Scott Lloyd Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 14 minutes ago, sheilauk said: I've not much experience but have attended 3 LDS weddings in the UK. none of them were lavish, but neither were the half dozen non LDS weddings I've been to. where I live, lavish isn't yet the norm, as much because people can't afford it as anything else. Most had the reception in the cultural hall. also, my understanding is that you have to be sealed the same day or you have to wait the year. This means the couple have to leave the reception early and rush off to one of the temples, making for a long day. The temples often stay open late especially to accommodate them (the nearest temple to me is a 3 hour drive, the other is 4 hours). I have been to one other wedding, in Finland, which accepts temple marriage. several family and friends didn't have a recommend but came to the temple and waited and were then in the photos. none of them complained about not seeing the ceremony and they said they'd gad a great time socialising together. The bride's parents weren't able to attend because they couldn't afford to travel from the USA, so missed it anyway. They didn't express anything but support for their daughters decision, though I'm sure they were disappointed. In Finland, the tradition is to hold the reception on a different day to the wedding which reduces the stress a lot! so there were just close family and friends at the wedding, everyone else came to the reception, held in the cultural hall. It wasn't a lavish either, but that was the couples choice, many receptions in Finland are apparently (so I'm told). personally, I think the wedding etc should be entirely and only what the couple want to do, it's their day, no one else's and no one, including parents should complain about their choice or pressurise them. parents should be supportive not causing more stress. (My sister who is not LDS years ago chose to marry without my parents there or her sisters! We were disappointed but respected her choice and said nothing to her). doing both ceremonies on the same day is stressful though I don't think the sealing ceremony was diminished for those I know who have done it, being sealed was very important to them which is why they took the time and effort. The couple who didn't still aren't sealed, several years later and have gone less active. Thanks. I thought about asking for your observations/experiences, but didn't want to be presumptuous.
sheilauk Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Thanks. I thought about asking for your observations/experiences, but didn't want to be presumptuous. Please always feel free to ask! its not presumptuous. sometimes, I mean to post but don't get round to it so it would prompt me! and I'm always happy to answer questions. Over the years, I've been to all sorts of weddings of family and friends, both civil and religious. The only consistency I've found - every one is different! (that goes for schedules, meals, receptions, pre wedding events, gifts etc) i think it works best if all participants concentrate on making it the couples day and it being about their union and not imposing ones own wishes or making it about anyone else. 3
probablyHagoth7 Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 5 hours ago, CV75 said: I remember things being just a bit more calm. More like a Hobbit second breakfast.
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 6 hours ago, ttribe said: The civil marriage and temple sealing are separate in virtually every other country and *Pandora's box* doesn't seem to have opened up. I don't think anyone has yet established this first point, and I, in fact, rather doubt it. As I mentioned earlier, I live in a nation where temple marriages are legally binding, and I know that this is the case in literally every other nation in our broad region. One of my current housemates is from West Africa, and I just asked him about the situation there. He said temple marriages are recognised there. So thus far it looks like we have three European nations that don't recognise temple marriage as legally binding (Germany, Austria, and the UK), two in the Americas (Mexico and Argentina), plus some Brazilian states but not the most populated ones. In addition, I also found an article in the Ensign suggesting that India does not recognise temple marriages from the Hong Kong Temple. I'm happy to be corrected with hard data, but until then, I call shenanigans on the 'virtually every other country' argument. We have a Mexican couple in our ward. They're not at church most Sundays because of their crazy work schedules, but I'll ask them a bit about Mexico when I get a chance. Until someone can expand our list, it would appear that Mexico would be the place with the most members impacted by the need to blend a civil and a temple marriage. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Calm said: I would be interested to hear how weddings outside Canada and the US are generally. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, weddings here are elaborate and very expensive affairs. Families often save up for years in order to afford them, and I have friends who've lived together for years before marrying for that same reason. Money is pumped into employing professional marriage celebrants, renting wedding halls and reception centres, hiring and buying clothing, buying flower arrangements, hiring expensive cars, paying for DJs, and providing elaborate multi-course sit-down dinners for hundreds of people at the reception. Then there's the alcohol. I've had people tell me the tab for alcohol for their weddings went over $10,000. The LDS weddings I've attended here have tended to fall into one of two camps. The first (and smaller) is a modest imitation of a worldly wedding. This would usually involve a catered meal at a reception centre after the ring ceremony. These couples usually choose to have bridesmaids and groomsmen, though their sole purpose seems to be to appear in photos and sit together at the reception. I've been a groomsman for one of my best mates before, and it seemed silly to me, but it was up to him. The vast majority of the LDS weddings I've attended have been much freer. (And I personally feel this is one of the greatest blessings about how marriage is handled in the Church.) With the entire emphasis on temple marriage, everything else is just a simple celebration. The last temple marriage I attended was in December, and it was for one of my former Young Men and his wife (the sole member in her family). She had a simple dress; he wore a simple suit. After some photos on the temple grounds with everyone who was there (no formal photographer), the newlyweds took their nieces, nephews, and younger siblings all swimming in a local pool for a couple of hours. Then, as I mentioned above, we all re-congregated at an Asian buffet for dinner, each person buying her/his own. Two months later, the couple held a reception, which was a simple home-cooked dinner in the church hall. They asked for no presents, just cash to help them establish a home. (She just finished her midwifery degree, and he's casually employed.) All fantastically simple! We had a stake event earlier today, and one of the couples there (they now have four kids), had a pot-luck dinner at the chapel for their reception. I've heard them talk about how much they enjoyed not being distracted by other things. One of my previous housemates married one of my best friends, and they had simple snacks in the church hall after their ring ceremony. They both said that was really all they wanted to do, but they felt compelled to hold a formal reception later that evening for their family and friends who expected something more typical. It was expensive, so they just invited the ones they felt had demanded a 'proper' wedding plus a few of the rest of us to make it fun for them. Edited May 20, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan 1
mnn727 Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 9 hours ago, ttribe said: This seems an unfounded fear given that the civil marriage and temple sealing are separate in virtually every other country and *Pandora's box* doesn't seem to have opened up. In countries where you must be married civilly, you go in front of a clerk/magistrate - not a minister in a church.
