Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was going to call him Brother Crockett but remembered you’re supposed to call a former bishop “Bishop.” Either way, there is no doctrine that a civil marriage is ideally done in a temple. Your position implies that those who “compromise” (your word) have somehow done something wrong. You’re on very shaky ground doctrinally. 

The clear impression I get from the policy as recently amended is that the preference is still to have the marriage performed inside the temple. 
 

But feel free to regard me as on “shaky ground” if it makes you comfortable. 
 

Added later: And no authority has EVER said you’re “supposed” to address a former bishop as “Bishop.” Are you serious about that? 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

But when there is pretty much constant talking and fussing around, how much silent contemplation of the sacredness of the temple ceremony can take place?  

I’m thinking there would be a great deal, particularly in days, weeks and years to come as the couple reflect back on their wedding day. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The clear impression I get from the policy as recently amended is that the preference is still to have the marriage performed inside the temple. 
 

But feel free to regard me as on “shaky ground” if it makes you comfortable. 

I didn’t realize impressions govern the ordinances and doctrines of the church. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t realize impressions govern the ordinances and doctrines of the church. 

Policies govern their implementation. And I’m telling you how I understand the policy as currently written.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I totally agree that chit chat is not going to be about the temple. But what is talked about tends to focus one’s attention. It isn’t easy to be feeling the serenity and timelessness of the temple ceremony when immersed in errands and just giving other people attention.  When there is pretty much constant talking and fussing around, how much silent contemplation of the sacredness of the temple ceremony can take place?  
 

Nor am I saying it is not the most profound moment of the day(s).  My issue is that couples are not given the time to immerse themselves and revel in the temple experience in many cases. They are swept from one thing to another even for simple receptions.  

That depends on circumstances, of course. But every effort should be made to have that be the most important part of the wedding — including avoidance of supplanting it with earthly pageantry. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not from what I have seen. Many civil ceremonies are quite simple, the point of the wedding in the couple’s view is simply that friends and family share it with them. 
 

I don’t doubt that there are those that want a civil ceremony so they can imitate the Princess For a Day versions, but the majority appear to me to be more focused on who is there (or not there when they have wanted it small and intimate with only people they know well involved).

I think the temptation would be very great to make it just how the mother of the bride or the mother of the groom, as the case may be, wants it including all the earthly trappings and pageantry. You’ve talked about all the fuss that already goes into a reception. Don’t you think there would be a strong inclination among some to carry that into the civil ceremony itself?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

Personally, I have no issues with weddings with all their pomp. If that is what the couple wants, who am I to naysay.

I have a Catholic step family. I find much to value out of a traditional wedding where your close friends and family spend an evening together celebrating families coming together. They all attend the ceremony followed by a dinner and usually a lot of dancing and mingling. The traditional walk down the aisle, though not what we do, is nothing to mock. There is much to value from traditional ceremonies from toasts to the couple and traditional dances. 
 

Receptions where people come for minutes and make an appearance, in some ways seem a little lacking in comparison. 
 

I also don’t find the need to ridicule those who want to be a ‘princess’ for a day. Culture influences wedding traditions. Marriage commitments should be celebrated and joyous occasions. Let the couple decide what they want. Marriage should be celebrated! 
 

My temple sealing was one of the most spiritual moments of my life. My reception, quite forgettable.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The clear impression I get from the policy as recently amended is that the preference is still to have the marriage performed inside the temple. 
 

But feel free to regard me as on “shaky ground” if it makes you comfortable. 
 

Added later: And no authority has EVER said you’re “supposed” to address a former bishop as “Bishop.” Are you serious about that? 

From the Ensign:

”We show proper respect to our Church leaders by referring to them in Church-related functions by their ecclesiastical titles. We may refer to a bishop as “Bishop Garza” or a stake president as “President Leiben,” for example. The titles Bishop and President (designating members of temple, mission, stake, and district presidencies and branch presidencies) are appropriate even after the leader has been released.”

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

From the Ensign:

”We show proper respect to our Church leaders by referring to them in Church-related functions by their ecclesiastical titles. We may refer to a bishop as “Bishop Garza” or a stake president as “President Leiben,” for example. The titles Bishop and President (designating members of temple, mission, stake, and district presidencies and branch presidencies) are appropriate even after the leader has been released.”

It says the titles are appropriate. It doesn’t say you are “supposed” to call them that. 
 

Do you not recognize that “appropriate” does not mean mandatory?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It says the titles are appropriate. It doesn’t say you are “supposed” to call them that. 
 

Do you not recognize that “appropriate” does not mean mandatory?

Did I say “mandatory”? It is, as the Ensign says, a sign of respect. I was always taught you’re supposed to be respectful. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the temptation would be very great to make it just how the mother of the bride or the mother of the groom, as the case may be, wants it including all the earthly trappings and pageantry. You’ve talked about all the fuss that already goes into a reception. Don’t you think there would be a strong inclination among some to carry that into the civil ceremony itself?

Sure...which would make even more sense to have the temple ceremony separate in those cases so the bride doesn’t have to be concerned about reining in the mothers 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’ve talked about all the fuss that already goes into a reception. Don’t you think there would be a strong inclination among some to carry that into the civil ceremony itself?

What is do wrong about a wedding ceremony done in a traditional manner? Do you only object to traditional ceremonies for members wishing to include family or everyone?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Did I say “mandatory”? It is, as the Ensign says, a sign of respect. I was always taught you’re supposed to be respectful. 

You said “supposed” to call him “Bishop.” What’s that supposed to mean if it doesn’t mean required or expected? 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said “supposed” to call him “Bishop.” What’s that supposed to mean if it doesn’t mean required or expected? 

