Civil marriage first: A temple wedding petition.

[Simon Belmont]

I post about a religion that I know to be false with complete certainty.

CFR.

I am sure you will have no problem honoring that CFR since you "know with complete certainty."

[Simon Belmont]

Holy s***. Who the hell knew a simple request would bring out all the assholes on the board?

H.

When your request is as stupid as this one, what can you expect?

[Pahoran]

Buffalo makes a good point.

And I wonder why this issue so often puts so many defenders into an apoplectic fit. Really, is it devaluing the temple sealing because someone is married civilly first especially if they are doing it for non member family? Why not avoid the pain and have the best of both worlds? Why the scornful remarks that cast Kevin Barney as less than faithful because he thinks differently about this?

This issue has been discussed to death for a number of years.

As I mentioned above, a number of countries require marriages to take place "with open doors." In such countries, it is necessary to have a civil marriage before the temple sealing.

Note that the LDS couple who are getting married generally regard the temple sealing as the "real" wedding, and the civil ceremony as a mere "going through the motions" to meet the legal requirements. When such ceremonies were required here in NZ, they were usually short, simple ceremonies that met the bare-bones requirements, and were conducted in a fairly terse, businesslike fashion. Afterwards, the couples were frequently heard to say something equivalent to, "Right, we've satisfied the government; now let's go and really get married."

The current anti-Temple marriage crusade is being marketed as a way to be kind to the non-LDS rellies. But let's be honest here: given that most LDS couples want a temple wedding and look forward to a temple wedding, aren't they frequently if not usually going to take a similar view to that of other couples required to have a civil ceremony they don't really want? "Okay, we've satisfied your possessive in-laws; now let's go and really get married."

How much will that spare the relatives' feelings, really? Aren't they going to (rightly) feel that they've simply been thrown a bone to keep them quiet?

I predict, with 100% confidence, that if this silly petition were to be successful, it would simply be the first step; the anti-Temple marriage crusade, emboldened by this first victory, would simply move on to the next demand. The civil marriage mustn't be too simple and unobtrusive; it must be seen by all parties as nothing less than the real wedding. To that end, it should be fine to pull out all the stops. Parents and other relatives should not be separated from the couple on the family's "special day," so the sealing should not take time away from them on that day. It should be pushed off onto another day so that the tender-hearted rellies won't feel that they're being "excluded" from anything that actually matters. And the Church should not say anything to suggest to the couple that their marriage is any more valid or significant after the sealing than they were before, because of course the rellies will find out about that, and they'll feel offended (sob) and excluded (wail.) Again.

How do I know that this is where the anti-Temple marriage crusade is designed to end up? Because I once had a discussion with an anti-Temple marriage -- and anti-Mormon, of course -- crusader who was tactless enough to spell out his program.

I predict that someone will scream "slippery slope!" Let me pre-empt that obvious ploy: the process I have described is one that follows naturally. It is easier to start making concessions to assuage the feelings of people who do not share our faith than it is to stop; and the first step in the process is actually the biggest. Everything after that is just a matter of degree.

Here's a radical idea: maybe the thing to do is to accept that there are people to whom sacred things actually matter and allow them to make their decisions for their lives based upon that fact.

Or is that just too radical?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Yoda]

Pahoran, I'm curious....what do you think about a ring ceremony AFTER the temple sealing that is a little more in the traditional setting? (i.e. Dad walking the bride down the aisle)

This is what my daughter is having done, and her future in-laws are completely on board. They are exchanging their own vows...no officiator...and having the attendants pair up and walk down the aisle...and then her Dad walks her down the aisle. They say their own little vows that they have written, exchange rings, and kiss. My future son-in-law's Dad has prepared a neat slide show of the kids...showing them from the time they were babies to prom to dating, etc. We have about 80 people invited to the ring ceremony, and then the reception follows. (We have about 200 invited to that).

The temple sealing is being performed earlier that morning.

Just wondered what your thoughts were.

I think that more solutions like this might bridge the kind of gap that folks are worried about.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, I'm curious....what do you think about a ring ceremony AFTER the temple sealing that is a little more in the traditional setting? (i.e. Dad walking the bride down the aisle)

This is what my daughter is having done, and her future in-laws are completely on board. They are exchanging their own vows...no officiator...and having the attendants pair up and walk down the aisle...and then her Dad walks her down the aisle. They say their own little vows that they have written, exchange rings, and kiss. My future son-in-law's Dad has prepared a neat slide show of the kids...showing them from the time they were babies to prom to dating, etc. We have about 80 people invited to the ring ceremony, and then the reception follows. (We have about 200 invited to that).

The temple sealing is being performed earlier that morning.

Just wondered what your thoughts were.

I think that more solutions like this might bridge the kind of gap that folks are worried about.

