Temple wedding policies

[mnn727]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Traditionally the groom's family pays for a meal for the wedding party between a wedding and a reception, generally called a wedding breakfast:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_breakfast

Never heard of that, been to a lot of weddings that never did that. From your link it appears to be a European thing.

[Calm]

Just now, mnn727 said:

Never heard of that, been to a lot of weddings that never did that. From your link it appears to be a European thing.

Every wedding I have been involved with or aware of all day plans in the US and Canada has done it (couple of dozen probably).

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Every wedding I have been involved with or aware of all day plans in the US and Canada has done it (couple of dozen probably).

Yup, that's my understanding as well.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's a new perspective that I don't think has really been looked at yet on this thread. 

 

To me, it seems consistent with the idea that has already been expressed here about not letting outside concerns interfere with a sacred ceremony, one that has been described as a three-way covenant involving the couple and the Lord. A man and woman who are mature in their understanding of the sacredness of this covenant will not allow anything to encroach upon the sanctity of the ceremony, not even concerns about relationships with other family members or friends, as important as those relationships are.

I believe the Brethren understand this (even if we don't) and that's why they have elected to leave the policy in place all these years.

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Never heard of that, been to a lot of weddings that never did that. From your link it appears to be a European thing.

We don't do it here. The last temple marriage I went to was in December, and afterwards everyone who wanted to join in was invited to a buffet restaurant, where we all paid for ourselves before making the long trip home. Simple.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We don't do it here. The last temple marriage I went to was in December, and afterwards everyone who wanted to join in was invited to a buffet restaurant, where we all paid for ourselves before making the long trip home. Simple.

I actually like that better. Anything to reduce the burden of cost is OK in my book. (I say that as one whose children are starting to approach adulthood.)

But the wedding breakfast does not have to be at an expensive restaurant or reception center. I recall that when my eldest brother got married (many, many moons ago), we set up tables in the living room of our farm house, and my mom prepared and served the feast.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

 It is pointless. 

Sure, if 

a) they don't really care if you are there or not 

or 

b) you look on the wedding ceremony as only meaningful if it works how you want it to work and you don't actually care if they would like you there or not.

If they want you there and you care about making the day as meaningful for them as you can, it won't be pointless.

And yes, I have been on the outside of the Temple for several weddings as I did not have my own endowment yet.  I have also had to tell my son that I might be present pretty much in body only when they chose St. George midsummer in the afternoon, but I was there without complaint even though the trip and heat made me miserable that entire weekend and stood where they told me to stand and smiled when expected and sometimes when not.  One can be quite joyful, but not particularly happy.  The day wasn't for me, but them, so why would I push them to choose instead one of the half dozen temples in an hour's drive and 10 degree cooler weather  so I could sleep the night before and actually be fully aware, not in pain and involved?

Edited May 19, 2017 by Calm

[sjdawg]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Sure, if 

a) they don't really care if you are there or not 

or 

b) you look on the wedding ceremony as only meaningful if it works how you want it to work and you don't actually care if they would like you there or not.

If they want you there and you care about making the day as meaningful for them as you can, it won't be pointless.

And yes, I have been on the outside of the Temple for several weddings as I did not have my own endowment yet.  I have also had to tell my son that I might be present pretty much in body only when they chose St. George midsummer in the afternoon, but I was there without complaint even though the trip and heat made me miserable that entire weekend and stood where they told me to stand and smiled when expected and sometimes when not.  One can be quite joyful, but not particularly happy.  The day wasn't for me, but them, so why would I push them to choose instead one of the half dozen temples in an hour's drive and 10 degree cooler weather  so I could sleep the night before and actually be fully aware, not in pain and involved?

I don't live near my family.  I have a hard time seeing the value in driving 6 hours then sitting in a visitors center while they have a ceremony I'm not attending.  I'm happy to go the the luncheon or reception where I am able to participate.  I also wouldn't attend a luncheon if I was being asked to sit outside instead of being invited it.  I'm not angry about not attending the ceremony.  I don't really care and find temple weddings boring. I prefer not to attend.  I just don't see any value in spending time waiting to see people walk out of the temple.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's a new perspective that I don't think has really been looked at yet on this thread. 

