curious about weddings and communion (sacrament?)
Grace Sameha Farag
2 questions:
1)I was talking to a friend today whose brother is mormon and is getting
married soon. She said that, because she is non-LDS, she cannot go to the
actual wedding in the temple. Is this a regular mormon practice? If so,
what is the reason?
2)One of my good friends is a mormon missionary and he said that mormons
use water rather than wine at their communion (sacrament). Why?
Just curious to know...
grace:)
CFMAR...@delphi.com
Quoting farag from a message in alt.religion.mormon
~ 2 questions:
~ 1)I was talking to a friend today whose brother is mormon and is
~getting married soon. She said that, because she is non-LDS, she
~cannot go to the actual wedding in the temple. Is this a regular
~mormon practice? If so, what is the reason?
The sacrament of marriage for time and all eternity is, in my
estimation, the highest ordinance and rite of the Mormon Church.
It is only performed in the temple. Only those holding a temple
"recommend" can enter the temple whether they be Mormon or not.
Because of my health, I am unable to attend the temple.
Therefore, my recommend has expired. I would not be able to
attend this marriage.
A recommend is given after much self inspection and the
confirmation to two local authorities that one meets the basic
requirements for entry into the temple which means adherence to
such basic Mormon teachings as baptism, tithe payment, keeping
the word of wisdom, sustaining the leaders of the Church and
personal moral cleanliness.
It has been a while since I attended a marriage but it is not
the lavish, pompous affairs that so many people undertake. There
is no procession, the rooms are relatively quite small. The last
time I was there the bride did not even wear her bridal gown.
Everyone wore white. The bride and groom knelt at an alter and
gave their vows in a very short ceremony. The officiator
sometimes speaks for a while but the ceremony itself takes only
a couple of minutes. Then everyone shakes hands and heads off
for the important part of the process...breakfast or brunch at a
local restaurant. A reception is generally held later that
evening.
Everything, except that in the temple itself, is open to all.
The "why" is simply that we believe the temple to be the House
of the Lord, literally. Just as the temple in Jerusalem had a
Holy of Holies where access was restricted, so, too, we believe
that through revelation, access to the temples in our day has
been limited to those holding recommends.
~ 2)One of my good friends is a mormon missionary and he said that
~mormons use water rather than wine at their communion (sacrament). Why?
We believe the Lord revealed the "Word of Wisdom" (section 89 of
the Doctrine and Covenants) in which the use of alcohol is
proscribed except as medicine. This formed a bit of a question
in that we are proscribed from using alcohol...but we used wine
for the sacrament. We believe that the prophet took this seeming
contradiction to the Lord who revealed that the "wine" to be
used should be made by the hands of the Church and it should be
new wine. The term "wine" covers a lot of ground in the Bible.
Everything from fresh grape juice up to the most alcoholic was
covered by the term. With the Word of Wisdom, the Church could
not very well set up a distillery. At the same time fresh grape
juice would have been impractical in 1840 for year around use.
Therefore we believe the Lord told Joseph that it really did not
matter what we used as long as it was in remembrance of him. It
was the spirit of the law not the letter. We were instructed
that we could use water in the place of wine. Water, being
available all year around and not having to be obtained of our
enemies, we moved to water...with the Lord's approval, we
believe.
Charlie 8-)
Ogden, Ut
David F Bowie
: 2 questions:
: 1)I was talking to a friend today whose brother is mormon and is getting
: married soon. She said that, because she is non-LDS, she cannot go to the
: actual wedding in the temple. Is this a regular mormon practice? If so,
: what is the reason?
Only those who hold currently valid "temple recommends" are allowed into
Mormon temples. Temple recommends are limited to those who are members
of the church (and have been for--except in very limited
circumstances--at least a year) and who live according to the
commandments. This is in accordance with a revelation to Joseph Smith
regarding the temple, where he (Joseph Smith) was told that only those
living a righteous life should be allowed in the temple. (Note that this
does not imply that those who are not members of the Mormon church are
necessarily unrighteous, simply that they haven't received the
ordinances--baptism by authority, for example--one needs before entering
the temple. I've simplified a bit in my answer.)
: 2)One of my good friends is a mormon missionary and he said that mormons
: use water rather than wine at their communion (sacrament). Why?
Long story. The original reason is that in the early days of the church
there was some worry that certain enemies of the church might poison the
sacramental wine. Joseph Smith received a revelation stating that while
wine could be used for the sacrament, it doesn't matter what is used as
long as it's done with the proper reverent intent. Water tends to be
readily available, so it gets used, although i've been in a place where
for various reasons apple juice had to be used. It's a case where the
internal aspects are more important than the external ones.
Hope this answered things well enough.
