My extended family won't come to my temple wedding.

[Corey]

Do LDS members ever have a civil service first, and then a temple marriage later on (i'm not talking like the next day, but maybe a month later just so the "it's not real" mentality isn't there)?

Yes, and it is perfectly acceptable. There is no promised blessing for having the legal side handled concurrent with the sealing.

It’s understandable that your family feels the way they do. It strikes me as odd that people would be invited to wait outside. It’s a social insult, regardless of the truths of which we are aware. I think it’s much better to just have a wedding ceremony and a sealing, regardless of when the legal part is handled.

The ring ceremony being “just a show” shows serious immaturity. All too often, people make everything about themselves. It sounds like your family is choosing to be insulted. I’d go and wait outside if it was important to my child. Some people need to grow up and love.

Your choice to not accommodate your family has clear consequences. If you believe the Lord wants you to have the legal side handled with the sealing, than stick with it. The only reason you need to provide is just that. “I choose to believe this is what my God wants me to do.” No apology.

Best wishes!

[jadams_4040]

I'm getting married in two weeks. I've never had any "persecution" for being a member, until now. All of my extended family are refusing to come because they can't enter the temple. And it's not even like they're sad about it - they just don't seem to care. My grandma originally said she'd be thrilled to come, but she wrote me an email last night saying that she'd changed her mind because she can't see the ceremony.

I'm very hurt. I thought I was close with my extended family, but their actions speak otherwise. I tried posting my feelings to a wedding community I'm a part of, and everyone pretty much said "serves you right, I don't blame them," which just made me feel worse.

Obviously, there's nothing I can do about it. The temple is so important and I'm so happy to be getting married there, but my family's actions still sting. I guess I'm just looking to commiserate people and know that I'm not alone. Stories, anyone?

Guess i,m not understanding? how can they refuse if they can not enter anyway?

[the Ogre]

I'm very hurt. I thought I was close with my extended family, but their actions speak otherwise. I tried posting my feelings to a wedding community I'm a part of, and everyone pretty much said "serves you right, I don't blame them," which just made me feel worse.

I suppose the only advantage is that now you know who will be supportive while you are married. It is always nice to know "who is holding the knife" when involved in family relationships. I am sure you have a very clear understanding now of your family instead of having to wait for something catastrophic to happen.

Don't cave. It will only empower the manipulative in your family.

[bmy-]

I'm getting married in two weeks. I've never had any "persecution" for being a member, until now. All of my extended family are refusing to come because they can't enter the temple. And it's not even like they're sad about it - they just don't seem to care. My grandma originally said she'd be thrilled to come, but she wrote me an email last night saying that she'd changed her mind because she can't see the ceremony.

I'm very hurt. I thought I was close with my extended family, but their actions speak otherwise. I tried posting my feelings to a wedding community I'm a part of, and everyone pretty much said "serves you right, I don't blame them," which just made me feel worse.

Obviously, there's nothing I can do about it. The temple is so important and I'm so happy to be getting married there, but my family's actions still sting. I guess I'm just looking to commiserate people and know that I'm not alone. Stories, anyone?

On the other side of the issue.. do you not think them not being able to see the ceremony (with members of your family being able to) stings them also? It does.

It's one of those issues.. that frankly.. is ridiculous. We should not be punished for choosing to enter into a marriage by having to wait one year to be sealed. Are there any legitimate reasons for this policy?

I suppose the only advantage is that now you know who will be supportive while you are married. It is always nice to know "who is holding the knife" when involved in family relationships. I am sure you have a very clear understanding now of your family instead of having to wait for something catastrophic to happen.

Don't cave. It will only empower the manipulative in your family.

Don't cave to their pressure.. cave to yours.

[Wingnut]

Guess i,m not understanding? how can they refuse if they can not enter anyway?

I think the family is refusing to come for any of the festivities (reception, celebration, even a suggested ring ceremony) because they won't be allowed at the real deal.

It's one of those issues.. that frankly.. is ridiculous. We should not be punished for choosing to enter into a marriage by having to wait one year to be sealed. Are there any legitimate reasons for this policy?

