Popular Post MustardSeed Posted May 7, 2019 Popular Post Posted May 7, 2019 I have attended wedding ceremonies ad nauseum and I would say that 80% have been sacred ceremonies and very important rituals. Parents look forward to participating in the future wedding of their child. Giving a child away is a meaningful tradition in our culture. Not everyone values tradition. I know people who refuse to attend funerals. Fine. The rest of us attend for many reasons- not the least of which is closure. We don’t have funerals to benefit the dead, it’s to benefit the living. Witnessing a legal wedding is deeply symbolic to many people. It is a sacred statement of commitment to God and Spouse. It is like graduation for relatives- look what WE did, we raised someone and now they are moving on. That moment, announcing husband and wife, that moment parents give away their child to the other, the walking the bride down the aisle- these things are very very important to many people. Just as reading a eulogy, gathering to see a graveside service, blowing out candles, walking across a stage to be handed a “diploma” — these things represent a new phase of life and to witness it grants us all the ability to relate in a new way to the person. Let them eat cake.. or have it AND eat it Weddings are not sins. Never have been, but we sure know how to make people feel less than, don’t we? 6
bluebell Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I have attended wedding ceremonies ad nauseum and I would say that 80% have been sacred ceremonies and very important rituals. Parents look forward to participating in the future wedding of their child. Giving a child away is a meaningful tradition in our culture. This has been my experience as well, with weddings of people who are not members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has not been my experience with the civil ceremonies that I have attended for members though. I have no doubt that those kinds of ceremonies happen, it just hasn't been my experience. Quote Not everyone values tradition. I know people who refuse to attend funerals. Fine. The rest of us attend for many reasons- not the least of which is closure. We don’t have funerals to benefit the dead, it’s to benefit the living. Witnessing a legal wedding is deeply symbolic to many people. It is a sacred statement of commitment to God and Spouse. It is like graduation for relatives- look what WE did, we raised someone and now they are moving on. That moment, announcing husband and wife, that moment parents give away their child to the other, the walking the bride down the aisle- these things are very very important to many people. Just as reading a eulogy, gathering to see a graveside service, blowing out candles, walking across a stage to be handed a “diploma” — these things represent a new phase of life and to witness it grants us all the ability to relate in a new way to the person. Let them eat cake.. or have it AND eat it Weddings are not sins. Never have been, but we sure know how to make people feel less than, don’t we? My husband doesn't like funerals and is always telling me he doesn't want one. I tell him right back that he'd better hope I die first then because otherwise, he's having a funeral! I think a lot of problems come when people, who hold a specific belief or perspective, try to make others feel guilty because they don't have the same belief or perspective. If we, as humans, could stop doing that I think a lot of unnecessary hard feelings wouldn't exist. For most things, it's not a sin (or inferior or second-best, etc.) to see things differently than we do or do things differently than how we would do them. It's hard for us humans to remember that but I think if we could it would really help a lot. 1
MustardSeed Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: This has been my experience as well, with weddings of people who are not members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has not been my experience with the civil ceremonies that I have attended for members though. I have no doubt that those kinds of ceremonies happen, it just hasn't been my experience. It was for my husband. I would assume that most people give up that dream when they are taught that they should marry in the temple and not shoot for a civil. 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: think a lot of problems come when people, who hold a specific belief or perspective, try to make others feel guilty because they don't have the same belief or perspective. If we, as humans, could stop doing that I think a lot of unnecessary hard feelings wouldn't exist. For most things, it's not a sin (or inferior or second-best, etc.) to see things differently than we do or do things differently than how we would do them. It's hard for us humans to remember that but I think if we could it would really help a lot. 100%. I would never minimize someone else’s preference to forgo a civil and simply marry in the temple. 2
MustardSeed Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: 100%. I would never minimize someone else’s preference to forgo a civil and simply marry in the temple. I'm quoting myself. Honest question - does the way I've been talking here make people feel as though their thoughts and preferences are wrong in my eyes? I think maybe. Open to feedback. I would like this site to be more open than I experience it, and I don't want to be part of the problem but we don't always see ourselves clearly.
Calm Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 I see you as expressing your own experience and not judging others for feeling differently. You tend to be careful about that imo. 3
6EQUJ5 Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 16 hours ago, Gray said: If a policy forced your hand, should you even get any celestial credit for making the right choice? Do you even priesthood, bro?