So are you saying that because a couple doesn't want to exclude non-LDS parents and loved ones from their wedding there is a good chance they aren't ready for temple covenants?

I’m surprised it’s new, but let me try to figure out what I think you’re asking what I’m saying:

I’m wondering who would expect to include someone without a recommend as a guest to a temple sealing; I’m thinking he is not ready for temple covenants.

I would think those with recommends would love to see their non-LDS parents and loved ones getting recommends and attending their temple ceremony, but (speaking from experience) are accustomed to them not having them, are realistic about the short view, and find comfort in the long view. I’m thinking they are ready for temple covenants.

I wouldn’t dream of asking a young couple, “Do you want to exclude your non-LDS parents and loved ones from your wedding?” I think it’s a loaded question, insensitive, unfair and rude. I think that I would be the one not ready to make a temple covenant!

I don’t think readiness to make and keep marriage temple covenants is a matter of what we want, or what we want for others, but a matter of what we are willing to choose to do with regards to timing and opportunities. Family relationships and traditions are universally precious; civil marriage as an extension of that is an admirable social aim; church/religious marriage a bit more so; temple marriage is all these, but also adds a degree of spiritual significance (selfless obedience, sacrifice, consecration, etc.) in connection with the prerequisite individual endowment.

I think that when one finds these values to be of equal and competing priority, he is not ready for the most integrated expression (the temple ceremony). Not that there’s anything wrong with that. He can still enjoy all the good the other relationships and institutions allow. Waiting isn’t the worst thing (I waited 5 years to be baptized). If he doesn’t understand that, then he should wait also.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Based on the handbook from the 1960s that explains the implementation of the policy, i think it exists because the Brethren (at the time and apparently now, though it could change) believe that purposefully rejecting a blessing from God by choosing to have a civil marriage instead, illustrates a flaw in understanding/sincerity/testimony that needs time to change.

Here is the relevant quote-

“Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage for reasons of their own, and afterward desire a sealing, they should be asked to wait for at least a year in which to demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing.”

That statement is highly problematic.

"Deliberately refuse"- As has been pointed out many times a temple wedding is not the same as a temple sealing. There is nothing special about a temple wedding. It holds no salvific power. The power is in the sealing. The church is creating the situation where members must choose between family and the temple wedding, which again, holds no salvific value. The couple is otherwise worthy except the church seems offended that a couple may choose the civil "marriage" over the temple. The church creates this problem by declaring that it must be their way or the couple is in rebellion be "deliberately refusing" the marriage in the temple. So sad.

"Asked to wait"- This is a euphemism. They aren't being asked to wait, they are being required to wait for "at least a year". A request is hardly the same things as  a requirement, which this is.

"Demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness"- This is definitely punitive. The church is requiring the couple prove that they really want to be sealed and are worthy beyond the regular temple worthiness requirements. This implies that a couple is "unworthy" to be sealed simply because they chose to be married civilly first, most likely so family could participate. Yet these individuals do not necessarily lose their temple recommends. They are worthy enough to attend the temple but not worthy enough to be sealed, which is the highest (common) ordinance for exaltation.

This statement is purely policy based on what appears to me to be a misunderstanding of the situation. If these people were truly in rebellion like leaders seemed to have thought in the 60's, it's hard to imagine them desiring a sealing. It also seems to make the distinction that this policy would apply to people who decide after their marriage that they also would like to be sealed, not for people who plan to be sealed but seek civil wedding and immediate sealing afterwards.

For me, that quote makes things worse.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’m surprised it’s new, but let me try to figure out what I think you’re asking what I’m saying:

 

1-I’m wondering who would expect to include someone without a recommend as a guest to a temple sealing; I’m thinking he is not ready for temple covenants.

 

I would think those with recommends would love to see their non-LDS parents and loved ones getting recommends and attending their temple ceremony, but (speaking from experience) are accustomed to them not having them, are realistic about the short view, and find comfort in the long view. I’m thinking they are ready for temple covenants.

