Why is there a 1 year waiting period to get a temple sealing after civil marriage?

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No; More like paying the price of admission to play at Carnegie Hall. A lot of practice.

The only people "playing" in this example are the couple getting married. Everyone else is just a spectator. Do you think it's reasonable to ask people to make a lifelong commitment to a new religion just to be able to attend a wedding? 

It sounds like that would cheapen temple covenants, too. 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

These discussions always come down to LDS trashing non-members traditions.

Seems to me this thread has pretty much been about trashing practices in the Church of Jesus Christ as pertaining to temple marriages.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Smac that the give-the-bride-away tradition is harmless. I called it "vacuous," meaning empty, and it pretty much is, if you reject the thinking from which it stems, that the woman is personal property being conveyed from the possession of one man to that of another. That's the thing I'm trashing. I don't know anybody who is dialed into that notion anymore. Do you?

I suppose one could do as busybee did and place one's own benign application or adaptation on the tradition. But we're still left with the idea of a father "giving away" his daughter. And I'll say again, that makes me uncomfortable. The woman doesn't cease to be the daughter of her parents, so no one, father or mother, is giving anybody away. I see a wedding, rather, as the bride and a groom starting a new chapter in their respective lives, one in which they unify themselves with each other as partners with the grand purpose in mind of beginning a new family unit. Antiquated notions of a woman being "given away" are not essential to that purpose.

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Smac that the give-the-bride-away tradition is harmless. I called it "vacuous," meaning empty, and it pretty much is, if you reject the thinking from which it stems, that the woman is personal property being conveyed from the possession of one man to that of another. That's the thing I'm trashing. I don't know anybody who is dialed into that notion anymore. Do you?

Do you think a similar line of reasoning would apply to the LDS Church making the bride and groom its own "personal property," and hence has the right to exclude members of the family?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Do you think a similar line of reasoning would apply to the LDS Church making the bride and groom its own "personal property," and hence has the right to exclude members of the family?

 

You're talking gibberish.

 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Smac that the give-the-bride-away tradition is harmless. I called it "vacuous," meaning empty, and it pretty much is, if you reject the thinking from which it stems, that the woman is personal property being conveyed from the possession of one man to that of another. That's the thing I'm trashing. I don't know anybody who is dialed into that notion anymore. Do you?

I suppose one could do as busybee did and place one's own benign application or adaptation on the tradition. But we're still left with the idea of a father "giving away" his daughter. And I'll say again, that makes me uncomfortable.

At my daughter's wedding reception the father/bride dance was first followed by the first dance of the bride and the groom. At the conclusion of the dance with my daughter I escorted her over to her new husband and shook his hand. I have always thought of my children as my responsibility (not my property). That responsibility was passed onto him as her husband.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're talking gibberish.

 

Actually he's talking the most hostile spin possible.

As is his wont.

 

[Yirgacheffe]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems to me this thread has pretty much been about trashing practices in the Church of Jesus Christ as pertaining to temple marriages.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Smac that the give-the-bride-away tradition is harmless. I called it "vacuous," meaning empty, and it pretty much is, if you reject the thinking from which it stems, that the woman is personal property being conveyed from the possession of one man to that of another. That's the thing I'm trashing. I don't know anybody who is dialed into that notion anymore. Do you?

I suppose one could do as busybee did and place one's own benign application or adaptation on the tradition. But we're still left with the idea of a father "giving away" his daughter. And I'll say again, that makes me uncomfortable. The woman doesn't cease to be the daughter of her parents, so no one, father or mother, is giving anybody away. I see a wedding, rather, as the bride and a groom starting a new chapter in their respective lives, one in which they unify themselves with each other as partners with the grand purpose in mind of beginning a new family unit. Antiquated notions of a woman being "given away" are not essential to that purpose.

 

It is not empty of meaning just because people no longer view it as they did, symbols, and traditions do no have to retain their original meaning.   None of the women I've known would agree that having their father or, mother and father, walk them down the isle was an empty, meaningless tradition, they were also all aware of the origins of the tradition.

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

It is not empty of meaning just because people no longer view it as they did, symbols, and traditions do no have to retain their original meaning.   None of the women I've known would agree that having their father or, mother and father, walk them down the isle was an empty, meaningless tradition, they were also all aware of the origins of the tradition.

As I said, one can custom tailor one's own application of the tradition, but at the end of the day, it retains the derivation -- and the wording. Why not just form a new tradition without the associated baggage?

It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose. But I remind you that the subject arose as part of criticism of the way the Church of Jesus Christ does things, with the implication that one of the reasons the Church must change is that the present policy does violence to this antiquated tradition.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

It is not empty of meaning just because people no longer view it as they did, symbols, and traditions do no have to retain their original meaning.   None of the women I've known would agree that having their father or, mother and father, walk them down the isle was an empty, meaningless tradition, they were also all aware of the origins of the tradition.

And considering the subject is the temple, taking old symbols and ceremonies and giving them new meaning and new context is really a very Mormon thing to do 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

At my daughter's wedding reception the father/bride dance was first followed by the first dance of the bride and the groom. At the conclusion of the dance with my daughter I escorted her over to her new husband and shook his hand. I have always thought of my children as my responsibility (not my property). That responsibility was passed onto him as her husband.

That's a wedding reception. I thought the "give-the-bride-away" thing was supposed to be part of the ceremony.

You could do the above at a Mormon wedding reception if everybody was OK with it.

