Scott Lloyd Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) 50 minutes ago, JAHS said: I agree but according to a news article a couple years ago: This what makes me think there is a chance for a change, but it's not for certain. If you look at my posts in this thread, you'll find I've already referred to this. This was two years ago, and the publicity seems to have amounted to not much more than rumor-mongering. A lot of it was driven by Dehlin, who seems to make a habit of spreading rumors and making vacuous predictions about the Church. The one-sentence statement from Church Public Affairs essentially says nothing. It certainly doesn't say the Church is anywhere near changing the policy on this thing. Edited January 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 42 minutes ago, ttribe said: My only experience with this relates to my wife's oldest brother who, ultimately, found the woman of his dreams while he was living in Paris, France. Given that she was a returned missionary and her family was active (as was his), there was no issue whatsoever. That being said, in all of my interactions with members both in the U.S. and overseas, the only ones I've heard mention "problems" regarding marrying in the temple and the impact of excluding family and friends who could not attend, are those living in the U.S. Purely anecdotal, I know, but there you have it. As the laws in other countries do not even allow the option of not having the civil ceremony, I don't think this is a relevant comparison. Quote For the record, my father could not attend my wedding due to his long-standing inactivity. At the time of my wedding (20+ years ago), I gave it very little thought. 14 years after his passing now, I regret my insensitivity to his desire to be there with me. Your experience is what it is, but I don't think it can fairly or properly be intimated that other couples are insensitive just because they opt to follow the Church's guidelines by refusing to have a civil ceremony precede their temple marriage.
ttribe Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As the laws in other countries do not even allow the option of not having the civil ceremony, I don't think this is a relevant comparison. Your experience is what it is, but I don't think it can fairly or properly be intimated that other couples are insensitive just because they opt to follow the Church's guidelines by refusing to have a civil ceremony precede their temple marriage. Scott, the recent history between you and I is not good. I believe you have a habit of putting words in my mouth in a very negative manner. I'm not regularly participating here and I don't think it would be good for you and I to interact. I only asked Smac a question about his listed "downsides" because I wondered whether he was aware of any problems along those lines in countries where law requires the civil ceremony be performed in a public place (hence, the different policy). I was curious. That's it. I'm not fighting with anyone. I'm not arguing a position. I'm not attempting to imply anything. My comment about my father was for context only. I wasn't attempting to generalize it. Your use of that comment as a blunt instrument to needle me is classless and rude. My father's death, and the fact that I didn't get a chance to have a better relationship with him for a longer period of time, is an open emotional wound for me. Leave it alone. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 I remember my dad's comments after having to be excluded from my brothers wedding. "I thought this church was supposed to be about families."
filovirus Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 9 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I remember my dad's comments after having to be excluded from my brothers wedding. "I thought this church was supposed to be about families." Honestly, no one is keeping your father out of the temple except for him. There is no exclusivity. That's the great thing about it. It is the great equalizer. All must humble and prepare themselves, but there is no secret on how to gain access. 3
Gillebre Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 filovirus said it well I think. How terribly said that people in the world seem to make themselves victims of the Church by refusing to do what it takes to hold a temple recommend. I think this policy is most appropriate because it puts Church members in a position to put the Lord's teachings first over the wants of other people or the world. It gives us an opportunity to show where we stand. If we can't put the Lord first by making Temple marriage a first priority, how can we honestly expect Him to trust us with all that He has? It's all about seeing whether or not we can put Him first, even before our own loved ones. That's why the first law of Heaven is obedience. In the matter of our obedience what anyone else thinks about our choice does not matter. It's our salvation at stake, they need to work out their own. I won't jeopardize my integrity and commitment to follow the Lord completely by putting the feelings or concerns of anyone else before what He asks of me, including family or friends. The Lord comes first. Always. That's how I see it anyway. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 10 hours ago, ttribe said: Scott, the recent history between you and I is not good. I believe you have a habit of putting words in my mouth in a very negative manner. I'm not regularly participating here and I don't think it would be good for you and I to interact. I only asked Smac a question about his listed "downsides" because I wondered whether he was aware of any problems along those lines in countries where law requires the civil ceremony be performed in a public place (hence, the different policy). I was curious. That's it. I'm not fighting with anyone. I'm not arguing a position. I'm not attempting to imply anything. My comment about my father was for context only. I wasn't attempting to generalize it. Your use of that comment as a blunt instrument to needle me is classless and rude. My father's death, and the fact that I didn't get a chance to have a better relationship with him for a longer period of time, is an open emotional wound for me. Leave it alone. I meant no slight against you or your father. I was trying to bracket it in my comments and thereby do just as you say, to leave it alone. I have no interest in commenting on it. My intent here was to express a caution against automatically regarding a couple's decision to forego a civil ceremony pursuant to an immediate temple marriage as insensitive. Indeed, a good many such couples, perhaps almost all, might feel heartache when their loved ones choose to take offense at their decision but in the end, their overriding love for the Lord and their desire to do His will drives their decision. 1
