Role of the Temple

  • Thread starter Thread starter majick275
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BJ,
Really now…that’s vicious even for you. Do you really want to compare waht the Catholic Church does FOR the poor with the money that you allege they “fleece” from the elderly and impoverished with the VAST sums required to build and maintain LDS Temples that are primarily for “redeeeming the dead”?

Your parish is very different than mine. We do have an annual fund raiser on sunday that benefits the school so that tuition assistance is available for those in need. We don’t do any bingo, but there is a Knights of Columbus casino night once a year that gives the money to the schools teachers to purchase extra classroom supplies.

As far as not understanding your beliefs it asn’t for lack of effort. I tried for many years to find the truth of the LDS gospel…instead I found that, for me at least, the path to salvation goes through the catholic church.

perhaps we should take a breath here. I was expressing my own uneasy feelings about a particular situation and I see now that must have appeared a cheap shot to you and you hit back with a triple dose of same. So I’m sorry for wording things the way that I did. I just wanted you to know that is something that bothered me.

Casen,
Salt Lake is certainly cheaper than the Texas temples, but no the prices aren’t “extravagant” it just seems wrong (to me) to be charging at all in that case. the patrons are all (by virtue of recomend) full tithepayers (plus generous fast offering) to a church that is very wealthy. I just don’t feel comfortable with that. Look, I obviously take issue with how the LDS church runs it’s finances so let’s leave that for another thread and I will drop it on this one.

I apologize for my tone and will work harder on my diplomacy.
 
BJ Colbert:
I guess it is similar as it was when I went to the Vatican, I was not allowed into the inner areas to meet the Pope, because I was not one of those privey to this area of the Vatican. There were many places off limits to just average people off the street.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the Vatican is too sacred for any Catholic to visit. Those places which are off-limits to most people are off-limits for different reasons.
  1. People live in the Vatican. Do you want tourists waltzing through your living room?
  2. Security. Most people don’t realize that the Swiss Guard is one of the most highly trained counter insurgency units in the world.
  3. Property protection. Again, tourists. Do you know any museums that let guests wander all over the place willy nilly? The Vatican is a holy place, a museum, an office building and a home. It’s not practical to let people wander around everywhere. All of the worship spaces are open to everybody though.
If you make the proper arrangements before hand (and if you are welcome in the case of people’s living quarters), you can see any part of the Vatican you like. It is not like your temples at all.

Money taking doesn’t mean much to me. I’m not always comfortable with it, but I recognize the economic necessities inherent in running a church. There’s a bookstore in mine (technically it’s in the parish hall across the parking lot, but whatever. I’ve seen bookstores in the same building as the church at some parishes).

Bingo is a social event. You can debate the gambling aspect of it and I won’t argue that. I’ve always been kind of mystified by it as well, but not really offended by it. It’s a social activity and that’s about it. It’s also a fund raising activity to a limited extent. I don’t a single old widow who gambled away her social security check at bingo night though. Let’s have a little perspective please.

Carnivals on Sunday are a leisure activity. I understand that the Mormon church is not big on leisure activities on Sunday and I understand why. I think it’s important to note that Sunday is not the Sabbath. Sunday is the Lord’s day, the day of his resurrection and the Christian church’s recognition of Sunday is not really the same thing as the Jewish recognition of the Sabbath. Catholics see social activity (particularly within the congregation) to be a postive act and therefore acceptable on the Lord’s Day.

As for clothing in church, I honestly think that putting too much effort into looking good is vanity. It’s not for God’s sake, he doesn’t care what clothes you wear. Whether you show up in rags or a $1000 suit makes no difference to the Father of All Creation. I think there’s such a thing as inappropriate clothing for church (slutty), but that’s inappropriate for any setting really. If you’re upset about people wearing blue jeans, then that’s more judgemental than righteous.
Also, to answer MEP, our Sacrament is every bit as ,and maybe more important as your Eucharist. The only difference is that we are reconfirming our commitment to God and following his commandments, and also renewing our baptismal covenant, with repentance from our weekly sins. We are remembering Jesus Christ and His Body and Blood which He sacrificed for us.
The main difference I see in your Eucharist and our Sacrament is that you believe you are actually eating flesh and blood. We believe the Sacrament represents His flesh and blood. In seriousness and importance it is the same.
Click to expand...
See, you seem to know what the difference is but you don’t see how it changes everything. God is present at Mass. He is there, in the flesh! He allows us to consume him and take him into ourselves. This is more than just repentence for us. This is more than a renewal of our baptism (though both of those things are part of the mass). This is direct, spiritual and physical communion with God. This is contact. This is Christ embodied and laid out before us in sacrifice for our sins. There’s nothing in a sacrament meeting that even comes close to how sacred this is to us (and I’ve been to a lot of sacrament meetings). We’re not just remembering Christ’s body and sacrifice. We’re experiencing it, in the present, for real, right in front of us, right inside of us as we partake of the Eucharist. It’s not a symbol, it’s Christ.

