Alter Idem wrote: As for Jame's comments: I've had six miscarriages. They were all "born" in the covenant so as far as I'm concerned, they will be my children in the next life. I really don't care what anyone else postulates about "taking a breath" or they aren't my children.
Alter Idem, I'm so sorry your loss.
Thank you Moniker. I'm was lucky though; with all the trouble I had carrying pregnancies to term, I still managed to have three children, but I have a gap of 10 years between my two oldest and my youngest. It makes for interesting family dynamics.
alter idem wrote:I just looked up the part about funerals and I concur with Jason. I couldn't find anything about a funeral taking precedence over a wedding. Anyway, I think Charity's ward-stake policy must not be church wide.
But charity assured us that she wasn't just relying on the bishop - the bishop actually read the relevant part out of the CHI.
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:You might think you don't lie, but you do misstate. You assumed based on the words of a bishop and your own interpretation something and attributed it to official print in the CHI.
We had quite a long discussion of this in that 3rd hour meeting. A situation had come up recently in the stake where a funeral and a wedding were in conflict, and there were lots of questions. The bishop had the CHI in his hand and read it to us. Your assumptions (we heard only the bishop's ideas about the subject) often get in the way of clear thinking. Which is why you come up with such prickloy and erroneous ideas.
woopsie. I guess road to hana was right in his/her assumptions.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
alter idem wrote:I just looked up the part about funerals and I concur with Jason. I couldn't find anything about a funeral taking precedence over a wedding. Anyway, I think Charity's ward-stake policy must not be church wide.
But charity assured us that she wasn't just relying on the bishop - the bishop actually read the relevant part out of the CHI.
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:You might think you don't lie, but you do misstate. You assumed based on the words of a bishop and your own interpretation something and attributed it to official print in the CHI.
We had quite a long discussion of this in that 3rd hour meeting. A situation had come up recently in the stake where a funeral and a wedding were in conflict, and there were lots of questions. The bishop had the CHI in his hand and read it to us. Your assumptions (we heard only the bishop's ideas about the subject) often get in the way of clear thinking. Which is why you come up with such prickloy and erroneous ideas.
woopsie. I guess road to hana was right in his/her assumptions.
Maybe charity's bishop "added" his own ideas to the CHI. Let us not assume it was charity pulling the wool over our eyes. It might have been charity's bishop pulling the wool over his congregation's eyes. Silly bishop.
alter idem wrote:I just looked up the part about funerals and I concur with Jason. I couldn't find anything about a funeral taking precedence over a wedding. Anyway, I think Charity's ward-stake policy must not be church wide.
But charity assured us that she wasn't just relying on the bishop - the bishop actually read the relevant part out of the CHI.
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:You might think you don't lie, but you do misstate. You assumed based on the words of a bishop and your own interpretation something and attributed it to official print in the CHI.
We had quite a long discussion of this in that 3rd hour meeting. A situation had come up recently in the stake where a funeral and a wedding were in conflict, and there were lots of questions. The bishop had the CHI in his hand and read it to us. Your assumptions (we heard only the bishop's ideas about the subject) often get in the way of clear thinking. Which is why you come up with such prickloy and erroneous ideas.
woopsie. I guess road to hana was right in his/her assumptions.
I did notice that Charity said her Bishop was reading from the CHI. It could be that he was reading from the book on a number of topics and Charity assumed the information about funerals taking precedence was also from the manual; but it's not in the 2006 CHI manual, book 1.
However, There is the possibility that her Bishop was reading from a supplement. There is a "book 2" which was cited for suggested hymns at funerals, but I haven't seen this book, so I don't know for sure. Anyway, itcould possibly be what her Bishop was reading from.
In any event, my husband did not think funerals would take precedence, so it's clear that her ward/stake policy isn't churchwide. Also, as was pointed out earlier, a family luncheon is not the funeral.
We had about twice as many people show up for the wedding than the Relief Society room would hold, so the bishop suggested we move it into the chapel. A couple of my friends grabbed the vases of flowers and moved them into the chapel as the people filed in. We took pictures of the processional while we were all still in the foyer, then no pictures in the chapel at all. It was a very lovely ceremony, the chapel was full, and the reception turned out wonderfully, as a winter garden decorated with borrowed greenery, Christmas lights, and a few antiques. The whole evening was a great success.
We had about twice as many people show up for the wedding than the Relief Society room would hold, so the bishop suggested we move it into the chapel. A couple of my friends grabbed the vases of flowers and moved them into the chapel as the people filed in. We took pictures of the processional while we were all still in the foyer, then no pictures in the chapel at all. It was a very lovely ceremony, the chapel was full, and the reception turned out wonderfully, as a winter garden decorated with borrowed greenery, Christmas lights, and a few antiques. The whole evening was a great success.
Congratulations. It's good to hear it all went well.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
harmony wrote:We had about twice as many people show up for the wedding than the Relief Society room would hold, so the bishop suggested we move it into the chapel.
Do you realize that the bishop went "maverick," and that the CHI expressly forbids marriages in the chapel?
I'm glad that he had the empathy to put people before empty policy.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
harmony wrote:We had about twice as many people show up for the wedding than the Relief Society room would hold, so the bishop suggested we move it into the chapel.
Do you realize that the bishop went "maverick," and that the CHI expressly forbids marriages in the chapel?
I'm glad that he had the empathy to put people before empty policy.
Shades, while I assume her Bishop is still an empathetic man, he didn't break any rules. Weddings can be held in the chapel--they just ask that you not have a wedding procession down the aisle. My husband performed a wedding in the chapel just last year.
Harmony, I'm glad to hear the wedding and reception was a success! I'm sure you are happy to have it all done with as well!
harmony wrote:We had about twice as many people show up for the wedding than the Relief Society room would hold, so the bishop suggested we move it into the chapel.
Do you realize that the bishop went "maverick," and that the CHI expressly forbids marriages in the chapel?
I'm glad that he had the empathy to put people before empty policy.
Well, heck! He signs my temple recommend! Several people here have already consigned him to outer darkness, just for that alone. So just being a maverick isn't nearly so bad!
I think since he'd already determined weeks ago that the kids were both worthy for a temple wedding but because of circumstances unable to go (for one thing, the temple is closed for cleaning right now), there was no reason why they couldn't be married in the chapel (except I didn't want to decorate it, and there's no pictures allowed).
Anyway, I appreciate his flexibility. It was standing room only, with people lined up down the hallway. I guess we could have performed the ceremony twice, but he asked if it was okay with me to move it, so we did. We had high council there saying "go ahead and move 'em out!", so I guess his behind is covered.
Are you saying that photography is not allowed in chapels? I never knew that. As I was looking through my mission photos I saw many that were taken inside the chapel. Of course that's the only time I've ever had the desire to take any there. Also, I'm sure we've videotaped funerals inside.