Popular Post Gray Posted January 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2016 12 hours ago, filovirus said: Honestly, no one is keeping your father out of the temple except for him. There is no exclusivity. That's the great thing about it. It is the great equalizer. All must humble and prepare themselves, but there is no secret on how to gain access. His dad is a non-member. Are you seriously suggesting he should get baptized, wait a year, and get a temple recommend in order to attend the wedding? That's not a reasonable expectation of non-members. 5
Popular Post Brian 2.0 Posted January 16, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2016 My wife converted a little over a year before we got married. Her entire side of the family was non-members. She was my father-in-laws only daughter and had long looked forward to the day he would walk her down the aisle. I'm sorry, but the idea of saying we were getting married in the temple and none of them would attend was something I was not going to do to him. We got married outside the temple and we got sealed in the temple a year later. Both great experiences and neither felt "less than". He was there for the sealing outside the temple a year later fully supportive. I know he would not have had that feeling had that been our only ceremony. I don't judge someone's decision to do otherwise but I sure didn't want to do. This isn't something I think should be like a sword dividing families. And no words would have made my father-in-law "cool with it". I saw no negatives in doing it the way I did and a lot of negatives doing it the other way. 5
busybee Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 18 hours ago, ttribe said: I'm aware of none of those "downsides" materially coming into play in any of the countries where the one year waiting period policy is not in existence, are you? There is still a condition to not applying the one year waiting period in countries where a civil ceremony is required. You HAVE to be sealed in the temple at the soonest opportunity following a civil ceremony otherwise the one year waiting period is applied.
GingerRed Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 I know a couple who got married civilly first, back in 2003 I think, because of the problem of a sealing cancellation on her ex. He was dragging his feet on purpose to delay her temple sealing, just to be mean and spiteful.. So because of that and other circumstances surrounding her children starting school in a new city, the house they were moving into as a family, and a couple of other issues, they chose to marry and then wait the year. So it's not 'black and white' as some may think.. This is a common problem with the older divorced singles who re-marry. I have a co-worker who's going through the same thing. They've already waited months so her ex can be tracked down. That's unfair to the couple IMO, to make them wait, for who knows how long, and through no fault of their own, for a sealing cancellation. Kind of a sticky problem for some. 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: His dad is a non-member. Are you seriously suggesting he should get baptized, wait a year, and get a temple recommend in order to attend the wedding? That's not a reasonable expectation of non-members. That is his decision then isn't it? If you don't want the costs of an activity, why should you expect to reap the benefits? Say I want to play the piano in Carnegie Hall, but I don't want all that practice. Do you think I'll make it there? 1
filovirus Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: His dad is a non-member. Are you seriously suggesting he should get baptized, wait a year, and get a temple recommend in order to attend the wedding? That's not a reasonable expectation of non-members. My father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two brother-in-laws are all non-members. In fact, my wife is the only member in her family. But they knew well in advance that we would be married in the temple. We dated for a year and were engaged for 9 months. We did have a ring ceremony immediatly afterwards and a reception later that evening. We included them to the point where they were grateful for the effort we went to in order to incorporate them. Maybe I'm just lucky to have good in-laws, but I am glad we were sealed first. 1
Teancum Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 23 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: If you get a civil ceremony marriage you have to wait 1 whole year to be temple sealed. Why is that? My dad's not a member so he couldn't attend my brother's temple sealing or mine if I get married in the future, and my brother would have had a civil ceremony first before the temple sealing so he and other non member relatives could attend, but they say he would then have to had waited a whole year to get the temple sealing done. My brother and his wife did not want to wait a year. Why do they do that? They should be allowed a civil ceremony right before the temple sealing like other countries do, otherwise many family members get hurt and feel excluded. My dad still hasn't forgiven the church for being excluded from seeing my brother's wedding and that was in 2006. It's all about control.