BTW, I’m not offended by anything in the Mormon church, not even the exclusivity of the temple. I just disagree with it.
 
We on the other hand feel the same about some of your beliefs, they are difficult to understand, and some of our questions are just swept away with explanations such as “It is a Mystery and we are not supposed to understand”
Click to expand...
We explain our “mysteries” all the time, much more so than the Mormon church does. The term mystery does not mean that something is unknown. It simply refers to any aspect of the church that requires divine guidance (through scripture or divinely inspired tradition) to realize. We believe that God is the light of reason and that reason can never contradict truth. However, reason alone can not lead us to certain truths. Those truths that require instruction in the form of divine revelation are called “mysteries”. They’re not mysterious, they’re just articles of faith, and we actually have in depth explanations or speculation for all of them (volumes have been written about the trinity for instance).

But when we try to get a simple question answered like “do Mormons believe in one God or more than one God?” the resultant thread is filled with mormons disagreeing with each other and no one really answering the question. Even the Mormon apologists of FAIR and FARMS simply throw up their hands and say that the full nature of this aspect of LDS faith hasn’t been revealed yet or no one fully understands it yet. Even the LDS prophets prefer to leave this question unanswered every time it is brought up. I’m not trying to antagonize or anything, but seriously, getting simple yes or no answers about important chunks of Mormon doctrine is an absolute trial sometimes. I’ve never had a hard time finding volumes of material about every single solitary aspect of Catholicism. Sure, most of it is written like a philosophy text, but that’s just the nature of the material (and I studied philosophy so I am comfortable with words like “consubstantial” which really isn’t something most people should ever need to know but is kind of central to trinitarian dogma).

The difference is, that with a little study, all of Catholicism is an open book to anyone who wants to put the time into studying it. You may have to study some philosophy or theology to understand half of it, but it’s all out there in the open for all eyes to see. I’ve been trying to figure out Mormonism for ten years. I almost converted once, and spent countless hours in the meeting hall and stake center. I’ve spoken with Mormon friends for over a decade and some of the questions I had when I first started taking Mormonism seriously are still left unanswered, not just for me, but for the Mormons I know as well who say on one hand that they have a clearer image of the Gospel than any other faith, but on the other hand, their’ explanations of Mormon belief are never anywhere near as complete as what I’ve found in Catholicism all my life.

I can’t speak for all Catholics and maybe someone did tell you to just “accept the mystery” at one point, but that is not the attitude of the church and should not be the attitude of any Catholic.
 
Oh jeez… I didn’t even notice that ANOTHER thread was started where people are asking if Mormons believe in one God or more than one God. BJ, I do sincerely hope that nothing I’ve said in this thread is taken as an indictment of your religion. I really don’t see a problem with the eternal progression, mulltiple gods notion that may or may not be a part of Mormonism depending on who you ask. I just don’t agree with it and I think it’s a shame really that most Mormons would rather duck the question in most cases (in my experience that is).
 