Since you asked, I actually think a ring ceremony should not be done up as a second or substitute "wedding," or give the impression (even inadvertently) that the guests are seeing the actual wedding. (You wouldn't want them to find out later and feel that they'd been tricked.)

With that in mind, I think the "exchanging of vows" part is a bit over the top. IMHO, "exchanging of vows" is what makes a wedding a wedding. If they wanted to read each other some snippets of syrupy romantic verse, that would be okay. Although you definitely wouldn't want to inflict that on your guests with full stomachs. ;)

I like the slide show idea.

You might like to look at this site. Note in particular this section:

LDS wedding etiquette concerning ring ceremonies is relatively brief: they should be arranged under the guidance of their bishop, avoid becoming civil wedding ceremonies (that includes exchanging vows or walking down the aisle,) and be held off temple grounds.

Of course, it may depend upon what you mean by "exchanging vows." As the same site says:

The bride and groom can thank reception guests for attending and their family members for providing support in planning the wedding. Without using wedding buzzwords (like "I do" or "I thee wed") or making vows, they can then express their feelings for one another in a simple, heartfelt way before exchanging rings.

That said, if the bishop is okay with it, then I'm sure it's fine.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Yoda]

The bishop knows exactly what is happening, and is fine with it.

As far as the "vows", it's just more of an "I promise" type of thing, and they talk a little bit about how much they love each other.

Yeah...syrupy, romantic stuff...that's what wedding days are all about. LOL

[Polygamy-Porter]

That said, if the bishop is okay with it, then I'm sure it's fine.

Who gives a rats ass if the stupid bishop is "okay" with it??

Since when was he given the right to other people's lives?

This is the problem with Mormons.

Stop giving this man rights over you, your personal life and your family.

He is nothing but an unwitting slave to a multibillion dollar corporation.

[Hades]

The current anti-Temple marriage crusade is being marketed as a way to be kind to the non-LDS rellies. But let's be honest here: given that most LDS couples want a temple wedding and look forward to a temple wedding, aren't they frequently if not usually going to take a similar view to that of other couples required to have a civil ceremony they don't really want? "Okay, we've satisfied your possessive in-laws; now let's go and really get married."

How much will that spare the relatives' feelings, really? Aren't they going to (rightly) feel that they've simply been thrown a bone to keep them quiet?

Who gives a ____ about non-LDS rellies? Who gives a ____ about non-LDS anybody? Everyone knows that to be worth anything in the eyes of God a person must become Mormon and pray, pay, and obey. Why should the church change just to appease spiritually unimportant people?

[Simon Belmont]

Who gives a rats ass if the stupid bishop is "okay" with it??

Since when was he given the right to other people's lives?

This is the problem with Mormons.

Stop giving this man rights over you, your personal life and your family.

He is nothing but an unwitting slave to a multibillion dollar corporation.

Still waiting for you to answer my CFR.

[Ceeboo]

A few words from a non-LDS Christian (For many reasons, I will keep it short by design)

It is my opinion that this topic is one of the most mind-bending, bizarre, sad, offensive, and utterly heart wrenching topics that I have participated in and/or read about on these Mormon boards.

As a follower of Christ, I would suggest that the practice of excluding human beings, for whatever reason (Mom's/Dad's/siblings/etc) and having them wait in parking lots (because other human beings have decided they are not worthy to be present) strikes me as something that falls far short of the most basic and fundamental building blocks/teachings/displays of Christianity.

There has got to be a way (I am confident that the LDS leaders can figure something out) to extend respect, compassion, and love to the many non-LDS human beings that find themselves sitting in the parking lot as their very own precious sons/daughters are getting married.

Without exception, it is:

Divisive
Pain causing
Exclusionary
Sad
Wrong
Heart-breaking
Offensive


by the way: Pahoran,
As you know, I rarely engage you on these boards (for my own reasons) but your post above (the one that you end with "or is that just too radical") struck me as being very sad and it also made my stomach hurt.


Although I could type another 39 pages, I will stop here.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Buffalo]

Reaching out and showing kindness to nonmembers is gross wickedness. Remember that.

[Simon Belmont]

A few words from a non-LDS Christian (For many reasons, I will keep it short by design)

It is my opinion that this topic is one of the most mind-bending, bizarre, sad, offensive, and utterly heart wrenching topics that I have participated in and/or read about on these Mormon boards.

As a follower of Christ, I would suggest that the practice of excluding human beings, for whatever reason (Mom's/Dad's/siblings/etc) and having them wait in parking lots (because other human beings have decided they are not worthy to be present) strikes me as something that falls far short of the most basic and fundamental building blocks/teachings/displays of Christianity.

We don't do this. We have beautiful waiting rooms and visitor's centers. No one is excluded. Anyone can enter the temple, if they are worthy.

