RfM--why it's a useless site. (Simon will love this!)

[_Chap]

See? 'as personalised as you like'! You can even choose to bear your testimonies, and choose which members of your family read from the suggested list of scriptures!!

Okay, let me try this again. The couple have already been married in the temple. No reason to stress the temple since the marriage has already occured. The site gave suggestions. Should I follow them is my own concern. See my point? What does personalize mean for you?

But of course.

It is very easy, and indeed tacitly encouraged by the CoJCoLDS, for couples organizing events for non-members or the unworthy after a temple marriage to ignore completely the clear church guidelines and strong social pressure to fill the event with stuff about the temple.

Everybody knows that!

(Do I have that little 'totally missing the point' feeling somewhere at the back of my mind? Yes, it is nagging away there. Time to put whyme back on ignore.)

[_why me]

(Do I have that little 'totally missing the point' feeling somewhere at the back of my mind? Yes, it is nagging away there. Time to put whyme back on ignore.)

Are you serious? Of course the church gives recommendations. But one does not have to follow them. They are not commandments. People can do what they wish. And besides who is at the ring ceremony? Mainly relatives and non-member friends. And so, where is the pressure coming from? Who goes to that link for the recommendations. A couple can personalize the ceremony to fit their needs. One does not have to follow a website. And that is what personalized means. The couple can make it personal for their needs. How in the heck is a non-member father going to talk about the temple? How is an inactive father going to talk about the temple?

See my point?

[_DarkHelmet]

(Do I have that little 'totally missing the point' feeling somewhere at the back of my mind? Yes, it is nagging away there. Time to put whyme back on ignore.)

Are you serious? Of course the church gives recommendations. But one does not have to follow them.

I agree with you, and I wish TBMs would take your advice. It's not that I think TBMs should obey their priesthood leaders when it comes to ring ceremonies. My problem is the church does in fact insert themselves in the ring ceremonies (Ring ceremony instructions are in the bishop's handbook), and TBMs do obey their church leaders. I do agree with you that TBM's should tell their bishops to stick it on this and many, many other issues, but TBM's don't think like you and me. They believe they should follow the counsel of their priesthood leaders.

[_angsty]

My advice to Why Me, not to post, is based on the fact that, in addition to not being able to understand and relate to posters there, he seems constitutionally incapable of recognizing and abiding by board rules.

And remember this about the LDS church too. If you follow the rules, you should have no problem.

This is a very strange thing for you to say in conjunction with other things you have said on this thread.

So now, if we follow the rules, we shouldn't have any problems. And yet, we've discussed problems that are presented by following the rules-- namely that ring ceremonies end up adding insult to injury. In response to that, you have suggested that members of the church completely ignore handbook instructions and have whatever kind of ring ceremony they please. You have also made a distinction between "rules" and "recommendations" in order to claim that some of what the church instructs (from its official rule book) is to be taken seriously, while others can be safely ignored.

You are also a self-identified "unworthy" inactive member who doesn't abide by the rules of the church and thinks that shouldn't be a problem either.

Do the rules matter or not? You can't have it both ways.

[_angsty]

(Do I have that little 'totally missing the point' feeling somewhere at the back of my mind? Yes, it is nagging away there. Time to put whyme back on ignore.)

Are you serious? Of course the church gives recommendations. But one does not have to follow them. They are not commandments. People can do what they wish. And besides who is at the ring ceremony? Mainly relatives and non-member friends. And so, where is the pressure coming from? Who goes to that link for the recommendations. A couple can personalize the ceremony to fit their needs. One does not have to follow a website. And that is what personalized means. The couple can make it personal for their needs. How in the heck is a non-member father going to talk about the temple? How is an inactive father going to talk about the temple?

See my point?

You are just not getting it. Like, in so many ways. The pressure comes from the fact that the individuals have been raised in a culture of obedience, and conformity to priesthood authority is expected. Young couples are routinely advised by church authorities that their ring ceremonies should be modest, temple-centric and not a substitute wedding. The link is just an example of what is usually done within the constraints dictated in the CHI. It's an opportunity to exchange rings in front of everyone while talking about the temple sealing and the gospel. An inactive or nonmember father likely wouldn't even be participating, he would just be present.

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

Also, I don't understand the Benson/Vogel fued -- I thought they were on the same "side" (i.e. both critics). Could someone explain this to me?

