Civil marriage first: A temple wedding petition.

[Ceeboo]

Good morning Pahoran,

You think couples should start off their marriages by doing what their in-laws want,

Ding! Ding! Ding! (This is ONE of the reasons I choose to not engage you on these boards)
No, I would suggest that there are some (perhaps only 7-8 % of these lovely couples?) that would actually "WANT" the "in-laws" to be present when starting off their marraiges. (Imagine that!)

by the way: I am curious as to why you used "in-laws"?? (and not the Parents of) Does that speak to anything. or no?

not by following their religious principles.

(Another fine example of why I rarely choose to engage you on these boards)

I would suggest that the exclusion of their parents/siblings/loved ones/ has nothing to do with "following their religious principles" and has everything to do with the "principles" forced upon them by the Church they happen to be part of.

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

No arguments, just emotion.

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

Perhaps?
Or, it might have something to do with me having little personal desire to "argue" with seasoned "arguers" concerning a topic that I think needs to be "discussed" because as those of us who choose to continue arguing and arguing on message boards, there are human being sitting in parking lots listening to Am radio. (I don't think they really care, or find any value/concern with how these "arguments" are going here. Do you?)

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?

Indeed, the "obvious parallel" is that there are LDS people who see themselves as equal to, worthy of, and on par with, the Lord/God.

Regards,
Pahoran

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Simon Belmont]

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?

Of course I get it. But I am almost certain Ceeboo is worthy, he just needs to be baptized. In fact, I think most good people, LDS or not, are "worthy"-- and the only thing preventing many from entering the temple is their membership.

[Simon Belmont]

And Everybody Wang Chung: you just think I'm trolling because you don't like what I have to say.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

And Everybody Wang Chung: you just think I'm trolling because you don't like what I have to say.

crickets (chirping sound)

[MsJack]

Of course I get it. But I am almost certain Ceeboo is worthy, he just needs to be baptized. In fact, I think most good people, LDS or not, are "worthy"-- and the only thing preventing many from entering the temple is their membership.

Being told that they could be "worthy" to see their children's weddings if only they would convert to Mormonism isn't going to appease anyone, Simon. Non-LDS parents usually find themselves in this situation precisely because they had no interest in converting when their children converted.

On top of that, I disagree that it's merely an issue of church membership that stops non-members from entering LDS temples. In addition to believing in the LDS church's message, most non-members would also have to abstain from smoking, coffee, tea, alcohol, pre-marital/extra-marital sex, and pornography. They would have to start paying a tithe, abide by the LDS dress code, and attend a three-hour block of church meetings regularly. Those are the things that are required to be "worthy" to enter a temple, and those would be serious sacrifices and lifestyle changes for a lot of non-members.

[Jason Bourne]

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.

Yes. So what? It is a topic worthy of discussion.

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.

yes, I think most of us are aware of this.

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."

Ok. So what? I can certainly understand this. They have NO CHOICE. The government IMPOSES their will on the couple. I don't blame them for not liking this.

And the Church imposes its will to a certain extent to couples in the USA that may MAKE A CHOICE to do it in a different way. They do this with a punitive year wait if they do something before the temple. It does not matter if the couple wants to make a different CHOICE.

The current anti-Temple marriage crusade is being marketed as a way to be kind to the non-LDS rellies.

Can you say straw man and poison the well? Very good Pahoran. But your anti-temple crusade comment is ludicrous. At least as far as my position as well as other NOMers and even active LDS that may like to have a CHOICE. You know maybe they really would make a different choice if they could.

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."

Wow. Possesive in laws that actually may enjoy witnessing their loves ones on one of the most important days of their live. I can see family is really important to you.

But here is the deal, Pahoran, I am fine with choices. For example, I know my daughter and her husband would have not opted for a pre civil wedding before their sealing even if they had the choice. And this even though my daughter grand parents on my wife's side (not members) and all her family, as well as my parents (inactive LDS) and her siblings (too young to come to the temple) would not be able to attend. And guess what? I am quite fine with that because it was their choice. But if they would have wanted say a nice civil wedding before hand without so certain family can attend it would have been nice for them to have a CHOICE without the punitive over bearing one year wait, which certainly would have persuaded them not to do so.