I think it's mainly to discourage this very practice. The focus should be on the sealing ordinance and the covenants being made, not on pleasing Aunt Bertha and Uncle Herman, or having a big tens of thousands of dollars event.

[bmy-]

I think the family is refusing to come for any of the festivities (reception, celebration, even a suggested ring ceremony) because they won't be allowed at the real deal.

What if they didn't let you come see their marriage in a regular church because you were mormon? Then they told you.. well.. you could wait outside and watch us come out. That would surely rub me the wrong way. I'm mainly saying this.. to turn the tables and encourage people to look at it from the other direction.

I think it's mainly to discourage this very practice. The focus should be on the sealing ordinance and the covenants being made, not on pleasing Aunt Bertha and Uncle Herman, or having a big tens of thousands of dollars event.

No.. the emphasis of the Church always has and should be on the family. Not a family.. on the family. That includes non-members as well.

My scenario.. i'm the only mormon in my entire family (including all relatives). Is it right that my girlfriends family could see our ceremony.. but mine could not? I've already told them that if we do choose to go the temple route (without penalty).. nobody is allowed in. It's all or none, for me. It's a celebration and i'm not about to shove my families face in the dirt and feed the other side cake.

Obviously i've given this a bit of thought.. and i'm simply adding my opinion to this thread. I think it's contrary to the nature of the Church to have this one year penalty in place. My gripe is with the Church, not with the OP. (I did find somewhat of a loophole, I believe)

Edited June 5, 2009 by bmy-

[Maureen]

I suppose the only advantage is that now you know who will be supportive while you are married. It is always nice to know "who is holding the knife" when involved in family relationships. I am sure you have a very clear understanding now of your family instead of having to wait for something catastrophic to happen.

Don't cave. It will only empower the manipulative in your family.

I doubt insulting annamaureen's family is being supportive.

bmy- is correct. The LDS church promotes family, yet when it comes to wedding celebrations they seem to have no problem with excluding family members, whether they are LDS or non-LDS. It's easier for BIC members because you are brought up in that culture. It's normal for younger siblings to never attend their older siblings weddings - so it's easily accepted. But for non-LDS family members it is not normal, it's odd and un-family-like. There's got to be something that can please the bride and groom, and make the family a part of the celebrations. At the moment, the only thing that does that is the Ring Ceremony. If the LDS church and its members can start really promoting it as something special for non-LDS family members, than these family feuds and disappointments can come to an end.

M.

[bmy-]

I doubt insulting annamaureen's family is being supportive.

bmy- is correct. The LDS church promotes family, yet when it comes to wedding celebrations they seem to have no problem with excluding family members, whether they are LDS or non-LDS. It's easier for BIC members because you are brought up in that culture. It's normal for younger siblings to never attend their older siblings weddings - so it's easily accepted. But for non-LDS family members it is not normal, it's odd and un-family-like. There's got to be something that can please the bride and groom, and make the family a part of the celebrations. At the moment, the only thing that does that is the Ring Ceremony. If the LDS church and its members can start really promoting it as something special for non-LDS family members, than these family feuds and disappointments can come to an end.

M.

I think they could simply remove the one year waiting penalty. It's ridiculous. I've yet to find a real answer for why it exists.. it just does. Bishops don't know, missionaries have no clue, and emails go unanswered..

You get the greatest looks just by asking about that stupid rule.

[Maya]

Sorry I did not read all of this but: How about going officially and leagally married first in front of a .. what you call the person that can marry people and leave the party as if married but stil not spend the night to gether and next day go to the Temple for the real thing?!

If they stil say they wont come, then I suggest you leave it at that and only marry in Temple and have open party in teh Church to thise that watn to come!

I had 3 parties when I married; one in the Swedish Temple the next in an LDS Church in Finland and the third in an LDS Church in Norway. Neither of us has family, that could enter the Temple. We had just 4 friends there. It was beautiful all the same! Only one of these 4 was a good frend of mine.

[Corey]

Are you saying that even if you both have current temple recommends, you can't be sealed until one year after your civil wedding, if you choose to be married outside the temple?

I didn't know this. Maybe it is simply to encourage temple marriage. Odd, indeed.