Calm Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 22 hours ago, smac97 said: Could you explain the need? It's existence is not self-evident to me. Don't get me wrong, I understand the hurt feelings that can and do arise when family members cannot attend a temple sealing. But is it possible that there are other factors which have been taken into account? Personally, I think changing the policy would have some some upsides and some downsides. The "upsides" could be things like A) family members who cannot attend would appreciate participating in a civil ceremony (though an exchange-of-rings ceremony already fulfill this function for the most part), and B) some LDS couples who want to appease family members by having a civil ceremony prior to the temple sealing will have the option to do so. On the other had, some of the "downsides" could be things like A) family members who cannot attend may still feel affronted at not being able to attend the "real" ceremony (real to the couple being sealed, anyway), B) family members who cannot attend may seek to aggrandize the civil ceremony at the expense of the temple ceremony (that is, characterize the former as the "real" one, and thus disparage the significance of the latter), C) adding a civil ceremony to a wedding in the temple adds substantial logistical difficulties and time constraints to an already long and stressful wedding day, D) some LDS couples may prefer to marry in the temple only, but may feel compelled to have a civil ceremony to appease family members, E) family members who attend a civil ceremony will still likely be asked to wait outside the temple during the sealing, so the fundamental problem at issue (feelings of exclusion) will probably not be resolved by including a civil ceremony as part of the day. Personally, I would be happy with a change in the policy, but I will not speak out against the current policy or resort to untoward pressure tactics to make my feelings known. Thanks, -Smac I have only heard extensive discussion from the POV of those not allowed to have a civil ceremony first. It would be very interesting to have a comparison study with other countries, taking into account how involved family members are in civil cermonies (things like costs or culture might downplay the civil ceremony or increase it), how consistent LDS try to make their civil ceremony with the typical civil ceremony of the country, what other faiths do for their religious celebration of marriage, etc. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 1 hour ago, filovirus said: My father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two brother-in-laws are all non-members. In fact, my wife is the only member in her family. But they knew well in advance that we would be married in the temple. We dated for a year and were engaged for 9 months. We did have a ring ceremony immediatly afterwards and a reception later that evening. We included them to the point where they were grateful for the effort we went to in order to incorporate them. Maybe I'm just lucky to have good in-laws, but I am glad we were sealed first. I just feel bad for my dad, since when he married my mom he agreed that any children they have will be raised Mormon and his reward for allowing my brother and I to be Mormon is to wait outside and be excluded from our weddings. What father wouldn't at least be upset by that?
The Nehor Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Teancum said: It's all about control. Except it is not. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I just feel bad for my dad, since when he married my mom he agreed that any children they have will be raised Mormon and his reward for allowing my brother and I to be Mormon is to wait outside and be excluded from our weddings. What father wouldn't at least be upset by that? I have greater sympathy for non-Mormon parents whose child unexpectedly joins the Church and then opts for a temple marriage. I've never felt interfaith marriage was a good idea to begin with, but those who enter into it need to do so with their eyes wide open and understand from the get-go that there will be tension, compromises and, very likely, disappointments along the way. Edited January 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 7 hours ago, busybee said: There is still a condition to not applying the one year waiting period in countries where a civil ceremony is required. You HAVE to be sealed in the temple at the soonest opportunity following a civil ceremony otherwise the one year waiting period is applied. I was not aware of this, but it makes sense. It seems consistent with the idea that, for Latter-day Saint couples, a temple marriage should be the highest priority among all considerations and is not to be regarded casually. 1
ttribe Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 8 hours ago, busybee said: There is still a condition to not applying the one year waiting period in countries where a civil ceremony is required. You HAVE to be sealed in the temple at the soonest opportunity following a civil ceremony otherwise the one year waiting period is applied. I'm aware of that, and understand the reasoning. I don't see why that wouldn't be a workable solution here as well. 1
salgare Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) On 1/15/2016 at 2:34 PM, smac97 said: I have some thoughts on this. However, before I post them I would like you answer the following questions: 1. Do you think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy? 2. Are you willing to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt as to having a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy? Thanks, -Smac EDIT TO ADD: Here's a resource written by John Walsh that may be useful: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/dating/temple_marriage.html 1. no 2. yes, if they would publicly explain those reasons. The answer is not in the John Walsh resource linked. In the US being married civil has always been a stereotypical, "oh they had sex and could not go to the temple" reaction from members. The linked source noted this as well with statements like the couple needed to speedily repent etc. Thus the fear of this scarlet letter "helps" members. I guess this is a good faith reason? Please share others. Edited January 17, 2016 by salgare
salgare Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 On 1/15/2016 at 3:10 PM, JAHS said: If you choose a civil marriage over a sealing it is seen as a demonstration of your lack of obedience and faith to do it the right way the first time regardless of what the extended family wants. Yes, the young couples must learn to choose what is most important to them ... Church or Family.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, salgare said: Yes, the young couples must learn to choose what is most important to them ... Church or Family. Only if one or more family members needlessly draws a line in the sand. These discussions always portray the in-laws as poor, oppressed victims. There is never any focus on the trauma and heartache endured by the newlywed couple who are put in a position of compromising a faith that is very dear to them if they hope to avoid upsetting a family member or members. The situation is not wholly unlike that faced by a person who desires to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ knowing that in doing so he/she must deal with parental disapproval, hostility or even being disowned. Such dilemmas would seem to be an obvious application of the words of Christ in Matthew 10:35. Quote For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
salgare Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Only if one or more family members needlessly draws a line in the sand. Happens every day. Yes I know well the damage to the young couple as well as to immediate and extended families. All over a policy, with no doctrinal basis to back it its requirement. An immoral act by leaders of the church to all involved.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, salgare said: Happens every day. Yes I know well the damage to the young couple as well as to immediate and extended families. All over a policy, with no doctrinal basis to back it its requirement. An immoral act by leaders of the church to all involved. It's not immoral. And you have no standing to say that it lacks a doctrinal basis. 1
Recommended Posts