Are LDS brides prepared for what they'll wear in sealings?

[_Drifting]

To be clear, many women who get sealed know full well what's going on. They aren't surprised, because they've seen it all before, numerous times. my wife and I both had frequented the temple many times before our wedding day.

Tell me Stemelbow, when you said that "many women who get sealed know full well what's going on" what personal experience were you leaning on? Have you interviewed or talked to many women about it? How many?

[_Some Schmo]

I'm also saying that when you said you knew 'many women' you were being environmentally friendly with your emissions.

Man, I love a good turn of phrase, and this one had me LOLing. Very nice.

[_stemelbow]

Tell me Stemelbow, when you said that "many women who get sealed know full well what's going on" what personal experience were you leaning on? Have you interviewed or talked to many women about it? How many?

I've known many LDS women. I've spoken with them over the years. No I never did do any interview with them. Its my general impression.

[_just me]

Sadly, everyone looks like a marshmellow in full temple robes. So, even though I am extremely thin I looked like a marshmellow.

Although I found some parts of the marriage ceremony awkward and embarrassing, it was what I wanted based on my beliefs at the time.

[_Willy Law]

The bride has to have her endowment done before getting married, so at the very least she'll have some idea what she and her husband will be wearing. The exception would be people who do their endowment session on the same day they get married, but I've never known anyone who did that. Usually they do that a week or two before.

Doing the endowment a week or two before would have helped my wife. She went through for the first time the afternoon before our wedding. As if she was not frazzled enough by the endowment, we had to be at the temple at 6AM the next morning. We were talking about it a while ago. She started out laughing, but ended up in tears.

[_LDSToronto]

In 2007, 52,686 missionaries served (2007 Statistical Report). 13% were young, single women (Stack, Peggy Fletcher (2007-06-30). "Mission metamorphosis". The Salt Lake Tribune.)

That means 6,849 young single sisters served missions. With a population of 13,193,999, using a proportion similar to the 2000 US census, one can reasonably assume that 3% of the LDS population are female of mission age, or 395,820.

That's fairly unfair, seeing as there is no reason to assume that all the estimated 395,820 are to be sealed in the temple, attend church, consider themselves Mormon or any of that. But still, just to be clear, to most people 6,849 can be said to be many people.

When the church publishes those numbers, I'll be glad to revise this estimation.

That means that 1.7 percent of the single young females served missions in 2007, approximately. Let's be generous and triple the amount of single young females serving missions to account for those who served in prior years but did not marry. That gives us 5.1% of all single young sisters who hold temple recommends without being married, and who are between the age of 21 and 24 (or 27 if you account for accumulation)

That is wrong-headed. You have to stretch that out to all women in the Church who have been sealed. If say 6,500 current young women between the ages of 21-24 will be sealed, then perhaps, proportionally we can extend that number to women who are all the way into their 70s and beyond. Afterall we are talking about all LDS women right? I mean to spin it as you have done is just silly. But beyond that, it doesn't matter anyway, because given the smallest figure you can come up with of 6,849 we still have a reasonable categorization of "many". So what game are you playing?

Well, why don't you help us out then, stem? Find me a source that shows the proportion of LDS women who marry, for the first time, beyond the age of 30, or 40, or 50. Given the theological importance placed on marriage, in the LDS paradigm, I'm going to hazard a guess that extending the calculation to include these sisters will have a minimal effect.

My numbers might be a bit off, as this was done with 5 minutes of googling and a pocket calculator, but, 5.1% of single sisters doesn't sound like 'many' single sisters to me, stem!

H.

Hate to say it, but its clear to me you're just being obtuse now. 5.1% of a million can be said to be many in anyone's mind.

I'm being obtuse, am I? I'm trying to help you rise above your illiteracy by spelling things out for you, and I'm the one being obtuse.

Pep pep indeed.

H.

[_LDSToronto]

Actually, let's come at this from a different tact rather than endlessly piling on Stem.

Stem stated that many LDS women who marry "know full well what is going on".

Stem said that many LDS women, "aren't surprised, because they've seen it all before, numerous times"

That has a different meaning than what you've quoted above.

H.

[_stemelbow]

Stem said that many LDS women, "aren't surprised, because they've seen it all before, numerous times"

That has a different meaning than what you've quoted above.

H.

