Civil Marriages And Temple Marriages And Waiting A Year Policy ?

[selek1]

I was referring to your statements. My CFR is on some of your statements since I've "read" you, wanted to say "met". In my not so humble opinion.

In other words, you made it up to try and slur/discredit someone who disagrees with you.

Got it.

[Tacenda]

In other words, you made it up to try and slur/discredit someone who disagrees with you.

Got it.

No I'm not a thinker like that, just say things outright. Before I think. So what you get is what you get. Just honesty. I know I've not got half the brain that others have on here. But maybe half the heart.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[sheilauk]

Temple admittance does not have to divide families. That is up to the families. My adoptive mother's only 'real' child, eloped to Africa to marry. His choice, it didn't divide the family. I chose to become a Mormon, they said if I went ahead, I'm dead to the family. RIP me. The church didn't divide us. Their hate and non-acceptance did. The wedding day is one day, if family are so hurt they can't get over it, something else is going on. Be it control issues or whatever.

I would give you a rep point if I could. I didn't witness my sister's marriage, which was a civil marriage, she's not LDS, it was her choice, she didn't want us there. My parents weren't invited either. We did go to a posh restuarant for a meal afterwards! But, though we weren't happy about her choice, it was her choice and her wedding and we accepted it as it was just her! It didn't break up the family or stop us celebrating her marriage.

[Duncan]

Which does nothing to contradict my point.

Oh, bull----

Can you name any other area of the wedding or marriage in which a healthy couple cedes veto authority and their sense of right and wrong to "interested observers"?

By your logic, doing anything that your extended in-laws disapprove of is a "slap-in-the face".

Marry in the Temple?

You've offended cousin Festus.

Wear taffetta rather than silk?

You've offended Aunt Gertrude.

Hold the wedding in Montreal rather

La Belle Paris?

You've offended cousin Rene, the avant garde nude-sidewalk-body-art street artist.

Serve ham and apple juice at the reception instead of Pabst Blue Ribbon and chitlins?

You've offended

all three

of the groomsmen who still have all their teeth.

Use a condom the first night?

You've offended Aunt Agatha, the sex-is-for-procreation zealot and her thirty-seven kids.

No- your rather silly assertion just doesn't hold up under any kind of thoughtful or reasonable analysis.

Let's turn this on it's side for a moment.

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the mother-of-the-bride suddenly (and loudly) begins objecting about being locked out of the honeymoon suite on the wedding night.

In her mind, she's justified in being there: after all, she likely helped pay for it. She's got a deep emotional investment. That's her daughter, and poor Mom has waited all her life for her baby girl to become a bride in deed as well as word.

It's just not fair to exclude her. (You'll note that these are all arguments being used to demand access to the Temple).

I'm quite certain that such a person would feel that being told "No"- no matter how gently or civily phrased- was a "slap in the face". (We won't get into what she'd think of being maced and then insitutionalized.)

However much such she feels justified in her demands, the bottom line is that her presence is neither reasonable, justifiable, or appropriate.

Nor is it reasonable, justifiable, or appropriate for those who refuse to properly prepare themselves to enter the Temple to start suddenly huffing and puffing about their "right" to be there.

We are not expected to surrender our agency on any other aspect of marriage- but critics, fools, and arksteadiers all love to harp on this one.

I wonder why...

if I could give you a hundred rep points for that I would be glad to do it!!!

[Calm]

Still leaves out the part where our church is big on families.....maybe if we weren't taught from day one that famiy is the most important but taught what is taught in the scripture below, then it wouldn't be such an issue that it is with some.

I have always been under the impression that the Church taught one's relationship with God is the most important.

Also while family is of high importance, it seems to me that simply using that as the primary unit isn't as accurate as we should be. I think it is the marriage relationship itself that is the primary unit, what is labeled the "eternal companionship" by Elder L. Tom Perry ( http://www.lds.org/l...-3363-4,00.html )

So it would seem to be the priority list would be:

Individual's relationship to God

Individual's relationship to spouse (ideally an eternal marriage community)

Individual's relationship to children (immediate family community)

Individual's relationship to extended family community

Individual's relationship to faith community

Individual's relationship to social community

Individual's relationship to national community

Individual's relationship to global community.

