Why?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Why?

Post by _Ceeboo »

Good morning, why me

why me wrote:
I do not have a temple recommend and I am not worthy to go to the temple. So, I will not be there when my daughters get married.


I am very sorry (and deeply saddened) to learn this.

I don't know what else to type, so I will stop here.

Peace,
Ceeboo
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _just me »

Children and youth don't have temple recommends, either. There are TONS of worthy members of the church who are not qualified to get a TR due to age or other ridiculous constraints.

The fact is that the church LAW was to have PUBLIC weddings for years. Then, BOOM, along comes polygamy. When polygamy was secret those were performed in private for obvious reasons. Monogamous weddings were STILL held in public per the requirements in the D&C.

Let's read from the Article on Marriage that the church voted on and agreed to abide by in 1835, shall we?

According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting or feast prepared for that purpose, and that the solemnization should be performed by a Presiding High Priest, High Priest, Bishop, Elder or Priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this Church from marrying out of the Church, if it be their determination so to do; but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving, and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right and the woman on the left, shall be addressed by the person officiating as he shall be directed by the Holy Spirit, and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by name: 'You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition: that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives?' And when they have both answered 'yes,' he shall pronounce them 'husband and wife,' in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him. 'May God add His blessing and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.'

The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled.

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.

All children are bound by law to obey their parents, and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents, and masters, who exercise control over their wives, children and servants, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.


The Article on Marriage remained in the D&C until long after the saints got to Utah and began to practice polygamy in public. They were in direct violation of their own law.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _why me »

sock puppet wrote:No, why me, you are once again quite wrong. I bitched about the temple wedding exclusion issue when I was TBM. It never squared with focus on family that the LDS claim.


But you knew that the temple was a holy place for the LDS and no individual who is not worthy can go inside the temple. Tough to get around the holiness of the temple. And it does make sense. If the temple is a special place where god dwells, one must be worthy to enter his house.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _why me »

just me wrote:
The Article on Marriage remained in the D&C until long after the saints got to Utah and began to practice polygamy in public. They were in direct violation of their own law.


There was also a shortage of temples. In some countries, it was perfectly all right to marry in the LDS chapel and then go to the temple when time allowed. Why? because the law of the country demanded that one marries in the country and not outside of it. Also because the temple was very far away, that being married in the chapel was perfectly understandable.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_Polygamy-Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8091
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:07 am

Re: Why?

Post by _Polygamy-Porter »

Ceeboo wrote:Good morning, why me

why me wrote:
I do not have a temple recommend and I am not worthy to go to the temple. So, I will not be there when my daughters get married.


I am very sorry (and deeply saddened) to learn this.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Puuulleeease.

Don't get ran over by his self pity parade.

It's not like his daughters are suddenly getting married.

He knows full well what he must do to get that pass to go.

Watching his daughters get married does not mean enough to him, otherwise he would get off his lazy ass, reactivate and pay 10% on at least his net earnings.

Put up or STFU why me.
New name: Boaz
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _sock puppet »

why me wrote:
sock puppet wrote:No, why me, you are once again quite wrong. I bitched about the temple wedding exclusion issue when I was TBM. It never squared with focus on family that the LDS claim.


But you knew that the temple was a holy place for the LDS and no individual who is not worthy can go inside the temple. Tough to get around the holiness of the temple. And it does make sense. If the temple is a special place where god dwells, one must be worthy to enter his house.

So the Mormon god does not dwell in the hearts of good people, as the Christian god does. The Mormon god only dwells in the Mormon temple. Astounding.

And the Mormon god is such a respecter of persons that if a very worthy bride and groom dare to get married in the sight and presence of those the Mormons consider unworthy, and one of them dies in the next 12 months, the Mormon god will not let them be together in the hereafter.

That's one messed up god, that Mormon god is.
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _just me »

why me wrote:
just me wrote:
The Article on Marriage remained in the D&C until long after the saints got to Utah and began to practice polygamy in public. They were in direct violation of their own law.


There was also a shortage of temples. In some countries, it was perfectly all right to marry in the LDS chapel and then go to the temple when time allowed. Why? because the law of the country demanded that one marries in the country and not outside of it. Also because the temple was very far away, that being married in the chapel was perfectly understandable.


Did you even read the Article on Marriage?

Marriages were declared to be PUBLIC celebrations. Strict monogamy was demanded.

The church does not allow ALL worthy members to enter the temple.

Before Joseph Smith died the temples were all open to the public and so were weddings (just not those of the polygamous persuasion).

Yes, there has been a huge evolution in the practice of marriage ceremonies in the church. You are right about that.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _just me »

why me wrote:
sock puppet wrote:No, why me, you are once again quite wrong. I bitched about the temple wedding exclusion issue when I was TBM. It never squared with focus on family that the LDS claim.


But you knew that the temple was a holy place for the LDS and no individual who is not worthy can go inside the temple. Tough to get around the holiness of the temple. And it does make sense. If the temple is a special place where god dwells, one must be worthy to enter his house.


Why are little children unworthy of being in the presence of the gods?

I thought Jesus loved the little children.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _sock puppet »

The Article on Marriage was okay when JSJr was yet able to keep his philandering pretty much secret. When it was starting to become better known in some circles of the Church, he had to make polygamy up as a religious excuse for his horn dog ways. Funny, he created a secret combination to try to keep his adultery secret.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Why?

Post by _Jason Bourne »

why me wrote:This is a favorite punching bag of the postmos and exmos. And there is a good reason for this. Now that they have left the church or do not have a temple recommend, they bitch and moan about not being able to go to a temple wedding. However, when they were members most had no problems with the exclusion clause about going to the temple or temple weddings. Very few had a problem with cousin Bink not being able to attend the wedding because all knew that cousin Bink was not worthy and that was his decision.

Such is the hypocrisy of postmos and exmos. Get over it. The rules are the rules.


Hey Mr. Inactive barely ever a Mormon. Kiss off. I am active and hold a recommend. I think the policy is awful. At least let a TR holding couple have a civil ceremony before ( or after) so non member families or other non TR holders can celebrate. Drop the over the top control of making such people wait a year.

And by the way in my more TBM days when one of my daughters was temple married and her never mo grandparents could not come it broke my heart. My MIL said " I don't understand why I am not good enough to come to your churches weddings. My church doesn't exclude people from weddings.". I had no answer. I did make sure we did a very good ring ceremony afterwards for the many non member families and friends. But it seemed just less than best for them.

Your hard nose attitude is sickening really. I am glad you are not an active LDS.
Post Reply