 

2- I wouldn’t dream of asking a young couple, “Do you want to exclude your non-LDS parents and loved ones from your wedding?” I think it’s a loaded question, insensitive, unfair and rude. I think that I would be the one not ready to make a temple covenant!

 

3- I don’t think readiness to make and keep marriage temple covenants is a matter of what we want, or what we want for others, but a matter of what we are willing to choose to do with regards to timing and opportunities. Family relationships and traditions are universally precious; civil marriage as an extension of that is an admirable social aim; church/religious marriage a bit more so; temple marriage is all these, but also adds a degree of spiritual significance (selfless obedience, sacrifice, consecration, etc.) in connection with the prerequisite individual endowment.

 

4-I think that when one finds these values to be of equal and competing priority, he is not ready for the most integrated expression (the temple ceremony). Not that there’s anything wrong with that. He can still enjoy all the good the other relationships and institutions allow. Waiting isn’t the worst thing (I waited 5 years to be baptized). If he doesn’t understand that, then he should wait also.

1- I think you're misunderstanding the argument. I haven't seen anyone argue that non-worthy or non-members be permitted into the temple for the sealing. It's about choosing to have the non-temple ordinance of marriage outside of the temple so family can participate and then going to the temple for the sealing, at which only "qualified" individuals will attend.

2-Yes, that is the choice people are being asked to make even if the words are more flowery and less direct.

3- All of those benefits are realized through the sealing ordinance that may be more limited in scope of family participation. The wedding is separate. A couple could very easily accomplish both things: including loved ones and having the unique spiritual experience and blessings of the temple. It's a shame they are being forced to choose when it really isn't necessary.

4- It's a false choice. The church sets up the situation in which this becomes a competing priority, but it doesn't need to be. At that point it becomes a loyalty test to the church and a punishment is affixed if the individual fails the unreasonable and unnecessary loyalty test.

[mnn727]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Every wedding I have been involved with or aware of all day plans in the US and Canada has done it (couple of dozen probably).

In my 61 years on this planet I have honestly never of a wedding meal outside of a reception (where there is a lot of money involved)

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

In my 61 years on this planet I have honestly never of a wedding meal outside of a reception (where there is a lot of money involved)

Most of the weddings I've been a part of had a luncheon of some sort, including mine. It worked really great. We got married in the morning and then did pictures. Then had the luncheon before getting things ready for the evening reception. It was definitely an all day deal, but when people travel to the wedding it's very helpful. Not only did we have a nice lunch, but it was a less formal atmosphere where people could give advice. We had some music performed and it was really nice that the wedding party didn't have to entirely break up, go their own ways and then travel back for the reception later in the day.

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

In my 61 years on this planet I have honestly never of a wedding meal outside of a reception (where there is a lot of money involved)

 

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Most of the weddings I've been a part of had a luncheon of some sort, including mine. It worked really great. We got married in the morning and then did pictures. Then had the luncheon before getting things ready for the evening reception. It was definitely an all day deal, but when people travel to the wedding it's very helpful. Not only did we have a nice lunch, but it was a less formal atmosphere where people could give advice. We had some music performed and it was really nice that the wedding party didn't have to entirely break up, go their own ways and then travel back for the reception later in the day.

This is a pretty standard Mormon wedding schedule. I have found I prefer a later sealing that has the wedding party arriving to a reception immediately after the sealing. It is much easier on everyone. 

My favorite Mormon wedding was when the sealing was the last of the day at the salt lake temple, and the wedding party could walk across the street for the reception. So much nicer than driving all over the valley to the temple...to a restaurant...to someplace to hang out for hours and then to the reception.

I prefer informal luncheons where guests can mingle and are not stuck at an assigned table. Those are not too fun.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is a pretty standard Mormon wedding schedule. I have found I prefer a later sealing that has the wedding party arriving to a reception immediately after the sealing. It is much easier on everyone. 

