For LDS only...some tricky questions

[Jane.Doe]

While I was putting the kid's to bed, we had some sister missionaries knock on the door. As we were in the middle of bedtime my hubby answered and not thinking didn't invite them in (he knows I would always offer them a drink and food) but he asked for their number so I might invite them over for a chat at some point.

Awesome!

In my research and thinking, I have come up with some more questions, but one of them is quite long winded (mainly because I am confusing myself).

Questions are great!

Your questions really in depth, so I'm going to break them up into different posts.

 

[Jane.Doe]

It concerns the degrees of glory. Critics claim that although Mormonism sings "forever families". This isn't the case, as only Mormons who are fully endowed and follow all the "rules" achieve the celestial kingdom possibly leaving non Mormon relatives or Mormons who aren't worth in a lesser degree of glory

Correction: the Celestial Kingdom is for the righteous whom have accepted the teachings of Jesus Christ. Such acceptance is not merely in word but in heart, mind, soul, and deed as well. Christ's commandments are part of accepting him ("if you love me, keep my commandments") and are given to guide us in being more Christ-like. They are not arbitrary "rules" just to be annoying. Rather, Christ commands us to love our neighbor so that we can develop more Christ-like love (just for one example).

Then I thought about the work for the dead....baptisms, sealings etc so even someone like myself who is in a mixed faith marriage could hope for an eternal marriage?

I am actually in a mix-faith marriage myself. My hope is that my husband will one day come to embrace Christ and want to share that huge part of my life with me. This may or may nor happen in this life or the next. It's up to him. I love him and trust that God will offer him the truth in the best way possible.

how is there three degrees of glory as any non Mormons etc who were in less degrees would simply have works done for them after they died and therefore could still attain the celestial kingdom? Does that make sense?

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking here but I'll try to answer. Please let me know if I miss your question.

What degree of glory a person attains is dependent on what degree they let Christ (the source of glory) into their life. If a person pretty much rejects Him and His Glory, then their glory is small. If a person half-heartedly accepts Christ then their glory is half-hearted as well. If a person full-heartedly accepts Christ then His Glory is with full with them. A person who accept Christ posthumously still needs to accept Christ full-heartedly to receive the fullness of His Glory.

When a person accepts Christ and comes unto Him does not particularly matter (see the parable of the vineyard workers). However, learning of Him and coming to Him sooner rather than later is greatly desired 1) because it is easier to teach and have people change when they are younger, 2) there is much joy in coming unto Christ every day and we want to share that joy.

 

[Katzpur]

It concerns the degrees of glory. Critics claim that although Mormonism sings "forever families". This isn't the case, as only Mormons who are fully endowed and follow all the "rules" achieve the celestial kingdom, possibly leaving non Mormon relatives or Mormons who aren't worth in a lesser degree of glory. Then I thought about the work for the dead....baptisms, sealings etc so even someone like myself who is in a mixed faith marriage could hope for an eternal marriage? However then I thought, well if this is the case and there is always the option of works for the dead and them accepting the gospel... how is there three degrees of glory as any non Mormons etc who were in less degrees would simply have works done for them after they died and therefore could still attain the celestial kingdom? Does that make sense?

Uh... I think it makes sense. I guess my answer will tell you whether I understood your question or not. Here is a quote from President Dieter F. Uchdorf that I absolutely love: "The more we learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the more we realize that endings here in mortality are not endings at all. They are merely interruptions—temporary pauses that one day will seem small compared to the eternal joy awaiting the faithful." A lot is going to happen in the spirit world, so yes, what you suggest is entirely possible. Of course you need to realize that it's not just a matter of having the temple work done. The person for whom the ordinances are performed would need to accept them in order for them to be valid.

Speaking of marriage...it's different in the UK, but I understand in America it's expected that an LDS couple just had a temple marriage? Why is it frowned upon to have a civil wedding first and then a sealing? I'm just thinking of those people whose parents parents Mormons. I've read a lot of stories of distraught father's who couldn't walk their daughters down the aisle?

Okay, on this one I'm going to be my typical left-of-center self and possibly offend some of my fellow Latter-day Saints. I think the idea of having a civil wedding first (here in the US) is encouraged primarily so that the couple will think of their wedding as a truly spiritual event that involves God, as opposed to a big celebratory event where the focus is on the brides' dress, the flowers, the music, the decorations, etc. The Church doesn't want the actual temple sealing to take a back seat to the social event. In other words, they don't want it to be a matter of "Okay, now we've had our gorgeous fairy-tale wedding. Let's go to the temple and tie up the loose ends." As much as I can appreciate the reasoning behind that policy, I know that a lot of people can be hurt in the process. My husband and I were married/sealed in the temple, rather than marrying civilly and then going back to the temple for a later sealing. Had either his parents or mine been non-members of the Church, though, I would have done otherwise. There is no way I would have excluded my mother and father or my husband's mother and father from watching us get married. Had we married in a civil service (any wedding outside of the temple is considered to be a civil wedding, even if it's held in an LDS church), we would have returned to the temple and been sealed to one another a year later. Unfortunately, I suspect that if this had been the case, there would have been whispers among my ward members and speculation that perhaps we weren't "temple worthy." It's unfortunate but a fact of life that people do sometimes judge.

The other question I thought of is the critics often mention the prayer to avenge the blood of the prophets on America?

I am totally in the dark as to what you're asking in this question. Sorry!

 

[Jane.Doe]

Speaking of marriage...it's different in the UK, but I understand in America it's expected that an LDS couple just had a temple marriage? Why is it frowned upon to have a civil wedding first and then a sealing?

I'm going to start big picture here, and then get to your specific question---

There is a legal marriage and a sealing: they are two different things. A legal marriage must be conducted by a person who is legally in authority at a place which is legally authorized. Similarly, a sealing must happen by must be conducted by a person who is in God's authority at a place which is authorized by God. One of the requirements to be sealed is that the couple must be legally married.

In the UK the laws are different and temple sealers do not qualify to legally marry people (I'm admittedly not uber familiar with the laws involved). Therefore, couples in the UK must get legally married first and then sealed, which is perfectly all right.

In the US, the laws allow temple sealers to be legally authorized to perform marriages in temple. Therefore a couple has a couple of options:

1) Get legally married and sealed at the same time, in the temple. This unfortunately means that non-temple-recommend-holders cannot attend the legal wedding (I'll talk more about this in a minute).

2) Get legally married outside of the temple, wait a year, and then get sealed in the temple. Why must US couples wait a year between this and UK couple do not have too? It's a church policy thing. Does that mean it's of God? No, it is simply a policy. Many LDS folks (myself included) disagree with the policy and believe it should be abolished. This disagreement with Earthly human policy does not effect our standing in the church or in the sight of God. Admittedly there is a flawed-culture of people disapproving of this option- such is outright sinful in my opinion (we humans are sinful creatures).

3) ***This is the most popular option in the US*** Get legally married and sealed at the same time, in the temple. Then have a "ring ceremony" outside of the temple and do all the cultural traditions with everyone.

I've read a lot of stories of distraught father's who couldn't walk their daughters down the aisle?

A LDS dad attending his LDS daughter's temple wedding also doesn't walk her down the aisle. In fact, there are no aisles in sight for anyone to walk down.

Cultural traditions associated with marriage (walking down the aisle, exchanging rings, cake, bouquet tosses, etc) simply aren't part of the sealing ceremony: they are part of culture. That's why even among fully LDS families in the US tend to have a "ring ceremony" after the wedding: to celebrate in the context of Earthly traditions. That's when the bride walks down the aisle with her dad (regardless of his faith), the couple say vows to each other, exchange rings, eat cake, etc.

 

[Katzpur]

I am actually in a mix-faith marriage myself. My hope is that my husband will one day come to embrace Christ and want to share that huge part of my life with me. This may or may nor happen in this life or the next. It's up to him. I love him and trust that God will offer him the truth in the best way possible.

I love your optimistic outlook! Something tells me that what you want will some day be a reality.

 

[Katzpur]

2) Get legally married outside of the temple, wait a year, and then get sealed in the temple. Why must US couples wait a year between this and UK couple do not have too? It's a church policy thing. Does that mean it's of God? No, it is simply a policy. Many LDS folks (myself included) disagree with the policy and believe it should be abolished.

Yea! I'm not alone!

 

[Jane.Doe]

The other question I thought of is the critics often mention the prayer to avenge the blood of the prophets on America?

Good link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Oath_of_vengeance

 

[Katzpur]

3) ***This is the most popular option in the US*** Get legally married and sealed at the same time, in the temple. Then have a "ring ceremony" outside of the temple and do all the cultural traditions with everyone.

I'm just going to anticipate Truth_Faith's next question and add this: No, it's not possible to do the ring ceremony and all of the cultural traditions first. If done at all, these must follow the sealing, not precede it.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I'm just going to anticipate Truth_Faith's next question and add this: No, it's not possible to do the ring ceremony and all of the cultural traditions first. If done at all, these must follow the sealing, not precede it.

Not my next question but it is to do with rings... Do most LDS couples not wear rings then? (unless they have a ring ceremony afterwards)

Sorry for the brief post but kids need breakfast!

 

[Jane.Doe]

Not my next question but it is to do with rings... Do most LDS couples not wear rings then? (unless they have a ring ceremony afterwards)

I can't think of a single LDS couple that don't wear rings.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Hi! I could give really detailed opinions and doctrine, but I don't want to bore you, so I'll keep it simple. Some people will be exalted in the highest heaven and some will not. All will have the chance to accept the truths, live the principles, receive the ordinances, be cleansed and made worthy and prepared to be there. This happens on earth for some and in the next life for others, or in some combination. I don't believe a person can intentionally postpone living and accepting the gospel in this life, and then expect to accept it and receive all of it's blessings in the next life. We all wonder what it would be like for one to be exalted in the highest heaven and yet have a loved one who is not there. IMO there will be no sadness over this. The missing loved one will be happy and all will see that things are as they need to be.

I agree it's tough for those who can't attend the temple to have to miss the marriage of their loved one. I saw it happen when my son married his convert wife in the temple and her family could not be there. I don't know if some day the church will change policy and no longer discourage a civil marriage prior to the temple sealing. I would not complain if they made that change.

I'm not sure what you're getting at on the avenge the blood of prophets issue.

If it's not too much trouble for you, detailed opinions and doctrine are always good. It wouldn't bore me.

In terms of the oath of vengence, I guess it just seems like a sinister thing to have, to pray that God brings vengence on America for the death of the Prophet. Similar to the blood oaths, I was wondering if it was misunderstood?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Correction: the Celestial Kingdom is for the righteous whom have accepted the teachings of Jesus Christ. Such acceptance is not merely in word but in heart, mind, soul, and deed as well. Christ's commandments are part of accepting him ("if you love me, keep my commandments") and are given to guide us in being more Christ-like. They are not arbitrary "rules" just to be annoying. Rather, Christ commands us to love our neighbor so that we can develop more Christ-like love (just for one example).


I am actually in a mix-faith marriage myself. My hope is that my husband will one day come to embrace Christ and want to share that huge part of my life with me. This may or may nor happen in this life or the next. It's up to him. I love him and trust that God will offer him the truth in the best way possible.


I'm not 100% sure what you're asking here but I'll try to answer. Please let me know if I miss your question.

What degree of glory a person attains is dependent on what degree they let Christ (the source of glory) into their life. If a person pretty much rejects Him and His Glory, then their glory is small. If a person half-heartedly accepts Christ then their glory is half-hearted as well. If a person full-heartedly accepts Christ then His Glory is with full with them. A person who accept Christ posthumously still needs to accept Christ full-heartedly to receive the fullness of His Glory.

When a person accepts Christ and comes unto Him does not particularly matter (see the parable of the vineyard workers). However, learning of Him and coming to Him sooner rather than later is greatly desired 1) because it is easier to teach and have people change when they are younger, 2) there is much joy in coming unto Christ every day and we want to share that joy.

For those who accept Christ in the next Life, I guess what I am struggling to understand is why they wouldn't accept him whole heartedly. They would be 100% sure there is an afterlife (as will be there) and therefore will know for certain what the "Truth" is. In order for the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms to be "required", it would take someone to deny Christ to his face knowing an afterlife exists or accepting He exists and then not following him wholeheartedly while knowing 100% of the truth? (Unlike here where we rely on faith)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Really random question....

LDS do not drink alcohol, tea, coffee etc. Obviously it is considered a sin to consume these things one self however what about offering non LDS friends and family a drink of tea, coffee or something alcoholic? I'm asking mainly out of interest as my husband is atheist, loves his coffee and whiskey and I do all the shopping and all my friends drink alcohol and tea. If I was to come back to the church would it be wrong of me to buy/ offer them a drink?

I've mentioned I'm looking into Catholicism as well and they seem to be quite big on association sins if that makes sense. So although Catholics have no command to abstain from tea and coffee, if they did, they would consider it a sin to offer them as well as consume them?

 

[Katzpur]

I can't think of a single LDS couple that don't wear rings.

Me neither. Except that my husband has had two and has lost them both. We've given up on him. You actually exchange rings in the temple when you're sealed.

 

[Jane.Doe]

For those who accept Christ in the next Life, I guess what I am struggling to understand is why they wouldn't accept him whole heartedly. They would be 100% sure there is an afterlife (as will be there) and therefore will know for certain what the "Truth" is. In order for the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms to be "required", it would take someone to deny Christ to his face knowing an afterlife exists or accepting He exists and then not following him wholeheartedly while knowing 100% of the truth? (Unlike here where we rely on faith)

A person does not die and then right that second meet Christ. No, they wait in Spirit Prison or Paradise, along with everyone else until His in-person return and judgement in the Millennium. That's when perfect knowledge comes and every knee will bow.

In the meantime, people are still people, and still have to walk by faith with an imperfect knowledge. Knowing that their is an afterlife doesn't automatically persuade people to believe in Christ any more than witnessing Heavenly miracles, angels, etc do. People still reject Christ for all the same reasons they do here: believing alternative theories, pride in your own accomplishments, not wanting to surrender your sins, etc.

 

[Jane.Doe]

You actually exchange rings in the temple when you're sealed.

Odd, I remember a lack of that at all the sealings I've attended. Maybe it's the couple's preference.

 

[Jane.Doe]

LDS do not drink alcohol, tea, coffee etc. Obviously it is considered a sin to consume these things one self however what about offering non LDS friends and family a drink of tea, coffee or something alcoholic?

That is not a sin, as they are not under covenant to not partake. For example, at my workplace it is protocol to serve coffee in the morning and alcohol after-hours, and thus I have done so. It's something to discuss between you and God.

 

[Katzpur]

Really random question....

LDS do not drink alcohol, tea, coffee etc. Obviously it is considered a sin to consume these things one self however what about offering non LDS friends and family a drink of tea, coffee or something alcoholic? I'm asking mainly out of interest as my husband is atheist, loves his coffee and whiskey and I do all the shopping and all my friends drink alcohol and tea. If I was to come back to the church would it be wrong of me to buy/ offer them a drink?

I'll start out by saying unequivocally that there are no official rules governing this issue. I would think that in part-member households, where one of the spouses drinks tea or coffee, it would be make sense that they'd have it in the house. I'm sure Jane Doe will be happy to tell you how it is in her house, but I can't imagine her telling her husband, "I'm going to the grocery store for a few things, but you'll have to make a special trip for your coffee."

For the last two summers, my husband and I have had a backyard neighborhood pot-luck dinner for everyone on our street. There are twelve households and two-thirds of them are non-Mormons who enjoy a glass of wine with their dinner. Specifically because I wanted everyone to feel welcome, when I printed up the invitations, I included the statement: "Water and soft drinks provided, or feel free to bring your own drinks." People who may not have otherwise come ended up coming with a bottle of wine. Everyone -- Mormon and non-Mormon -- had a great time both years. These people don't normally socialize with each other, but these parties have made the families on our street closer than they would otherwise have been. We didn't feel the slightest bit guilty having wine or beer served in our backyard.

I've mentioned I'm looking into Catholicism as well and they seem to be quite big on association sins if that makes sense. So although Catholics have no command to abstain from tea and coffee, if they did, they would consider it a sin to offer them as well as consume them?

I know what you mean. To some extent the same thing is true in Mormonism, but it's more of a cultural thing than anything else. I have heard a story recounted many times about President David O. McKay, who was the President of the Church while I was growing up. Apparently he went to some kind of a performance (symphony, opera, etc.?) and during intermission, one of the folks in charge asked him: "President McKay, what would you like to drink? All of our cups say Coca Cola on them because of our arrangement with Coca Cola Bottling, but we have root beer and we have orange and we have Seven-up. What would you like to drink?" He answered, "I don’t care what it says on the cup, as long as there is a Coke in the cup.' To me, that clearly says that he was not a big proponent of "association sins."

 

[Katzpur]

Odd, I remember a lack of that at all the sealings I've attended. Maybe it's the couple's preference.

Maybe so. I know my husband and I exchanged them at ours. I mean, it's not an actual part of the sealing, but we were asked at the end if we had rings we wanted to exchange, so we did.

 

[Katzpur]

For those who accept Christ in the next Life, I guess what I am struggling to understand is why they wouldn't accept him whole heartedly. They would be 100% sure there is an afterlife (as will be there) and therefore will know for certain what the "Truth" is. In order for the celestial and terrestrial kingdoms to be "required", it would take someone to deny Christ to his face knowing an afterlife exists or accepting He exists and then not following him wholeheartedly while knowing 100% of the truth? (Unlike here where we rely on faith)

I have always believed that a lot of the obstacles people have in being able to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ (or Mormonism in particular) here in mortality will be removed during the time we are in the Spirit World. You have to remember, though, that the Spirit World is not Heaven and the Savior will not personally be among those who is preaching the gospel there. People will still have their agency and a die-hard Catholic will still have the opportunity to say, "There's no way I'm accepting that Mormon baptism my great-great-great granddaughter just performed for me." I have also always wondered, though, how people who rejected the gospel here on earth are going to react if at the moment of death, everything is exactly as the Mormons they knew here in mortality told them it was going to be. I would certainly think that would cause a few people some cause for reflection. I know that if I found myself in Purgatory after death, I'd be more than willing to do whatever it took to better my situation, and if that meant admitting that Catholicism was right all along, I wouldn't have any problem saying, "Okay, I was wrong!"