--
David Bowie
dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Joel Blodgett
: 2 questions:
: 1)I was talking to a friend today whose brother is mormon and is getting
: married soon. She said that, because she is non-LDS, she cannot go to the
: actual wedding in the temple. Is this a regular mormon practice? If so,
: what is the reason?
The Temples are something that LDS members hold very sacred, It is
correct that a non-mormon would not be allowed in the Temple. The
reasons for this is that the temples are as I said very Sacred... And we
belive we must also prepare to goto the Temple. It isn't uncommon for
even LDS members to not go due to any number of reasons. It's something
we must work for - It's really hard to explain the importance of it,
Talk to your friends brother... HE could explain why it is so important
to him. All I can say is that for me, The temple is where I MUST get
married, and nothing less is worth having.
: 2)One of my good friends is a mormon missionary and he said that mormons
: use water rather than wine at their communion (sacrament). Why?
I belive that the sacrament is pretty symbolic, IF I'm not mistaken the
fact that Jesus used Wine when he was on earth is strictly for the reason
that the water supply could not always be trusted to be safe. That is
not a problem we have anymore... Therefore there is not a reason to
drink Wine.
: Just curious to know...
No prob...
Joel A. Blodgett
Joel Blodgett
This string worries me. I am not a VIRGIN! I'm 20 years old and had
sex for the first time <actually two times) within a one week period in
June of last year. ! It was needless to say a big mistake. The first
time I did it, I was able to convince myself it didn't happen... I know
it sounds hard to belive but I was... the Second time, I realised exactly
what I had done before I had even totally finished...!!! I totally lost
it right there, Was majorly upset with myself. Due to the fact that
the girl was LDS, and didn't want her bishop to find out, I decided to
keep it from mine. << We are in seperate wards, but same building)) The
pressure of this ruined our relationship totally. BUT I really fought
with all of this when it happened... Too the point that I almost left the
church, and due to an unfortunate accident <found out a Close friend, who
I think of as a brother, is dieing) It made me realise how important the
church is and how important the Celestrial kingdom is. It was still
until Mid September before I ever told my bishop about this.
It's hard to explain everything I went through, I did something
I knew was totally wrong, SOMETHING that there was no denyin' of... and
something that I knew the consiquences of sayin' I was raised in the church.
One of the reasons I was going to leave the church is because I felt I
was going to be excommunicated anyway. I was very worried about this.
To sum it up, I'm still in the middle of that Repentence stage, I was
not excommunicated but my bishop just said to me "You know what you need
to do". He's right, and I have once again gotten myself back to wherE I
belive I should be Spirtually, although I'm not perfect.
The point is this, Your WIFE also must have had problems with
this, You wonder why she doesn't want to talk about it... WELL THIS IS WHY?
When it happened she probably felt her whole world was falling apart.
The fact that she did it 4 times before stopping is trivial... it makes
no difference if it was once or a hundred. The fact is how she felt
about it and where she now currently stands on the issue. Although this
is a very emotional thing, It maybe important for you and her to talk
about everything. Just understand exactly what is wrong with her.
You need to be more understanding as it is. When I said your
note scared me, it did. The reason is because IS this what I will have
to look forward too when I get married, is this the feelings my wife
will have. ! ????
Another thing, Remember that you really shouldn't even think
about this? Do you blame her for what she did? If that's the case don't
you think that you should forgive her for it...? If your sayin' you
already did... there is a scripture that I read often in the Book of
Mormon that basically says that Forgiveness is Forgetting - <I'm at work
so I don't have a chance to look up the exact one) Also this was a
priesthood lesson I belive 2years ago. If you were to truely forgive
her, then you would really Forget it, and it wouldn't be a problem.
Cherrish what you have, YOU HAVE A TEMPLE MARRIAGE -
That's a major thing, That is what alot of us strive for, that's what
others of us Dream about... Start counting your blessings instead of
lookin' at one thing you may have missed out on.
Welp That's the end of my thoughts... <grin - Brain work is hard *smile*)
Cya...
Joel A. Blodgett
jo...@jax.jaxnet.com
Chris Baleine
Joel Blodgett <jo...@jax.jaxnet.com> wrote:
>
> I need to make a correction in my letter, I said I had sex for the
>first time in June of last year, that is in correct it was June of this
>year, which goes on the explain why I am still repeanting. !
I guess this is a Mormon thing, but if I were you I'd get off the guilt
trip. So you were human and got horny. In the best of all worlds you
probably should have gone home and masturbated. Oh, I forgot, even that's
considered wrong to LDS.
In the outside world, I doubt too many girls are going to be hung up on
your having lived some life prior to meeting them. This virginity thing
is, IMO, the objectification of an unused vagina and penis. It's a lot of
hype in order to wait for a night where two clumsy individuals have
painful, awkward sex that they had always been led to believe would be the
most beautiful moment on earth. Then the marriage goes downhill because
the man quickly learns to put in his 10 minutes, but his wife gets nothing
out of it because she's not comfortable with the abomination of clitoral
stimulation and oral sex (might not get a temple recommend).