If so, then requiring a priority being placed on receiving a temple marriage to the point of excluding extended family and community which includes the 'civil community' by not allowing a civil marriage to be performed at the same time as the eternal marriage ceremony makes sense to me as a way of teaching the importance of having such priorities in life.

There are also other ways of teaching such so if in time it is decided that the other ways are sufficient then I could see a standard approach so that the rules are identical throughout the church community being set up. However, seeing the often obsessive focus on the wedding to the point of people going into debt to turn it into a "day to remember" as opposed to what should be in my view the true significance of marriage (that it is not about that one day, but about an eternity of companionship) I suspect the Church will keep the current policy in place for quite some time unless legally forced to change it.

Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[Somebodyz]

I would give you a rep point if I could. I didn't witness my sister's marriage, which was a civil marriage, she's not LDS, it was her choice, she didn't want us there. My parents weren't invited either. We did go to a posh restuarant for a meal afterwards! But, though we weren't happy about her choice, it was her choice and her wedding and we accepted it as it was just her! It didn't break up the family or stop us celebrating her marriage.

Thank you. That is the way it should be in my opinion, family being supportive, even of our differences. Which doesn't mean mean they/we have to approve.

[Calm]

First of I find the comments about wanting to distance oneself from the church because of one or two comments on an internet board, passive aggressive. I maybe wrong, but it comes across as, don't say anything I don't like or I'll leave...so shut up. Leaving over things said, well I don 't get it. I'm not trying to be rude or hurtful and hope it doesn't come over that way. I have issues with being manipulated and am hyper sensitive to it at times. It feels like a dig and threat.

Temple admittance does not have to divide families. That is up to the families. My adoptive mother's only 'real' child, eloped to Africa to marry. His choice, it didn't divide the family. I chose to become a Mormon, they said if I went ahead, I'm dead to the family. RIP me. The church didn't divide us. Their hate and non-acceptance did. The wedding day is one day, if family are so hurt they can't get over it, something else is going on. Be it control issues or whatever.

One of my sisters made a choice to be married where her current friends could attend but not most of the family. If that is what made her happiest on that day, that is what made me happiest even though I could not directly participate in the event. I can see being sad about not being able to participate, I certainly was, I just don't see why that has to become the dominant feeling, especially if that sadness gets transferred into a feeling of anger and resentment and even hate (which is just so wrong on so many levels but has happened unfortunately when family chooses to view temple marriage as a rejection of them rather than an acceptance of God and eternal companionship).

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . . I can see being sad about not being able to participate, I certainly was, I just don't see why that has to become the dominant feeling, especially if that sadness gets transferred into a feeling of anger and resentment and even hate (which is just so wrong on so many levels but has happened unfortunately when family chooses to view temple marriage as a rejection of them rather than an acceptance of God and eternal companionship).

I'm sorry but I don't see leaving family out of a marriage being an acceptance of God, rather it seems to be an acceptance of a man made church policy over family.

Many of you state that missing the wedding ceremony is not a big deal and maybe for you it isn't but it IS a big deal for many.

There is no reason for the wedding day to cause this kind of resentment in so many people. This resentment is caused by the policy that has no backing in doctrine (that I am aware of, if I am wrong please give me the reference from cannonized scripture) that you can't have your marriage sealed in the temple until after a one year wait if you get married civily first. Why should a worthy couple whose parents are not members have to choose between dis-ing their parents by telling them they cannot be part of their marriage ceremony or dis-ing their god by disobeying a policy whose only purpose seems to be to demonstrate that church policy (not gospel doctrine) comes before love of a parent.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So, I couldn't sleep to save me life last night and so I got out the N. Eldon Tanner bio by Elder G. Homer Durham. If anyone has it the concern I bring up it is on page 126. It says that in 1942, "Harmonious with Church policies at the time" he performed the civil marriage of his daughter and then the next day the couple traveled to the Cardston Temple to be sealed. Nowadays you have to wait a year before being sealed in the Temple if you got married civilly. So, does anyone know specifically the policy at that time and why did it change to what it is now?