I’m sorry if that seemed like a triple whammy, it’s just that I wanted you to feel the same frustration I feel when Catholics explain and explain and explain till their blue in the face and Mormons still don’t get it. The reason I brought up Bingo, is I do personally know an elderly lady who is hooked on Catholic Bingo and it is my daughters’ mother-in-law. They are having to help her with finances because she gambles away her Social Security, and at seventy five years old she still has to work part time to pay her gambling habit.
Code: 
The One God topic has been explained clearly, many many times.  The problem is just as the Mary topic is, that being ,that Catholics have their own interpretation of what Mormons believe, just as other religions, (sometimes LDS) believe their own interpretations of what Mary means to Catholics.  No matter how clearly it is explained that LDS worship one God, the old anti-Mormon literature wins out over truth and logic.
Just as Catholic professing that they are not worshipping Mary, even though the anti-Catholic literature claims they do.
I can’t explain the anti-literature, I have never read it nor care to, so I truely do not understand their theory that LDS worship many Gods.
I am sure you have heard about the worship Mary and Idols thing till you are sick to death of hearing and explaining. I feel the same about the multiple gods theory. No matter how many texts you quote from Brigham Young or Joseph Smith, it is only as humans they may have espoused opinion on eternity. It is not and never has been official Church Doctrine, any more than worshipping Mary or the many statues or saints is Catholic Church doctrine. Do you see the similarity at all?
Catholics have explained away things the Popes did and said by saying Popes are fallible. Well, that is exactly what LDS say, the Prophet is infallible when he is speaking with direct revelation from God, but when he is speaking simply as a man, he is fallible as the Pope is and can speak what he thinks may be.
The Prophet guides the Church through direct revelation from God, but he also is a private person when not guiding the church, with a family and a personal private life. Unfortunately, those who would detract from the Church are listening to jump on every word out of his mouth as “It must be from God” It simply is not. We know when it is because he tells us.
The Temple is open to all members of the LDS Church except those who do not practice their beliefs. If they want to practice their beliefs, pay tithing, do not drink Alchohol, treat others with love and respect, be honest in all dealings, attend all Sunday meetings.
Then there is nothing to keep them from attending the Temple and they are all encouraged to do so.
The Temple grounds are open to all and there are many buildings and museums with guides to help people understand the story of the LDS Church. People are free to wander the grounds and museums and visitors centers at will.
The only place they need to have identification is the Temple, where ordinances are being performed that we would not want people just walking off the street into wedding ceremonies or baptism ordinances.
I would not think that Catholics who are invited would be allowed or welcomed at someone’s wedding that they did not know. These are personal private ceremonies within families, and other Mormons who do not know the family are not invited either.
It is the same as opening your home to everyone whether you know them or not, if you are having a private gathering. Would you invite all passersby to join you?
Sorry, for the whammy yesterday, just wanted to show you what it feels like to have people put their own spin on your beliefs.
It is very frustrating as you can see. But, I am not affended, only exasperated and frustrated that you can not understand.
BJ
 
BJ Colbert:
Code: 
The One God topic has been explained clearly, many many times.  The problem is just as the Mary topic is, that being ,that Catholics have their own interpretation of what Mormons believe, just as other religions, (sometimes LDS) believe their own interpretations of what Mary means to Catholics.  No matter how clearly it is explained that LDS worship one God, the old anti-Mormon literature wins out over truth and logic.
Just as Catholic professing that they are not worshipping Mary, even though the anti-Catholic literature claims they do.
I can’t explain the anti-literature, I have never read it nor care to, so I truely do not understand their theory that LDS worship many Gods.
I am sure you have heard about the worship Mary and Idols thing till you are sick to death of hearing and explaining. I feel the same about the multiple gods theory. No matter how many texts you quote from Brigham Young or Joseph Smith, it is only as humans they may have espoused opinion on eternity. It is not and never has been official Church Doctrine, any more than worshipping Mary or the many statues or saints is Catholic Church doctrine. Do you see the similarity at all?
Catholics have explained away things the Popes did and said by saying Popes are fallible. Well, that is exactly what LDS say, the Prophet is infallible when he is speaking with direct revelation from God, but when he is speaking simply as a man, he is fallible as the Pope is and can speak what he thinks may be.
The Prophet guides the Church through direct revelation from God, but he also is a private person when not guiding the church, with a family and a personal private life. Unfortunately, those who would detract from the Church are listening to jump on every word out of his mouth as “It must be from God” It simply is not. We know when it is because he tells us.

BJ
Click to expand...
I guess I see room for doubt here. The FARMS website in reviewing (and in some cases refuting) various works on LDS doctrine endorses this view of eternal progression. I have personally witnessed this being taught in LDS churches at various times and places. This appears to be stated in the D&C. Every credible source of LDS doctrine that I have been able to find appears to teach that eternal progression is an eternal law. (one that is essential to exaltation) This law requires that God was once a man who obeyd the commandments of his literal Spirit Father (his God the Father) benefitted from his own Savior and overcame his own tempter to be rewarded with eternal increase. That increase being us. We (according this to this law) have the opportunity to obey God, benefit from Christ atonement, overcome the plans of Satan and enter into our own reward of etrnal increase with our own spirit children who would then need to face a tempter and have a savior, etc. this is a process without beginning or end that is infinite in scope. I just can’t understand how you could be an active member of the LDS church and never hear that taught as official doctrine. I understand the distinction that it has always been taught that WE only have one God that WE worship. (one savior, tempter, etc.) But I still find it significant that LDS doctrine teaches that infinite Gods exist for infinite other worlds.
 
