Is The Church Changing Its Temple/civil Marriage Policy?

[DBMormon]

I have to say that, as a non-LDS person, I take exception to what you and Scott Lloyd have been saying here about those folk (whether non-temple recommend carrying family or non-LDS members as you mention) "who had envisioned being a part of the fairy-tale wedding they'd planned for their child". 

 

I think that you, ALarson and Scott Lloyd, are missing the mark about why people want to be part of their children's wedding.  It's not about the external accoutrements.  Throughout human history, celebrating weddings have been occasions of great joy and very much a communal affair! 

 

I certainly understand Calmoriah's point about people getting caught up in the "fairy tale wedding" phenomena with the proliferation of Bride's magazines, wedding shows, wedding planners, etc.  And I can see that this may contribute to someone wanting a wedding that is something different from a Temple sealing (likely in addition to the sealing).

 

But for you to then run with that idea and (to my eyes) downplay and trivialize the very real desire for parents to attend their children's weddings because of love and because of family solidarity, (not to mention the excruciating pain caused by being excluded) is unfortunate, if not unfeeling.

 

It is hard for some who are stuck in the culture of a system to put one self in another's shoes.  It can make sensitive subjects like this difficult.  By the way I agree with you completely.  If I could do it over, I would never have hurt my mother by marrying in the TEmple first.  If honoring my mother and her feelings brought God's wrath.... then so be it.   I no longer justify my truth extrinsically by feeling forced to take others statements and beliefs and make them my own in order to always take the status quo.  Rather I am at a point, my "truth" is made up by my deciding for myself what I can hold and what I must let go of.  An example:  I will never use Abraham sacrificing Isaac to ever teach the sacrifices God calls of us.  I will never use Lot's wife turning to Salt as an example of why we must never look back, or God sending a shebear to eat children as a way to teach what happens when we mock God's prophet.  These such examples simply do not meet me where I am and while symbollic of truths, in a literal sense miss the point for me.

 

 So that said I feel no need to defend a policy across the board that while having its purpose does not negate the real hurt and divisive power it also holds.  I do not feel bound to defend such matters 100% and can see it is a more complex issue then we sometimes pose.

Edited February 13, 2014 by DBMormon

[Paloma]

It is hard for some who are stuck in the culture of a system to put one self in another's shoes.  It can make sensitive subjects like this difficult.  By the way I agree with you completely.  If I could do it over, I would never have hurt my mother by marrying in the TEmple first. ...

 

DBMormon, earlier I mentioned the pain of those who are excluded, but I should also have mentioned the frustration and pain of those who have been in the position of needing to exclude those they love.  I feel for both, and see the heartache of being in either of those two positions.

 

When I was excluded from the wedding of a very close friend, I think I felt worse for my friend than I did for myself.  But I can't compare that to being immediate family.  I can only imagine the pain!

 

And I truly hope that your mother has landed in a place of generous understanding ... and that you are finding peace both internally and in your relationship with your mom. 

[DBMormon]

DBMormon, earlier I mentioned the pain of those who are excluded, but I should also have mentioned the frustration and pain of those who have been in the position of needing to exclude those they love.  I feel for both, and see the heartache of being in either of those two positions.

 

When I was excluded from the wedding of a very close friend, I think I felt worse for my friend than I did for myself.  But I can't compare that to being immediate family.  I can only imagine the pain!

 

And I truly hope that your mother has landed in a place of generous understanding ... and that you are finding peace both internally and in your relationship with your mom. 

 

Thank you

[Tacenda]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57535616-80/temple-family-sltrib-church.html.csp

 

"Kirby: Family should matter more in LDS temple weddings"

 

A pretty good read concerning leaving out family members, Kirby's experience.  And the line below by Kirby was pretty interesting and has been my take on it for awhile now.  

 

"Statistically speaking, families aren’t forever. Somebody in every family is always going to be too apathetic, too unconventional, too stubborn or just too evil to make the celestial kingdom cut.

 

Won’t you be surprised when you get to heaven and discover that for all that hard work, your forever family consists of you, your mom, two cousins (one of whom you never liked), your least favorite sibling, one of your four grandparents and none of your children."

 

 

ETA: 

 

I like this comment made to Kirby's article:

 

"When my daughter married in the LDS temple, NO ONE from her family could be present (she was a convert). She wanted to have a ring exchange prior to the reception and I suggested that those Mormons who had attended the temple event be asked to wait outside until the ring exchange was concluded. She was aghast at such a rude suggestion - didn't get the irony."