I will answer before looking at other responses...to insure people are ready before making covenants they might break.

[selek1]

I'm sorry but I don't see leaving family out of a marriage being an acceptance of God, rather it seems to be an acceptance of a man made church policy over family.

The phrase "I don't see" illustrates two things: first and foremost, that you have nothing to offer but your opinion, and second, that the problem lies entirely in the lenses you are using.

You are the one introducing the false equivalency that honoring Church policy means "leaving family out of a marriage".

You are the one falsely asserting that we can only demonstrate our love and acceptance of family by profaning the sacred.

No reasonable person believes this to be the case, nor have you offered any evidence to support your claims.

Because YOU "think it outta be so" is not sufficient cause for us to override the principles that govern the Kingdom of God.

Many of you state that missing the wedding ceremony is not a big deal and maybe for you it isn't but it IS a big deal for many.

Just not a big enough deal to actually prepare themselves spiritually and temporally.

The Parable of the Ten Virgins seems particularly appropo here....

There is no reason for the wedding day to cause this kind of resentment in so many people.

Those who wish to resent us will find reasons to do so- no matter how many of them we take away.

If the choice of your son or daughter to honor their covenants causes you to be resentful, then you've got far deeper and more serious problems than the lack of a Temple recommend.

This resentment is caused by the policy that has no backing in doctrine (that I am aware of, if I am wrong please give me the reference from cannonized scripture) that you can't have your marriage sealed in the temple until after a one year wait if you get married civily first.

You keep vomitting up this thoughtless pablum- but you have offered no evidence- either doctrinal or factual- to support it.

This policy is neither new, nor a surprise to anyone with a room temperature IQ- as you yourself have pointed out with your apochryphal (anti-)Faith Promoting Rumor.

The hypothetical couple you are kvetching about made- and is apparently keeping- sacred covenants knowing full well that this was a possibility, if not a genuine likelihood.

Why should a worthy couple whose parents are not members have to choose between dis-ing their parents by telling them they cannot be part of their marriage ceremony or dis-ing their god by disobeying a policy whose only purpose seems to be to demonstrate that church policy (not gospel doctrine) comes before love of a parent.

First and foremost, the "dis-sing" is an artifact of your thought processes not ours.

That you raised a son or daughter who makes and keeps sacred covenants is an honor, not a disservice. That we keep are strong enough to make and keep our covenants to God is a complement to our parents, not disrespect.

Brigham Young once said, "A man who takes offence where none is intended is a fool."

If you take offence because your son or daughter is a person of character or integrity, you yourself lack one or both.

Edited August 9, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

I guess for many people the stigma of waiting the year might be worse than excluding family members. The stigma meaning they couldn't wait until their wedding night. People would rather not have that be on the minds of some who might wonder, I'm guessing, since I've never been in that situation. It's something I wouldn't want people thinking I guess....

When my wife and I were married we were very young and lived in a small town. One day about a month after we were married a female co-worker snidely ask me when the baby was due. I smiled and said it's not, not yet. Her smile vanished and she said I just thought.. At that point I said that's what happens when you let your imagination run wild, and walked away. Anyone who wonders about those things are gossips and don't matter anyway.

[Tacenda]

When my wife and I were married we were very young and lived in a small town. One day about a month after we were married a female co-worker snidely ask me when the baby was due. I smiled and said it's not, not yet. Her smile vanished and she said I just thought.. At that point I said that's what happens when you let your imagination run wild, and walked away. Anyone who wonders about those things are gossips and don't matter anyway.

Yes, it's sincerely a problem out there, gossip. My family moved to a small town when I was just going into high school. They didn't like newcomers at all. Someone at the high school spread a rumor about me like on the first day, it was horrible. And from then on my self esteem took a nose dive.