[Ceeboo]

Good morning, Simon

We don't do this.

This is not consistent with my understanding of what many people have shared/written over the last few years.

We have beautiful waiting rooms and visitor's centers.

Forgive me if this Dad finds that offensive!

No one is excluded.

Again, this does not seem to be compatible with what I have read/heard/understand.

Anyone can enter the temple, if they are worthy.

Can I?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Ceeboo]

Bump!

In hopes to receive some clarity/correction/understanding from my friend, Simon.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[Hades]

We don't do this. We have beautiful waiting rooms and visitor's centers. No one is excluded. Anyone can enter the temple, if they are worthy.

"No you can't attend your daughters wedding, but we do have this beautiful waiting room. Feel free to walk around the visitor's center. We have two very nice missionaries to answer all your questions. Someday, you too could be worthy to go to weddings in the temple."

[Simon Belmont]

Bump!

In hopes to receive some clarity/correction/understanding from my friend, Simon.


Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo,

Of course you can enter the Temple, provided you are baptized LDS and remain worthy. Until that time, you may enter almost any other facility, grounds, visitor's center, library, educational institution, or museum the Church has to offer. (the only facility I can see them denying you access to is the Church office building. After 9/11 it has a pretty strict "employees only" admittance). It is true that non-LDS fathers cannot participate in the actual Temple wedding ceremony, but the temple grounds and visitor's centers are at your disposal. Believe it or not, we make sure the rest of the family feels very included and part of the whole thing -- that's how it was as my own wedding which non-members attended.

[MsJack]

Of course you can enter the Temple, provided you are baptized LDS and remain worthy.

Are you trolling, Simon, or do you really not get why non-LDS parents don't like being told that they aren't "worthy" to view the wedding of the children they've nurtured for 18+ years?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Are you trolling, Simon, or do you really not get why non-LDS parents don't like being told that they aren't "worthy" to view the wedding of the children they've nurtured for 18+ years?

Did you really just ask in sincerity if Simon was trolling? All he does is troll. Here is a video of Simon in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

[Pahoran]

Liz, I have a question about the following two posts:

Who gives a rats ass if the stupid bishop is "okay" with it??

Since when was he given the right to other people's lives?

This is the problem with Mormons.

Stop giving this man rights over you, your personal life and your family.

He is nothing but an unwitting slave to a multibillion dollar corporation.

And this one:

Who gives a s*** about non-LDS rellies? Who gives a s*** about non-LDS anybody? Everyone knows that to be worth anything in the eyes of God a person must become Mormon and pray, pay, and obey. Why should the church change just to appease spiritually unimportant people?

Not so long ago you were moralizing about my posts having too much "hate" in them. If I may ask, that was in comparison to -- whom, exactly?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

A few words from a non-LDS Christian (For many reasons, I will keep it short by design)

It is my opinion that this topic is one of the most mind-bending, bizarre, sad, offensive, and utterly heart wrenching topics that I have participated in and/or read about on these Mormon boards.

As a follower of Christ, I would suggest that the practice of excluding human beings, for whatever reason (Mom's/Dad's/siblings/etc) and having them wait in parking lots (because other human beings have decided they are not worthy to be present) strikes me as something that falls far short of the most basic and fundamental building blocks/teachings/displays of Christianity.

There has got to be a way (I am confident that the LDS leaders can figure something out) to extend respect, compassion, and love to the many non-LDS human beings that find themselves sitting in the parking lot as their very own precious sons/daughters are getting married.

Without exception, it is:

Divisive
Pain causing
Exclusionary
Sad
Wrong
Heart-breaking
Offensive

Okay, we get it. You don't like it.

You think couples should start off their marriages by doing what their in-laws want, not by following their religious principles.

Do you have any actual arguments for your position, or are you merely appealing to emotion?

by the way: Pahoran,
As you know, I rarely engage you on these boards (for my own reasons) but your post above (the one that you end with "or is that just too radical") struck me as being very sad and it also made my stomach hurt.

Which perhaps has something to do why you did not engage my actual arguments.

So, as a follower of Christ, would you still follow Him if He said something equivalent to:

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me?"

Wouldn't that be every bit as

Divisive
Pain causing
Exclusionary
Sad
Wrong
Heart-breaking
Offensive

As the Church's policy on Temple marriages?

In fact, now that I come to think of it, isn't there a rather obvious parallel between the one thing and the other?

Regards,
Pahoran

[MsJack]

Did you really just ask in sincerity if Simon was trolling? All he does is troll. Here is a video of Simon in action:

That is an awesome video.

But no, I really can't tell with Simon, and I'm the sort who usually tries to give people the benefit of the doubt.

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me?"

Yes, Jesus said that.

But I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't talking about snubbing one's parents at the wedding over arbitrary and theologically unnecessary church policies.