So be proud that you checked out the workings of your equipment. Just use
your brain next time to make sure it's a situation that truly calls for
it. Don't be neurotic about sex--that, more than a lack of
virginity--would make a bad marriage partner.
--
Chris Baleine
David F Bowie
: In article <39auhu$f...@jaxnet.jaxnet.com>,
: I guess this is a Mormon thing, but if I were you I'd get off the guilt
: trip. So you were human and got horny. In the best of all worlds you
: probably should have gone home and masturbated. Oh, I forgot, even that's
: considered wrong to LDS.
Don't trivialize the guy's emotions, Chris. (I didn't mean that as harsh
as it sounds, but i figured it'd get your attention, if notihng else.)
: In the outside world, I doubt too many girls are going to be hung up on
: your having lived some life prior to meeting them. This virginity thing
: is, IMO, the objectification of an unused vagina and penis. It's a lot of
: hype in order to wait for a night where two clumsy individuals have
: painful, awkward sex that they had always been led to believe would be the
: most beautiful moment on earth. Then the marriage goes downhill because
: the man quickly learns to put in his 10 minutes, but his wife gets nothing
: out of it because she's not comfortable with the abomination of clitoral
: stimulation and oral sex (might not get a temple recommend).
The church has no proscription against oral sex, although some members of
the church (for what reasons, i can't figure out) feel that it's wrong.
In any case, i'm thoroughly aware that when i get married and have sex,
it'll be a rather clumsy thing (i'm a virgin, and the current assumption
is that i'll eventually marry my current girlfriend, who's a virgin as
well). But i've also been taught that that'll be sometihng to work past
and, quite possibly, look back on in future years with more than a little
bit of amusement.
In any case, i don't see where your view (satire?) of married sex life
comes from. My parents are rather openly very sexually attracted to each
other, but they were virgins when they were married (that's what a
strong Catholic upbringing'll do to you :-] --and yes, i asked at one
point). So i suppose that coloring my reaction to your post is that i've
seen things work out quite well sexually for a pair of virgins.
: So be proud that you checked out the workings of your equipment. Just use
: your brain next time to make sure it's a situation that truly calls for
: it. Don't be neurotic about sex--that, more than a lack of
: virginity--would make a bad marriage partner.
And although i probably disagree with the conclusions Chris would draw
from this philosophy, i'd definitely agree with what he says above.
Ken Bolingbroke
> In the outside world, I doubt too many girls are going to be hung up on
> your having lived some life prior to meeting them. This virginity thing
> is, IMO, the objectification of an unused vagina and penis. It's a lot of
> hype in order to wait for a night where two clumsy individuals have
> painful, awkward sex that they had always been led to believe would be the
> most beautiful moment on earth. Then the marriage goes downhill because
> the man quickly learns to put in his 10 minutes, but his wife gets nothing
> out of it because she's not comfortable with the abomination of clitoral
> stimulation and oral sex (might not get a temple recommend).
Some people might think the way you suggested, but that's not a LDS thing.
I've never heard heard anyone condemn clitoral stimulation or oral sex
(doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, just that I might be out of the
loop...). I brought the question of 'limits' up with my branch president
about the time I got married. He told me that any sexual relations
between husband and wife is alright so long as both partners are
comfortable with it. In my case, that eliminates oral sex...but as long
as we both feel comfortable with it, my wife and I do anything we feel like.
My wife and I are always working on making our sexual relationship
satisfying and enjoyable for *both* of us. It's been my experience that
this is exactly what the Church encourages.
Ken Bolingbroke
hacs...@huey.csun.edu
\,,/_
Joel Blodgett
: >
: I guess this is a Mormon thing, but if I were you I'd get off the guilt
: trip. So you were human and got horny. In the best of all worlds you
: probably should have gone home and masturbated. Oh, I forgot, even that's
: considered wrong to LDS.
Personally I think that having premarital sex is wrong, SEX is a very
special way that God has given us so that two people can express their
love. IT is a bond between two people and the type of bond that should
only be done within the rightful bonds of marriage. In my opinion sex is
an act that should be done in a spirtual sense and in the pressence of God.
Obviously you don't think this way, Maybe it goes along with the fact
that marriage probably nothing more then a piece of paper to you, At the
very most it's probably still a temporary thing. Well I belive SEX is an
Eternal Bond, along with Marriage and the only way either one can be done
correctly is Through the blessings of the temple.
Joel
Chris Baleine
Joel Blodgett <jo...@jax.jaxnet.com> wrote:
>In my opinion sex is
>an act that should be done in a spirtual sense and in the pressence of God.
Sex in the presence of God? Why would he want to watch?