Toronto, when I said "many" why did you try and change that to "most" in yoru reply to me? What did you think I meant by "many"? 60? 1,000, 10,000, a million? I didn't have a number in mind, but I'd hazard a guess of a few thousand. Are you trying to say that a few thousand is not "many"? This just doesn't seemt o be the type of quibbling you engage in too often--something left to the more strident of quibblers, if you ask me?

And in the end, I just needed to clarify--the impression going on before I chimed is was the no LDS women have been through the temple before their own sealing. That was just false. I needed to clarify lest someone was misunderstanding. There are many (perhaps tens of the thousands) LDS women who have already been through the temple before their own sealings to their husbands. And there are probably quite a few who feel quite prepared otherwise.

[_Darth J]

Stem said that many LDS women, "aren't surprised, because they've seen it all before, numerous times"

That has a different meaning than what you've quoted above.

H.

Toronto, when I said "many" why did you try and change that to "most" in your reply to me? What did you think I meant by "many"? 60? 1,000, 10,000, a million? I didn't have a number in mind, but I'd hazard a guess of a few thousand. Are you trying to say that a few thousand is not "many"? This just doesn't seemt o be the type of quibbling you engage in too often--something left to the more strident of quibblers, if you ask me?

Perhaps Canada's problem here is that he is not willing to be bound by your functional illiteracy. The word "many" implies a significant part of a whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many

http://thesaurus.com/browse/many

Canada has demonstrated, from the Church's own figures, that a very small proportion of LDS females would fit into the category you are ascribing to them. A small percentage of a whole is not "many." The correct word, based on the evidence, is "few."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/few

http://thesaurus.com/browse/few

And in the end, I just needed to clarify--the impression going on before I chimed is was the no LDS women have been through the temple before their own sealing. That was just false. I needed to clarify lest someone was misunderstanding. There are many (perhaps tens of the thousands) LDS women who have already been through the temple before their own sealings to their husbands. And there are probably quite a few who feel quite prepared otherwise.

Stemelbow---

This message board is not hostile, nor does it owe you an apology, by reason of the failure of certain board members to find it persuasive when you make sweeping, unwarranted assertions based entirely on making up the definitions of words as you go, making up facts as you go, and offering your meandering streams of consciousness as if they were well-reasoned, well-supported arguments.

[Guest]

Stem said that many LDS women, "aren't surprised, because they've seen it all before, numerous times"

That has a different meaning than what you've quoted above.

H.

Toronto, when I said "many" why did you try and change that to "most" in your reply to me? What did you think I meant by "many"? 60? 1,000, 10,000, a million? I didn't have a number in mind, but I'd hazard a guess of a few thousand. Are you trying to say that a few thousand is not "many"? This just doesn't seemt o be the type of quibbling you engage in too often--something left to the more strident of quibblers, if you ask me?

Darth beat me to it, but because repetition is the best-loved teaching tool of the LDS church, I'll re-iterate: I did not try to change *many* to *most*; I tried to change *many* to *few*. Here is what I said -

Wrong. A *few* women will have seen the sealing ceremony. *Most* women do not see the ceremony prior to their wedding day.

A few thousand is *many* when that few thousand represents a significant proportion of a larger whole or when that few thousand are compared to a significantly smaller whole.

In this discussion, 6,849 is *many* more sisters than, say, zero sisters, or even 10 sisters, and maybe even a thousand sisters. But, 6,849 is relatively *few* sisters when compared to 395,000 sisters, or to 6,500,000 sisters, or, if one were to count only active sisters between the age of 21-24, using an activity rate of 40%, 6,849 would still be relatively *few* sisters compared to 160,000 active sisters.

I will point out that risk plays a role in contextualizing *many* and *few*. For instance, if we were counting airplane crashes, then it would be reasonable to say that 6,849 crashes is *many*, even though the magnitude of the proportion of crashes is low. This is because airplane crashes have a significant impact on the safety of human beings. If 1.7% of all flights crashed, a rational person would not incur that type of risk. Thus, 6,849 flights crashing is too *many*.

In the case of sisters witnessing a sealing prior to participating in their own sealing, there is little risk involved; there is no physical danger to human life (emotional trauma notwithstanding). Thus, it would be more appropriate to use the word *few* when referring to the proportion of sisters who witness a sealing prior to participation.

Stem, I hope that helps you understand the difference between *few* and *many*.

H.