Edited February 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

DBMormon, earlier I mentioned the pain of those who are excluded, but I should also have mentioned the frustration and pain of those who have been in the position of needing to exclude those they love. I feel for both, and see the heartache of being in either of those two positions.

When I was excluded from the wedding of a very close friend, I think I felt worse for my friend than I did for myself. But I can't compare that to being immediate family. I can only imagine the pain!

And I truly hope that your mother has landed in a place of generous understanding ... and that you are finding peace both internally and in your relationship with your mom.

As a younger sibling who did not have her endowment, I was excluded from my older siblings' weddings. (I did not want to be part of the big production of the reception for my brother, but being able to be a witness of the wedding would have been nice.

I think those who grow up in the Church definitely develop a different view of what a wedding is suppose to convey. I know that having not been a part of some of my siblings' weddings as well as knowing the respect for it trying to be taught in having the one year wait for those who chose otherwise really helped instilled in me a sense of value and eternal significance of the covenant that I was making in the temple...to the point that when I went into a deep depression due to a medication I was taking shortly after that covenant took place, even though my heart and mind believed that the last thing I wanted to be was married, my soul knew that covenant meant so much more and that if I endured in faith, the Lord would bless me to have a successful marriage though I couldn't at the time even conceive of how that could happen, the depression doing such a major number on my thought processes (and this was before I understood how depression can do this). If I had a civil marriage, I know my marriage would have been over at 3 months. If I hadn't such a deep to the bone conviction of the importance of that temple covenant, even a temple marriage may not have survived; but I did and here we are almost 35 years later with a relationship where my husband being gone actually causes me feeling low and sad, where contemplating eternity with him is exciting rather than terrifying as it was in that short time when I experienced a 'conviction' that I had taken a misstep in my life.

I don't know if anyone else was ever benefitted in this way by the form this one specific teaching of the importance of a temple wedding takes in the US and Canada, but I believed it made a very significant difference to me.

I am also concerned when in discussions with soon to be brides and grooms all I hear is discussion about the reception and the temple ceremony is mentioned only in consideration of timing (as in how long will it take to get back or how much time do we have to set aside between the prep time and the reception for our visit to the temple. When receptions get big, I see anxiety and emotional roller coasters being attached to the day of the wedding which to me seems completely out of place. It seems to me there is very little room left for the feelings of sacredness and coming before God to witness one's eternal commitment to the new relationship. The few hours of stepping away from the world cannot take place if the concerns of the world are dragged into the sacred precinct because they are too strong and immediate to set aside with the mundane clothing. It is not as easy to shed secular thoughts and fill one's mind and spirit with the things of God as it is to put on the clothing that symbolises that inner experience.

Of course not everyone views receptions in the same way. Perhaps for some the importance of that translates into importance of the marriage relationship itself and it may help them feel more committed emotionally to it. (that would be an interesting study, see if there is any correlation between size of the celebration and success/length of the relationship)

And I have no doubt for many parents----whether LDS or not----as Paloma referred to, all that matters to them is to be a part of it no matter how simple or elaborate the ceremony and celebration might be.

I believe the continued insistence on the year penalty has been an attempt to prevent the distractions of the 'world' from drowning out the paramount importance of the sacred ritual the two undergo and what that means for the work they are undertaking (and marriage is hard, hard work if done right). It may be that it has come to the point where the message it was trying to teach is no longer being experienced in the same way due to changes in culture and just as the Church has adapted to changes in the culture of its members by altering the way Sunday classes are being taught to take more into account personal and local community needs and context, it may change this policy as well. Perhaps with this generation and future ones, giving the option to include nonmember family and friends will better teach the eternal nature than attempting to highlight the sacred importance of the event by setting it distinctly apart from its civil aspects with the one year wait.

Edited February 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

I have to say that, as a non-LDS person, I take exception to what you and Scott Lloyd have been saying here about those folk (whether non-temple recommend carrying family or non-LDS members as you mention) "who had envisioned being a part of the fairy-tale wedding they'd planned for their child".

I think that you, ALarson and Scott Lloyd, are missing the mark about why people want to be part of their children's wedding. It's not about the external accoutrements. Throughout human history, celebrating weddings have been occasions of great joy and very much a communal affair!