As it was we had a nice simple ring ceremony afterwards with a nice reception for family and close friends only and then more open reception later.

Did my in laws feel bad? I think so some. My MIL commented a lot about how disappointed she was about not attending her first granddaughters wedding as it led up and wondered why her church lets family come but our does not. But they came to the temple and sat in the waiting room with my kids and some other family.

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?

No. Not at all.

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.

Some may and some may not. So what?

The civil marriage mustn't be too simple and unobtrusive; it must be seen by all parties as nothing less than the real wedding.

If they do a civil wedding first whose business is it what they do? I know the Church loves to impose its will and does so by giving intrusive rules on what a ring ceremony should or can look like. And as far as that goes a couple can really do what they want here as well unless they have a bishop officiate at the ring ceremony, then he would have to buy into it,

And just so you know when I was a bishop I played by the handbook rule for ring ceremonies.

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.

Oh please. You really are an over the top Monolithic Mormon. Do you ever really think how asinine so much of what you say sounds?

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.

Yea right. Like I said I see you really care about family.

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.

Yawn.....

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.

You know so what? Just because some anti LDS jerk spelled something out does not mean others would push for it. I mean really.....?

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.

Did you feel the same way when blacks got the priesthood? Did you ask what was next, women? And how about the softening attitude towards gays? What is next? Do you really live your life running so scared?

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.

Ah the since someone does not agree with the current POLICY and does not agree with you then they are less faithful and view things less sacred. Right... got it. Only thing is your position is full of..well you know what it is full of. Faithful LDS persons who may want a CHOICE without being punished or gossiped about or whatever will still view the temple sealing as sacred even though they do not agree with little ole you.

Or is that just too radical?

Is it too radical to give them a choice? Then if someone still prefers the sealing first, which I am sure many if not most will, why not give that to them. Are you really that threatened by this?

[Jason Bourne]

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.

Straw man again. Nope you don't get it. The couple should have a CHOICE without punishment. If they prefer to go to the temple directly in spite of in laws then fine. But give them a choice.

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

Talk about emotion... you anti temple marriage crusade is a land mine. But no, it is just about CHOICE.

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?"

You think this mean weddings? And this card can be played by anyone on many topics.

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?

Nope.

[Simon Belmont]

Being told that they could be "worthy" to see their children's weddings if only they would convert to Mormonism isn't going to appease anyone, Simon. Non-LDS parents usually find themselves in this situation precisely because they had no interest in converting when their children converted.

On top of that, I disagree that it's merely an issue of church membership that stops non-members from entering LDS temples. In addition to believing in the LDS church's message, most non-members would also have to abstain from smoking, coffee, tea, alcohol, pre-marital/extra-marital sex, and pornography. They would have to start paying a tithe, abide by the LDS dress code, and attend a three-hour block of church meetings regularly. Those are the things that are required to be "worthy" to enter a temple, and those would be serious sacrifices and lifestyle changes for a lot of non-members.

It guess it comes down to this: those are the rules we believe in. Family members have a choice to make concerning those rules. They should and will make the choice which most suits them.

I know that's crass, but that's how it is.

And it isn't like we're complete jerks to family members. The temple workers and others attempt to make them feel as comfortable, welcome, and involved as possible.

[Jason Bourne]

It guess it comes down to this: those are the rules we believe in. Family members have a choice to make concerning those rules. They should and will make the choice which most suits them.

Oh so let me see, I should tell my MIL who is active Presbyterian that she should simply join the LDS Church and abide its precepts so she can come the temple sealings? Right...

Of course if she was interested and desired to follow it well then fine. But she is not interested and believes her church quite fine. In her words "why does your Church not let people come to weddings? Are we not good enough?"

I just tell her of course she is good enough and leave it at that. I don't bother to explain it. But for her grand kids to have choices to do something different with out punishment would be nice. Then as noted, the couple could chose and not have to worry about blaming the Church for a controlling unnecessary policy.

CHOICE Simon. Give the couple a choice without the one year silly retribution.

I know that's crass, but that's how it is.

Yes crass and a lot of hubris too.