--
Chris Baleine
Brendon McNamara
: In article <39geju$p...@jaxnet.jaxnet.com>,
Everybody on this string, please understand that this is NOT a flame. I grew
up Roman Catholic, and a few of the statements I've found on this string
severely contradict what I learned in ethics class.
First, this thing about having a Temple recommend for your non-LDS friends who
would like to attend your wedding... How do you KNOW who is Mormon and who is
not, prior to service. Do you have to present a card or give the secret
handshake before entering a Temple? Or is it all an honor thing, asking non
Mormons to respect the wishes of the congregation?
On that point, Joshua of Nazareth, popularly called by his Greek name (Jesus)
and an honorific (Christos, Annointed) used to hang out with former hookers and
extortionists. Yes, that is what harlot (Mary Magdalene) and the tax
collectors were (tax collectors in the provinces of Rome were professional
thugs who'd get your money for the Empire as necessary). Now, if the Son of
God would deign to associate with whores and thieves, hoping that they would
come around and see the light... Who are WE, in human arrogance, to exclude
dear *friends* from a temporal ceremony. Marriage may be forever, but it's
just a mutual and joint announcement of a decision to bond as husband and
wife. The decision was made months ago, the wedding is just a nice ceremony.
Also, why all the guilt about having lost your virginity before marriage?
Yes, sex is supposed to be reserved for the person you love. That is why it's
such a tremendous bonding experience and why we are so wounded if our spouse
or lover is unfaithful. However, it's still a physical act. The important
part is the mental and emotional bond. The Act means nothing unless you
ascribe meaning to it. Promiscuous people do not. That is why they will have
sex with anybody, whether they care or not.
The upshot of my argument? Spare yourself the guilt! If you believe in the
Bible, God forgives you when you feel truly repentant. You don't have to
atone with a months or years long grieving per.over a slip of morality. That's
part of why the old Priesthood despised Joshua so much: he threatened their
control of the people. Your Priest does not have to forgive you publicly if
you have already repented to God *in your own heart*. The public repentance
may help make you feel better, but the spiritual repentance is the part that
counts. That's why a confession not in earnest is not a confession.
Scott SPILKER
: In article <39auhu$f...@jaxnet.jaxnet.com>,
: --
: Chris Baleine
Chris,
I am sorry that you have no respect for sacred things. I assure you that
chastity brings happiness. God gave us these commandments te teach us to
live happily.
Scott Spilker
Scott....@m.cc.utah.edu
Joel Blodgett
: Sex in the presence of God? Why would he want to watch?
NO my point was that is' a special bond, that under the right situation
is not just a bond between two people but also with God.
Joel
CFMAR...@delphi.com
Quoting bmac from a message in alt.religion.mormon
~ First, this thing about having a Temple recommend for your non-LDS
~friends who would like to attend your wedding... How do you KNOW who
~is Mormon and who is not, prior to service.
Access to a Mormon Temple is restricted to those who hold a
recommend. This is a card given after interviews with the Bishop
and Stake President (The local and the next tier of the Church's
heirarchy). This card must be presented when entering the
Temple.
~Empire as necessary). Now, if the Son of God would deign to associate
~with whores and thieves, hoping that they would come around and see
~the light... Who are WE, in human arrogance, to exclude dear *friends*
~from a temporal ceremony.
Yes, he did. But the Lord did not associate with them in the
most holy part of the Temple...the Holy of Holies. In this area
entrance was restricted and these people were not allowed in
there.
We believe that the wedding ceremony that takes place in the
Temple is, perhaps, the most sacred and everlasting committment
that a man and woman can make. To us it is temporal only in that
it meets the requirements of the law of the land for recognized
marriages. But we see it as the most holy of all ceremonies we
now perform. It takes place in the most holy place we know of.
To us this IS the Holy of Holies for the modern day. Certain
requirements for entrance exist there just as in the old
temples.
But, as a Catholic, you must understand at least a part of this.
Until recently...or maybe still, I am not sure...a priest may
refuse to marry a couple or allow them to be married in a Church
for some reason or another. Perhaps it is that a former marriage
has yet to be annuled. I do not know. But it is the same basic
matter of faith.
If a couple is married outside the temple, in a Church house or
else where, all are invited. Receptions are often held in Chapel
recreation rooms. These are open to all also. Restrictions apply
only on the Temple.
Marriage may be forever, but it's just a
~mutual and joint announcement of a decision to bond as husband and
~wife. The decision was made months ago, the wedding is just a nice
~ceremony.
See, we would object to the use of the word "just" here. We
would be more likely to say that "Marriage may be forever, but
it is THE mutual and joint announcement of a decision to bond as
husband and wife. The decision was mad monts ago, The wedding is
THE ceremony that puts the decision into effect.
