EllenMaksoud Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2013/09/mormon_weddings_why_you_can_t_attend_your_friends_lds_wedding_but_should.single.html Interesting article on Salon about the one-year waiting period to be sealed in the temple for those who are intially married civilly. I agree with the general sentiment of the article, this seems like an outdated policy that is hurting LDS families more than it is helping. What say you?They should be thankful that they will eventually see the inside of a Temple. A year is not such a long time. Place yourself in the position of one whose sin is seen as so severe that they will never see the inside of a Temple. Even that pain lessens to a tolerable level. 1
Brian 2.0 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 They should be thankful that they will eventually see the inside of a Temple. A year is not such a long time. Place yourself in the position of one whose sin is seen as so severe that they will never see the inside of a Temple. Even that pain lessens to a tolerable level.Do you see having a civil wedding if both are TR holders and able to have a temple wedding as a sin?
EllenMaksoud Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Do you see having a civil wedding if both are TR holders and able to have a temple wedding as a sin?Why would it be? I will never have anything but a civil wedding, should it happen. It just feels to me at times like those who can have a Temple wedding or even Temple priveleges sometimes just pour salt in the wounds of those of us who can not.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Why would it be? I will never have anything but a civil wedding, should it happen. It just feels to me at times like those who can have a Temple wedding or even Temple priveleges sometimes just pour salt in the wounds of those of us who can not.Gotcha. I thought for a moment you were equating it with sin.
EllenMaksoud Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Gotcha. I thought for a moment you were equating it with sin.I'm sorry. I can't think too well right now; in a lot of physical pain from an old broken neck and the meds I am taking are making me really loopy, suicidal even. I won't kill myself but the presence of the feelings have set off an alarm. I will be calling the Doc presently. I'm upset because in spite of my accepting the Atonement, it will not be good enough in this life to get Temple priveleges, like ever. I just think that some use this as a tool to make themselves better than others,and it makes me hurt and angry.
Calm Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 but the presence of the feelings have set off an alarm. I will be calling the Doc presently.Good...been there, not a good place to be even if one knows what is going on. Perhaps there is someone you can call to keep you company?
EllenMaksoud Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Good...been there, not a good place to be even if one knows what is going on. Perhaps there is someone you can call to keep you company?Goodness, was that on the board? I thought Brian sent me a PM. I promise no drama with a pistol. I'm calling the Doctor NOW. Promise. I broke my neck (C-6) in 1974 and it eventually quit hurting after 10 or so years. I did something to irritate it again, and the pain is oppressive. I've been trying to ignore it and since that did not work, I started taking some non narcotic pain meds. The meds might be triggering me, or if they are not then I am just having an event and need to get over myself.
rongo Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Why not have a place on the temple lot where everyone can go ( visitor's center ?) with sufficient room for family and friends wherein a civil marriage can take place ? Then the couple can excuse themselves for a half hour and go through the temple marriage procedure and later return to the reception. Or visa versa.I think it's this kind of thinking that's behind the policy. "Excuse themselves for a half hour and go through the temple marriage 'procedure?' " Talk about seeing the sealing itself as just an inconvenient "procedure" until you can get back to where it's really at --- the government oversight "annex."
rongo Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Actually, you CAN get married civilly in the temple, without a sealing taking place. It's called being married in the temple For Time Only.They don't do these any more. They used to, but not any more.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Goodness, was that on the board? I thought Brian sent me a PM. I promise no drama with a pistol. I'm calling the Doctor NOW. Promise. I broke my neck (C-6) in 1974 and it eventually quit hurting after 10 or so years. I did something to irritate it again, and the pain is oppressive. I've been trying to ignore it and since that did not work, I started taking some non narcotic pain meds. The meds might be triggering me, or if they are not then I am just having an event and need to get over myself.Wish you all the best. Ellen. You bring a great perspective to this board and I appreciate you here.