And it isn't like we're complete jerks to family members. The temple workers and others attempt to make them feel as comfortable, welcome, and involved as possible.

Oh horse ____. Come sit in the lobby and we will smile and be ooey gooey with you and put on a proselyting film for you to watch while your family is wed,

Let the couple do a civil wedding first if the so CHOOSE. Then they can be sealed later that day. It will be just as special and just as sacred, yes sacred in spite of Pahoran's nonsensical rant about it somehow being less and anyone doing something different being on the high road to apostasy.

[MsJack]

Simon ~ After I'd been engaged to my husband for a few weeks, I received a distressed phone call from my mother. Someone at her place of employment had told her that if I were getting married to a Mormon, she wouldn't be permitted to see the wedding. She was a little freaked out.

My mother loved my then-fiance dearly and never had a cross word to say about Mormons. She didn't like missionaries coming to her door and wanted to be left alone in the proselyting department, but she didn't have a judgmental bone in her body and never took issue with her daughter's decision to marry a Mormon.

I tried to explain to her about Mormon temple weddings and how I couldn't enter a temple any more than she could, but she just wasn't getting it. The ins and outs of the beliefs of different religious groups was never something that interested her, and there was no way of explaining to her how silly and far-fetched this fear was given my own non-LDS status. So I just assured her that my wedding would be public and she would be in attendance, and we left it at that.

My mother died in 2008 at the age of 51 after a year-long battle with pancreatic cancer. She'd been in good health prior to her diagnosis and none of us could have predicted it. At her funeral, a long-time friend of the family (now my stepmom) gave all of my mother's sons and daughters letters that she had written just before her death. Her final letter to me talked about how happy she was at my wedding, seeing what a "beautiful bride" I was and how much joy it brought her to see me get married. It was one of the best moments of her life. (None of my other siblings have gotten married.)

I don't believe Mormons are deliberately trying to be "complete jerks" about this. I do believe that many Mormons live such insular lives as to be completely out of touch with how self-centered, pompous, and callous this policy makes them look to outsiders. I understand that Mormons often try to make the non-LDS family members feel welcome and included in other ways, but what they don't get is that there simply is no substitute for being forced to miss your child's wedding.

The real tragedy in all of this is that it doesn't have to be this way. This hasn't always been the church's policy on weddings and it doesn't have to be the church's policy weddings; there's no theological reason for it. Contrary to what its defenders tend to assert, it does not insure that the temple is honored. Rather, in practice, it only insures that the secular aspects of civil weddings (wedding dresses, tuxedos, bridesmaids, groomsmen, ring boys, flower girls, etc.)---things that have nothing to do with what takes place at an LDS sealing ceremony*---get mashed up with the sealing into a mongrel of a dog-and-pony show. Allowing couples to choose a civil wedding beforehand would open the way for the sealing to receive its own sacred space. It could be viewed as "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

I've supported my LDS relatives who have had temple weddings, to the point of coming to their weddings and waiting outside the temple for them. I'll do the same for my children should they choose to become LDS and have temple weddings. I believe in faithful dissent, and for me, that means supporting the people I love even when I don't agree with them, even when they make poor choices.

The current temple wedding policy was a very, very poor choice. I hope someone has the insight to see that and reverse it someday.

----------
* Yes, I'm aware that the bride can technically wear her wedding dress during the sealing ceremony. But with all the cloth inserts and ritual garb under and over it, I'm not sure why anyone even bothers.

[Simon Belmont]

Simon ~ After I'd been engaged to my husband for a few weeks, I received a distressed phone call from my mother. Someone at her place of employment had told her that if I were getting married to a Mormon, she wouldn't be permitted to see the wedding. She was a little freaked out.

My mother loved my then-fiance dearly and never had a cross word to say about Mormons. She didn't like missionaries coming to her door and wanted to be left alone in the proselyting department, but she didn't have a judgmental bone in her body and never took issue with her daughter's decision to marry a Mormon.

I tried to explain to her about Mormon temple weddings and how I couldn't enter a temple any more than she could, but she just wasn't getting it. The ins and outs of the beliefs of different religious groups was never something that interested her, and there was no way of explaining to her how silly and far-fetched this fear was given my own non-LDS status. So I just assured her that my wedding would be public and she would be in attendance, and we left it at that.