Charlie 8-)
Ogden, Ut
Brendon McNamara
: Quoting bmac from a message in alt.religion.mormon
: ~ First, this thing about having a Temple recommend for your non-LDS
: ~friends who would like to attend your wedding... How do you KNOW who
: ~is Mormon and who is not, prior to service.
etc. etc. :^)
Everybody,
Thanks for the info. I never knew the sacraments were so, well, sacred in the
Mormon Church. Come to think of it, I don't know *when* Catholic dogma says
that a marriage ends... We used to get our teachers caught up in semantic
debates. It seems to be a point that is not settled in RC.
In fact, not *much* is very settled in RC anymore. The Church lost a lot of
face with many young Americans over the last thirty years. Granted, it's an
institution that thinks in terms of generations but still, it's not a good
idea to alienate your young, no?
Do Mormon bishops get married and have children?
(The RC priesthood does not, which is probably the fundamental reason why they
can't attract enough new priests. I knew about ten guys who would have gone
into the seminary if they could have families as well.)
Are there any other differences among the sacraments that I should know about?
My friend tried to explain a "baptism of the dead" to me. Do I have this
correct: it's a baptism ceremony, retroactive, for your ancestors? (And that
would explain why the LDS Church can do a trace on your family history that
would make a geneologist green with envy.) Or have I accumulated
disinformation? (That's not difficult when your hometown is nearly 100% RC)
I'd really appreciate any additional info you could send to me by e-mail
(direct rather than through postings)
Brendon McNamara
1L Student
Boston University
School of Law
David F Bowie
: Everybody on this string, please understand that this is NOT a flame. I grew
: up Roman Catholic, and a few of the statements I've found on this string
: severely contradict what I learned in ethics class.
Don't worry, it's not taken as a flame.
: First, this thing about having a Temple recommend for your non-LDS friends who
: would like to attend your wedding... How do you KNOW who is Mormon and who is
: not, prior to service. Do you have to present a card or give the secret
: handshake before entering a Temple? Or is it all an honor thing, asking non
: Mormons to respect the wishes of the congregation?
One presents a card (that's the "temple recommend" people were talking
about) to enter the temple. It's an honor thing for those who hold a
currently valid temple recommend, however, because one should only enter
the temple if one is currently living a righteous life.
: On that point, Joshua of Nazareth, popularly called by his Greek name (Jesus)
: and an honorific (Christos, Annointed) used to hang out with former hookers and
: extortionists. Yes, that is what harlot (Mary Magdalene) and the tax
: collectors were (tax collectors in the provinces of Rome were professional
: thugs who'd get your money for the Empire as necessary). Now, if the Son of
: God would deign to associate with whores and thieves, hoping that they would
: come around and see the light... Who are WE, in human arrogance, to exclude
: dear *friends* from a temporal ceremony. Marriage may be forever, but it's
: just a mutual and joint announcement of a decision to bond as husband and
: wife. The decision was made months ago, the wedding is just a nice ceremony.
Actually, to Mormons, a sealing (that is a wedding performed in the
temple, to give an oversimplified definition) is *much* more than a
temporal ceremony. To begin with, Mormons believe that a marriage can
last eternally, as long as it was performed by the right authority and in
the right place (read that last as a temple) and the couple involved lead
righteous lives.
Also, in a completely different vein, a temple marriage is, for Mormons,
a rite of passage with spiritual significances and all that. It is, in
any case, not at all "just a nice ceremony."
BTW--Jesus Christ kept company with harlots and thieves and all that
(incidentally, there's no Biblical support for the idea that Mary
Magdalene was the woman taken in adultery), and there's nothing saying
Mormons can't. However, entrance to the temple requires living a
righteous life. Those that can't gain entrance to a temple are more than
welcome at the reception or whatever other sort of celebration the couple
may hold separate from the marriage itself.
: Also, why all the guilt about having lost your virginity before marriage?
: Yes, sex is supposed to be reserved for the person you love. That is why it's
: such a tremendous bonding experience and why we are so wounded if our spouse
: or lover is unfaithful. However, it's still a physical act. The important
: part is the mental and emotional bond. The Act means nothing unless you
: ascribe meaning to it. Promiscuous people do not. That is why they will have
: sex with anybody, whether they care or not.
Well, C.S. Lewis was IMO right on target when he pointed out that every
physical action has spiritual effects. I'd say that that's the case with
sex (as well as many, many other things); it's more than simply a
physical action.
: The upshot of my argument? Spare yourself the guilt! If you believe in the
: Bible, God forgives you when you feel truly repentant. You don't have to
: atone with a months or years long grieving per.over a slip of morality. That's
: part of why the old Priesthood despised Joshua so much: he threatened their
: control of the people. Your Priest does not have to forgive you publicly if
: you have already repented to God *in your own heart*. The public repentance
: may help make you feel better, but the spiritual repentance is the part that
: counts. That's why a confession not in earnest is not a confession.