I am sorry but I have been LDS for almost 63 years and I have never been taught that there are infinite gods on infinite planets ruling over other people. I have heard other religions say that we believe that, but never have I been taught that.
Of course we are taught eternal progression in that we continue on after this life and the resurrection, and have our families reunited for eternity. We are taught that if we lose a child in infancy we will be given the opportunity to raise that child in heaven. Our lives continue as husbands, wives, children, grandchildren in an eternal family all united together as we were on earth. We actually believe that heaven is the Earth in it paradisical glory.
We believe that Jesus Christ will come again and that it is not far off, I have heard your priests say this same thing in mass. Like the Bridegroom cometh and we know not when, he comes like a thief in the night and all should be ready. When he comes the earth will be cleansed with fire and the righteous will be caught up and saved. The wicked will be destroyed. We believe that Jesus Christ will reign personally on the earth for a thousand years and there will be peace.
I know all of this is hogwash to you, but this is what I believe, and this is what I have been taught about eternal progression. We do the work for our ancestors in the Temple so that they will be sealed to us for all eternity as a continuous unending family, at least those who wish to accept the work, and those who don’t will be free to live eternity without their families. As far as any of us becoming gods(little g) I have explained that till I am blue in the face and you all still insist that LDS are all planning to become GODs equal to God the Father, and rule over their own planets.

That is what you believe, not what we believe.

We do not recognize your interpretation of our belief in eternal life at all, and that is all I can say on this subject. You can and will continue to believe as you wish no matter what the truth is. It really doesn’t make any difference what you think we believe, except that you are very wrong. I could go on and on about the misconceptions of the Catholic doctrine, and you could explain till the end of time and still it would not make sense to me. It is the same with our beliefs, at least ours are logical and not mystical, as your beliefs are.

BJ
 
BJ,
You are the only Mormon I have ever heard of that hasn’t been taught this in church. I have multiple old lesson manuals, LDS magazines, books written by general authorities and all of them present this view of eternal progression. I can’ t accept your “we don’t believe this” because you are so outnumbered by TBMs who say you do.
 
40.png
majick275:
BJ,
You are the only Mormon I have ever heard of that hasn’t been taught this in church. I have multiple old lesson manuals, LDS magazines, books written by general authorities and all of them present this view of eternal progression. I can’ t accept your “we don’t believe this” because you are so outnumbered by TBMs who say you do.
Click to expand...
This is from the BYU website:

“For Latter-day Saints, the term “godhood” denotes a state in which one has all the divine attributes of God and participates in his eternal work. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods…Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man.”

(abstracted from K. Codell Carter, “Godhood” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:553–55, as cited at the BYU FAQ website, ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=178 )

This from the encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms. They do not view the language of Genesis as allegorical; human beings are created in the form and image of a God who has a physical form and image (Genesis 1:26)” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “God”).

Before I move into the “meat” I would ask you to consider this from the BYU website:

“Although “scripture” usually denotes written documents, in LDS sources it is also defined as “whatsoever [God’s representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:2–4)” (ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=100

Now having seen that, let’s look at this King Follett discourse of Joseph Smith’s:

I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to enquire after God; for I want you all to know him, and to be familiar with him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant; for I speak as one having authority.I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of men.God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image and very form as a man . . … . .I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see… . . he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.Here, then, is eternal life — to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 304-306, see also, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 345-347).

and a little more from same source:

“… they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before… My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”

.
 
(Continued)

Now you can say that this isn’t taught now but the LDS lesson manual manual Gospel Principles (1992, p.9) says:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!..It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God…yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible…" (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)

And then who better to tell us what the LDS believe than the President of their church, Gordon B. Hinkley :

On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. (Conference Report, Oct. 1994)

Sounds like this is “official” doctrine to me
 
40.png
Casen:
The destruction of the temple was symbolic of the dissolution of the community and a separation from God.
Click to expand...
I think you’re flat out wrong here. The destruction of the temple in AD 66 was not a separation from God. On the contrary, the destruction of the temple pointed to the end of a world–the world of the old covenant, which had given way to the new covenant, which Christ instituted at the Last Supper. The temple was originally built in a time when the people weren’t holy enough to be directly in God’s presence. God would dwell within it’s walls a be amongst the people, but they could not approach–only the high priest once a year. The tearing of the veil at Christ’s death symbolized the removal of this barrier, because Christ’s sacrifice paid the price that thousands of animal sacrifices never could.