My favorite Mormon wedding was when the sealing was the last of the day at the salt lake temple, and the wedding party could walk across the street for the reception. So much nicer than driving all over the valley to the temple...to a restaurant...to someplace to hang out for hours and then to the reception.

I prefer informal luncheons where guests can mingle and are not stuck at an assigned table. Those are not too fun.

We wanted to dispense with it all (reception, luncheon, etc.) and just leave after the sealing, but (as we've learned) a lot of the festivities aren't even for or about the couple. They are for the extended family. While the couple gets a lot of starting out things at the reception, the reception itself is actually more for the parents than for the couple, in my opinion. And that is as it should be.

We were even prevailed upon, and agreed to, open our presents at the end of the reception because people wanted to see what we got (as in, my wife's mother). We didn't leave for good until late that night because of that. But, it was fine, and I'm glad we could make people happy. In the scheme of things, a few more hours to a very long day isn't a big deal. 

[JulieM]

12 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Never heard of that, been to a lot of weddings that never did that. From your link it appears to be a European thing.

I've never attended a temple marriage for a family member or close friend where there wasn't a luncheon provided afterwards.  For one they even had catered, nice sandwiches delivered (by members not attending the sealing) and we just sat and ate on the big lawns on the temple ground (I was surprised that was allowed actually).

But for most, we've gone to a nearby restaurant and the groom's family paid.  It's mainly just the family and wedding party who are invited.

I think this evolved from the groom's family being responsible to provide and pay for a rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding for other marriages outside the church.

Edited May 19, 2017 by JulieM

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’m surprised it’s new, but let me try to figure out what I think you’re asking what I’m saying:

 

I’m wondering who would expect to include someone without a recommend as a guest to a temple sealing; I’m thinking he is not ready for temple covenants.

 

I would think those with recommends would love to see their non-LDS parents and loved ones getting recommends and attending their temple ceremony, but (speaking from experience) are accustomed to them not having them, are realistic about the short view, and find comfort in the long view. I’m thinking they are ready for temple covenants.

 

I wouldn’t dream of asking a young couple, “Do you want to exclude your non-LDS parents and loved ones from your wedding?” I think it’s a loaded question, insensitive, unfair and rude. I think that I would be the one not ready to make a temple covenant!

 

I don’t think readiness to make and keep marriage temple covenants is a matter of what we want, or what we want for others, but a matter of what we are willing to choose to do with regards to timing and opportunities. Family relationships and traditions are universally precious; civil marriage as an extension of that is an admirable social aim; church/religious marriage a bit more so; temple marriage is all these, but also adds a degree of spiritual significance (selfless obedience, sacrifice, consecration, etc.) in connection with the prerequisite individual endowment.

 

I think that when one finds these values to be of equal and competing priority, he is not ready for the most integrated expression (the temple ceremony). Not that there’s anything wrong with that. He can still enjoy all the good the other relationships and institutions allow. Waiting isn’t the worst thing (I waited 5 years to be baptized). If he doesn’t understand that, then he should wait also.

Nobody is suggesting that those without recommends be permitted to enter the temple.  That hasn't been a part of the conversation.

You say that you wouldn't dream of asking a young couple if they want to exclude non-LDS parents and loved ones from their wedding and yet the current church policy encourages that.  It makes the couple choose between including non-LDS family and being sealed at the time that they are wed.

Your last paragraph is what I found interesting and was asking about:  You characterize it as "equal and competing priorities".  I'm not sure I see it that way.  Why are the priorities in competition?  Why does wanting non-LDS loved ones to be able to witness your wedding mean that you are not ready for temple covenants?
 

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

We wanted to dispense with it all (reception, luncheon, etc.) and just leave after the sealing, but (as we've learned) a lot of the festivities aren't even for or about the couple. They are for the extended family. While the couple gets a lot of starting out things at the reception, the reception itself is actually more for the parents than for the couple, in my opinion. And that is as it should be.

We were even prevailed upon, and agreed to, open our presents at the end of the reception because people wanted to see what we got (as in, my wife's mother). We didn't leave for good until late that night because of that. But, it was fine, and I'm glad we could make people happy. In the scheme of things, a few more hours to a very long day isn't a big deal. 