This is, in essence, the Mormon position (if you substitute "bishop" for
"priest," but that's simply a label).
John P. LaRocque
>CFMAR...@delphi.com wrote:
>Are there any other differences among the sacraments that I should know about?
>My friend tried to explain a "baptism of the dead" to me. Do I have this
>correct: it's a baptism ceremony, retroactive, for your ancestors? (And that
>would explain why the LDS Church can do a trace on your family history that
>would make a geneologist green with envy.) Or have I accumulated
>disinformation? (That's not difficult when your hometown is nearly 100% RC)
I was under the impression that you could (retroactively) baptise
anybody. I became strongly curious about the Mormon church *because*
of their reputation for keeping magnificent geneologies. One of these
days I'll go visit a local branch/temple and inquire about my own
family tree (I can't go further back than 2 generations on my mom's
side and about 4 or 5 on my dad's). The notion of baptism of the
dead is a curious one. I was reading this week that an early branch
of Christian "heretics" shared some practices with moderm Mormons,
including opposition to infant baptism and also baptism of the
dead. It's a curious notion (from someone raised Catholic) but I
can understand why it is such a reassuring doctrine (your afterlife
can also depend on deeds performed after death, including acceptance
of the Gospel - a "second chance").
As a curiosity - what kind of fees or donations are required to do
research on a family tree?
>Brendon McNamara
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
John P. LaRocque
> But, as a Catholic, you must understand at least a part of this.
> Until recently...or maybe still, I am not sure...a priest may
> refuse to marry a couple or allow them to be married in a Church
> for some reason or another. Perhaps it is that a former marriage
> has yet to be annuled. I do not know. But it is the same basic
> matter of faith.
Marriage is one of the seven sacraments and while it does not last
beyond the death of one of the partners, it is an unbreakable
bond. "What God hath joined together...". An annullment is *not*
the same as a divorce. It simply states that in the eyes of God
the marriage did not take place. This could happen for any number
of reasons. Whatever my current attitudes towards the Church (I'm
currently non-practicing), I have nothing but contempt for the people
who would say that the Church is cruel because they don't recognize
divorce. Marriage is a COVENANT, not something that could be
broken with the snap of a fingers. Few Christian bodies claim
marriage as a sacrament (most of them have only two - baptism and
the eucharist). The Catholic church does.
>Charlie 8-)
>Ogden, Ut
Ken Bolingbroke
> As a curiosity - what kind of fees or donations are required to do
> research on a family tree?
As far as I know, all Church genealogy centers are open to the public at
no charge.
Ken Bolingbroke
hacs...@huey.csun.edu
\,,/_
Chris Baleine
Scott SPILKER <srs...@u.cc.utah.edu> wrote:
>Chris,
>
>I am sorry that you have no respect for sacred things. I assure you that
>chastity brings happiness. God gave us these commandments te teach us to
>live happily.
Scott,
You're right, I have little respect for mindlessness. If someone wants to
repress their sexuality and not even fondly touch their own body's
erogenous zones because mom, dad and the Church said it's a big Evil and
that you have to wait until wedding day to bring about a voluntary orgasm
in a church-sanctioned position, then yes, I think it's a big bunch of
baloney being served.
Not that members don't engage in the whole spectrum of sexuality, it's
just that their church makes them lie about it or put on a saintly face in
public.
Heck, I think the most blatant example of the repressed view of sexuality
is the attitude of BYU towards Schindler's List. They're afraid a 21-year
old might see a nipple in the holocaust movie and go sexually ballistic.
Yup, that's happy, mature living for ya.
--
Chris Baleine
Shodan1
P. LaRocque) writes:
All church geneology centers are open to the public at NO CHARGE. There
are centers throughout the country. In each stake center, there is the
complete Church geneology program, which can be accessed through the local
Stake Extraction Specialist. Just contact the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latterday Saints local Stake President for further information.
Milt Walters
W. Jordan, UT
Steve Witten
wrong... I must
In article <39o3jb$n...@news.bu.edu>, bm...@bu.edu (Brendon McNamara) writes:
> Come to think of it, I don't know *when* Catholic dogma says
> that a marriage ends...
I believe Catholic dogma sez that marriage ends at death. Death and
annulment are the only canonically recognized ways to end a marriage.
Civil divorce is not recognized in the Roman Catholic church.
Mormons believe that marriages last for eternity. However, I'm
unclear as to whether this is true for all marriages or only sealed
marriages...
> Do Mormon bishops get married and have children?
The Mormon Church has no professional clergy. All men aged 12 and
over hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church. As I understand it,
the role of a Mormon Bishop is much more administrative than it is
spiritual. This is probably not exactly right so I'll defer to one of
my Mormon brethren for a more complete explanation.