Calm Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Goodness, was that on the board? I thought Brian sent me a PM. I promise no drama with a pistol. I'm calling the Doctor NOW. Promise. I broke my neck (C-6) in 1974 and it eventually quit hurting after 10 or so years. I did something to irritate it again, and the pain is oppressive. I've been trying to ignore it and since that did not work, I started taking some non narcotic pain meds. The meds might be triggering me, or if they are not then I am just having an event and need to get over myself.It is easier to say "get over it" than to do it, at least for me. But if you've had experience with this, and it seems like you do, then you probably have a list of stuff that helps you endure....one of my major distractions is this board, watching intelligent TV shows that give me a chance to use my brain help as well. Sometimes talking to others is not enough as I am still aware of pain, for some reason if it involves my eyes (like writing or watching TV) as well as my mouth, it works better. Depression...if I can manage it, I like to sleep through it until whatever drug is triggering it wears off...unfortunately sometimes it is really something in life that is causing it and I actually have to work at dealing with reality! Life is so unfair sometimes, forcing me to be a grownup. At this very moment, I am putting off getting out of bed (which explains why I am derailing this thread with personal stuff so I will use at least enough selfcontrol to stop such delaying tactics here and make this my last post on this personal stuff) because that means I need to get to work on digging out of the mess the renovation caused...I've put it off for a few weeks now, but the weather isn't hot anymore, no more excuses to hide out in my cold bedroom. Edited September 21, 2013 by calmoriah
EllenMaksoud Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 It is easier to say "get over it" than to do it, at least for me. But if you've had experience with this, and it seems like you do, then you probably have a list of stuff that helps you endure....one of my major distractions is this board, watching intelligent TV shows that give me a chance to use my brain help as well. Sometimes talking to others is not enough as I am still aware of pain, for some reason if it involves my eyes (like writing or watching TV) as well as my mouth, it works better. Depression...if I can manage it, I like to sleep through it until whatever drug is triggering it wears off...unfortunately sometimes it is really something in life that is causing it and I actually have to work at dealing with reality! Life is so unfair sometimes, forcing me to be a grownup. At this very moment, I am putting off getting out of bed because that means I need to get to work on digging out of the mess the renovation caused...I've put it off for a few weeks now, but the weather isn't hot anymore, no more excuses to hide out in my cold bedroom.One of the things that triggered me this morning was the post about waiting for Temple Privileges. They are crying about waiting a year! What about those of us who will never have them? I thought I was over that piece of grieving months ago but here it is again slapping me in the face! The GA has been considering mine for nearly two years and I have been getting subtle little "messages" that it will not happen for me. I am not going into details, but no part of my "sin" was my fault, but I am still being punished for it, or it feels that way. The psych meds that they put you on for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder really changes the way you think, and that is when the unthinkable began to seem like a good idea. How can I be responsible for sin that occurred under those circumstances? The GA's present position makes me feel like I am still in the Evangelical church, for gosh sakes. When will people begin to engage the available scientific and clinical knowledge? It feels unjust and IS unjust. I am sorry. I did not mean to derail your thread. I'm not sympathetic to someone not being happy for having to wait a year for a Temple anything. I'm standing down now.
thesometimesaint Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 What you quoted is just from the church website. But you'll note that I provided the Church Handbook of Instructions policy that is more more explicit that no other wedding ceremony is to be performed and no vows are to be exchanged. I completely agree with your final paragraph... let the sealing do what it is intended to do. Then change the laws to prohibit anyone other than state officials from performing marriages.
canard78 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 The choice isn’t difficult in and of itself; neither choice is undesirable except a person creates the dilemma and this can still be resolved through prayer. A policy should not be changed simply because an indeterminate number of people create dilemmas for themselves.He could have; His sustained representatives have definitely said it.And where do those representatives claim it's the word and will of God? Policy is not always revelation. It's often personal opinion or pragmatism.
canard78 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 They don't do these any more. They used to, but not any more.Really? Since when? So if a widow has a second marriage it's only done civilly?
canard78 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) And I would highly recommend that whatever the ceremony will be, and what it cannot be, be talked about at length before... lest you end up like my friend who got married a couple years ago and was having a ring ceremony because one side of the family was all non-members. The bishop literally stopped the little flower girl mid-step from walking down the aisle and said we can't have a "walking down the aisle" and also prohibited the bride and groom from saying vows (a few words they had prepared for each other). He also made sure to mention that he was happy they were married in the temple, because any marriage outside the temple was a "divorce upon death."Needless to say the event didn't go over so well.(some of the blame should be put upon the bride and groom as well as they obviously didn't talk specifcs to the bishop beforehand).What a stupid and inconsiderate reaction from the Bishop. Some people are so handcuffed by the handbook they can't see the people. Edited September 22, 2013 by canard78 1
rongo Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Really? Since when? So if a widow has a second marriage it's only done civilly?It's a relatively recent change. There are no more marriages for time only in the temple. Only sealings.
