My Wife's Take on the New Mormon Media Blitz

[_why me]

I could have. However I think the church actually has a policy against holding weddings in the chapels of LDS buildings. And a wedding in the Relief Society room or a basketball court with lines on the floor didn't sound all that appealing. (I could be wrong about this, my memory is fuzzy.)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 227AAlKLxY

You could have gotten married in the chapel. But it does depend on the bishop. No set rules where it can take place as you can see from the Mormons adivising the person getting married outsid the temple. You may even have gotten married in your own church by a Mormon bishop...at least this was the experience of one person in the link.

[_why me]

"Temple work in our own behalf" has nothing to do with temple marriage?

MsJack is of the understanding that a temple marriage is a commandment. It isn't. If so, marriages in the LDS chapel would be breaking a commandment.

[_why me]

I could have. However I think the church actually has a policy against holding weddings in the chapels of LDS buildings. And a wedding in the Relief Society room or a basketball court with lines on the floor didn't sound all that appealing. (I could be wrong about this, my memory is fuzzy.)

I think that you read this on the exmormon site. Bishops are human beings and some are less than human at times because their own understandings cloud who they should actually be.

http://www.exmormon.org/Mormon/mormon573.htm

[_MsJack]

Temple work for oneself is a commandment, why me. Obtaining a sealing to one's spouse is a commandment. My husband married into circumstances that made it impossible for him to receive a sealing anytime in the near future. That is what my comment referred to.

I didn't read anything on the Ex-Mormon site; I (vaguely) recall being told when I was wedding planning years ago that weddings weren't allowed in LDS chapels. It really doesn't matter though. I held the reception in an LDS meetinghouse, and scheduling the reception was by far the most miserable part of my wedding planning. We were quite literally turned down by over a dozen meetinghouse coordinators before someone said "yes." I can't even imagine the run-around I would have gotten had I asked to have the actual wedding in an LDS chapel.

And you still owe me and my husband a tremendous apology.

[_Morley]

"Temple work in our own behalf" has nothing to do with temple marriage?

MsJack is of the understanding that a temple marriage is a commandment. It isn't. If so, marriages in the LDS chapel would be breaking a commandment.

From:
http://LDS.org/study/topics/marriage?lang=eng&query=temple+marriage

Third paragraph down on the page. Brackets are in the original.

The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).

[_why me]

Temple work for oneself is a commandment, why me. Obtaining a sealing to one's spouse is a commandment.

And you still owe me and my husband a tremendous apology.

It is not a commandment. If, getting a chapel wedding would be breaking a commandment, why would a bishop perform any ceremony that would break a commandment and why would the LDS church allow a chapel wedding if it broke a commandment.

The post where I commented about your mocking owes no apology. It is in your post. The sneer against temple marriage because it prohibits non members is clear as is your snipe about ear piercings. And your indirect snipe about LDS intolerance is clear when you compared it to your protestant wedding:

MsJack wrote:
My husband has an earring, which I am given to understand goes against prophetic counsel.

He also married outside the temple in violation of a direct commandment.

He has never seen church discipline for doing either of those things.

I think the church should feature him in an "I'm a Mormon" commercial. He can show off the pictures of a Protestant minister performing his wedding, gush about how great it was to hold a wedding that all of our friends and families could be a part of, and talk about how he decided to surprise me for my birthday one year by coming home with an earring.

It would be so touching, and totally [u]"Mormon." And I'm sure it would not give any outsiders the mistaken impression that Mormons are completely okay with and tolerant of those things.[/u]

Maybe you could have worded it differently. I took it as a mock which I think many other defenders of the LDS faith would too. If you did not mean it as a mock or being sarcastic, I apologize. But you have admitted that you were mocking the I am a Mormon series. So, where does the mocking in your words end?

[_why me]

From:
http://LDS.org/study/topics/marriage?lang=eng&query=temple+marriage

Third paragraph down on the page. Brackets are in the original.

The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).

Okay, where is the commandment? I don't see a commandment. By marrying in the chapel or by marrying outside the church, a person is not breaking a commandment. They can still receive the sacrament and perform their church duties. See the point?

[_MsJack]

LDS bishops are authorized to perform weddings outside of the temples because the church views some marriage--even inferior non-eternal marriage--as better than no marriage at all. If a pair of potential converts living together out-of-wedlock wants to join, the church is not going to make them separate, get baptized, and wait a year before they can get married; it's going to offer them a non-temple wedding to validate their union ASAP.

None of that changes the fact that Mormons are taught to do everything in their power to (1) marry other Mormons and (2) marry them in temples or obtain a sealing ASAP. This is clearly seen by the fact that LDS couples who get married outside of the temple when they were eligible for a temple wedding are disciplined by the church via being forced to wait a year before they can obtain the sealing.

The post where I commented about your mocking owes no apology. It is in your post. The sneer against temple marriage because it prohibits non members is clear as is your snipe about ear piercings. And your indirect snipe about LDS intolerance is clear when you compared it to your protestant wedding:

No, none of those things are in my post. And it doesn't matter how many times you re-quote my post and bold the parts where you think it's in there. You are reading things into my post that are simply not there.

I don't even care in the slightest that temple marriages prohibit non-members. Nor do I care that it preaches against earrings.

If you did not mean it as a mock or being sarcastic, I apologize.

You just said, "The post where I commented about your mocking owes no apology." So, which is it? Are you apologizing or not?

But you have admitted that you were mocking the I am a Mormon series. So, where does the mocking in your words end?

I admitted that I was mocking those few "I'm a Mormon" ads which showcase lifestyle choices that the LDS church discourages elsewhere. I find such ads disingenuous. That's where the mocking in my words ended. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[_Morley]

From:
http://LDS.org/study/topics/marriage?lang=eng&query=temple+marriage

Third paragraph down on the page. Brackets are in the original.

The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).

Okay, where is the commandment? I don't see a commandment. By marrying in the chapel or by marrying outside the church, a person is not breaking a commandment. They can still receive the sacrament and perform their church duties. See the point?

To receive celestial glory you have to "enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]." Every requirement given in order to achieve celestial glory is a commandment.

[_Morley]

There is also:

"The greatest commandment given us, and made obligatory, is the temple work in our own behalf and in behalf of our dead." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 149)

Here is temple work in our own behalf as a commandment. Temple work in our own behalf would involve endowments, marriage, and sealings.


Why are you pushing something that is so obvious?