Mormon Softball Team Banned From Mercer County Christian League

[KevinG]

Although till death do us part is a pretty traditional thing in Christian weddings also.

A lower divorce rate among Temple going Mormons shows while we may not let Auntie watch the ceremony if she drinks anything stronger than Postum we do take the vows themselves very seriously. I wonder if any person that has gone through a divorce would trade a large audience at the wedding for a marriage that really lasts forever?

[Scott Lloyd]

If your point is that in the Mormon culture, its not as important for families to attend weddings, I think that has been made clear.

I think her point is that in a wedding, the choices and desires of the couple pertaining to the wedding trump those of the members of either family, a position with which you said you agree later in your post.

[Calm]

I think her point is that in a wedding, the choices and desires of the couple pertaining to the wedding trump those of the members of either family, a position with which you said you agree later in your post.

Yep, that is my point.

[Jaybear]

I think her point is that in a wedding, the choices and desires of the couple pertaining to the wedding trump those of the members of either family, a position with which you said you agree later in your post.

Yep, that is my point.

I obviously can't speak for the Mormon culture, but in traditional weddings, the parent of the bride pay for the wedding, and a bride who does not make a reasonable effort to accommodate her parents or the parents of the groom would be considered a selfish bride.

In your culture, when children and nonmember or inactive members are routinely excluded from the wedding, its understandable that you see weddings from a different perspective.

[Scott Lloyd]

I obviously can't speak for the Mormon culture, but in traditional weddings, the parent of the bride pay for the wedding, and a bride who does not make a reasonable effort to accommodate her parents or the parents of the groom would be considered a selfish bride.

In your culture, when children and nonmember or inactive members are routinely excluded from the wedding, its understandable that you see weddings from a different perspective.

Even in Mormon culture, others are freely welcomed to the reception and the wedding breakfast or dinner, the relatively brief temple sealing being the only religious portion of the wedding experience. And the temple sealing is performed without cost to the bride, groom or their families.Therefore, even if they couldn't attend the temple sealing, the parents of the bride would have free access to the portion they actually pay for. If the parents opted not to pay for it, the couple could still be married and do it free of charge.

And by they way, you are correct to say you can't speak for Mormon culture, and I would direct you to my sig line, the portion in blue type.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Parents, in-laws, family members, extended relations, etc. have one two people to "blame" for not be able to attend a temple ceremony and that is the couple themselves. They have chosen to get married in the temple. The Church does not force anyone to be sealed in the temple. In fact, nothing in the LDS is forced on any member much to the chagrin of its antagonists.

The Church is not to blame for the beliefs of its members. If its members choose to be sealed then they need to explain what the sealing ordinance is and what it is not. There are alternatives available to allow those who are not members of the Church. It is up to the couple to plan for these things; it is not the responsibility of the Church.

[KevinG]

I don't think critics realize the sealing ceremony is a small, intimate and very private part of the larger wedding day. Even among those worthy to attend the Temple we are asked to limit the size of the sealing party and witnesses to no more than a dozen or two. The sealing rooms are not even built to accommodate more than that. the only people required to be there for a sealing are the bride, groom, sealer and two witnesses.

I intentionally did not attend a sealing of a dear friend because I knew she had a large family and it would be pushing the limits of the sacred occasion to pack more people into the ordinance room.

Critics make a big deal out of something they have no knowledge of.

[Jaybear]

Parents, in-laws, family members, extended relations, etc. have one two people to "blame" for not be able to attend a temple ceremony and that is the couple themselves. They have chosen to get married in the temple. The Church does not force anyone to be sealed in the temple. In fact, nothing in the LDS is forced on any member much to the chagrin of its antagonists.

Who is casting "blame"? I am simply pointing out that most nonLDS parents who are excluded from attending their daughter/son will likely and understandably be upset about the situation.

Do you disagree?

As for "blame" at some point it was decided by someone that nonmembers could not be present during this "restored" ceremony.

No one here has presented evidence showing when that decision was made, who made the decision, and what were the stated reason for the exclusion.

Until someone presents some evidence, my assumption is that this secrecy is a remnant of the illegal nature of plural marriages that Smith introduced.

You are welcome to assume that this decision was made by God, and the purpose of the exclusion is to preserve the sanctity of the ceremony.

I can assure you, however, that the excluded nonLDS parents are not going to (1)see God's role in the decision to exclude them; or (2) accept that their presence at the child's wedding would undermine the sanctity of the ceremony.

I don't think critics realize the sealing ceremony is a small, intimate and very private part of the larger wedding day. Even among those worthy to attend the Temple we are asked to limit the size of the sealing party and witnesses to no more than a dozen or two. The sealing rooms are not even built to accommodate more than that. the only people required to be there for a sealing are the bride, groom, sealer and two witnesses.

