Life Rocks wrote:
"They allowed us"?

"Forcing them to wait a year"...

There sure doesn't seem like there's much freedom to choose for yourself. And all the while "the people" were having their scaled down ring ceremony, they were afraid someone would tell on them. Oh brother?

Why do the members allow this? How did the Church ever get to the point where they feel they have to control so much about someone's personal life?
.
.
.The Church has, probably, less control over its people than ever. Why do I say this?

Just consider the early church and Brigham Young. Not only was he Prophet, Seer, Revelator, but also he was the territorial leader/governor.

While I don't have a specific example, I think it's fair to say that going against your temple promises back could be the cause of your death.


Originally, polygamy was necessary for LDS heaven; Negroes could never hold the priesthood because dark skin color meant you were bad in the pre-life; American Indians were the primary descendants of the Lamanites; "as man is God once was, as God is man may become" - is now no more than "a couplet" that Prophet Hinckley didn't know that his church teaches nor was he sure that it was something emphasized. (Time August 4, 1997)

So, in light of all the above, give it time. In time arrangements will probably be made to accommodate all of the family wishing to attend LDS temple marriage ceremonies. Surely it's an issue that must trouble some of the brethren.


PS The LDS temple ceremonies have been modified time and again since their inception. So, here again, is cause to think it's a matter of time before the entire family can attend temple marriages.

Dubbs wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
[Jaye, your posts are usually very thoughtful. However, you said something that bothers me, and please correct me if I misinterpreted your words. So, you believe in scripture/doctrine if it appeals to you, and then disregard the rest without thought about being accountable for that disregard? Are you a member of the church in good standing? '


Don't try to figure out Jaye, His beliefs are so full of contradiction it's impossible. He says he believes in the BofM, but then says things were inserted by Joseph for his own purposes, He claims to not believe in all of the D&C, yet follows the word of wisdom, except he drinks actual alchoholic wine for his sacrament, he thinks the Prophets are in apostacy in many areas, He can't really answer all the temple questions correctly, but claims to have a recommend. I could go on, but he's one of the fanatical outliers every church has.

Of course Jaye is a member in good standing. He is not a clone like Dubbs. Jaye acts like a Christian, Dubbs acts out of the spirit of sectarianism. Jaye gives to all men liberally, Dubbs practices unrighteous dominion. Who would you want as a member of your ward?

Dubbs wrote:
[b]
Just from friends I've talked to over the years.

Oh, podjo, that's proof of nothing. That makes no more sense then saying Hinduism and Mormonism are similar because the hold their meetings in buildings.

I will use this one in class today.

Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
[Jaye, your posts are usually very thoughtful. However, you said something that bothers me, and please correct me if I misinterpreted your words. So, you believe in scripture/doctrine if it appeals to you, and then disregard the rest without thought about being accountable for that disregard? Are you a member of the church in good standing? '


Don't try to figure out Jaye, His beliefs are so full of contradiction it's impossible. He says he believes in the BofM, but then says things were inserted by Joseph for his own purposes, He claims to not believe in all of the D&C, yet follows the word of wisdom, except he drinks actual alchoholic wine for his sacrament, I could go on, but he's one of the fanatical outliers every church has.

Would you keep on the subject instead of attacking Jaye.

Oh, and speaking of the subject, where is the proof I asked you for on your claims about the Buddhist, Sihk, Jewish, and Hindu weddings?

Just from friends I've talked to over the years.

There you go . . . more lies.

Missionaries go all over the world, so it makes sense I'd have friends who have taught those faiths before, and know their beliefs. But believe what you like, makes no difference to me.

Makes me laugh that I give you links to the actual wedding ceremony details, yet you still won't admit you're wrong.

By the way, we're heading to LA in a couple of weeks to a Jewish wedding, in a Jewish temple. Imagine that!

Must not be orthodox, ask them if there's sect of the jewish faith that don't let non Jews in the temple, get back to me.

Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative factions of Judiasm permit non-Jews to attend their weddings. Who told you differently, Dubbs? I know you did not read it anywhere.

Arthur Dent wrote:
Try entering a Jewish synagogue/temple for services or a wedding and not wear a yarmukle. (Or up to the Western Wall for that matter) Or go into a Mosque or Hindu temple with your shoes on. Should we be like Life Rocks and whine that those groups should change their rules because we insist on going bare-headed or with shoes?

In the case of LDS Temples, God sets the standards. Like fathers always say: my house, my rules.

Your lack of Christian humanity is showing.

And the difference which makes your false analogy fall apart is this -- wear the proper attire and one can attend any of those ceremonies. Wear the proper clothing but not have a recommend, one cannot attend a temple sealing.

Think about what you write before posting the next time.

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
[Jaye, your posts are usually very thoughtful. However, you said something that bothers me, and please correct me if I misinterpreted your words. So, you believe in scripture/doctrine if it appeals to you, and then disregard the rest without thought about being accountable for that disregard? Are you a member of the church in good standing? '


Don't try to figure out Jaye, His beliefs are so full of contradiction it's impossible. He says he believes in the BofM, but then says things were inserted by Joseph for his own purposes, He claims to not believe in all of the D&C, yet follows the word of wisdom, except he drinks actual alchoholic wine for his sacrament, he thinks the Prophets are in apostacy in many areas, He can't really answer all the temple questions correctly, but claims to have a recommend. I could go on, but he's one of the fanatical outliers every church has.

Of course Jaye is a member in good standing. He is not a clone like Dubbs. Jaye acts like a Christian, Dubbs acts out of the spirit of sectarianism. Jaye gives to all men liberally, Dubbs practices unrighteous dominion. Who would you want as a member of your ward?


You have never met Jaye and until you do, you have no idea the real JAYe, no clue.