The article doesn’t say calling a serving bishop “Bishop” is required, either. 

I can’t believe you’re picking this nit with me. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That depends on circumstances, of course. But every effort should be made to have that be the most important part of the wedding — including avoidance of supplanting it with earthly pageantry. 

Agreed. Which is why it makes brilliant sense to me to have multiple options so the couple can choose the version which will most elevate the temple ceremony for them, whether that is having the civil and temple ceremony at the same time and a fantastic reception afterwards to celebrate it or to have the public aspects done far enough before that it is enough out of their minds that they can fully focus on the temple or something between.

There are so many personality types out there that a one size fits all approach to something as important as a temple sealing troubles me. I am so grateful the leaders have decided to make the rules more consistent across the globe while allowing for more options so that couples can choose what temple experience is most meaningful to them. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sure...which would make even more sense to have the temple ceremony separate in those cases so the bride doesn’t have to be concerned about reining in the mothers 

I don’t follow you on this. How would the mother’s have t be reined in for a temple ceremony? It seems to me the procedures for such are pretty standard. 

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

What is do wrong about a wedding ceremony done in a traditional manner? Do you only object to traditional ceremonies for members wishing to include family or everyone?

There’s nothing wrong with it for people who haven’t yet made sacred covenants. For those who have, I object to it as a (by comparison) cheap, earthly imitation of the sublime vows, ordinance and covenants that are to transpire in the House of the Lord. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The article doesn’t say calling a serving bishop “Bishop” is required, either. 

I can’t believe you’re picking this nit with me. 

It’s far less optional than it is after the man has been released. 
 

And I can’t believe you’re doubling down on this. 
 

This is the first time I’ve seen you call another board contributor “Bishop”. Which makes me suspect you don’t really believe it is necessary. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m thinking there would be a great deal, particularly in days, weeks and years to come as the couple reflect back on their wedding day. 

Sure...just not as much when it is happening. And that makes a difference on how the brain processes the memory.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For those who have, I object to it as a (by comparison) cheap, earthly imitation of the sublime vows, ordinance and covenants that are to transpire in the House of the Lord. 

So because you process the experience in one way, that means everyone else should process it that way?  What if they can’t even after years of preparation with the concept?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

There’s nothing wrong with it for people who haven’t yet made sacred covenants. For those who have, I object to it as a (by comparison) cheap, earthly imitation of the sublime vows, ordinance and covenants that are to transpire in the House of the Lord. 

In my mind the two are not in competition. My son and daughter in law, who were sealed years after their marriage, at the time said the sacred nature of their sealing was very special and felt they had the time to focus on the temple instead of being rushed in to the ‘next’ thing that day. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So because you process the experience in one way, that means everyone else should process it that way?  What if they can’t even after years of preparation with the concept?

I’m thinking that most would. You are free to believe the contrary. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

In my mind the two are not in competition. My son and daughter in law, who were sealed years after their marriage, at the time said the sacred nature of their sealing was very special and felt they had the time to focus on the temple instead of being rushed in to the ‘next’ thing that day. 

I’m glad for them. 
 

But I still think there is wisdom on the part of the Brethren to express the ideal that both the marriage and the sealing take place in the temple. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How would the mother’s have t be reined in for a temple ceremony?

I am saying a bride or groom who is struggling to keep a mother or in law from creating a reception or civil ceremony from overwhelming the temple ceremony would have it easier if that is all over and done with by the time the temple ceremony happens. That way they don’t have to worry about Mom springing something at the last minute or having to listen to passive aggressive comments whispered while in the temple about what might have been (the first includes me in that Mom planned the reception according to what she needed to feel good about, if you were going to invite guests, you needed to make it comfortable for them by offering good food and a nice setting; the second I have heard reported though I also heard one grandmother compare family weddings to the glory that was hers before and after ceremonies).

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m thinking that most would. You are free to believe the contrary. 

You keep assuming I believe things that I don’t. I am not making any assumptions because I haven’t polled anyone on this.  I do know that there are those who would have benefited from having them separate, myself included, because of what else came with it.  My sealing was tainted by my inability to not think of others’ needs before my own that day, by my sensitivity to external stimuli that means any social activity is very wearing on me even when my health was great.  My endowment was very meaningful to me, I believe in part because I was still ‘fresh’ enough to control my thoughts, but also because I knew the sealing was next and I wasn’t therefore needing yet to think about what was to follow walking out of the sealing room...how we would be back on the clock so to speak. 
 

My mother in law actually listened to me better than my mom, who unfortunately worried more about what was happening with the guests than with me...an unfortunate drawback of being one of the more self sufficient kids in the family in her view.  I was much more at home with the small open house in their backyard with minimal effort that she hosted for me then my mother’s efforts. I also knew how much the work to prepare took out of Mom since she cooked everything herself as it was cheaper and so much better that way (Mom was the best untrained cook I have ever come across and most anyone who had meals from her volunteered the same even years after the experience) and that detracted even more from the day for me.

In my view it is fine if most would choose it because they benefit from a combined service.  It would be my choice as well.  I would just trash the reception afterwards and limit who came to very, very few.  My problem was buying into the idea a marriage had to have a public aspect to be meaningful as well as being trained or naturally more concerned with others’ desires than my own. 
 

But why have rules that prevent those not in the most category from having a great sacred experience just because most would?  How does allowing some to do things differently detract from the specialness of the combined ceremony for those who do it that way? 

Did the rule that prevents people in other countries from having a combined event somehow lessen the sacredness of your own experience?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...