Benson and most others at RFM couldn’t tolerate anything but the most extreme view of Joseph Smith. They primarily objected to my use of the term “pious fraud”. Where LDS cringe at the word “fraud”, the RFMers sneered that Joseph Smith was not in the least pious—his only motivation was for money, power, and sex. I was also attacked for rejecting their attempt to label Joseph Smith as a pedophile. Needless to say, my view of Joseph Smith is not that extreme.

[_angsty]

Simon,

Also, I don't understand the Benson/Vogel fued -- I thought they were on the same "side" (i.e. both critics). Could someone explain this to me?

Benson and most others at RFM couldn’t tolerate anything but the most extreme view of Joseph Smith. They primarily objected to my use of the term “pious fraud”. Where LDS cringe at the word “fraud”, the RFMers sneered that Joseph Smith was not in the least pious—his only motivation was for money, power, and sex. I was also attacked for rejecting their attempt to label Joseph Smith as a pedophile. Needless to say, my view of Joseph Smith is not that extreme.

I remember that drama well. I have a hard time with the notion of Joseph Smith as a "pious fraud" myself. But that's a discussion for another thread.

That being said, I'm assuming posters gave you a hard time on the pedophilia issue because they were pissed off about the "pious fraud" issue. I don't think it's generally assumed over there that Joseph Smith was a pedophile. Whenever posters bring it up, SL Cabbie, bona dea, and ExMoRon (to name a few) are reliable about challenging it.

[_marg]

Benson and most others at RFM couldn’t tolerate anything but the most extreme view of Joseph Smith.

Obviously that's how you perceive it Dan. I didn't perceive it that way. I perceived it that they disagreed with your argument.

They primarily objected to my use of the term “pious fraud”. Where LDS cringe at the word “fraud”, the RFMers sneered that Joseph Smith was not in the least pious—his only motivation was for money, power, and sex.

Dan if you disagreed with those who objected to your assumption that Smith was sincere and motivated by true belief that he was connected to God..does that mean you "sneered" at those you disagreed with? My recall is that there were some highly knowledgeable what I consider high level exmormons in the Net community in that discussion. It wasn't a bunch of mindless angry exmormons taking pot shots at you personally for the sake of it. Good arguments were presented. Craig Criddle offered to discuss with you and you didn't take him up on it.

You do lean towards Mormon apologetics, ..you accept the Book of Mormon translations witnesses as being honest sincere witnesses. You accept Smith as being honest and sincere. The main difference between you and a Mormon apologist is that you say you don't think a God was involved.

I was also attacked for rejecting their attempt to label Joseph Smith as a pedophile. Needless to say, my view of Joseph Smith is not that extreme.

Dan you are not in the middle between LDS and RFMers. You accept pretty much everything LDS..minus God..though in your argument it's hard to tell that you take God out of the equation. You even argue to justify Smith's polygamy.

Given your position Dan, it's no surprise your arguments on there would not be allowed to stand unquestioned, and unquestioned vehemently..because of your influential position in the Mormon community.

[_Buffalo]

Here are some suggestions for a ring ceremony from LDS.weddings.com.

As you can see, the whole thing is to be completely free-form and non-member friendly, and there is no intrusive harping on the Temple at all! Whyme's in-depth knowledge of LDS life and practice has meant that he has got it dead right, as usual!

Ring Ceremonies
For couples with large groups of non-members attending, a ring ceremony is becoming the trend. You can make the exchange as personalized as you like, perhaps with speakers (possibly fathers or bishops) giving talks on temples or eternal marriage. You could have others read scriptures (a sample list is accessible in the resource section) that emphasize the true and eternal aspects of the temple marriage and love. Primary children or the family diva could sing "Families Can Be Together Forever", poems can be read, or the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" can be read. Another option would be to have the couple bear their testimonies.

See? 'as personalised as you like'! You can even choose to bear your testimonies, and choose which members of your family read from the suggested list of scriptures!!

That's damned terrible. The wedding day is supposed to be about the couple, not about taking another opportunity to pimp Mormonism.

[_Buffalo]

I remember that drama well. I have a hard time with the notion of Joseph Smith as a "pious fraud" myself. But that's a discussion for another thread.

That being said, I'm assuming posters gave you a hard time on the pedophilia issue because they were pissed off about the "pious fraud" issue. I don't think it's generally assumed over there that Joseph Smith was a pedophile. Whenever posters bring it up, SL Cabbie, bona dea, and ExMoRon (to name a few) are reliable about challenging it.

Technically, Joseph wasn't a pedophile. He was a hebephile and an ephebophile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia