69 replies to this topic

[USU78]

Some will simply cite the 2000 article, demonstrating the extraordinarily low divorce rates.

Some will simply cite the Church teaching and Scriptural invitation that all worthy Mormons should do so.

Some will argue mindless adherence to a man-made imposition upon an individual's freedom.

So . . . why come?

[ELF1024]

USU78, on 17 December 2010 - 08:38 AM, said:

Some will simply cite the 2000 article, demonstrating the extraordinarily low divorce rates.

Some will simply cite the Church teaching and Scriptural invitation that all worthy Mormons should do so.

Some will argue mindless adherence to a man-made imposition upon an individual's freedom.

So . . . why come?

Because I truely love my wife and I can't envision heaven without her by my side. This is so important to me, that I am trying to get my membership in the church back, so the two of us can eventually be sealed in the temple.

[bluebell]

I chose temple marriage because the blessings invovled were important to me.

[CV75]

USU78, on 17 December 2010 - 08:38 AM, said:

So . . . why come?

Forgive my obtuseness, but why come where?

[Ceeboo]

USU78, on 17 December 2010 - 08:38 AM, said:

So . . . why come?

Hey USU78,

Why Temple Marriage?

I dunno, perhaps you didn't want the non LDS family mebers (Moms and Dads etc) of the bride and and/or groom to be able to support, witness, or be there at the time when the two make vows and become one in the body of our Lord Christ.

Maybe?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[mapman]

never mind

Edited by mapman, 17 December 2010 - 10:09 AM.

[bluebell]

Ceeboo, on 17 December 2010 - 09:34 AM, said:

Hey USU78,

Why Temple Marriage?

I dunno, perhaps you didn't want the non LDS family mebers (Moms and Dads etc) of the bride and and/or groom to be able to support, witness, or be there at the time when the two make vows and become one in the body of our Lord Christ.

Maybe?

Peace,
Ceeboo

yeah, that's it.

[Ceeboo]

bluebell, on 17 December 2010 - 10:24 AM, said:

yeah, that's it.

Let me guess, you are LDS?



Peace,
Ceeboo

[ERMD]

Ceeboo, on 17 December 2010 - 10:47 AM, said:

Let me guess, you are LDS?



Peace,
Ceeboo

So you honestly think that the reason temple marriage is emphasized by the LDS church and its members is to exclude those who may not be LDS from the ceremony?

I expected more from you.

[Ceeboo]

ERMD, on 17 December 2010 - 10:52 AM, said:

So you honestly think that the reason temple marriage is emphasized by the LDS church and its members is to exclude those who may not be LDS from the ceremony?

I expected more from you.

Hi ERMD,

No! I do not think that is the reason (Obviously it was toungue firmly planted in cheek. I was simply attempting to make a point, thus using "perhaps", "maybe" and a question mark neatly placed at the end of my post).

Concerning the (IMHO) highly divisive, sad, and tragic current "rules" sorrounding the LDS temple marraige, I would have expected much more from my LDS friends as well.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Edited by Ceeboo, 17 December 2010 - 11:18 AM.

[SilverKnight]

Ceeboo, on 17 December 2010 - 11:00 AM, said:

Concerning the (IMHO) highly divisive, sad, and tragic current "rules" sorrounding the LDS temple marraige, I would have expected much more from my LDS friends as well.

Ceeboo's startling description of our sacred temple marriage rites might rile some feathers, but from the perspective of a nonmember - he is absolutely right.
IF you put yourself in the shoes of a nonmember, especially one whose child or family member is getting married in a mormon temple, the inadvertent cruelty of the current rules become painfully clear.

Something needs to change, badly.
And I don't mean we should let nonmembers into the ceremony.

You know how easily this tragic problem could be fixed, without compromising the sacredness or spirit of the ordinance.

[ELF1024]

SilverKnight, on 17 December 2010 - 11:11 AM, said:

Ceeboo's startling description of our sacred temple marriage rites might rile some feathers, but from the perspective of a nonmember - he is absolutely right.
IF you put yourself in the shoes of a nonmember, especially one whose child or family member is getting married in a mormon temple, the inadvertent cruelty of the current rules become painfully clear.

Something needs to change, badly.
And I don't mean we should let nonmembers into the ceremony.

You know how easily this tragic problem could be fixed, without compromising the sacredness or spirit of the ordinance.

It's a personal decision if the couple want to get a civil marriage first, or if they choose to go to the temple right away.

My parents chose to get a civil marriage and then got a temple marriage a year later.

Why would a non-believer want to attend an LDS ceremony? Seems sort of silly to me.

[Ceeboo]

ELF1024, on 17 December 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

Why would a non-believer want to attend an LDS ceremony? Seems sort of silly to me.

I dunno, maybe it has something to do with it BEING THEIR CHILD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

In my own Temple wedding there were 5 people including us. None were related to us.

I doubt many nonLDS would understand let alone appreciate the Temple Ceremony. There really is no counterpart. Everyone is dressed in the same color(white)No music, no flowers, no walking down the aisle, no giving away the bribe, very limited seating capacity, just a very short ceremony(lasting less than 5 minutes). The couple looks into two opposing mirrors. Then it is all over and everyone leaves.

[ELF1024]

Ceeboo, on 17 December 2010 - 11:20 AM, said:

I dunno, maybe it has something to do with it BEING THEIR CHILD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peace,
Ceeboo

My current "outlaws" disowned their daughter for joining the church. They weren't invited to the civil ceremony.

The point was that if they could attend a civil ceremony, IMHO it should be done. There is nothing IMHO wrong with respecting the wishes of family and waiting a year of the Temple ceremony.

[SilverKnight]

ELF1024, on 17 December 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

It's a personal decision if the couple want to get a civil marriage first, or if they choose to go to the temple right away.

I agree, except the church and mormon culture directly and indirectly discourages this.
And an ugly formal punishment exists (a mandatory year wait) for any couple who puts family before faith.

Quote

My parents chose to get a civil marriage and then got a temple marriage a year later.

Therein lies the problem: a rule that punishes otherwise faithful LDS couples who choose not to exclude their nonmormon family members.

Quote

Why would a non-believer want to attend an LDS ceremony? Seems sort of silly to me.

They don't per se. But you bet your life the family of a bride or groom does not want to wait in a parking lot or lobby and miss their son's/daughter's wedding - wherever it might be.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Why? Because they sincerely believe it is a necessary ordinance needed in order to gain the highest degree of exaltation.

Elf -
Who would NOT want to see their child married, even if in an LDS ceremony?

[ELF1024]

SilverKnight, on 17 December 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

They don't per se. But you bet your life the family of a bride or groom does not want to wait in a parking lot or lobby and miss their son's/daughter's wedding - wherever it might be.

I unfortuantely have the exception that disproves the rule.

BookofMormonLuvr, on 17 December 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

Why? Because they sincerely believe it is a necessary ordinance needed in order to gain the highest degree of exaltation.

Elf -
Who would NOT want to see their child married, even if in an LDS ceremony?

My "outlaws" oddly enough.

Edited by ELF1024, 17 December 2010 - 11:28 AM.

[SilverKnight]

thesometimesaint, on 17 December 2010 - 11:22 AM, said:

Ceeboo:

In my own Temple wedding there were 5 people including us. None were related to us.

I doubt many nonLDS would understand let alone appreciate the Temple Ceremony. There really is no counterpart. Everyone is dressed in the same color(white)No music, no flowers, no walking down the aisle, no giving away the bribe, very limited seating capacity, just a very short ceremony(lasting less than 5 minutes). The couple looks into two opposing mirrors. Then it is all over and everyone leaves.

TSS:

Downplay the ceremony if you like, but parents not being able to see their child get married is a terrible and unnecessary tragedy.
A tragedy could be easily fixed by President Monson, tomorrow, with a single letter - and it need not involve letting a single nonmormon into a temple.

[Ceeboo]

SilverKnight, on 17 December 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

But you bet your life the family of a bride or groom does not want to wait in a parking lot or lobby and miss their son's/daughter's wedding - wherever it might be.

Bingo!


Peace,
Ceeboo