Rain Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 10 hours ago, bsjkki said: Interesting guide for non-members attending a Mormon wedding. I had not known about the tradition of dancing with the bride and giving money until attending a non temple Mormon wedding in the mid-west. https://www.thoughtco.com/mormon-wedding-basics-2159050 It is only traditional in some culrures/areas of the country. I have only seen it done once and it was at a sealing celebration for our Hispanic neighbors. What I have seen from nonmembers across the states on another board is that it is done almost every time in some areas and looked at as vulgar in other areas. 2
sheilauk Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 2 hours ago, mnn727 said: In countries where you must be married civilly, you go in front of a clerk/magistrate - not a minister in a church. Not in the UK. In the UK you must be married publicly, but religious weddings can be valid - most Christian churches are okay, in fact the Anglican church has an obligation to marry anyone who asks because they are the State religion so ministers often marry people, in fact the vast majority of weddings I've attended have been church weddings and many LDS bishops are wedding celebrants - all the LDS weddings in the UK I've attended were conducted by the Bishop in the chapel, sometimes with a civil registrar (clerk) present. 4
CV75 Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 9 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said: I remember things being just a bit more calm. More like a Hobbit second breakfast. That's my typical response to dessert...
Calm Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 6 hours ago, mnn727 said: In countries where you must be married civilly, you go in front of a clerk/magistrate - not a minister in a church. CFR please
Scott Lloyd Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 5 hours ago, sheilauk said: Not in the UK. In the UK you must be married publicly, but religious weddings can be valid - most Christian churches are okay, in fact the Anglican church has an obligation to marry anyone who asks because they are the State religion so ministers often marry people, in fact the vast majority of weddings I've attended have been church weddings and many LDS bishops are wedding celebrants - all the LDS weddings in the UK I've attended were conducted by the Bishop in the chapel, sometimes with a civil registrar (clerk) present. In locales where a temple marriage isn't recognized by the law of the land, I wonder how many of the LDS couples would prefer to dispense with the civil ceremony if they could and just have the temple marriage suffice.
sheilauk Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In locales where a temple marriage isn't recognized by the law of the land, I wonder how many of the LDS couples would prefer to dispense with the civil ceremony if they could and just have the temple marriage suffice. I don't know. I've never asked that. I know my friend in Finland was happy not to have to have the civil ceremony (she moved there from the UK to marry a Finn so otherwise would have expected to do both). I may try to ask a few, though obviously it would be of limited value as a poll! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, sheilauk said: I don't know. I've never asked that. I know my friend in Finland was happy not to have to have the civil ceremony (she moved there from the UK to marry a Finn so otherwise would have expected to do both). I may try to ask a few, though obviously it would be of limited value as a poll! The question arises in my mind, because there seems to be almost an envy on this side of the Atlantic among some few who are clamoring for the Church to do things here the way it does them in places where the temple ceremony is not recognized by law as a marriage. It would be ironic indeed if it turned out that those who are being envied actually would prefer to dispense with the requirement that there be a civil ceremony.