Mormon bishops may marry and raise families.
> Are there any other differences among the sacraments that I should know about?
> My friend tried to explain a "baptism of the dead" to me. Do I have this
> correct: it's a baptism ceremony, retroactive, for your ancestors? (And that
> would explain why the LDS Church can do a trace on your family history that
> would make a geneologist green with envy.) Or have I accumulated
> disinformation? (That's not difficult when your hometown is nearly 100% RC)
This is essentially correct. However, I suspect that the LDS
"commandments" (if that's the right word) to trace your family history
have purposes other than to baptize the dead and that the roots of any
such commandments are found in the Book of Mormon itself
(like when the Lord commands Nephi to write the religious/political
history of his people). Comments anywone?
> I'd really appreciate any additional info you could send to me by e-mail
> (direct rather than through postings)
Ooops! Oh well...
--
=================================================================
Steve Witten steve_...@sid.hp.com
Bay Area Analytical Operation
Hewlett-Packard Co.
CFMAR...@delphi.com
Quoting bmac from a message in alt.religion.mormon
~ Do Mormon bishops get married and have children?
Yes. Indeed! In fact, while possible, it is extremely rare that a
man would be called to a position of Bishop (which in our
terminology is the local leader of the individual wards) or
higher without being married. Very rare.
Children, of course, are unpredictable. It may be impossible for
a couple to have children. But, for the most part, when you
hear talk of any Mormon leader, especially from the bishop up to
the President of the Church, you can rest assured that they are
married (or have been...allowing for death of a spouse) and most
likely do have children.
~know about? My friend tried to explain a "baptism of the dead" to me.
~Do I have this correct: it's a baptism ceremony, retroactive, for your
~ancestors? (And that would explain why the LDS Church can do a trace
~on your family history that would make a genealogist green with envy.)
~Or have I accumulated disinformation? (That's not difficult when your
~hometown is nearly 100% RC)
Basically you are correct. In the Bible the Savior is quoted as
saying that we must all be born again...that we need to be born
of both the water and the spirit in order to enter into the
kingdom of God. We take this literally. We also believe that
baptism is an ordinance that can only be done here on the earth.
Jesus gave us the example when he, himself, the literal Son of
God was baptized as he said, "to fulfill all righteousness." It
was my understanding that as a Catholic, you, too, have a bit of
this concept of your own which is the basis of infant
baptism...a belief that one MUST be baptized including children.
We believe that this work can be done vicariously for the
dead...and that it is not only possible but it is actually
required of us. We believe that baptism is valid only when done
with the proper authority. Many who have lived in the world have
never had the slightest chance to be baptized. If we are correct
in the literal nature of the verse that one must be born of
water, then they, too, must have the opportunity to be baptized
or God becomes a respecter of persons...giving some
opportunities not given to others.
In I Cor. 15 Paul used Baptism for the Dead as a supporting
argument in favor of the resurrection. Our concept is that we,
as living beings on the earth, can be baptized by proxy for
those that are dead. This ordinance is not binding on them in
any way. They still have the right and ability to reject the
gospel and/or this vicarious ordinance. But if they choose to
accept it, it is available to them as if they had done it
themselves while alive.
This use of proxy is not new in Biblical teachings. I mentioned
Paul's use of this ordinance. The very use of prophets in the
Old Testament and Apostles in the New is, in a sense, a proxy
function in that the Lord speaks to only one as if it were to
the nation hearing his voice. But the most obvious use of proxy
is in the atonement of the Savior. He took upon him the sins of
those who would repent and paid the price for them. This is a
proxy work. Had he not done so, we would have been required to
atone personally for every sin we commit. His atonement is not
binding on us. We can reject him and his message if we choose.
The orthodox/historical Christian church would describe the
results as being cast into hell where we would pay for our own
sins. But we can also choose to accept the Lord and his gospel
in which case, by proxy, he has already paid the price.
We, as a church, believe that we are under obligation to seek
out our dead and make sure the proxy work is done for them so
that they might have the opportunity to choose to accept it and
be accepted as if they had done it themselves.
Charlie 8-)
Ogden, Ut
CFMAR...@delphi.com
Quoting larocqu from a message in alt.religion.mormon
~ dead. It's a curious notion (from someone raised Catholic) but I
~ can understand why it is such a reassuring doctrine (your afterlife
~ can also depend on deeds performed after death, including acceptance
~ of the Gospel - a "second chance").
John,
I was not planning on doing much writing tonight. I have done
way too much the last few days. But I had to respond to this.
Many people mistake our doctrine of being one that offers a
"Second Chance." We do not. We teach that everyone must have
the opportunity to hear the gospel in its fulness and to either
accept or reject it. If they accept it the necessary ordinance
work is done for them by proxy. If not, the proxy ordinances
have no effect.