[Russell C McGregor]

51 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

It is not empty of meaning just because people no longer view it as they did, symbols, and traditions do no have to retain their original meaning.   None of the women I've known would agree that having their father or, mother and father, walk them down the isle was an empty, meaningless tradition, they were also all aware of the origins of the tradition.

But don't you see? The whole concept of "walking down the aisle" is entirely a function of the arrangement of the seats. What happens when the seats aren't arranged in two equal blocks with an aisle between, leading from the door to the altar? Does that cause the whole wedding to collapse?

It just so happens that the seats aren't arranged in that way in the Temple, and the ordinance is free of all that sumptuous parading. So even if non-members were invited in, there still wouldn't be anything for them to do.

 

[Jeanne]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On 1/18/2016 at 11:07 AM, consiglieri said:

My two-month old didn't.

Whether or not they dream of it depends almost entirely on whether they have been conditioned to expect it, I would say. I'm confident my little girl doesn't, because none of us have ever mentioned such a thing to her. I know I won't, believing as I do that it's a vacuous tradition stemming from notions that are no longer widely accepted about a young woman being personal property and what not. 

In fact, the very idea of my daughter becoming someone's chattel is highly offensive to me. Knowing her as I do, I'm certain it would be to her as well. 

That is wonderful.  Both of you have the same expectations.  Of course she is being brought up to know that she will marry in the Temple..I understand that.

My husband would have been  proud to walk me daughter down the aisle..and she would have had no other way.  Good for you..just different culture or whatever but neither is right or wrong.  It is basically whatever people would like to have. 

And consiglieri, I was nine years old when sealed to my parents...darn ..I knew i had a recommend somewhere!

[Jeanne]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

None of my girlfriends (nonLDS) ever mentioned that even when they were talking about what dresses they wanted or colours for their wedding (which is in my memory the most common wedding desire that they brought up).

okay..okay.  Whatever..I just remember playing "house" and we would all get a dish towel or something and make a veil and all that.  I am so surprised that nobody did this.

Don't know how many times I married the dog..

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

These discussions always come down to LDS trashing non-members traditions.

Yeah..really!  I just pretty much stated an  opinion..and I felt like crap!

[Russell C McGregor]

19 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

These discussions always come down to LDS trashing non-members traditions.

Yes, and it's entirely one-sided, too. There's never any element of trashing the temple and the sanctity of its ordinances.

Nor does anyone ever gush about how wonderful those (largely extraneous) traditions are, how disgusting it is that the Church has dispensed with them, and how much better LDS weddings would be if they included them. Because if they did, that might be seen as pretty much inviting the counter-argument that maybe they're not so important after all.

 

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

The only people "playing" in this example are the couple getting married. Everyone else is just a spectator. Do you think it's reasonable to ask people to make a lifelong commitment to a new religion just to be able to attend a wedding? 

It sounds like that would cheapen temple covenants, too. 

There are no spectators in the Temple. Some people don't value the religion. I see no reason to cater to those that don't

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

okay..okay.  Whatever..I just remember playing "house" and we would all get a dish towel or something and make a veil and all that.  I am so surprised that nobody did this.

Don't know how many times I married the dog..

I am sure it varies from community to community and probably has to do a great deal with whether or not a mother and/or father tells their children 'this is the way we did it'.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Calm

[Skylla]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Do you think a similar line of reasoning would apply to the LDS Church making the bride and groom its own "personal property," and hence has the right to exclude members of the family?

 

Your posts have been generating a lot of complaints like this one.  Less inflammatory pot stirring and more substance please.

Skylla

[Gray]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There are no spectators in the Temple. Some people don't value the religion. I see no reason to cater to those that don't

Everyone who attends a temple wedding is a spectator. They are not participating in an ordinance. Just watching one happen. 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

That is wonderful.  Both of you have the same expectations.  Of course she is being brought up to know that she will marry in the Temple..I understand that.

My husband would have been  proud to walk me daughter down the aisle..and she would have had no other way.  Good for you..just different culture or whatever but neither is right or wrong.  It is basically whatever people would like to have. 

And consiglieri, I was nine years old when sealed to my parents...darn ..I knew i had a recommend somewhere!

Thinking about that, are you saying that there is no advantage that a Temple marriage could offer that would have induced your daughter to give up a wedding venue that had the seating arranged to provide for an aisle, so that that traditional parade could be part of it?

 

[Yirgacheffe]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But don't you see? The whole concept of "walking down the aisle" is entirely a function of the arrangement of the seats. What happens when the seats aren't arranged in two equal blocks with an aisle between, leading from the door to the altar? Does that cause the whole wedding to collapse?

It just so happens that the seats aren't arranged in that way in the Temple, and the ordinance is free of all that sumptuous parading. So even if non-members were invited in, there still wouldn't be anything for them to do.

 

I said nothing in this thread at all about LDS weddings, or about the necessity of "walking down the isle".  I just object to trashing  the tradition or the insistence that it HAS to mean "the the bride is property".

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So even if non-members were invited in, there still wouldn't be anything for them to do.

Except witness a couple get married.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Everyone who attends a temple wedding is a spectator. They are not participating in an ordinance. Just watching one happen. 

 

There are no spectators in the Temple. All participate in the ceremony. Some just more than others.

[salgare]

16 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There are no spectators in the Temple. Some people don't value the religion. I see no reason to cater to those that don't

what? lets see, they show up in street clothes, other than official witnesses, everyone else is a spectator.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There are no spectators in the Temple. All participate in the ceremony. Some just more than others.

I've been to several temple weddings, including my own. The only one where I was participating in an ordinance was my own