Temple wedding policies

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Both can be done simultaneously ...

Can you please explain the physics behind this?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 you would shun your future in-laws

I find the word "shun" problematic when what it amounts to usually is about an hour's of separation and one event ( granted it is the most important event of the day) out of what are usually several in one day of their entire life.

I was too young to attend my older sister's Temple wedding.  I didn't see her second because she eloped to Las Vegas.  We have spent hours, days, and weeks between those hours and since then together.  Where have I been shunned by her?

  "Shunning" comes across as way too loaded and misrepresenting of the case.  One can say they areignoring their needs or being neglected, but shunning is actively avoiding someone for the sake of avoiding them, that is the purpose.  People aren't having Temple weddings in order to prevent their relatives from being at their wedding.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I find the word "shun" problematic when what it amounts to usually is about an hour's of separation and one event ( granted it is the most important event of the day) out of what are usually several in one day of their entire life.

I was too young to attend my older sister's Temple wedding.  I didn't see her second because she eloped to Las Vegas.  We have spent hours, days, and weeks between those hours and since then together.  Where have I been shunned by her?

  "Shunning" comes across as way too loaded and misrepresenting of the case.  One can say they areignoring their needs or being neglected, but shunning is actively avoiding someone for the sake of avoiding them, that is the purpose.  People aren't having Temple weddings in order to prevent their relatives from being at their wedding.

This is a fair criticism and I regret the poor word choice. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

People aren't having Temple weddings in order to prevent their relatives from being at their wedding.

Agreed, though I have a couple of friends (including a former housemate) who have expressed gratitude about how having a temple marriage protected them from unwelcomed intrusions by aggressive family members who otherwise would have attempted to take over the wedding (and wedding day) and make it all about them and their aspirations.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Yirgacheffe]

On 5/15/2017 at 3:11 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I've not seen it done at the (admittedly few) non-LDS weddings I've attended

I've seen it done at almost every single wedding I've attended, over my life between my family, all those siblings, cousins, nieces & nephews and my husband's even bigger family, then add in our friends and co-workers I'm easily at 70 weddings and at everyone of them dad (or occasionally mom and dad) walked the bride down the isle.  The only exception to the walking down the isle was one co-worker of DH at that one the bride and groom came from either side and met in the middle of the church.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

If the civil marriage carries no eternal significance and is only done to satisfy worldly laws than there is no conflict with the temple sealing.  Both can be done simultaneously without one affecting the other.  The duality you speak of doesn't exist. 

I don't have any issue with them both being performed simultaneously.

I think the problem occurs when someone, of their own free will, chooses to place civil marriage ahead of authentic marriage.

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Can you please explain the physics behind this?

I mean "same day" as opposed to a year apart. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't have any issue with them both being performed simultaneously.

I think the problem occurs when someone, of their own free will, chooses to place civil marriage ahead of authentic marriage.

What do you mean by "ahead"?

Is there a doctrinal reason why one can't have a civil marriage the morning of their temple sealing?  What will have been lost?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Not any more. That is a change within the last several years or so. There are only sealings in temples now.

That's interesting. I had an uncle who just had a temple marriage for time within the last 1-2 years(ish).

Regardless, the temple marriage for time is a practice that happened for many years and I suspect was happening at the time of Kimball's speeches. So historically there has been a difference between temple marriage and temple sealing.

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't have any issue with them both being performed simultaneously.

I think the problem occurs when someone, of their own free will, chooses to place civil marriage ahead of authentic marriage.

civil marriage is authentic marriage, of course.  People who get married and aren't LDS are marrying authentically. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What do you mean by "ahead"?

As in giving primacy to.

I guess I’m thinking of it like this: there are two marriage institutions, one ordained by God and one ordained by man. Which one is the one that you seek to obtain first?

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Is there a doctrinal reason why one can't have a civil marriage the morning of their temple sealing?  What will have been lost?

Perhaps the only thing that will have been lost is the potential opportunity to demonstrate that, when it comes to marriage, you are willing to put God first regardless of the cost.

It makes me think of the following passages of scripture:

Quote

And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. […] And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.

Perhaps I’m just being insensitive, but much of the discussion around this topic comes off this way to me: Oh, I want to be sealed in the temple; that’s obviously the most important thing, but…

But nothing. The only reason our non-member loved ones cannot enter the temple beside us is because they have exercised their moral agency and have refused to accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m doubtful that a change in policy would do anything to change their disposition. 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

But nothing. The only reason our non-member loved ones cannot enter the temple beside us is because they have exercised their moral agency and have refused to accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m doubtful that a change in policy would do anything to change their disposition. 

 

 

You're right. If only those dirt-bag non-members would wise up and stop refusing the gospel. When you think about them being left out of their loved-one's wedding, they really deserve to be left out. Rebellious schmucks  

MOD: tone it down

[Amulek]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't have any issue with them both being performed simultaneously.

I think the problem occurs when someone, of their own free will, chooses to place civil marriage ahead of authentic marriage.

civil marriage is authentic marriage, of course.  People who get married and aren't LDS are marrying authentically. 

Sure, but for time only. 

I'm using the term "authentic marriage" here to refer to the only kind of marriage that God will recognize as being eternally enduring (i.e., the sealing ordinance).

I was going to use the phrase "temple marriage" originally, but I noticed that that expression seemed to be causing some confusion previously because that term is understood by many to include both the civil marriage and the sealing ordinance.

 

 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure, but for time only. 

I'm using the term "authentic marriage" here to refer to the only kind of marriage that God will recognize as being eternally enduring (i.e., the sealing ordinance).