With the tearing of the veil, God no longer was separated from the people. A structural temple was no longer necessary. Christ now dwelled within the people’s hearts. They in effect became temples for the holy spirit. The sign of the new convenant is the Eucharist. It is the fulfillment of the old covenant. It is the direct means by which God dwells within us. No longer separated by walls or veils–now God has made us worthy to receive him totally within ourselves.

The destruction of the temple was the passing of the old covenant in favor of the new. The newly formed Christian church would bring the new covenant to the world. Note that for the early Christians the destruction of the temple was not a separation from God, nor an end to their world.
 
Well said Chris.

With that in mind, how would you describe the role of the church buildings (catholic) today as compared to the temple of old testament? are there any “holdovers” from the old covenant that still exist in the new?
 
Chris, you always say things very well, and I actually understood what you said.

Majick,
Of course I have heard all of that, but I have never imagined it as all of us being gods and floating around the universe on our own little planets.
The articles you quoted I have heard, but I do not know the details of these things. We do believe in eternal progression, but except for a few articles there has been no teaching in the classes I have attended, on details about planets or being gods.
It is not like we sit around thinking about running a planet some day. I would be horrified to find myself in charge of a planet. I am stressed enough with my own little family, without having to worry about a whole planet full of people.
I of course have been out of BYU for 43 years, so the BYU professors may go into more detail than I was exposed to. I never attended institute so maybe I missed out on the meat and the detail. I thought the King Follet paper was a sermon given at Mr Follet’s funeral. I don’t really know, because I only heard about it in this forum.
See, I really am learning about your religion as well as my own. That is a good thing.
BJ
 
BJ,
As Gordon B Hinckley endorsed the teachings of Joseph Smith from the King Follett discourse, I would invite you to read the entire sermon from the LDS publication “teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith”. I would also recomend “Doctrines of Salvation” by the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith as a very educational discussion of LDS doctrine. It’s 5 volumes but they are well organized into easy to read sections.

I agree with you that most Mormons do not spend much time thinking about running their own world someday. But you can see from the articles referenced that it is part of the process of eternal progression for those who are able to achieve exaltation. (I agree with your previous post that this would probably be a small number of folks form this earth) When you look at this as an eternal process it can make your head spin.

I choose to believe the Catholic teachings on this and hope to share in the beatific vision.

As far as your own stressful life goes, I hope that things are going well for you and your husband. May the Lord bless you both. 🙂
 
I come from an LDS family and I chose not to practice the religion - so our family is split, some practice some do not. There are several reasons why but they are not important to this thread. I do have a question that maybe one of you who are LDS can answer for me in regards to the temple. How is it that a religion that places so much emphasis on “family” can then turn around and exclude any and all “family” members that do not practice the religion when one who does chooses to get married in the temple? And then if the practicing individual has a civil ceremony so non-practicing family members could attend the practicing individual has to wait one year before they can then be married in the temple. Why is that? This is a situtation that is occuring in my family right now and to be quite frank our family is being ripped apart at the seams because of this narrow belief and then restriction if the “rules” are not followed. I really would like someone to enlighten me on this though, although I understand the church has rules and all religions do, I don’t understand why this is the only religion that makes an individual chose church over family when it comes to their temple.

Please accept my apologies if I have hit a nerve with anyone, especially being a newcomer.
 
40.png
E-Nuff:
I come from an LDS family and I chose not to practice the religion - so our family is split, some practice some do not. There are several reasons why but they are not important to this thread. I do have a question that maybe one of you who are LDS can answer for me in regards to the temple. How is it that a religion that places so much emphasis on “family” can then turn around and exclude any and all “family” members that do not practice the religion when one who does chooses to get married in the temple? And then if the practicing individual has a civil ceremony so non-practicing family members could attend the practicing individual has to wait one year before they can then be married in the temple. Why is that? This is a situtation that is occuring in my family right now and to be quite frank our family is being ripped apart at the seams because of this narrow belief and then restriction if the “rules” are not followed. I really would like someone to enlighten me on this though, although I understand the church has rules and all religions do, I don’t understand why this is the only religion that makes an individual chose church over family when it comes to their temple.

Please accept my apologies if I have hit a nerve with anyone, especially being a newcomer.
Click to expand...
Former LDS, but I think I can answer in a non-controversial way: the hope of the LDS Church is that the high standards of the Temple will be a call to holiness for all it’s members. The goal of the temple is to save families AS FAMILIES. Those not living up to Temple standards when they know better endanger their ability to attain to the Celestial Kingdom, or to continue to progress therein. The pain of being excluded from a major event such as a wedding in this life might be considered–in the LDS view–to be nothing compared to the pain of being eternally lagging behind the rest on fone’s family members in the Celestial Kingdom, or even of being excluded from the Celestial Kingdom for havng failed to live by the lights one has in this life.