I think the day is for the couple but it is nice when they are sensitive enough that they understand the day is also for their families and account for their needs too. Staying and opening presents was the kind thing to do. 😀

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That statement is highly problematic.

"Deliberately refuse"- As has been pointed out many times a temple wedding is not the same as a temple sealing. There is nothing special about a temple wedding. It holds no salvific power. The power is in the sealing. The church is creating the situation where members must choose between family and the temple wedding, which again, holds no salvific value. The couple is otherwise worthy except the church seems offended that a couple may choose the civil "marriage" over the temple. The church creates this problem by declaring that it must be their way or the couple is in rebellion be "deliberately refusing" the marriage in the temple. So sad.

"Asked to wait"- This is a euphemism. They aren't being asked to wait, they are being required to wait for "at least a year". A request is hardly the same things as  a requirement, which this is.

"Demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness"- This is definitely punitive. The church is requiring the couple prove that they really want to be sealed and are worthy beyond the regular temple worthiness requirements. This implies that a couple is "unworthy" to be sealed simply because they chose to be married civilly first, most likely so family could participate. Yet these individuals do not necessarily lose their temple recommends. They are worthy enough to attend the temple but not worthy enough to be sealed, which is the highest (common) ordinance for exaltation.

This statement is purely policy based on what appears to me to be a misunderstanding of the situation. If these people were truly in rebellion like leaders seemed to have thought in the 60's, it's hard to imagine them desiring a sealing. It also seems to make the distinction that this policy would apply to people who decide after their marriage that they also would like to be sealed, not for people who plan to be sealed but seek civil wedding and immediate sealing afterwards.

For me, that quote makes things worse.

 

I've already been over this multiple times in the thread and I don't see any reason to do it all again.  

I disagree with your assessment but we've all got our own opinions.  Rehashing them over and over and over again trying to prove that our opinion is actually the correct one certainly isn't changing anyone's mind so agreeing to disagree seems like a good option at this point.  

Edit to add

The value of the quote is that it is the only explanation that we have for the motives behind the policy from the actual people who implemented it.   A lot of this thread has been devoted to making statements of fact about the motives of our leaders that aren't supported by anything but assumption and interpretation.

The quote at least is a primary reference.  It's not necessarily about making anyone feel better or worse, but it personally makes me feel better because at least it allows our leaders to somewhat speak for themselves (I say somewhat because it is very outdated and is no longer in the handbook).   Having some primary sources in a discussion always make me feel better.

Edited May 19, 2017 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've already been over this multiple times in the thread and I don't see any reason to do it all again.  

I disagree with your assessment but we've all got our own opinions.  Rehashing them over and over and over again trying to prove that our opinion is actually the correct one certainly isn't changing anyone's mind so agreeing to disagree seems like a good option at this point.  

Edit to add

The value of the quote is that it is the only explanation that we have for the motives behind the policy from the actual people who implemented it.   A lot of this thread has been devoted to making statements of fact about the motives of our leaders that aren't supported by anything but assumption and interpretation.

The quote at least is a primary reference.  It's not necessarily about making anyone feel better or worse, but it personally makes me feel better because at least it allows our leaders to somewhat speak for themselves (I say somewhat because it is very outdated and is no longer in the handbook).   Having some primary sources in a discussion always make me feel better.

Fair enough about the rehashing.

I think you tend to misread peoples statements of opinion as fact quite often. I don't recall ever seeing anyone claim that what they say is fact. They are stating opinions unless they indicate otherwise at which time a CFR would be appropriate. I take everyone's statements, even yours, as opinion and don't take them as your claims of undeniable facts.

You're right that the statement is all we have to understand the leader's motives and intent with the policy, we just disagree about whether that is positive or negative. Regardless of how I feel about the quote, I'm glad you found and provided it.

[Rain]

 

 

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've heard of other Bishops making similar statements in non-temple weddings that they performed.   Very sad thought I do believe it is rare.