Calm Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 Always greener... It is easy to see the negatives as well as the positives in one's own situation. Not so easy from afar, especially when your knowledge is superficial and you have no idea of the details. 4
Rain Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The question arises in my mind, because there seems to be almost an envy on this side of the Atlantic among some few who are clamoring for the Church to do things here the way it does them in places where the temple ceremony is not recognized by law as a marriage. It would be ironic indeed if it turned out that those who are being envied actually would prefer to dispense with the requirement that there be a civil ceremony. You would have to compare like with like on it. For example comparing couples who only want witnesses attending there with couples who only want witnesses attending here or comparing couples who want many family members who can't go in there with couples who want many family members who can't go in here. 2
ttribe Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 13 hours ago, mnn727 said: In countries where you must be married civilly, you go in front of a clerk/magistrate - not a minister in a church. If I understand correctly, the general law is that weddings must be performed in a public place. I realize that LDS couples in many European countries may follow the process you mention, but I'm not sure that it is required. That being said, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, ttribe said: If I understand correctly, the general law is that weddings must be performed in a public place. I realize that LDS couples in many European countries may follow the process you mention, but I'm not sure that it is required. That being said, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic. Presumably, appearing before a clerk or magistrate would fulfill the requirement that it be in a public place.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Rain said: You would have to compare like with like on it. For example comparing couples who only want witnesses attending there with couples who only want witnesses attending here or comparing couples who want many family members who can't go in there with couples who want many family members who can't go in here. Wishing family members who are ineligible to enter the temple could be present for a marriage ceremony would not necessarily mean one would be in favor of the law not recognizing a temple marriage. One could have conflicting desires.
ttribe Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Presumably, appearing before a clerk or magistrate would fulfill the requirement that it be in a public place. Of course. But that tells us nothing about whether the law would recognize a wedding performed in a church.
ttribe Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I don't think anyone has yet established this first point, and I, in fact, rather doubt it. As I mentioned earlier, I live in a nation where temple marriages are legally binding, and I know that this is the case in literally every other nation in our broad region. One of my current housemates is from West Africa, and I just asked him about the situation there. He said temple marriages are recognised there. So thus far it looks like we have three European nations that don't recognise temple marriage as legally binding (Germany, Austria, and the UK), two in the Americas (Mexico and Argentina), plus some Brazilian states but not the most populated ones. In addition, I also found an article in the Ensign suggesting that India does not recognise temple marriages from the Hong Kong Temple. I'm happy to be corrected with hard data, but until then, I call shenanigans on the 'virtually every other country' argument. We have a Mexican couple in our ward. They're not at church most Sundays because of their crazy work schedules, but I'll ask them a bit about Mexico when I get a chance. Until someone can expand our list, it would appear that Mexico would be the place with the most members impacted by the need to blend a civil and a temple marriage. France requires a public marriage as well. As to your "shenanigans" comment, that's just acting in bad faith on your part. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm not intentionally misrepresenting anything. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, ttribe said: France requires a public marriage as well. As to your "shenanigans" comment, that's just acting in bad faith on your part. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm not intentionally misrepresenting anything. Apparently, the nations that won't recognize temple marriages are ones that have government sponsored state churches. The Founding Fathers of the United States wouldn't abide that. The establishment clause of the First Amendment directly addresses that. I'm grateful for religious liberty. Edited May 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
sheilauk Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Apparently, the nations that won't recognize temple marriages are ones that have government sponsored state churches. The Founding Fathers of the United States wouldn't abide that. The establishment clause of the First Amendment directly addresses that. I'm grateful for religious liberty. Not sure it's possible to draw that correlation. Do we know all the countries that don't recognise temple marriages? The UK recognises many religious marriages, not just the state church ones and always has. also, would the USA be happy with temple marriages if they weren't already being done when Utah joined the Union? not that I disagree with the separation of state and church, just that I'm not sure that's the reason for failing to accept temple marriages. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, sheilauk said: Not sure it's possible to draw that correlation. Do we know all the countries that don't recognise temple marriages? Your right in that I don't have all the facts necessary to draw a hard-and-fast conclusion. It was only a suggestion based on my observation that temple marriages are not recognized in at least some nations of Europe that have state churches, including Germany, France, the U.K. and, at least when I was there on my mission 40 years ago, Sweden. Quote The UK recognises many religious marriages, not just the state church ones and always has. Point taken. But if the government recognizes only some religious marriages and not all of them, that is still something that would be forbidden by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which proscribes laws "respecting an establishment of religion." Quote also, would the USA be happy with temple marriages if they weren't already being done when Utah joined the Union? When Utah was still a territory, before it achieved statehood, Church members endured a great deal of government oppression over plural marriage. But as far as I understand, the government was fine with monogamous marriages performed by the Church, even back then. Quote not that I disagree with the separation of state and church, just that I'm not sure that's the reason for failing to accept temple marriages. And you may very well be right about that. Again it was only a suggestion. Edited May 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
sunstoned Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 On 5/20/2017 at 7:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Presumably, appearing before a clerk or magistrate would fulfill the requirement that it be in a public place. As would a nice church wedding with all the family and friends in attendance.
sunstoned Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Apparently, the nations that won't recognize temple marriages are ones that have government sponsored state churches. The Founding Fathers of the United States wouldn't abide that. The establishment clause of the First Amendment directly addresses that. I'm grateful for religious liberty. I think it is much less a issue of which religion is performing the service and more of an issue of it being open to the public or not.
Recommended Posts