By the same token, Roman Catholics exclude fellow-Catholics who marry Protestants from ‘Church’ weddings when certain rules are not followed. They are married, instead, in the sacristy as I recollect (a Catholic can clarify). And Catholics living in unresolved mortal sin are often excluded from Holy Communion Again the exclusion from these holy ceremonies is meant to be NOT a rejection of the individual but a call to greater effort towards holiness for them.
 
I can’t even imagine that they have to wait a year after a civil marriage if they are Temple worthy now. It would only be if they had premarital relations or were not paying full tithing, or any number of possibilities why they couldn’t be married in the Temple right away. A civil marriage is not a sin and there is no reason that I know of why they could not be married in the Temple right after a civil ceremony, or before. I think if I were doing it I would do the civil ceremony first and then do the Temple ceremony.
Code: 
As far as the non-practicing family and friends attending the Temple ceremony.  It is strictly a ceremony for the bride and groom in a room with an alter where they kneel and are sealed together for time and all eternity.  It is a very small room there is no aisle to march down,and only people who are temple worthy may attend, as with any Temple ordinances, usually the parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters of the couple.
  It is not meant to be mean, it is just that you must have a Temple Recommend to enter the Temple.  If I did not have a recommend I could not attend the wedding of my own daughter and I understand and accept that.  If I really wanted to attend, then I would prepare myself for the Temple, by living the commandments of God, and doing the things necessary to go to the Temple.  Anyone can go if they really want to bad enough, and believe and live LDS standards.
  My best friend's daughter married a Catholic, and had a very difficult time finding a priest to perform the ceremony.  He is from Mexico, so they finally found a Mexican priest in Tijuana to marry them in a Catholic Mass, which I attended.  7 or 8 priests turned them down, and would not perform the mass.  So I believe the Catholic Church has rules concerning Church marriage which excludes members marrying non-members in a Catholic Mass.
3 of my children are married to Catholics and they all married civily, not in the Catholic Church.
The point is there are rules in every Church, and we do not exclude anyone from our Churches, it is only that the Temples are for a special purpose that non-members would have no understanding of, so why would they want to be included, unless they believed and were living the gospel?
I am sorry that your family seems not to understand, but as I said before tell the couple to get married civily after, if it is really important to the family to attend the actual ceremony. Otherwise, just have a really great reception for the family.
I hope they can work it out for the good of the whole family. BJ
 
It is a fact that the LDS Handbook of Instructions very clearly requires a one year wait for temple marriage after a civil ceremony.

Now you might be able to get away with a civil ceremony AFTER the temple marriage but bride and groom might not like that.

LDS families usually have a public reception right after the temple ceremony. That is where all the fun and celebration occur anyway as the actual temple marriage ceremony is short and plain with very few guests.

Most religions have rules about who can participate in various practices. The Mormons seem unique in restricting attendance in so many of them. (although in fairness there was a time when non-catholics couldn’t attend a full mass and had to leave in the middle)

This seems hurtful in the cases of Mormon Temple marriages where family members are excluded, but please remember that marriages are a covenant between two people. The marriage should reflect their beliefs and be focused on them.

That being said…I’m happy to be a Catholic. 😃
 
40.png
majick275:
Well said Chris.

With that in mind, how would you describe the role of the church buildings (catholic) today as compared to the temple of old testament? are there any “holdovers” from the old covenant that still exist in the new?
Click to expand...
Well, for starters we could say that the Eucharist is superior to any of the rituals performed in the old Jerusalem temple. It is the most intimate union with God ever given to mankind, thus it is the greatest gift ever bestowed upon us. But this has little to do with the actual church structure itself. God doesn’t dwell within a room in the church (as he did in the old temple), but within the consecrated Eucharist contained in our church’s tabernacles.

Yes, there are “holdovers.” Our priests wear vestments just as the temple priests did. We have altars for presenting a sacrifice as did the temple. I imagine there are probably many others, but I can’t think of them right now.

If you’re interested in this topic, I would highly recommend Scott Hahn’s book “The Lamb’s Supper,” which describes the parts and meaning of the Mass and how it fits with the Book of Revelation. Definitely opened my eyes on the incredible beauty and meaning of the Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top