Litzy

I think we need to tread carefully when it comes to families. Sure, we have the couple that has a few family members and/or friends at a tiny courthouse ceremony, but remember that at least in western culture family is a big, big part of the wedding day. Should the day be about the bride and groom? Of course. But, for better or for worse, family usually comes with the territory and it does behoove the bride and groom to be diplomatic with the family. LDS sealings are merely one type of wedding in a country full of family-focused celebrations. It can be difficult to separate the two desires. Other than that, I do agree with much of these posts as far as the temple sealing goes.

I like to read a few old favorites of prior GC talks.

I suppose I can see both sides. I'm a convert from a family with a very varied selection of faiths. I've seen all sorts of weddings and by and large they're just great. I love a big wedding of a cultural celebration. I've also been privy to some very intimate ceremonies. To me, it is what it is. Sure, I'm not going to fight it if suddenly all sealing rooms were enlarged and I would see how that would make people happy. But, right now, sealing rooms are only so big. Therefore, couples (and families?) have a choice: have a sealing in the temple with remembrance of your covenants with God; or have your whatever wedding and get sealed a year or so later. (I am of the school that a sealing is a sealing is a sealing, whenever it takes place.) I don't know if this is the right time to be demanding a big cultural celebration and a temple sealing all in one go. I'm sure if the First Presidency wanted to, they could order what have you to happen to a few, some, or all sealing rooms. But, they haven't. carlimac, I know you're just asking why they aren't bigger and beyond a few uneducated guesses I haven't the slightest idea. But when we drag in discussions of the importance of culture, I think we're moving a little too far from the question. Sealing rooms aren't bigger because they aren't. That's about the long and short of it. We are welcome to have a sealing followed by whatever crazy party we want. And while I realize it's not encouraged, we are all allowed to have our big cultural family celebration wedding followed by a sealing whenever later. It's not like we don't have choices.

If there's one thing Utahns can do, it's pray in public.

LDS culture likes temple weddings, so I don't even see the dropping of the one-year-wait having a huge impact. I would hate to see fewer ordinances done because of the size. Other churches value marriages, yes, and can handle huge weddings (and there's nothing wrong with that) but when our Church looks at marriages as one ordinance of many and we got time a'wastin' and lots of people, efficiency is a big deal. But... estradling makes some good ideas. I suppose if the Church were to make wedding attendance a greater priority for families, bigger rooms (or dividers) when major construction is going is plausible.

The ox in the mire. Sunday is the day they need you and it's a good thing.

Be it known there are some members out there with the warped notion it is their duty to change the Church from the inside out. I don't believe it's a matter of peaceful disagreement where one should graciously bow out and start one's own church. These people believe they are right and therefore must change the system.

So, how big ought sealing rooms be? I certainly wouldn't complain over larger sealing rooms, but I can't help but think the rooms will always be too small for some parties. I don't mean to be facetious, I'm just looking for what the most practical size would be in consideration of the temple size and the average size of wedding parties.

I'm going to call pure culture on this. The sacred nature of the temple does make a large wedding attendance, if not inappropriate, at risk of becoming so. I've been to some huge family weddings that were incredibly solemn and sacred and joyous, so it can be done. But, as it stands, the LDS temple sealing isn't set up for a huge number of attendees. It's not about condemning families and friends. It's about a building of God that serves many purposes, only one of which being a sealing. None of the temples are exactly cathedrals in open space for weddings. To say anything but a small and intimate wedding is wrong isn't fair to the many amazing marriage celebrations out there. But to say a wedding must include all loved ones or it can't be joyous isn't fair, either. carlimac and Traveler have experienced large gatherings of loved ones and saw the beauty in those moments. Those are nothing but good moments. Could a temple create a larger sealing room for larger wedding parties and still maintain that solemn beauty? I'm sure. But, that's not what there is now. Your daughter and her fiancé need to cull the guest list or perhaps rearrange wedding plans to be sealed later on. But I don't think that solves the problem of wanting all these loved ones to attend a sealing, whenever it happens. I'm not saying these tiny intimate weddings are the way to go. I'm just saying that declaring larger weddings as better isn't fair.

