Please see the three letters on the petition site in the Media Content section.

http://www.templeweddingpetition.org/enter/5036.html

Would love to hear your feedback.

This may be an interesting question:
A pal of mine recently married a Mormon widow. — Soon afterward, he overheard his wife talking to a Mormon friend once, and found out she was “sealed” in marriage, (by proxy ) in the Mormon Temple, after her late husband died, but before they (my pal, and his mormon widow wife) married.

He found the “Mormon proxy marriage sealing” ritual on-line, and it states the spouse pledges “marriage for all time and eternity” to the dead spouse. That the sealed spouses are “eternal companions” by this “proxy marriage ceremony”. –
He (my pal) asked her to ask this marriage be canceled, as he does not understand how she can be his wife, yet be married for all time and eternity to someone else. — She states she can’t tell him that she will abandon this eternal marriage to her dead spouse, even though she is married to him.
I wonder, should this hurt his feelings, to cause mistrust ? She has the right to a past and love for her deceased husband, but I don’t think she shows a full commitment to him by staying eternally married and sealed to another man.

Another very good example of the pain and suffering this policy causes some mormon families (since the bride were also crying)

I suggest you add that story to the petition website. One day the brethren will get the message.

I was not at all aware of this, and it has my attention. Thank you for making me aware of this, and I agree it does stand as a great precedent to how the Church changes its policies. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Church leaders make changes to policy only by the direction of God. I don’t believe that the Church is “true” in any real religious sense. So I accept the notion that externalities greatly impact Church decision. Since at the least the 1970′s, and some would argue since David O McKay, the Church has been working very close with PR firms, even to the point of owning one (Bonneville Communications Corp.). At the same time, as far as the Temple Petition goes, do we know of any examples where the Church has ceded to an outside, and frankly antagonistic lobby group such as the temple petition group? I am highly doubtful, and I stand my position that it is very unlikely that the Church will respond to this movement in any meaningful way. I’ll also be very surprised if the temple petition group could garner the amount of support needed to really turn Church leaders heads. So I see the matter as a double whammy on “no freakin way”.

Again however, I am very intrigued by the 1987 dialogue article you cited.

No, I’m sure its was done under Joseph Fielding Smith around 1909 or 1911 and the general conference voted to accept the motion -ie that WoW would be mandatory. Packer spoke about that recently in GC.

153, I read about the ‘mormon bombings’ but way back in 91 or 92 odd, so I don’t even remember the title of that book, so I may be wrong, but I believe their motivation was to buy to get them those docs out of the public domain, and Hinkley was alone during most dealings. So I doubt that group discussion ever happened.

But also the Hoffman forgeries have been good for the church in the long term -they put into doubt ALL historical bits and pieces people find which are critical of the church. So in a weired round about way Hoffman actually ends up helping the church instead of destroying it. Shame he killed innocent people along the way though.

If so don’t you think they got that good feeling!!

But weren’t The Brethren opposed about making the word of wisdom anything but that. But Grant over ruled or trumped them and made it mandatory as the prophet.

What the point is that this one year wait should be discussed and the pain it causes nonmember relatives considered as they seek the Lords guidance.

Yes you are right there. That’s how that change came about. Point is that it did change. the church could’ve fought it fmore or paid hush money as it has in other situations, but it was more beneficial and convenient to all parties to simply change the policy. I’m suggesting that maybe it is also more convenient to all people concerned to change this one year waiting rule, which isn’t backed up by any scripture or ‘revelation’. It appears to be more of a cultural thing.

The church has changed other Temple and sealing policies before due to practicality only. For example up until the mid 70′s after a civil divorce one needed to request a clearance from the first presidency just to renew a temple recommend. That changed.

Also what David here 149 wrote is also true and that study is still on file. So the church does constantly change.

But how they do changes is very very interesting. Check out how president Eyring describes it, (I love it how he describes this):

Survey question 28:
For a person who had been through the endowment ritual, “did you feel spiritually uplifted by the experience?” and “was the experience unpleasant?” and “were you confused by what happened?”

Survey question 29:
“Briefly describe how you felt after receiving your own endowment.”

Survey question 37-k:
“Did you find it hard to go to the temple?”

Survey question 39-b:
“have you ever fallen asleep during sessions?”

Survey questions 70-a and 70-b:
“Do you believe the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet of God?”
“Do you believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the earth?”