[bmy-]

Are you saying that even if you both have current temple recommends, you can't be sealed until one year after your civil wedding, if you choose to be married outside the temple?

I didn't know this. Maybe it is simply to encourage temple marriage. Odd, indeed.

Yes.

[Maureen]

I think they could simply remove the one year waiting penalty. It's ridiculous. I've yet to find a real answer for why it exists.. it just does. Bishops don't know, missionaries have no clue, and emails go unanswered...

Yes, you are correct bmy-. If the LDS church could adopt the wedding/marriage rules universally, that are practiced in the UK it would make for happier family celebrations.

[Jenamarie]

I think the rule may be to keep the focus on the Eternally important Temple Sealing, and off of the more worldly, temporary, temporal civil ceremony. Have you SEEN how much money couples are spending on civil ceremonies? Locations, decorations, etc. all things that you have to plan a year or more in advance (especially location bookings for ceremonies). It would be easy, IMO, for civil ceremony preperations to trump Temple preperation, and take the focus off of what is most important in the Eternal perspective.

Just my opinion of course.

[bmy-]

Yes, you are correct bmy-. If the LDS church could adopt the wedding/marriage rules universally, that are practiced in the UK it would make for happier family celebrations.

That's part of my loophole.

[Maya]

Yes.

Really?? I did not know that either. My good idea was dumped then...

I really think it is not nice at all by the family not to come to the wedding, or not to want to come to the ring party right after Temple. After all they can be held same day! I would have got so hurt that I would have looked for a new family in the church to "adopt", instead and had not cared what my real family thinks. After all they are in fact just my sisters and brothers, my Father is in heaven! :)

Their loss!

[bmy-]

Really?? I did not know that either. My good idea was dumped then...

I really think it is not nice at all by the family not to come to the wedding, or not to want to come to the ring party right after Temple. After all they can be held same day! I would have got so hurt that I would have looked for a new family in the church to "adopt", instead and had not cared what my real family thinks. After all they are in fact just my sisters and brothers, my Father is in heaven! :)

Their loss!

Want to come to my wedding? You can't come inside to see the service because you're mormon.. but you can come sit outside and watch us drive away. This Church is about family.. and that includes the people who are just your sisters and brothers. In fact, Christ is just your brother.. no big deal -- right?

Anything that separates family like this rule i've been talking about is contrary to the gospel.

[Dravin]

I agree that there isn't a huge appeal to sit and wait at the temple. Heck, I'm active and all that jazz when my sister got married and thinking back, if I had it to do all over again (and I wouldn't be hurting feelings overly) I think I would have just met the party at the reception.

[NeuroTypical]

What if they didn't let you come see their marriage in a regular church because you were mormon? Then they told you.. well.. you could wait outside and watch us come out.

Well, part of raising kids is to unleash them on the world as responsible adults, able to make their own decisions. If they made such a decision, I'd respect it and love them. I certainly wouldn't chose to be a thorn in their lives, as one of the things that make life harder.

Common human complaint: "This choice involves a painful decision - therefore there must be a problem with whoever is making me make this choice".

There's more to the story than that.

I think it's contrary to the nature of the Church to have this one year penalty in place. My gripe is with the Church, not with the OP. (I did find somewhat of a loophole, I believe)

...

I think they could simply remove the one year waiting penalty. It's ridiculous. I've yet to find a real answer for why it exists.. it just does. Bishops don't know, missionaries have no clue, and emails go unanswered..

Did you say somewhere that you're a current temple recommend holder, and you've been through the temple?

If yes, I'm wondering if you currently consider yourself worthy to go, with your rebellious "I'm right and church leadership is wrong" attitude. Sustaining the leaders is one of the prerequisites, ya know...

If no, then here's an answer to your question: The temple is for people who wish to raise their personal discipleship up a notch by further bending their will to that of the Master. In your case, a 1 yr waiting period would allow you to get your act together and reach a level where you can honestly support and sustain church leadership as Righteous Folks In Charge.

If you don't think you'll be able to do that, why are you in this church if it's led by jerks?

LM

[beefche]

I think they could simply remove the one year waiting penalty. It's ridiculous. I've yet to find a real answer for why it exists.. it just does. Bishops don't know, missionaries have no clue, and emails go unanswered..