My mother died in 2008 at the age of 51 after a year-long battle with pancreatic cancer. She'd been in good health prior to her diagnosis and none of us could have predicted it. At her funeral, a long-time friend of the family (now my stepmom) gave all of my mother's sons and daughters letters that she had written just before her death. Her final letter to me talked about how happy she was at my wedding, seeing what a "beautiful bride" I was and how much joy it brought her to see me get married. It was one of the best moments of her life. (None of my other siblings have gotten married.)

I don't believe Mormons are deliberately trying to be "complete jerks" about this. I do believe that many Mormons live such insular lives as to be completely out of touch with how self-centered, pompous, and callous this policy makes them look to outsiders. I understand that Mormons often try to make the non-LDS family members feel welcome and included in other ways, but what they don't get is that there simply is no substitute for being forced to miss your child's wedding.

The real tragedy in all of this is that it doesn't have to be this way. This hasn't always been the church's policy on weddings and it doesn't have to be the church's policy weddings; there's no theological reason for it. Contrary to what its defenders tend to assert, it does not insure that the temple is honored. Rather, in practice, it only insures that the secular aspects of civil weddings (wedding dresses, tuxedos, bridesmaids, groomsmen, ring boys, flower girls, etc.)---things that have nothing to do with what takes place at an LDS sealing ceremony*---get mashed up with the sealing into a mongrel of a dog-and-pony show. Allowing couples to choose a civil wedding beforehand would open the way for the sealing to receive its own sacred space. It could be viewed as "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

I've supported my LDS relatives who have had temple weddings, to the point of coming to their weddings and waiting outside the temple for them. I'll do the same for my children should they choose to become LDS and have temple weddings. I believe in faithful dissent, and for me, that means supporting the people I love even when I don't agree with them, even when they make poor choices.

The current temple wedding policy was a very, very poor choice. I hope someone has the insight to see that and reverse it someday.

----------
* Yes, I'm aware that the bride can technically wear her wedding dress during the sealing ceremony. But with all the cloth inserts and ritual garb under and over it, I'm not sure why anyone even bothers.

MSJack:

I understand where you're coming from. Maybe it's just a "guy thing" but I just viewed my wedding as a formality -- a "jumping through the hoops" and trying to get that boring day over with :)

I am sure it wasn't that way for my wife. Neither of us had non-member parents, but we did have non-member friends and relatives who still enjoyed coming to the wedding (temple grounds, etc.). I imagine it would be much different for parents.

[Polygamy-Porter]

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."

Where do I start?

Papyrus?

Multiple versions of the First Vision®?

Flaming Sword story?

Polygamy?

Masonry?

Fanny?

Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Pahoran]

Good morning Pahoran,

You think couples should start off their marriages by doing what their in-laws want,

Ding! Ding! Ding! (This is ONE of the reasons I choose to not engage you on these boards)
No, I would suggest that there are some (perhaps only 7-8 % of these lovely couples?) that would actually "WANT" the "in-laws" to be present when starting off their marraiges. (Imagine that!)

In which case, they can arrange matters so that the in-laws are present. They have that CHOICE, and no-one can (or would want to) take that away from them.

by the way: I am curious as to why you used "in-laws"?? (and not the Parents of) Does that speak to anything. or no?

Because in a marriage, the parents are only the parents of one party; they are the in-laws of the other. And both of the parties to the marriage are being asked to compromise their religious principles to satisfy the requirements of (usually only one) set of parents.

not by following their religious principles.

(Another fine example of why I rarely choose to engage you on these boards)

I would suggest that the exclusion of their parents/siblings/loved ones/ has nothing to do with "following their religious principles" and has everything to do with the "principles" forced upon them by the Church they happen to be part of.

Yes, if you're going to spout nonsense like this, choosing not to engage me is probably wise.

Nothing has been "forced upon" anyone. We are talking about couples who choose a Temple marriage because that is what they believe in.

That is what their religious principles entail, you see.

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

No arguments, just emotion.