I intentionally did not attend a sealing of a dear friend because I knew she had a large family and it would be pushing the limits of the sacred occasion to pack more people into the ordinance room.

Critics make a big deal out of something they have no knowledge of.

More accurately, this explains your inability to empathize with the excluded nonMormon parents, flows from your ignorance of the broader role that parents play in nonLDS wedding ceremonies.

To you the exclusion is no big deal, no worse than say, not be able to field a softball team.

[KevinG]

Stop trying to mind read me Jaybear. You are failing miserably.

Of course I know its a big deal - and I think it is a much bigger deal than fielding and LDS baseball team in a Christian league.

This doesn't mean i accept the mis-characterization of a sacred and intimate ceremony as exclusionary and acoompanying accusations of nefarious activities (remnant of illigal nature... c'mon get real)

As to your charge of ignorance... I was protestant for 20 years of my life and was a musician for hundreds of Protestant and Catholic wedding ceremonies. I was also my Methodist brother's best man and an usher for my Evangelical cousin responsible for ushering in family members and sitting them on the proper family side of the church. I struggled with the issue of my own parents not being able to witness my Sealing as much as I would have loved for them to be there. I probably have a much deeper and more intimate knowledge of various marriage traditions, the role of family and the struggle to reconcile multiple religious traditions in the same home than you can comprehend.

Take some perspective on this thread and ask yourself. Why was a topic about mistreatment of LDS (albeait a minor and legally acceptable one) turned into a topic of how the LDS are no better than anyone else and possibly deserve the treatment they get. Between Bob's cheap shot and your perpetual variations on "how does it feel Mormons?" it is a wonder we can ever discuss anything on this board without turning the Mormons into the boogeyman.

Edited May 30, 2012 by KevinG

[CV75]

I can assure you, however, that the excluded nonLDS parents are not going to (1)see God's role in the decision to exclude them; or (2) accept that their presence at the child's wedding would undermine the sanctity of the ceremony.

This may be generally so, but jthis has nothing to do with the managing disspointment. Just because non-member parents might not initially abide / understand / appreciate not being able to go doesn’t mean that they don’t / can’t / won’t get over it. Blood is thicker than water, and I think it depends on the maturity or functionality of the family members involved as to how they react and respond.

My wife and I (young adult converts) were married in the temple over 30 years ago. Neither set of non-member parents could attend. They were disappointed but they curbed their complaints. We framed it as an elopement and forewent the usual / traditional expensive events and gifts both families were accustomed to.

To their credit they chose a positive approach and got over it. Quickly. They acknowledged that this is just the way Mormons do things, and respected their children’s choices. Some 20 years later one set of parents joined the Church (a few years apart). Attending temple weddings was not their motivation.

Individuals and families can and do work our their differences.

[Scott Lloyd]

Until someone presents some evidence, my assumption is that this secrecy is a remnant of the illegal nature of plural marriages that Smith introduced.

You are welcome to assume that this decision was made by God, and the purpose of the exclusion is to preserve the sanctity of the ceremony.

Whatever.

We are not under obligation to refute every misguided, undocumented, outlandish, ignorant, hostile conjecture anyone chooses to spew out.

It can be unproductive to try to do so. Especially when the perpetrator seems resolutely determined to violate the maxim I have written in my sig line below, the portion in blue type.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

CV75:

Your story sounds very similar to mine. Except that the only parent that could have attended was my father-in-law. We agonized over how to include both sets of parents even at one point of having a civil ceremony. But understood that that was not what we really wanted. So we made the hard decision to exclude everyone, and eloped with everyone knowing. Though my parents never did join the Church they accepted my wife as a daughter, and we had a wonderful relationship with them to the end of their lives. Grandkids helped.

[CV75]

CV75:

Your story sounds very similar to mine. Except that the only parent that could have attended was my father-in-law. We agonized over how to include both sets of parents even at one point of having a civil ceremony. But understood that that was not what we really wanted. So we made the hard decision to exclude everyone, and eloped with everyone knowing. Though my parents never did join the Church they accepted my wife as a daughter, and we had a wonderful relationship with them to the end of their lives. Grandkids helped.

Wonderful--I think there are far, far more decent and gracious people handling situations like this than not.

[Calm]

I obviously can't speak for the Mormon culture, but in traditional weddings, the parent of the bride pay for the wedding, and a bride who does not make a reasonable effort to accommodate her parents or the parents of the groom would be considered a selfish bride.

In your culture, when children and nonmember or inactive members are routinely excluded from the wedding, its understandable that you see weddings from a different perspective.

A reception/luncheon was the last thing I wanted on my wedding day, but my mother insisted because she said it was only fair that if people came to the wedding we would feed them and I went along with her because she is my mother and is usually right. I would have preferred only my husband and myself at the wedding itself being the introvert that I am, but my husband didn't feel the same way so....