You get the greatest looks just by asking about that stupid rule.

Wow. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that if 2 people choose to marry outside the temple, then they would need time to prepare themselves to be worthy to enter the temple. Naw, can't be anything of that nature.

[marshac]

Wow. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that if 2 people choose to marry outside the temple, then they would need time to prepare themselves to be worthy to enter the temple. Naw, can't be anything of that nature.

What if they were worthy and prepared to be married in the temple, but decided to have a wedding outside the temple? Why does that suddenly make the couple less worthy than they were prior to the wedding?

[beefche]

Ok, perhaps that couple is worthy, but are they ready? The temple covenants are serious and if one isn't ready to accept those covenants, it's wrong to have them do so...even for social reasons. So, in my opinion, if a couple is worthy to be married in the temple, but chooses not to (for whatever reason), then I think it's a small sacrifice for them to wait a year to be prepared to accept greater responsibilities and covenants.

[Jenamarie]

The ancient apostles put off everything to follow the Lord. HE was number one on their list of priorities. I know the Church puts a lot of emphasis (rightly so) on Family, but the Lord is still number one. HIS opinion of our actions should be our first consideration. Without Him, there would be no Eternal Family. Would He want someone to pass up one of His greatest Blessings to us, so that they don't hurt another human's feelings? And what if a tragedy strikes a newly-civily-married couple before they make it to the Temple? Having already chosen not to start their marriage in the Temple (assuming it was by choice that they put it off, and not because of any on-going repentence process, or new conversion), would a proxy Sealing be valid? Is it righteous to say "Thanks, but not right now, I've got more important things to attend to first" to a Blessing the Lord offers you?

My two cents.

[marshac]

Would He want someone to pass up one of His greatest Blessings to us, so that they don't hurt another human's feelings?

These 'humans' have a special role though- special enough that the requirement to honor them is codified in the ten commandments.

Additionally, you speak about passing up the greatest blessing- isn't the couple already choosing when to accept the blessing, and for how long to pass it by when they decide upon a date to get married in the temple? What's the difference in waiting one more week, or conversely, having the civil service one week earlier? Although I suppose that is not an option given the fact that such a couple would be required to wait a year....

It just seems like it's potentially driving a wedge between the two families needlessly- also, what are the odds that the non-LDS family will EVER look upon the church favorably from that time on? What are they odds they would want to join?

I always love hearing about how a couple should get sealed in the temple since you never know when an unfortunate accident might take place... or how important it is just to go visit the temple on a regular basis.... and then simultaneously told (as a new couple/member) "10 more months". It doesn't upset me- I understand the reasoning- it just sends mixed signals.

[talisyn]

The separation at the doors of the temple have a parallel in the separation between kingdoms in the afterlife. Those who could/would not follow the standards of the celestial kingdom cannot go there, as much as we might want it. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

[Maya]

Want to come to my wedding? You can't come inside to see the service because you're mormon.. but you can come sit outside and watch us drive away. This Church is about family.. and that includes the people who are just your sisters and brothers. In fact, Christ is just your brother.. no big deal -- right?

Anything that separates family like this rule i've been talking about is contrary to the gospel.

Yes this Church is of family GODS family. We are all in it. I think it is not nice of people NOT to come to a weding party even though they miss some part of the big seremony. It is like we would say to those not marrying in Temple that sorry we do not come to your wedding as it is NOT in the Temple!

There is not anything extraspecial that happens in the Temple anyway, anyway not to anyone outside LDS. The word yes on can repeat many times after too! On can even make or say a poem to each other in the Ringparty. The change of rings is an important thing in a usual wedding and THAT do not happen in the Temple ... so I really can not understand people that dont come to a wedding /ring party a few minutes/hour after! Gee, I think that is plain nasty!

Before when you were not allowed to marry people leagally in the Swedish Temple you had to have two weddings, and I think they had to be leagally married first and then they left for the Temple.

I think everyone could wait a few years before marrying in the Temple anyway. Looks like the divorce wave has hit the LDS too! Temple marriage should never be just a custom!