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

Perhaps?
Or, it might have something to do with me having little personal desire to "argue" with seasoned "arguers" concerning a topic that I think needs to be "discussed" because as those of us who choose to continue arguing and arguing on message boards, there are human being sitting in parking lots listening to Am radio. (I don't think they really care, or find any value/concern with how these "arguments" are going here. Do you?)

No, probably not.

So you agree that this thread, like the silly online "petition," is really rather irrelevant?

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?

Indeed, the "obvious parallel" is that there are LDS people who see themselves as equal to, worthy of, and on par with, the Lord/God.

Did you miss it on purpose? The real obvious parallel is that a couple who have chosen to marry in the Temple are being asked to compromise their principles to please someone's mother and father. In other words, they are being asked to show that they love mother and father more that the Lord with whom they have entered into a personal covenant to serve Him to the end.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Hades]

Did you miss it on purpose? The real obvious parallel is that a couple who have chosen to marry in the Temple are being asked to compromise their principles to please someone's mother and father. In other words, they are being asked to show that they love mother and father more that the Lord with whom they have entered into a personal covenant to serve Him to the end.

Regards,
Pahoran

The price of membership in a cult.

[Jason Bourne]

Nothing has been "forced upon" anyone. We are talking about couples who choose a Temple marriage because that is what they believe in.

Let's be honest here. The couple has a choice. If they don't marry in the temple they are punished by a year waiting period to be sealed. Even if they hold a recommend. And in spite of Pahoran's insufferable pontificating about how the in laws are getting in the way of the couples desire ( and I am sure this does happen at times) there really are couples who would like to have a choice without the probation period of one year. Others would still choose to go to the temple first even if they had a choice.

Did you miss it on purpose? The real obvious parallel is that a couple who have chosen to marry in the Temple are being asked to compromise their principles to please someone's mother and father. In other words, they are being asked to show that they love mother and father more that the Lord with whom they have entered into a personal covenant to serve Him to the end.

Once again this is simply not the point. The point is let the temple worthy couple have the choice without the added duress of a punitive and silly one year wait. If they want to go to the temple first, great, then they should. If they want to have a wedding ceremony where non member family can attend and go be sealed later that day or the next, great. Let them. In spite of your sneering about such a person valuing the temple less than you do you relegating them then something less than you that is just nonsense.

You know as well as I the one year wait is punishment and it is controlling. I experienced such a threat by a SP exercising unrighteous dominion when he said it he was going to make my wife and I wait the year if we married out of the temple first even though she had not been a member a year. It took a GA speaking to him to get him to back off. You also know that additional pressure is there due to tongue wagging of local members. Why did the couple not go straight to the temple? Why do they have to wait a year. This stresses the couple unnecessarily.

Again all I am talking about is choice.

[Pahoran]

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

Yes. So what? It is a topic worthy of discussion.

So "worthy of discussion" that nobody could possibly disagree with you in good faith unless they're a complete jerk?

Okay.

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.

yes, I think most of us are aware of this.

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."

Ok. So what? I can certainly understand this. They have NO CHOICE. The government IMPOSES their will on the couple. I don't blame them for not liking this.

And the Church imposes its will to a certain extent to couples in the USA that may MAKE A CHOICE to do it in a different way. They do this with a punitive year wait if they do something before the temple. It does not matter if the couple wants to make a different CHOICE.

On the contraray, the couple still have that CHOICE. If pleasing their parents/in-laws is more important to them than their religious principles, then they will CHOOSE accordingly.

The current anti-Temple marriage crusade is being marketed as a way to be kind to the non-LDS rellies.

Can you say straw man and poison the well?

I can say any cliché you like. It doesn't invalidate my view.

Very good Pahoran. But your anti-temple crusade comment is ludicrous. At least as far as my position as well as other NOMers and even active LDS that may like to have a CHOICE. You know maybe they really would make a different choice if they could.

But they do, and they can.

Incidentally, I don't know why we need fancy new categories. There is nothing new about "New Order Mormons." Jack Mormons are as old as the Church.

Oh, you don't like "anti-Temple marriage crusade?" Fine. Let's make it "anti-Temple marriage jihad" then.

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."