Please tell me this doesn't happen often. 

 

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I actually like that better. Anything to reduce the burden of cost is OK in my book. (I say that as one whose children are starting to approach adulthood.)

But the wedding breakfast does not have to be at an expensive restaurant or reception center. I recall that when my eldest brother got married (many, many moons ago), we set up tables in the living room of our farm house, and my mom prepared and served the feast.

My MIL had ours at the church. My husband's family (aunts, uncles etc) is large and they all pulled it together like a family reunion. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Fair enough about the rehashing.

I think you tend to misread peoples statements of opinion as fact quite often. I don't recall ever seeing anyone claim that what they say is fact. They are stating opinions unless they indicate otherwise at which time a CFR would be appropriate. I take everyone's statements, even yours, as opinion and don't take them as your claims of undeniable facts.

You're right that the statement is all we have to understand the leader's motives and intent with the policy, we just disagree about whether that is positive or negative. Regardless of how I feel about the quote, I'm glad you found and provided it.

If i say "HappyJackWagon is misleading people" then that's a statement of fact.  If i said that on this thread, you would probably, going by what has transpired in past threads, issue a CFR (and you would have good reason to do so). 

To interpret a statement like that as a statement of fact would not be misreading the statement.  It was, in all actually, presented as a fact and it's reasonable for people to read it that way.

When people say, "this policy is punitive," it's reasonable to interpret that as them stating what they believe to be a fact.  

(And to be clear, i don't believe you are misleading anyone).

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

My MIL had ours at the church. My husband's family (aunts, uncles etc) is large and they all pulled it together like a family reunion. 

Love it. Green Jell-O, funeral potatoes, and all the tasty trimmings.

 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've already been over this multiple times in the thread and I don't see any reason to do it all again.  

I disagree with your assessment but we've all got our own opinions.  Rehashing them over and over and over again trying to prove that our opinion is actually the correct one certainly isn't changing anyone's mind so agreeing to disagree seems like a good option at this point.  

Edit to add

The value of the quote is that it is the only explanation that we have for the motives behind the policy from the actual people who implemented it.   A lot of this thread has been devoted to making statements of fact about the motives of our leaders that aren't supported by anything but assumption and interpretation.

The quote at least is a primary reference.  It's not necessarily about making anyone feel better or worse, but it personally makes me feel better because at least it allows our leaders to somewhat speak for themselves (I say somewhat because it is very outdated and is no longer in the handbook).   Having some primary sources in a discussion always make me feel better.

THis thread has gone on way too long, I agree.  It's been repeat after repeat.

But, I have to wonder what you mean.

Here's the quote:

Quote

Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage for reasons of their own, and afterward desire a sealing, they should be asked to wait for at least a year in which to demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing.”

I don't see how this quote speaks to the motives of those implementing the policy.  It just clarifies a penalty to those who wish to get married with family. 

It'd be really odd to say a couple who wishes to get married with their family and be sealed are said to be deliberately refusing temple marriage, but this quote seems to really question the motives of those who want to get married with family. 

In the end, though, the Church is a pretty different beast then it was 50 years ago, luckily in most cases.  It's too bad the Church suggested there should be a penalty for people as the Church questioned their sincerity and worthiness.  Luckily we don't get that like of language and across the board condemnation from the Church these days--at least they try to be more thoughtful and such.  They steer far away from questioning motives too much.  And that's a good thing. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I don't live near my family.  I have a hard time seeing the value in driving 6 hours then sitting in a visitors center while they have a ceremony I'm not attending.  I'm happy to go the the luncheon or reception where I am able to participate.  I also wouldn't attend a luncheon if I was being asked to sit outside instead of being invited it.  I'm not angry about not attending the ceremony.  I don't really care and find temple weddings boring. I prefer not to attend.  I just don't see any value in spending time waiting to see people walk out of the temple.

Before you make a decision not to attend, do you ask the couple why they invited you?  

You can certainly completely ignore the desires of the wedding couple, but that seems to also ignore one of the purposes of that day.