But, and this is important, if one has the chance to hear and
understand the fulness of the gospel here on earth and rejects
it here, or if they jockey thinking they can hedge their bets
by being of one denomination here and if they are wrong then
they can get a second chance after they die, we do not teach
that they will have that "second chance." Everyone must have
the opportunity to make an informed decision. If everyone does
not have an equal chance, then God becomes a respecter of
persons. But nobody is "entitled" to a "second" chance.
~ As a curiosity - what kind of fees or donations are required to do
~ research on a family tree?
I may be wrong but last I heard this was a free service or
only modest charge for disks or hard copies you may take with
you.
Charlie 8-)
Ogden, Ut
CFMAR...@delphi.com
Quoting steve_witten from a message in alt.religion.mormon
~ Mormons believe that marriages last for eternity. However, I'm
~ unclear as to whether this is true for all marriages or only sealed
~ marriages...
Only temple marriages, or more correctly temple sealings, are
eternal marriages. Marriages performed outside the temple have
the same built in divorce statement of "til death do ye part."
~ over hold the priesthood in the Mormon Church. As I understand it,
~ the role of a Mormon Bishop is much more administrative than it is
~ spiritual. This is probably not exactly right so I'll defer to one of
~ my Mormon brethren for a more complete explanation.
The position of Bishop is actually the presiding office of the
Aaronic Priesthood...a lesser priesthood...which has callings
basically concerned with temporal well-being, teaching and some
ordinance work including administering the sacrament and
baptism. This is actually his major calling.
However, he is also recognized by the Church as a "Judge in
Israel" and as a presiding High Priest's authority to preside in
all things and his position as "judge" he also becomes the
spiritual leader of the ward. He is called to preside over the
ward in all matters. In another ward, however, he becomes
basically a lay member as another bishop presides there. A
bishop has no authority as a bishop outside his own ward.
Charlie 8-)
Ogden, Ut
John P. LaRocque
> "Second Chance." We do not. We teach that everyone must have
> the opportunity to hear the gospel in its fulness and to either
> accept or reject it. If they accept it the necessary ordinance
> work is done for them by proxy. If not, the proxy ordinances
> have no effect.
Thanks for clearing this up.
>Charlie 8-)
>Ogden, Ut
Jonathan A. Bishop
>CFMAR...@delphi.com wrote:
>: Quoting bmac from a message in alt.religion.mormon
>: ~ First, this thing about having a Temple recommend for your non-LDS
>: ~friends who would like to attend your wedding... How do you KNOW who
>: ~is Mormon and who is not, prior to service.
>etc. etc. :^)
>Everybody,
>Thanks for the info. I never knew the sacraments were so, well, sacred in the
>Mormon Church. Come to think of it, I don't know *when* Catholic dogma says
>that a marriage ends... We used to get our teachers caught up in semantic
>debates. It seems to be a point that is not settled in RC.
I'm posting here to play un-solicited RC doctrine consultent; if I'm out of
line or stray too far from the topic, feel free to put me back in line :)
Catholic dogma says that a marriage ends when one of the parties dies.
>In fact, not *much* is very settled in RC anymore. The Church lost a lot of
>face with many young Americans over the last thirty years. Granted, it's an
>institution that thinks in terms of generations but still, it's not a good
>idea to alienate your young, no?
Well, I think everything is still just as settled as it was before; it's just
that people are complaining more. The fact that there is a complaint does not
mean that the Church's teaching is no longer final (the areas of contraception
and women in the priesthood are the major examples right now). And I think
youths in the U.S. culture today would be even more alienated if the Vatican II
reforms had not occurred.
>Brendon McNamara
>1L Student
>Boston University
>School of Law
--------
Jonathan A. Bishop
jabi...@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (Preferred address)
jabi...@phobos.ecn.uoknor.edu
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil,
but it's a long one for me."
--Pete Conrad, Apollo 12 Commander
james Steven Leek
>Quoting steve_witten from a message in alt.religion.mormon
>
> ~ Mormons believe that marriages last for eternity. However, I'm
> ~ unclear as to whether this is true for all marriages or only sealed
> ~ marriages...
>
How was Abraham married? (according to the LDS church?)
Of course, me would say that he was married for eternity. I believe
that Abraham's marriage was considered a model for polygamy a hundred
years ago. But there was no temple so he must have been married in
different surroundings. Maybe Melchizedek officiated in some version
of a sealing house?
Ken Bolingbroke
> Only marriages within the temple. Also to note, if one or both spouses
> do not keep the commandments, the sealing is null and void in heaven.
> "To much is given, much is expected."
^^^^^^^^
Actually it's "unto whom much is given, much is *required*" D&C 82:3 It's an
important distinction, IMO.
Ken Bolingbroke
hacs...@huey.csun.edu
\,,/_