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Bingo. They've just positioned their policies so that the minute a judge orders them to comply with current marriage equality laws they can pull the trigger. Then it's a simple "bring your legal marriage certificate and if you are otherwise worthy we will seal you". They may not need to for years but now we're prepared for that eventual lawsuit. It's almost certainly the same as with scouting. The government does not force us to marry heterosexual people who want a sealing. The idea that they are going to mandate gay marriage in the temple is unjustified paranoia. I think any government that is that oppressive will have already shut down our temples. Edited May 7, 2019 by The Nehor 2
bluebell Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 Just now, The Nehor said: The government does not force us to marry heterosexual people who want a sealing. The idea that they are going to mandate gay marriage in the temple is unjustified paranoia. I think by the time any government that is that oppressive will have already shut down our temples. I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe that the government might try to mandate that no one is allowed to perform legal marriages if they refuse to perform SSM. 2
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe that the government might try to mandate that no one is allowed to perform legal marriages if they refuse to perform SSM. At which point they would just take away the ability for all religious leaders to perform marriages. They can still do that. I do not think they would do that. The uproar would be.......large and include most of Christianity, Judaism, eastern faiths, Islam, whackjobs who made up fake churches so they can be a minister and marry their friends, pastafarians, etc. Who would commit that kind of political suicide? Edited May 7, 2019 by The Nehor
bluebell Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: At which point they would just take away the ability for all religious leaders to perform marriages. They can still do that. Maybe but they wouldn't have to. They could still allow religious leaders to perform marriages if they didn't discriminate against SSM. Quote I do not think they would do that. The uproar would be.......large and include most of Christianity, Judaism, eastern faiths, Islam, whackjobs who made up fake churches so they can be a minister and marry their friends, pastafarians, etc. Who would commit that kind of political suicide? People used to say that same thing about legalized gay marriage. It seems like after a certain point, it stops being political suicide.
Gray Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 36 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Do you even priesthood, bro? Yes. I'm swol in the priesthood. 1
Gray Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 17 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Bingo. They've just positioned their policies so that the minute a judge orders them to comply with current marriage equality laws they can pull the trigger. Then it's a simple "bring your legal marriage certificate and if you are otherwise worthy we will seal you". They may not need to for years but now we're prepared for that eventual lawsuit. It's almost certainly the same as with scouting. There is no basis in law or fact for the notion that temples would be required to marry gay couples.
Gray Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: People used to say that same thing about legalized gay marriage. It seems like after a certain point, it stops being political suicide. Did you know it's still legal for churches to exclude anyone they like? The government can't stop a church from excluding black people, or veterans, the disabled, or anyone else. In US law churches have carte blanche for discrimination, so long as they are not taking government funds to perform a public service. 2
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, bluebell said: Maybe but they wouldn't have to. They could still allow religious leaders to perform marriages if they didn't discriminate against SSM. People used to say that same thing about legalized gay marriage. It seems like after a certain point, it stops being political suicide. The difference is that religious marriage administrators are not required to marry anyone now. I cannot go to a rabbi and demand that he marry me and my bride (or me and my groom). They already discriminate, usually on religious affiliation and can charge whatever they want. The government also has officers who are legally required to marry anyone who asks (assuming all legal requirements are met). There is no indication that this is going to change. If the day comes that we become a purely secular state and the state is fine with ripping the ability for marriages to be a religious celebration from us we will have MUCH bigger problems to deal with. Edited May 7, 2019 by The Nehor 3
bluebell Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, Gray said: Did you know it's still legal for churches to exclude anyone they like? The government can't stop a church from excluding black people, or veterans, the disabled, or anyone else. In US law churches have carte blanche for discrimination, so long as they are not taking government funds to perform a public service. That actually makes sense and I don’t have a problem with that. But performing ceremonies that the government has to recognize as valid and legally binding could easily become a different matter.
SteveO Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 I don’t think it’s coincidence that almost immediately after the announcement, my sister in law insisted she now serve alcohol at her wedding reception next summer. Listening to her talk to my wife, it almost seems like she has the idea that the church is now equating the sealing with the civil ceremony, and that it’s not a big deal anymore. I don’t know how you make that connection, but I’m fearful she’s not the only one who’ll see it that way.
Teancum Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 On 5/6/2019 at 1:41 PM, 6EQUJ5 said: This is really unfortunate. This policy was always a fantastic way to keep young people focussed on what mattered. I predict a massive drop off in young LDS deciding to get sealed ** at all **. I think @Scott Lloyd would agree. So sad that you would want to continue such an exclusionary, controlling and hurtful policy. I applaud the Church for this. And it won't take one whit away from a temple sealing for those who want that and would anyway. 1
Teancum Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 On 5/6/2019 at 1:54 PM, The Nehor said: That would be a good thing. If you are willing to give up a temple sealing because you consider it unimportant compared to the relative tinsel of a big social wedding then you probably should not be entering into those covenants anyway. My only concern is that couples will focus on the big social wedding and do the sealing as an afterthought. That is their choice though and I am noticing that church policies lately have been giving us more rope to hang ourselves with if we choose. Unbelievable.