Wow. Possesive in laws that actually may enjoy witnessing their loves ones on one of the most important days of their live. I can see family is really important to you.

Now who's setting up a straw man? Anyone "may actually enjoy" anything at all; what makes them possessive is that they take the view, as espoused in the website hosting the petition, "If you don't arrange your wedding plans to suit us, we will hold it against you."

Explain, please, why that isn't possessive.

But here is the deal, Pahoran, I am fine with choices. For example, I know my daughter and her husband would have not opted for a pre civil wedding before their sealing even if they had the choice. And this even though my daughter grand parents on my wife's side (not members) and all her family, as well as my parents (inactive LDS) and her siblings (too young to come to the temple) would not be able to attend. And guess what? I am quite fine with that because it was their choice. But if they would have wanted say a nice civil wedding before hand without so certain family can attend it would have been nice for them to have a CHOICE without the punitive over bearing one year wait, which certainly would have persuaded them not to do so.

Except that not everyone is as splendidly benignly tolerant as you are, Jason. I don't doubt that, for everyone like you, there are plenty more who would say, "Your Church lets you get a temple sealing the same day; as far as they are concerned, it's just the same as a temple marriage; so why not have a civil wedding first?"

In other words, they would use the lack of any kind of delay to the temple sealing as a lever to pressure the couple to do what they (the in-laws) want.

And you can be sure that the anti-Temple marriage jihad would publicise, as widely as possible, the fact that such an option was on the table.

As it was we had a nice simple ring ceremony afterwards with a nice reception for family and close friends only and then more open reception later.

Did my in laws feel bad? I think so some. My MIL commented a lot about how disappointed she was about not attending her first granddaughters wedding as it led up and wondered why her church lets family come but our does not. But they came to the temple and sat in the waiting room with my kids and some other family.

I don't know if there's ever been a wedding where everyone was happy with the arrangements. In my view, the most important thing is that the couple are happy.

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?

No. Not at all.

Really?

"Okay Mom and Dad; you've convinced us. We'll have a civil ceremony at 9am. It'll be nice and simple, just two bridesmaids and the best man. Don't worry FIL, there's no additional cost for this, unlike if we'd gotten married in your church. The reception will start at 3pm."

"But where will you be in the meantime?"

"We'll be up at the Temple. Don't worry about it."

Do you think nobody at all will ever tumble to the fact that the temple visit is for anything more than some nice outdoor photographs?

The reality in such a scenario would be this: the couple will be having a civil ceremony to fob the in-laws off, and the Temple sealing (presuming that they are actual believing Latter-day Saints) will be what they regard as the real wedding. And that won't be very much of a secret. Apart from anything else, you can be sure that the anti-Temple marriage jihad would publicise, as widely as possible, the fact that such a view prevailed.

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.

Some may and some may not. So what?

So if they don't get the first concession, they'll never get a chance to 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.

If they do a civil wedding first whose business is it what they do? I know the Church loves to impose its will and does so by giving intrusive rules on what a ring ceremony should or can look like. And as far as that goes a couple can really do what they want here as well unless they have a bishop officiate at the ring ceremony, then he would have to buy into it,

And just so you know when I was a bishop I played by the handbook rule for ring ceremonies.

And now that you're a jack Mormon, you think the Church should butt out of things that don't concern it. Like religious ceremonies.

But believing Latter-day Saints want to be married in the Temple. They want the Temple sealing to be the high point of the day, and they don't want extraneous clutter on the busiest day of their lives.

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.

Oh please. You really are an over the top Monolithic Mormon. Do you ever really think how asinine so much of what you say sounds?

To people who have absolutely no clue what it means to belong to a covenant community of believers, I'm sure it does.

But do you have anything at all to add, apart from personal abuse? Explain, please, why I should doubt that what I have described is exactly what the anti-Temple marriage jihad would be agitating to bring about?

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.

Yea right. Like I said I see you really care about family.

No less than you care about what is sacred to the Latter-day Saints.

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.

Yawn.....

Wow, what a devastatingly cogent response. I don't know how you come up with them.

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.

You know so what? Just because some anti LDS jerk spelled something out does not mean others would push for it. I mean really.....?

Yes, really. The cat is out of the bag.