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Wrong. The temple sealing (marriage) itself is considered a valid marriage ceremony in the USA. It is not a civil ceremony. A civil ceremony is not necessary to get married in the USA. Many people get married in religious ceremonies in churches, synagogues, Buddhist temples, etc.. One of my nieces, who is LDS but inactive, decided that she wanted to marry her twin brother. Marry him, not get married to him. When he got engaged to a Catholic girl, she went out and got an "ordination" from the Universal Life Church. On their wedding day she solemnized the marriage, all legal and lawful. The marriage lasted, oh, about three months. It wasn't my niece's fault. Turned out the bride was a mental case -- which should have been apparent to my nephew, who is a very smart person, but for some reason it wasn't.
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Obviously it isn't *about* disappointment and family discord. But it is causing disappointment and family discord by forcing some couples to make the decision to either exclude loved ones from their wedding or wait a year to be sealed. One of my grandsons is planning to get married in the New York City temple. I think he should be required to get married in a temple closer to my home so I can attend. Traveling to NYC is a bit too far for my wife and I at this point. I think I would prefer they are married in the Seattle temple. Can I sign some petition to require that couples be married where other people want them to get married? 2
rongo Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) What a stupid and inconsiderate reaction from the Bishop. Some people are so handcuffed by the handbook they can't see the people.It's a tough needle to thread. Bishops are supposed to hold to the integrity of the handbook requirements, while being sensitive to the audience and guests. Much can be taken care of in advance by going over with the couple what the requirements are, and what *the bishop's* non-negotiables are. If there are non-negotiables for the couple that the bishop can't do, they should be encouraged to seek elsewhere for the marriage beforehand, and they should be made to understand what is prohibited --- so there are no surprises. Still, there are things that come up "in real time," and the bishop does his best "on the fly." The marriages I performed were always very simple and did not take longer than 15 minutes. Opening hymn and prayer, brief counsel/sermon, the handbook ceremony, and *ring exchange, closing hymn and closing prayer. One couple did want a ring-bearer and to be walked in by the father, which was fine. I only ever held them in the Relief Society room, not the chapel. That alleviated some touchy things (i.e., no cameras in the chapel, etc.). *ETA: I didn't encourage ring exchanges, but if they wanted to, they could after the ceremony, so it wasn't part of the ceremony itself. Usually the "closing" of the marriage was for the couple to kiss. Edited September 21, 2013 by rongo
Stargazer Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 But, what is wrong with Robert F. Smith's suggestion that a couple have a wedding ceremony after a temple sealing? That solves all of the problems. Glenn One of my sons joined his wife's church, and they were married civilly about three weeks before they were married in church (a denomination that doesn't recognize civil marriages, but get one anyway so as to get state recognition). When they got civilly married his mother and I weren't even told about it. We did attended the religious wedding later, though. I think I am going to have to be offended about being excluded from the civil wedding.
Duncan Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 One of my grandsons is planning to get married in the New York City temple. I think he should be required to get married in a temple closer to my home so I can attend. Traveling to NYC is a bit too far for my wife and I at this point. I think I would prefer they are married in the Seattle temple. Can I sign some petition to require that couples be married where other people want them to get married? I have seen that too. I think it is the height of inconsideration to expect all the family to travel a ridiculous amount to see the couple get sealed in the Temple of their choice. For example, a couple here in Canada got married in the San Diego Temple at least a pregnancy ago and the one couple's folks are still paying for it, like why don't you get sealed in the closet Temple and it's WAY cheaper... if you get sealed in the Temple, does it really matter which one? who cares!!!!!!
strappinglad Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 How about this? All marriages should be civil marriages first and the marriage contract must be renewed at one year and five years. Temple marriage should be performed only after the one year renewal has been completed. Personally, I am considering giving wedding gifts only after the couple reach the 5 year mark. Too many 6 month wonders !
rockpond Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 One of my grandsons is planning to get married in the New York City temple. I think he should be required to get married in a temple closer to my home so I can attend. Traveling to NYC is a bit too far for my wife and I at this point. I think I would prefer they are married in the Seattle temple. Can I sign some petition to require that couples be married where other people want them to get married? You certainly can sign such a petition. But, for the record, the church doesn't have a policy instructing them on which temple they may or may not choose. I'm more interested in removing a policy that restricts the choices of the bride and groom unnecessarily.
bluebell Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 They don't do these any more. They used to, but not any more.When did they stop? My grandmother was sealed for time only three or four years ago.
Recommended Posts