USU78 Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 44 minutes ago, Gray said: {snip} In US law churches have carte blanche for discrimination, so long as they are not taking government funds to perform a public service. In US law every person has the liberty to make any choice and do any act and believe and say any thing without government interference, so long as no legitimate government interest supersedes. Calling Churches discriminators is not a useful descriptor. All you're doing is throwing bombs. 2
The Nehor Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 12 minutes ago, Teancum said: Unbelievable. 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: In US law every person has the liberty to make any choice and do any act and believe and say any thing without government interference, so long as no legitimate government interest supersedes. Calling Churches discriminators is not a useful descriptor. All you're doing is throwing bombs. Being discriminating is not a purely negative description. 2
Teancum Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 On 5/6/2019 at 2:01 PM, ALarson said: I definitely believe this will take the pressure off the youth to have to have their wedding in the temple. I don't know if it will result in fewer actually making it to the temple....but that may be a result of this. I was talking to my Father about this just a few minutes ago (he's an old timer Mormon ), and he shook his head and said, "They're just making it easier and easier on these kids to keep them happy and hopefully keep them in the church." He may be right, but I fully support this change. I cannot imagine this causing any issue for a young couple who are devout and believes in the sanctity of a Temple Sealing. Many will simply go that route directly. But for those who have non member family and or significant friends who can now have a wedding that can be inclusive and then still be sealed, well they will do so and avoid the heartache and angst the prior policy caused. This is a good thing. It is fairly sad that there seems to be such a Pharisaical trend among some on things like this. I shouldn't be surprised. There are many such things in the church, and many who have a smug self righteousness about them that it causes them to take such a stance. I hope this does not get me in trouble with the moderators. I am trying to express my dismay without stepping over the line because I think such attitudes also demonstrate other very problematic things, but I will refrain. I have shared before that my wife and I were able to have a non Temple wedding and two months later we were sealed in the temple. She was a convert and had not been a member for a year. The policy then in effect allowed for this provision. We were married in the area she grew up in. I had relocated a long way from my home. She was the first child in her family to marry. Her family was very distressed that they may not have been able to attend the wedding. So we decided to marry outside the temple and have our bishop perform the marriage. I saw this as a wonderful "loophole" for us and so we took this path. However, we had a rigid stake president who said he didn't care what the policy was, he would make us wait a year anyway. I had to get a General Authority to intervene on our behalf. Two months later when we were sealed it was an incredible event for us and as meaningful as it would had been had we been married there in the first place. We had to travel to the Temple. We had three couples that were very close to us attend and participate. It was a quiet and sacred event. Nothing was taken away. Not one whit. 2
Gray Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 14 minutes ago, USU78 said: In US law every person has the liberty to make any choice and do any act and believe and say any thing without government interference, so long as no legitimate government interest supersedes. Calling Churches discriminators is not a useful descriptor. All you're doing is throwing bombs. As is often the case, you completely misread me. I'm saying fears that the government would step in on church temple marriage practices are unfounded - much more shocking things are allowed by law, due to constitutional religious protections.
Gray Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 51 minutes ago, bluebell said: That actually makes sense and I don’t have a problem with that. But performing ceremonies that the government has to recognize as valid and legally binding could easily become a different matter. That has never been in the case in US law. Churches only have to abide by nondiscrimination laws when they are performing a service for fees paid by the government.
alter idem Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 14 minutes ago, Gray said: As is often the case, you completely misread me. I'm saying fears that the government would step in on church temple marriage practices are unfounded - much more shocking things are allowed by law, due to constitutional religious protections. Gray I really hope you are right and these are unfounded fears; the Constitution protects churches from Government interference. We also need the Supreme Court to continue to interpret the laws in a way which protects church autonomy.
USU78 Posted May 7, 2019 Posted May 7, 2019 22 minutes ago, Gray said: As is often the case, you completely misread me. I'm saying fears that the government would step in on church temple marriage practices are unfounded - much more shocking things are allowed by law, due to constitutional religious protections. "Shocking" is a word choice belying what, exactly? Before I respond, I'd like some clarification what you mean precisely.
Recommended Posts