally well known that those who rise to the position of leadership within the LDS Church (stake president, mission president, temple president, General Authority) are frequently people who've been more successful than less. Successful businessmen in the church who show high levels of activity generally have that rewarded with callings that reflect it. It's unlikely the author of the OP is the wealthiest man in the church in the same lines of a Mitt Romney, Bill Marriott or Jon Huntsman, but it's also unlikely he's among the poorest of the poor.
I'd argue that it's precisely because he is a person of good intent and heart that he chooses to share his experience to illuminate the difficulties he had with it to others. And I'd also argue that those who get "nominated" to receive the blessing are not generally those who are on Church welfare or struggling financially. The church needs a way to bestow an honor on those it chooses to recognize, and wrapping it up as a special exaltation present makes it all the more special.
This is a nice speculation, but there is nothing to say it is true.
How do we know that the 2 names this brother wrote down for his recommendation weren't poor, but humble members?
Also, you don't HAVE to be poor to be meek.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
truth dancer wrote:One of the critical aspects some LDS believers have toward mainstream Christians (from my observations which are few), is that they can make mistakes and still make it to heaven (faith not words). But, actually those who have had their CaEMS are similarly free to make whatever mistakes they want.... their actions do not matter at all. Hmmm...
Keep in mind they're not handing out CAEMS invites willy nilly. I'm betting that most of them are going to those old, faithful couples who have shown through long lives a very focused and high-level dedication and commitment to the church and generally being good people. It's not like you can just put your hand on the TV, write a check, and have your CAEMS. I do think there's a difference between CAEMS in the LDS church and the instant salvation of some parts of Christianity.
I think this also goes to the distinction that LDS make between salvation and exaltation, which sometimes even Mormons themselves confuse.
Christians who believe that the atonement covered all believe it covered all. Among themselves they squabble a bit about what else might be required, like baptism, or other initiatory ordinances. They also squabble about what role "works" (or good works) has in all of it, if any.
But TD is right in the sense that this appears to be a "get out of jail free" card.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
the road to hana wrote:While it might not be universally true, it's generally well known that those who rise to the position of leadership within the LDS Church (stake president, mission president, temple president, General Authority) are frequently people who've been more successful than less. Successful businessmen in the church who show high levels of activity generally have that rewarded with callings that reflect it. It's unlikely the author of the OP is the wealthiest man in the church in the same lines of a Mitt Romney, Bill Marriott or Jon Huntsman, but it's also unlikely he's among the poorest of the poor.
I'd argue that it's precisely because he is a person of good intent and heart that he chooses to share his experience to illuminate the difficulties he had with it to others. And I'd also argue that those who get "nominated" to receive the blessing are not generally those who are on Church welfare or struggling financially. The church needs a way to bestow an honor on those it chooses to recognize, and wrapping it up as a special exaltation present makes it all the more special.
This is a nice speculation, but there is nothing to say it is true.
Isn't it generally your own experience that successful businessmen in the church who are active tend to be in positions of greater leadership? Isn't it generally your own experience that those who hold the highest positions of leadership within the church are not among the poorest of the poor?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
the road to hana wrote:While it might not be universally true, it's generally well known that those who rise to the position of leadership within the LDS Church (stake president, mission president, temple president, General Authority) are frequently people who've been more successful than less. Successful businessmen in the church who show high levels of activity generally have that rewarded with callings that reflect it. It's unlikely the author of the OP is the wealthiest man in the church in the same lines of a Mitt Romney, Bill Marriott or Jon Huntsman, but it's also unlikely he's among the poorest of the poor.
I'd argue that it's precisely because he is a person of good intent and heart that he chooses to share his experience to illuminate the difficulties he had with it to others. And I'd also argue that those who get "nominated" to receive the blessing are not generally those who are on Church welfare or struggling financially. The church needs a way to bestow an honor on those it chooses to recognize, and wrapping it up as a special exaltation present makes it all the more special.
This is a nice speculation, but there is nothing to say it is true.
Isn't it generally your own experience that successful businessmen in the church who are active tend to be in positions of greater leadership? Isn't it generally your own experience that those who hold the highest positions of leadership within the church are not among the poorest of the poor?
Well, yes, but this isn't a leadership position.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
the road to hana wrote:While it might not be universally true, it's generally well known that those who rise to the position of leadership within the LDS Church (stake president, mission president, temple president, General Authority) are frequently people who've been more successful than less. Successful businessmen in the church who show high levels of activity generally have that rewarded with callings that reflect it. It's unlikely the author of the OP is the wealthiest man in the church in the same lines of a Mitt Romney, Bill Marriott or Jon Huntsman, but it's also unlikely he's among the poorest of the poor.
I'd argue that it's precisely because he is a person of good intent and heart that he chooses to share his experience to illuminate the difficulties he had with it to others. And I'd also argue that those who get "nominated" to receive the blessing are not generally those who are on Church welfare or struggling financially. The church needs a way to bestow an honor on those it chooses to recognize, and wrapping it up as a special exaltation present makes it all the more special.
This is a nice speculation, but there is nothing to say it is true.
Isn't it generally your own experience that successful businessmen in the church who are active tend to be in positions of greater leadership? Isn't it generally your own experience that those who hold the highest positions of leadership within the church are not among the poorest of the poor?
Well, yes, but this isn't a leadership position.
If you read the original post from RFM with the first-hand account, he notes that of the four couples there that day receiving the ordinance, two were former stake presidents and one was a former mission president.
It's also been noted by others in the past that the ordinance is more frequently given to leaders in higher positions.
So while it isn't a leadership position itself, it can be perceived to be a blessing or distinction bestowed on those who have served in leadership positions.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Sethbag wrote:This seems like quite a retention booster.
I'm not so sure. What happens to all those people who have this ordinance and then the Savior never comes?
They've been annointed by one of his right-hand men on Earth, and now, thanks to their CAEMS ordinance, they know they are only a heartbeat away from seeing him. If one subscribes to "carrot and stick" motivational techniques, this definitely goes with the "carrot" category.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
the road to hana wrote:What's your best guess on how many of the poorest, most humble members of the church have actually received this ordinance?
I think many of the humblest have received it. Why are you tying wealth to humility?
I think it was Jesus who did that.
Wealth can be a stumblingblock to the rich but with God all things are possible. Poverty is another stumblingblock to accepting the gospel. I don't know which is the harder challenge. I am called to bear the former though I imagine I will find little sympathy for it. ;)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo