69 replies to this topic

[Jeff K.]

The marriage ceremony promises so much if we are faithful, it helps focus us on what is important in this life and why the most beautiful person in our lives now kneels with us before the alter of the Lord.  It is special beyond meaning and words fail us in attempting to explain its profound impact on us spiritually.

That is why I married in the Temple.

[ELF1024]

SilverKnight, on 17 December 2010 - 11:28 AM, said:

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.

The same arguement could be made for not allowing your children to date/marry anyone outside of the faith. However, I'm not advocating that position, since both my ex-wife and current wife were non-members while we dated, and my father was a non-member.

However, I do believe that the youth are encouraged to date within their own faith.

Quote

For the Strength of Youth:

In cultures where dating or courtship is acceptable, dating can help you develop lasting friendships and eventually find an eternal companion. Date only those who have high standards and in whose company you can maintain your standards.

It may not come out and say it in so many words, but it IMPLIED.

Edited by ELF1024, 17 December 2010 - 11:43 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Silverknight:

I'm not down playing the Temple Ceremony. Just there is not much in common with a "civil" Ceremony. That's a fact.

Both sets of family stayed in southern California while we were married in Oakland; California.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

ELF1024, on 17 December 2010 - 11:26 AM, said:

I unfortuantely have the exception that disproves the rule.



My "outlaws" oddly enough.

We are speaking in general terms of non-LDS who could care less about the church, not those with some type of hostile animosity towards it. The latter group probably wouldn't enter if invited. So let's get back to the feelings of average run-of -the-mill non-Mormons.

[SilverKnight]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 17 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

We are speaking in general terms of non-LDS who could care less about the church, not those with some type of hostile animosity towards it. The latter group probably wouldn't enter if invited. So let's get back to the feelings of average run-of -the-mill non-Mormons.

Whose reactions to the current LDS temple wedding rules usually go something like this:

"We don't know much about the mormon church, but they seem like a nice, family-oriented church.
What?! I am not allowed to see my daughter get married? What kind of church is this?"

[ELF1024]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 17 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

We are speaking in general terms of non-LDS who could care less about the church, not those with some type of hostile animosity towards it. The latter group probably wouldn't enter if invited. So let's get back to the feelings of average run-of -the-mill non-Mormons.

Sorry you didn't like the answer...

[BookofMormonLuvr]

SilverKnight, on 17 December 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

Whose reactions to the current LDS temple wedding rules usually go something like this:

"We don't know much about the mormon church, but they seem like a nice, family-oriented church.
What?! I am not allowed to see my daughter get married? What kind of church is this?"

There is a quote by John Taylor about not needing a Temple to seal marriages. I will try, somehow, to find it (unless someone beats me to it.)

[BookofMormonLuvr]

ELF1024, on 17 December 2010 - 11:45 AM, said:

Sorry you didn't like the answer...

I guess how I phrased the question invited you initial answer...

Updated question: What NORMAL person would NOT want to see their child married, even if in an LDS ceremony?

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

For a short time in Salt Lake City they were done in the Endowment House.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 17 December 2010 - 11:49 AM.

[ELF1024]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 17 December 2010 - 11:48 AM, said:

I guess how I phrased the question invited you initial answer...

Updated question: What NORMAL person would NOT want to see their child married, even if in an LDS ceremony?

Updated Updated Question: What loving, caring ,and nurturing parent would NOT want to see their child married, even if in an LDS ceremony?

[rodheadlee]

Waiting a year is no big deal. I've been waiting for 37 years. Now the Lord is waiting on me to do my part. Weddings with non member familes should by all means have a civil wedding and wait a year for the Temple ceremony. What was that talk by Pres. Uchtdorf about the Stanford study with kids and the marshmellows?

[ebeddoulos]

Jesus Christ would never say or do anything that could be described even vaguely as divisive of family, now would he?

"Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it." (Luke 8:19-21)

If a family member, be they LDS or non-LDS, wishes to attend a wedding ceremony held in the House of the Lord, I suggest that they "hear the word of God, and do it."

[ebeddoulos]

Unintentional double post - deleted by author

Edited by ebeddoulos, 17 December 2010 - 12:21 PM.

[cinepro]

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

So . . . why come?

All the other reasons given...and it's free*.



Yes, I know.  After 10%.

[bluebell]

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

I expected more from you.

Exactly.

[katherine the great]

This topic kind of ticks me off. I'm an active, temple attending LDS mother and I personally object to the church's punitive policy regarding the refusal to make exceptions to the one year waiting period for converts who choose a civil marriage in order to include their parents in the wedding. I used to fully support it but now, as a mother, it appalls me.  Obviously I'm not going to leave the church over it, but I think it's wrong.

[Ceeboo]

bluebell, on 17 December 2010 - 12:55 PM, said:

Exactly.

Exclaimed the LDS poster with LDS glasses firmly cemented to the LDS ears.  

Peace,
Ceeboo

[USU78]

katherine the great, on 17 December 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

This topic kind of ticks me off. I'm an active, temple attending LDS mother and I personally object to the church's punitive policy regarding the refusal to make exceptions to the one year waiting period for converts who choose a civil marriage in order to include their parents in the wedding. I used to fully support it but now, as a mother, it appalls me.  Obviously I'm not going to leave the church over it, but I think it's wrong.

Arksteady much?  Agree with Luzifer much?:

Quote

'Thy will be done--' no Muslim claiming to be a 'slave of God' ever gave a more sweeping consent than that. In that prayer you invite Him to do His worst. The perfect masochist. That's the test of Job, boy. Job was treated unjustly in every way day after day for years -- I know, I know, I was there, I did it -- and My dear Brother stood by and let Me do it. Let Me? He urged Me, He connived it, accessory ahead of the fact.

[USU78]

katherine the great, on 17 December 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

This topic kind of ticks me off.

Besides which, the topic was "Why Temple Marriage," not "why can't the curious or those otherwise motivated get a peek inside."

What say we discuss Temple Marriage itself, as the OP desires, and not this tangent that's got ktg in a twist.

[katherine the great]

USU78, on 17 December 2010 - 01:40 PM, said:

Besides which, the topic was "Why Temple Marriage," not "why can't the curious or those otherwise motivated get a peek inside."

What say we discuss Temple Marriage itself, as the OP desires, and not this tangent that's got ktg in a twist.

That's pretty funny in light of your occasional penchant of taking threads off topic.