I agree with Backroads. The notion that those who have experienced what have you are automatically better missionaries is a false idea. Not only does this not give credit to all life experiences as well as talent and the presence of the Holy Ghost, I'm under the impression that missionaries are discouraged from spilling out their life stories to investigators. Missionaries are to preach the gospel. They are not licensed therapists and counselors. Sending them out to say "I've been through such and such and therefore the gospel is true!" ignores the very nature of preaching the gospel. There is a quote out there, paraphrased, about how our valor only shines through in time of adversity--it is not completely created at that time. Those who have been through many trials are not necessarily better. Those who have little drama in their lives are still capable of growing and perfecting themselves as much as anyone who has been through terrible things. This isn't to say life experiences aren't important, only that missionaries are not out there to counsel investigators.

I live right in the neighbor of my work. I often do walk. It's a cutesy area, but nothing like that bit of Washington or Missouri.

I hate to say it, but you sound like you are still refusing to take blame for this mistake. You notice your husband looking at other women--but I don't know if you are overreacting. Are you seeing what you want to see?

Xax Hypporiff (Xanth)

I can hear the moaning of those who despise grammar... I love it!

I cannot comprehend why he wants to describe himself as a Mormon when all evidence has shown he has no interest. Doctrinally, he doesn't agree with much. He makes his living on convincing people to leave. And, to top it off, he stopped attending. Is "Mormon" just for marketing his wares? The next kicker is why those who proudly left the Church because of his podcasts want him to remain a member. Billy leaves the Church and goes anti, but doesn't want Dehlin to leave?

Aretha Franklin

valdree, I must have been a'typing while you were posting, but you said it beautifully. I'm so sorry about your failed marriage, but I'm also glad you warned your friend not to internalize the problem.

estradling said it perfectly. You may feel hurt, and I sympathize, but you brought it upon yourself by getting caught up in this paranoid gossip. I love the idea of writing your husband a letter, one he can read in his own time. And, if I may insert a moral, this is just one of many reasons why one shouldn't speak glibly of personal matters. The action can hurt more than just the original subject.

Well, dear, you can't base your husband's fidelity on the experience of your friends and their husbands. Just because Susan's husband cheated doesn't mean yours is. Paranoia is unhealthy and destructive to a good marriage. If he repented of his no-mission problem, be done with it. As for the wandering eye, there is a big difference between the aforementioned leering and drooling and a man noticing an attractive woman. And for goodness's sake, stop going through his things.

Ragnarak

The Gelth (Doctor Who)

I'm sorry to hear this, Zero. It's a tough place. Please keep in mind this is your wife's decision. You tried your best to make the marriage work. You need both people to work the marriage correctly. Talk to a lawyer. No reason you should be working two jobs to pay alimony while she doesn't work. (Yes, she's in for a hard dose of reality.) A teacher at my school went through a divorce some years' back... and returned to teaching only because she realized the child support and welfare wasn't enough for her not to work. She'll figure it out, poor thing. And poor you. Stay strong in the gospel, but avoid any polarization. We gave our kids full freedom for religious choices. My ex and I could speak for our own beliefs, but never against.

Yesseree, this is probably what's she's trying, especially with her having joined an ex-Mormon community. My ex-husband initially tried such behaviors before I told him flat-out I was staying in the Church. The recruiting behavior may come from trying to get you to leave the Church to an honest but misguided attempt to keep the marriage strong. We may not look highly on marriages where a spouse has left the Church--the reverse is true in these ex-Mormon groups.

Do not skip church to get coffee with her. Do not go to comedy clubs or any other event where you are dead set against the material. Do not attend her post-Mormon book clubs. You may want to spend more time with her, and she may want you to spend more time with her, but those are a world different from humoring her on a what-movie-shall-we-see discussion. Doing those things will only lead to your destruction. My guess is she would prefer to be married to you on her terms. Not a good way to be. You will need to find mutual ground and a lot of it if you want this marriage to work. I'm sorry. I truly am. But she is making a lot of new choices and finding a new path and it's going to take some time. Don't expect the right answer immediately, but protect yourself.

RuthiesMom, my question to you is, What is truly wrong with any of these things that are bothering you? Ask yourself this and then think deeply and seriously and logically about the question. I think part of your brain fog may be a purely emotional response to these situations. All too often people people can't give a more detailed answer than "I don't like it." Verbalize the whys. Why don't you like these situations and facts? Write down detailed, complete answers if you can. If you can list logical reasons why these problems are indeed morally wrong, well, there it is. But, I'm sorry to say, "I just don't like it" doesn't cut it when you're trying to work through a mess such as this. Why don't you like it? Why is it wrong for other Mormons to like it? You need facts to work with, not emotions and drama.