I was going to use the phrase "temple marriage" originally, but I noticed that that expression seemed to be causing some confusion previously because that term is understood by many to include both the civil marriage and the sealing ordinance.

 

 

I'm certain God will recognize more civil type marriages will last through eternity then the ones that we do in our temples.  I'm just saying, the sheer number imbalance has to mean something.  God sanctions most marriages, I say.  And all will receive their ordinance.  That's the whole point of temple work.  If we only do it partially we fail. 

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm certain God will recognize more civil type marriages will last through eternity then the ones that we do in our temples.  I'm just saying, the sheer number imbalance has to mean something.  God sanctions most marriages, I say.  And all will receive their ordinance.  That's the whole point of temple work.  If we only do it partially we fail. 

That seems like a strange way to phrase it. It's sort of like saying that God will recognize more Catholic and Protestant baptisms throughout eternity than those performed in the church because, you know...they will be able to receive the proper ordinance eventually through temple work. 

 

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

As in giving primacy to.

I guess I’m thinking of it like this: there are two marriage institutions, one ordained by God and one ordained by man. Which one is the one that you seek to obtain first?

 

Perhaps the only thing that will have been lost is the potential opportunity to demonstrate that, when it comes to marriage, you are willing to put God first regardless of the cost.

It makes me think of the following passages of scripture:

Perhaps I’m just being insensitive, but much of the discussion around this topic comes off this way to me: Oh, I want to be sealed in the temple; that’s obviously the most important thing, but…

But nothing. The only reason our non-member loved ones cannot enter the temple beside us is because they have exercised their moral agency and have refused to accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m doubtful that a change in policy would do anything to change their disposition. 

 

 

I believe that while our discipleship comes before family we can't forget that our family is also PART of our discipleship.  That's a teaching we hold dear in this church.

(Bold added by me.)

I think the statement of yours that I bolded is where we agree.

We shouldn't have a policy that creates the need to decide between civil marriage and a temple sealing when both can be (and frequently are) easily done.  I believe that those who are being sealed in the temple are putting God first.  Having a civil marriage to honor parents and other loved ones doesn't take anything away from that temple sealing.  I don't see how it is putting God second.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I believe that while our discipleship comes before family we can't forget that our family is also PART of our discipleship.  That's a teaching we hold dear in this church.

(Bold added by me.)

I think the statement of yours that I bolded is where we agree.

We shouldn't have a policy that creates the need to decide between civil marriage and a temple sealing when both can be (and frequently are) easily done.  I believe that those who are being sealed in the temple are putting God first.  Having a civil marriage to honor parents and other loved ones doesn't take anything away from that temple sealing.  I don't see how it is putting God second.

Bingo...how much easier is it for a couple to start a marriage where family members are happy and can co-exist with one another.  It is a tender time..and choice is everything.  Edited to add:..We are part of God's family...there shouldn't half to be a choice between the two.

Quote

So...rockpond..can't seem to delete this quote thing..so my quote of the day..."There is a difference between giving up and knowing when you have had enough."  

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Jeanne

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right. If only those dirt-bag non-members would wise up and stop refusing the gospel. When you think about them being left out of their loved-one's wedding, they really deserve to be left out. Rebellious schmucks 

He didn't say that they were dirt-bags. Most couples I know of didn't have whirlwind romances of meet one day and are married the next. It takes time and setting up a wedding party takes considerable time and money. If non-members really want to attend the answer is to become members. Be forewarned most Sealing Rooms in the Temple just aren't very big. Fitting in large numbers of people isn't possible.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 5/16/2017 at 8:47 AM, thesometimesaint said:

It costs less to go to Temple than a JoP.

We were married by a JoP it cost us nothing.

[thesometimesaint]

We were married in the Temple. My Father-in-Law paid me to take his daughter off his hands.

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

He didn't say that they were dirt-bags. Most couples I know of didn't have whirlwind romances of meet one day and are married the next. It takes time and setting up a wedding party takes considerable time and money. If non-members really want to attend the answer is to become members. Be forewarned most Sealing Rooms in the Temple just aren't very big. Fitting in large numbers of people isn't possible.

Replace "dirt-bags" with "heathens" if you prefer  

So your answer is that after a couple announces their engagement, the parents should go get baptized, wait the year to be endowed, and then attend the wedding?  How many Mormon engagements last longer than 1 year? 5%  maybe?

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I find the word "shun" problematic when what it amounts to usually is about an hour's of separation and one event ( granted it is the most important event of the day) out of what are usually several in one day of their entire life.

I was too young to attend my older sister's Temple wedding.  I didn't see her second because she eloped to Las Vegas.  We have spent hours, days, and weeks between those hours and since then together.  Where have I been shunned by her?

  "Shunning" comes across as way too loaded and misrepresenting of the case.  One can say they areignoring their needs or being neglected, but shunning is actively avoiding someone for the sake of avoiding them, that is the purpose.  People aren't having Temple weddings in order to prevent their relatives from being at their wedding.

Someone a couple of days ago used the term "ostracize." It's the same sort of thing: histrionic use of a loaded and misleading term as a weapon.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a fair criticism and I regret the poor word choice. 

If only the person who used the term "ostracize" had responded with such grace when called on it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Agreed, though I have a couple of friends (including a former housemate) who have expressed gratitude about how having a temple marriage protected them from unwelcomed intrusions by aggressive family members who otherwise would have attempted to take over the wedding (and wedding day) and make it all about them and their aspirations.

Heh. There's a certain delicious sense of poetic justice attendant to that.

[Jeanne]

36 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

We were married by a JoP it cost us nothing.

My husband and I paid for our own wedding..although Mom bought my dress..it was his second marriage and so it was the way to do things then.