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.

Did you feel the same way when blacks got the priesthood? Did you ask what was next, women? And how about the softening attitude towards gays? What is next? Do you really live your life running so scared?

As a matter of fact I was delighted when blacks received the Priesthood, and the Church's "attitude towards gays" is consistent and, AFAICT, doctrinally sound.

Which just goes to show that you can't tell the difference between apples and turnips.

Once the Church allows a couple to be sealed whenever they like after a civil marriage, there is no longer any clear line they can draw anywhere on that front. At present, the Church has an ideal: Temple marriage, uncompromised. Individuals can compromise that ideal if they want, but such a compromise entails consequences, because it is important. As soon as it stops entailing consequences, the message is diluted.

And the fact that anti-Mormons and jack Mormons are unanimous (or nearly so) in wanting the Church to compromise its position is pretty compelling evidence that its position is right.

Is it too radical to give them a choice? Then if someone still prefers the sealing first, which I am sure many if not most will, why not give that to them. Are you really that threatened by this?

The fact, Jason, is that they do have a choice; they have a real choice.

A real choice that, like all real choices, entails actual consequences.

A real choice that they must, like adults, step up and own.

If the consequence of making the right choice is that the in-laws will sulk for a few years, then that's just the price of choosing the right.

If they choose to please the in-laws instead, then at least the in-laws will get what they are bargaining for: they will attend the real wedding. The couple may even value their sealing more, when they receive it a year later, because they've had time to think about it; it wasn't just an automatic afterthought. And unlike their in-laws, the Church won't sulk about it for years.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Simon Belmont]

Where do I start?

Papyrus?

Multiple versions of the First Vision®?

Flaming Sword story?

Polygamy?

Masonry?

Fanny?

Mountain Meadows Massacre?

None of those things prove Mormonism false. They don't even come close. They've also all been dealt with by FAIR and the MI.

[Jason Bourne]

Pahoran

This discussion will really go no where. My guess is someday the Church will change this policy. It is not a doctrinal issue at all.

We will have to simply disagree. However, I think you exhibit a hard heart and uncaring attitude. I also reject your implications that people who are a members in good standing who may want to do something before the temple are somehow less faithful then you or others and that they view the temple as less sacred it so full of over the top piety that it frankly makes my stomach churn.

As for me and my more liberal views a Jack Mormon I am not. At least the way I understand the term. Growing up in the Salt Lake City area we used that term to refer to inactive members, like my parents that did not attend, did not keep the WOW and so on. Yet they still identified with the church.

Me I still attend, hold a responsible calling, pay tithing and offerings, hold a recommend, etc. If that does not set well with you oh well.

[Hades]

Where do I start?

Papyrus?

Multiple versions of the First Vision®?

Flaming Sword story?

Polygamy?

Masonry?

Fanny?

Mountain Meadows Massacre?

None of those things prove Mormonism false. They don't even come close. They've also all been dealt with by FAIR and the MI.

The proof Belmont, is in your thinking. You think what you have been taught to think. Free your mind and it will all become clear.

[ludwigm]

My guess is someday the Church will change this policy. It is not a doctrinal issue at all.

Someday. Not tomorrow.
For the fifteen old men - who count - the problem doesn't exist. They haven't and will not have and can not have such family members. That type of future kinship can not near them at all.

...Me I still attend, hold a responsible calling, pay tithing and offerings, hold a recommend, etc.

Fortunately, You didn't forget to think.
Not typical, sometimes it happens.

I agree You 100%.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pause - deep sigh - counting 1 to 10 (maybe 20)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pahoran
... I think you exhibit a hard heart and uncaring attitude...

He is not alone, and this is the thing which is troubling me - from that minute on when I met first time with pahoran-type blindfolded warriors.
God's only true church should not develop that type of thinking.

As an atheist, I don't begin define christianity...

ps.
Sometimes, people have language problems. I had many times. You know, as far as it is translated correctly...
hard heart has the same meaning in all language I know (or I think I know...) .

[Buffalo]

Indeed, the "obvious parallel" is that there are LDS people who see themselves as equal to, worthy of, and on par with, the Lord/God.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Oh snippity snap!