[ERayR]

Yes, it's sincerely a problem out there, gossip. My family moved to a small town when I was just going into high school. They didn't like newcomers at all. Someone at the high school spread a rumor about me like on the first day, it was horrible. And from then on my self esteem took a nose dive.

My point was that the fear of gossip should never influence how or when we attend temple ordinances.

[Deborah]

Many of you state that missing the wedding ceremony is not a big deal and maybe for you it isn't but it IS a big deal for many.

For a faithful and active LDS the wedding "ceremony" is a simple sealing for time and eternity in the House of the Lord. Anything else is less than this. Even in countries where a civil ceremony is required first, the standard is that it be a simple ceremony to meet the law, not the big elaborate affair many have. The celebration should be in the reception and I don't understand why having a reception with the bride and bridesmaids standing in a greeting line, with dancing and food and presents is somehow not enough. The "wedding" itself should be a solemn occasion with covenants made between the couple and God.

And I say this as someone whose family couldn't come to the temple and who at the time of my daughter's wedding was unable to attend. I would have been disappointed if she decided not to make her first choice the temple just to please me and parents who demand that are selfish in my eyes. Put your efforts into the real celebration which is the reception and make that as elaborate as you want. Just my very biased opinion.

[Closet Doubter]

For a faithful and active LDS the wedding "ceremony" is a simple sealing for time and eternity in the House of the Lord. Anything else is less than this. Even in countries where a civil ceremony is required first, the standard is that it be a simple ceremony to meet the law, not the big elaborate affair many have. The celebration should be in the reception and I don't understand why having a reception with the bride and bridesmaids standing in a greeting line, with dancing and food and presents is somehow not enough. The "wedding" itself should be a solemn occasion with covenants made between the couple and God.

And I say this as someone whose family couldn't come to the temple and who at the time of my daughter's wedding was unable to attend. I would have been disappointed if she decided not to make her first choice the temple just to please me and parents who demand that are selfish in my eyes. Put your efforts into the real celebration which is the reception and make that as elaborate as you want. Just my very biased opinion.

I respect your opinion and at one time, it was also my opionion. I grew up in the church and the only wedding ceremonies I was ever able to attend were those that weren't in the temple. Each time I heard my Mom remarking how sad it was that they were getting married outside the temple. The receptions ranged from simple to elaborate and seemed to be what everyone remembered. I didn't realize how important it was for people to be able to be present at the weddings of their children and siblings. Since they got to be at the reception, I didn't understand why they would feel hurt. My wife was the first grandchild on her side of the family to get married and when her uncle and grandfather couldn't attend the wedding I was clueless at how slighted they felt. Her closeness to her uncle that she had growing up has never been the same. As active Mormons, sometimes we live in our own little bubble and can't comprehend how something so small as telling a person's mother that she is not invited to attend the wedding of her daughter can cause hurt. What is sadder, is that this policy is NOT doctrine, it is only policy. Apparently policy to force a person to show that they will be obedient to the dictates of men (albiet very good men).

[thesometimesaint]

Closet Doubter:

It is doctrine that those not worthy, for whatever reason, can not attend the Temple.

When I was married in the Oakland Temple we had 4 people other than my wife and I. NONE were family.

[KevinG]

Leaving people out of a ceremony is not leaving them out of a marriage.

The worldly view of marriage has us put way to much emphasis, time, money and expectations on a ceremony while ignoring the ongoing support needed to sustain an eternal relationship.

I would rather miss all of my children's sealings than miss out on being there when they needed me to strengthen the family eternally.

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

Agreed. It's not the 5 minute ceremony that makes marriages last, but the years of devotion to each other.

[Deborah]

Her closeness to her uncle that she had growing up has never been the same.

I seriously question it's because he couldn't attend a brief ceremony in the temple and if it is they were probably never as close as she thought.

sometimes we live in our own little bubble and can't comprehend how something so small as telling a person's mother that she is not invited to attend the wedding of her daughter can cause hurt.

Then don't tell her she's not invited to the "wedding". Ask her to be in charge of the reception. Honestly I have a hard time understanding this because if people saw how simple the temple ceremony actually is they wouldn't get so bent out of shape.

Apparently policy to force a person to show that they will be obedient to the dictates of men (albiet very good men).

No it's to show where one's priorities are. If a person's priority is not doing what God wants then it is wise to wait a year to make sure this is what they want.

[Tacenda]

I seriously question it's because he couldn't attend a brief ceremony in the temple and if it is they were probably never as close as she thought.

Then don't tell her she's not invited to the "wedding". Ask her to be in charge of the reception. Honestly I have a hard time understanding this because if people saw how simple the temple ceremony actually is they wouldn't get so bent out of shape.

No it's to show where one's priorities are. If a person's priority is not doing what God wants then it is wise to wait a year to make sure this is what they want.

Maybe her uncle then looked at her in a different light, wrong of him to do, but maybe he thought like some of us do, when certain religions teach something in our opinion is wrong and wonder about the people believing in it.

[thesometimesaint]

If I believed someone's religion was wrong. Why would I want to be involved in its most holy ceremonies?

[selek1]

It is a conceit of the critics- unfounded and unproven- that the Church is being unreasonable both in closing its Temple doors to those who are unworthy or unprepared to enter and in instituting policies which emphasize sacred covenenants over temporal obeisance.

But they desperately avoid (like vampires and garlic, politicians and honesty, Twilight fans and real literature) any examination of whether the families are being reasonable in their demands for admission

This issue was first raised FORTY-FIVE posts back (in Post #51)- and no one has troubled to offer any reasonable jusification as to why the standard should be waived.

The foot-stomping, clenched-fisted, pouting lipped "But I want it!" doesn't work for a two-year-old.

Why then should it work for a reasoning adult between the ages of thrity-five and fifty?

[Cobalt-70]

It is doctrine that those not worthy, for whatever reason, can not attend the Temple.

I disagree that this is necessarily doctrine. The doctrine is that "no unclean thing" shall be allowed in the temple so that it is not defiled. It does not say "no unworthy person." In the Jerusalem temple, Jesus did not get upset about the public rabble who had access to the temple. He got upset about the money changers, and the cashiers who sold sacrificial doves to patrons as a convenience to those who did not have access to their own animals. The "unclean things" were money-changing and sales inside the temple. Modern "unclean things" would undoubtedly be tobacco, alcohol, guns, etc., as well as behaviors like cursing, backbiting, etc. The first revelations that mention the "no unclean thing" restriction came not long after the Word of Wisdom, which was a response to the fact that members of the School of the Prophets were using tobacco during their early meetings, which were an early form of the Endowment.

Personally, I'm a little more uncomfortable with having cashiers and rental services for temple robes in modern temples, than with the idea of a non-Mormon entering the temple. Although there would certainly be serious implementation issues that would need to be solved before a non-member could be allowed into a functioning temple, I don't think the presence of a non-member in a temple would "defile" it. Everyone, Mormon or non-Mormon alike, is equally unworthy to be in the presence of God, absent his grace. If the temple were defiled every time a sinner entered its doors, it would never be undefiled.

[Maureen]

Just so everyone knows this is an apostate website.

This is in reference to the Pure Mormonism blog site. And that might be your opinion Deborah but you are still mistaken. The man who runs the blog is as he quotes himself "...a devout believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith." So don't read it if you don't want to but it's out there for others to check out for themselves.

M.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Maureen

[Closet Doubter]

Closet Doubter:

It is doctrine that those not worthy, for whatever reason, can not attend the Temple.

When I was married in the Oakland Temple we had 4 people other than my wife and I. NONE were family.

I don't dispute that it is doctrine that only temple recommend holders can enter the temple. What is NOT doctrine is that a person cannot have a beautiful church wedding and then within the next few weeks, go to the temple with those that are worthy to enter the temple and have the marriage sealed for eternity. That is merely policy and a devisive policy at that.