I certainly understand Calmoriah's point about people getting caught up in the "fairy tale wedding" phenomena with the proliferation of Bride's magazines, wedding shows, wedding planners, etc. And I can see that this may contribute to someone wanting a wedding that is something different from a Temple sealing (likely in addition to the sealing).

But for you to then run with that idea and (to my eyes) downplay and trivialize the very real desire for parents to attend their children's weddings because of love and because of family solidarity, (not to mention the excruciating pain caused by being excluded) is unfortunate, if not unfeeling.

Can't rep point on phone but would if I could.

+1000

[Brian 2.0]

Duplicate post

Edited February 14, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Paloma]

...

I think those who grow up in the Church definitely develop a different view of what a wedding is suppose to convey. I know that having not been a part of some of my siblings' weddings as well as knowing the respect for it trying to be taught in having the one year wait for those who chose otherwise really helped instilled in me a sense of value and eternal significance of the covenant that I was making in the temple...to the point that when I went into a deep depression due to a medication I was taking shortly after that covenant took place, even though my heart and mind believed that the last thing I wanted to be was married, my soul knew that covenant meant so much more and that if I endured in faith, the Lord would bless me to have a successful marriage though I couldn't at the time even conceive of how that could happen, the depression doing such a major number on my thought processes (and this was before I understood how depression can do this). If I had a civil marriage, I know my marriage would have been over at 3 months. If I hadn't such a deep to the bone conviction of the importance of that temple covenant, even a temple marriage may not have survived; but I did and here we are almost 35 years later with a relationship where my husband being gone actually causes me feeling low and sad, where contemplating eternity with him is exciting rather than terrifying as it was in that short time when I experienced a 'conviction' that I had taken a misstep in my life.

I don't know if anyone else was ever benefitted in this way by the form this one specific teaching of the importance of a temple wedding takes in the US and Canada, but I believed it made a very significant difference to me.

 ...

 

Calmoriah, I was really interested to hear about how tremendously important your temple marriage was and has always been to you.  I'm not surprised, in that I've been aware of your deep devotion to God and of how seriously you take your covenant relationship with Him, for a long time.

 

But it's helpful for me to understand more about the Mormon faith and the nature of temple marriage through you.  Thank you.

[Yirgacheffe]

I have to say that, as a non-LDS person, I take exception to what you and Scott Lloyd have been saying here about those folk (whether non-temple recommend carrying family or non-LDS members as you mention) "who had envisioned being a part of the fairy-tale wedding they'd planned for their child". 

 

I think that you, ALarson and Scott Lloyd, are missing the mark about why people want to be part of their children's wedding.  It's not about the external accoutrements.  Throughout human history, celebrating weddings have been occasions of great joy and very much a communal affair! 

 

I certainly understand Calmoriah's point about people getting caught up in the "fairy tale wedding" phenomena with the proliferation of Bride's magazines, wedding shows, wedding planners, etc.  And I can see that this may contribute to someone wanting a wedding that is something different from a Temple sealing (likely in addition to the sealing).

 

But for you to then run with that idea and (to my eyes) downplay and trivialize the very real desire for parents to attend their children's weddings because of love and because of family solidarity, (not to mention the excruciating pain caused by being excluded) is unfortunate, if not unfeeling.

This presumption about non-members petty motivation has come up in every thread I've ever read here about weddings.  What has been expressed on this thread is pretty tame, other times there have been posts that were truly contemptuous of non-members and non-LDS weddings.

[Tacenda]

We had a thread not too long ago on this same topic, it was sure a different tone. I guess when the church changes to allow civil marriage and sealings right after, it's all good. But when it doesn't, we're made to feel bad for complaining. But do understand the commitment level Cal is talking about. Hopefully the decision made will be for the good of everyone.

[Buckeye]

Of course all of the Tom Phillips fans are taking credit for this if it happens.  They're saying that if nothing else comes from his lawsuit, this change is worth it.

 

I'm not a fan, but having read more about the Phillips fraud action this seems plausible.  It's at least as plausible as the only other options I can imagine (i) concern with the changing definition of civil marriage, (ii) a change of heart due to the online petition/leter drive requesting a policy change (http://familyfirstweddings.com/) and (iii) a change of heart due to the long-time calls by members and non-members adversely affected by the policy. 

 

If there is a policy change, it will be very interesting to hear the explanation why.  My best guess is a short explanation that the church supports family involvement in weddings, followed by 2-3 conference talks about the importance of temple sealings over civil weddings.