Survey question 77-g:
“Do you have any doubts about specific LDS doctrines and teachings?”

A page at the end of the Survey was left blank in case the person had “any additional things to write about your feelings or activities in temple or genealogical work…”

Soon after the survey, plans were underway to change the endowment ceremony again (the ceremony had been modified many times since its introduction in Nauvoo, Illinois in the early 1840′s). In 1990, the revised ceremony became effective. Anyone who googles the temple changes can readily find the information about the removal and additions that were made.

Without question, most faithful Mormons would stand firm in their faith that any decision to change temple ceremonies would have to come by direct revelation from God. It’s likely that few LDS members are even aware of the 1987 Dialogue article or the above survey. Many endowed members who first attended the temple after 1990 and have no idea about the old version of the ceremony. I’ve even heard from members refusing to believe that older versions included the ridicule of a Protestant minister and bloody oaths. Of course, these people would avoid any information about older versions of the ceremonies in books or on the internet because they’re not considered Church approved sources.

The 1987 article was one catalyst for the survey which was a catalyst for the 1990 changes. It’s probable that the survey results indicated that a significant number of people were offended by various parts of the ceremony. In particular, many converts with a Christian background were highly offended by the part of the minister accepting employment from Satan (“Lucifer”), not to mention the bloody oaths and other things.

This temple wedding petition is an effort to bring about change of a policy, not doctrine. If the temple ceremony and aspects of the ordinance could be changed following the efforts mentioned above, then surely the Bretheren will be open minded enough to consider and take seriously the concerns of members and non-members and help the Bretheren to understand the thoughts, feelings, and experiences relating to temple sealings and civil marriages.

I had always assumed that the reason this protocol changed was because excommunicating someone who simply requested to have their names removed, was akin to slander or libel. The member initiated the severing of membership, not the Churh, so to hold a court excommunicating them became a form of defamation, particularly as word got around about how they were “excommunicated” as opposed to having voluntarily left. If such is the case then I don’t think this example serves as a valid precedent to changing policy based on public perception. It would be another example of the Church overstepping its bounds, and being pushed back by the law.

Hmmm, and you actually thought they were happy about this.

Anyway, it may be too late now, but I’ve just remembered that the church did change a current policy due to what non-members thought about it. It was back in the late 90′s when the church was sued over its practice of excommunicating those who wished to have their names removed from our records. Due to that litigation and the resulting negative publicity we now have an “administrative process” to cancel someones membership upon request. It involves only a form to fill out plus some mail but no traumatic church “trial”.

If the church could change a policy due to complaints from non members back then it could do so today too. Hopefully it wont take more negative publicity for it to happen.

Because everyone cares what some guy writes in a comment to an obscure blog site, right?

Those, who could not go to the sealing room (because they weren’t endowed members or not even members), were invited to a waiting room inside the temple, and met the couple right after the sealing ceremony (minus the ceremonial stuff) to congratulate them. They also watched a video that described what happens inside the temple fairly well. They were pretty happy.

Then, two days later, we had another party in her home town 450 miles away. There we did some stuff that made the friends and relatives realize that we do respect their convictions, but we do things our way. We are just people, who want to be happy.

As for superiority: Almost every active church goer that I have ever met has been eager the defend her/his own faith as the “right one”. I don’t take that as an insult. How I say it is that I believe that we have the priesthood that gives us authority, and that is what gives me peace and assurance. If what you believe gives you the same, I totally respect your choice and wish you well.

I am open to listening to the teachings of other churches/sects. My favorite reading has been religious works for all of my life, despite my years as an “aggressively agnostic” nonbeliever. For the last 30 years the foundation that I have has kept me up. I say live and let live.

When I go to almost any other church’s meetings, and they know I’m a Mormon, I hear jabs at Mormon doctrines every time from the ministers/teachers. When a friend of mine visits our meetings, I don’t use any of it to knock down his own faith, but I try to help him understand things that he has made clear he doesn’t understand. For some people that may sound like a holier-than-thou attitude, but I am sincere about what I do. I don’t pretend to let others be happy with their choice, I actually feel it.

Adieu 2.

Now that’s a good way to end this thread—quoting good Mormon scripture

A very british way of insulting.

I think the only thing happening now is the kicking of the dead bodies to see if they are really dead.