My husband wanted to get married in Hawaii, I would have loved it as well...if we had done so no one could have attended. We chose to be married elsewhere.

There is, from what I've seen, much accommodation even in "my culture" when it comes to weddings, receptions and family and friends.

Edited May 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Until someone presents some evidence, my assumption is that this secrecy is a remnant of the illegal nature of plural marriages that Smith introduced.

Because nothing else performed in the temple is hidden from the world's view.....

[Pahoran]

Because nothing else performed in the temple is hidden from the world's view.....

Exactly. His spiteful remark is a textbook example of a jaybearing. He actually believes his assumption, untrammelled by anything as unco-operative as facts, is useful information about the subject in which he is so triumphantly uninformed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

Who is casting "blame"? I am simply pointing out that most nonLDS parents who are excluded from attending their daughter/son will likely and understandably be upset about the situation.

Do you disagree? If they are upset with the situation they need to talk with their children who have chosen to get married in the temple. Do you disagree? It has nothing to do with the Church.

As for "blame" at some point it was decided by someone that nonmembers could not be present during this "restored" ceremony.

No one here has presented evidence showing when that decision was made, who made the decision, and what were the stated reason for the exclusion.

Until someone presents some evidence, my assumption is that this secrecy is a remnant of the illegal nature of plural marriages that Smith introduced.

You are welcome to assume that this decision was made by God, and the purpose of the exclusion is to preserve the sanctity of the ceremony.

I can assure you, however, that the excluded nonLDS parents are not going to (1)see God's role in the decision to exclude them; or (2) accept that their presence at the child's wedding would undermine the sanctity of the ceremony.

I can assure you that if the parents talk to their children they will gain an appreciation for their choice. NO EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO ANYONE TO EXPLAIN THE POSITION OF ANY CHURCH. It is the very height of arrogance to think we can question the doctrines, teachings, or laws of any church on earth. They teach what they teach; we can either accept it or we can pound sand; it is our choice. They should not see God's role in the decision; again, please talk to the couple it is their choice. The temple is not open to everyone; that is just the way it is. Again, I suggest you pound sand or accept it.

[Gohan]

How'd we go from softball to three pages about temple weddings? And how many times have we gone over that on here anyway? Make another new thread about it or something

And as for the original topic at hand.

This kind of behavior is old hat in the South. I would hope that there are pockets of dissent where LDS are allowed to participate in church leagues, but it is de rigeur that LDS not be allowed to play where Southern Baptists are out in force. If we were to record all of the instances where LDS are denied access to these types of activities there would not be enough books to contain it.

Unfortunately, we're in good ol' Yankee territory here. And I don't believe it was Southern Baptists in this case,

From an article about the incident: http://triblive.com/...ons-grove-issue

The softball league...includes Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Church of God and Christian Missionary Alliance churches.

And according to another: http://sharonherald....mons-You-re-out

“Obviously they’ve made some changes,” said Dr. Mike Coulter. The borough councilman and Grove City College political science professor played in the league in the 1980s and 1990s when the LDS church had a team and said there was no tension.

The current situation came to light when Grove City resident Cara Udy’s letter was published on the Allied News opinion page May 12.

The purpose of the league, open to players at least 14 years old, is to have fun and fellowship with other community members of different faiths while playing softball, Udy wrote. “Simple as that.”

But, she wrote: “In a recent meeting preparing for this upcoming summer, some anonymous area church teams boldly stated that they would drop out of the summer league if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint church team participated. This is a blatant act of religious persecution and segregation.

“What we are left with is an assumption of the beliefs of the LDS from a small group of people with a personal hatred and ignorance of the religion,” Udy wrote.

From what I gather from that second article, there are voices in that community that aren't happy with what's going on either, calling for some changes. I'll let you all read that for yourselves.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Gohan

[selek1]

How'd we go from softball to three pages about temple weddings? And how many times have we gone over that on here anyway? Make another new thread about it or something.

They did. And it's no more coherent than this one. Seems they can't tell them apart.

From what I gather from that second article, there are voices in that community that aren't happy with what's going on either, calling for some changes. I'll let you all read that for yourselves.

Glad to hear that good people are standing up to this nonsense.

Of course, the following phrase is oxymorominc:

In a recent meeting preparing for this upcoming summer, some anonymous area church teams boldly stated that they would drop out of the summer league if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint church team participated.

How does one say something "boldly" while cowering behind a cloak of anonymity?

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course, the following phrase is oxymorominc:

How does one say something "boldly" while cowering behind a cloak of anonymity?

A pertinent question indeed.

Maybe in this case the term "boldly" is being used as a synonym for obnoxiously.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd