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

[beefche]

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.

Why can't a couple get married in the temple first, then have a civil ceremony? Obviously, I'm speaking of those in USA as those in other countries have to be married civilly first to satisfy the laws.

People always talk about having a civil ceremony first, then the temple. What about those people who elope to Vegas, get married with no one there (except Elvis), then come home and have another wedding for family. What's the difference? I truly am asking and not trying to sound snarky.

I have no family members who are members of the church, so if I were to be married, I will have some kind of ceremony at the reception for my family. I'm more than willing to "elope" with my fiance to Vegas (hey, they have a temple there!) then come home and have a ceremony.

[marshac]

Why can't a couple get married in the temple first, then have a civil ceremony? Obviously, I'm speaking of those in USA as those in other countries have to be married civilly first to satisfy the laws.

That's a very good idea. I like it. It could be a little difficult to pull off since i'm sure the happy couple would want to tell everyone that they got married.... and if the purpose is to dispel the notion that the civil ceremony "doesn't matter" and is "just for show", then their actions could squelch the deal.

Is it possible to have a temple marriage without it being legally recognized? If so, this would necessitate the civil ceremony, and it truly would not be "just for show".

[Maureen]

....Is it possible to have a temple marriage without it being legally recognized? If so, this would necessitate the civil ceremony, and it truly would not be "just for show".

Yes it is, because that's exactly how it's done in countries where that's the law; like the UK.

M.

[bmy-]

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".

Both sides here are complaining. The OP is complaining that her extended family does not want to come.. and they are complaining that they aren't allowed to celebrate this ceremony with her and her family.

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...

How often is change made without rebellion? I've asked church leadership the reason behind it and nobody i've asked knows the reasoning behind it. Most do not even know the rule exists. I suppose I don't consider myself worthy to go if honoring every rule is necessary (especially ones that vary by country). Do you eat meat frequently? Because if you do.. you aren't worthy either (just another rule that people seem to glance over).

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

We're not speaking of 'my case'. We're speaking in general here. So you feel that a perfectly worthy couple should be punished for entering into a civil marriage before being sealed in the temple?

Besides -- in the UK this is the practice. Why the difference?

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.

Perhaps they're already worthy. Not everyone who gets married outside of the temples are unclean. Unless you think that it's the marriage itself that makes them unclean..? I'm not sure what you were getting at.

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?

What if tragedy strikes the couple before they make it to the temple regardless? They schedule a date to get married in the temple, and get a regular marriage before that date. It's that simple.

Why can't a couple get married in the temple first, then have a civil ceremony? Obviously, I'm speaking of those in USA as those in other countries have to be married civilly first to satisfy the laws.

People always talk about having a civil ceremony first, then the temple. What about those people who elope to Vegas, get married with no one there (except Elvis), then come home and have another wedding for family. What's the difference? I truly am asking and not trying to sound snarky.

The difference is that they could have attended the ceremony. They have no option to attend a temple marriage and it's due to religious belief.

Yes it is, because that's exactly how it's done in countries where that's the law; like the UK.

Exactly how it should be in all countries.

[beefche]

We're not speaking of 'my case'. We're speaking in general here. So you feel that a perfectly worthy couple should be punished for entering into a civil marriage before being sealed in the temple?

Besides -- in the UK this is the practice. Why the difference?

Perhaps they're already worthy. Not everyone who gets married outside of the temples are unclean. Unless you think that it's the marriage itself that makes them unclean..? I'm not sure what you were getting at.

The difference is that they could have attended the ceremony. They have no option to attend a temple marriage and it's due to religious belief.

Exactly how it should be in all countries.

Did you not see my response to marshac regarding a worthy couple who chooses to not get married in the temple?

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.

Also, there is a civil ceremony first in the UK, because their laws do not recognize a temple ceremony as a legal marriage. Thus, they are married civilly first, then sealed in the temple. We do not have such laws in USA.

Regarding a couple that elopes to Vegas--typically, eloping implies that they get married without others there. If they planned the wedding in Vegas--that is different than eloping. Therefore, the family could not attend because they didn't know about it.

Finally, once again, I'm going to choose to trust our leaders. Perhaps this isn't written down anywhere, but I cannot imagine that some stake president hasn't contacted SLC with the question. Sometimes the answer to "why" or "can this couple" the answer is "no, and unable to share the reason." Doesn't mean there isn't one, it may mean that it cannot be shared. Secrets, you say? I tend to think of it as I sustain these men as prophets and we as a people may not be prepared for the answer.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's a very good idea. I like it. It could be a little difficult to pull off since i'm sure the happy couple would want to tell everyone that they got married.... and if the purpose is to dispel the notion that the civil ceremony "doesn't matter" and is "just for show", then their actions could squelch the deal.

The issue here, is that the LDS leadership strongly discourages any kind of "marriage" ceremony performed after a sealing.

Is it possible to have a temple marriage without it being legally recognized? If so, this would necessitate the civil ceremony, and it truly would not be "just for show".

The practical consequence here would be that temple marriages would be deemed "second-class" or "quasi" marriages, from a legal point of view. I don't think that's a concession our leadership is currently willing to make, though the situation may change a few decades down the road as long-established traditions about the definition and implications of civil "marriage" become murkier.

[bmy-]

Did you not see my response to marshac regarding a worthy couple who chooses to not get married in the temple?

Didn't see it. I addressed the post directed to me before I read further. I'd get distracted otherwise.. ;]

Also, there is a civil ceremony first in the UK, because their laws do not recognize a temple ceremony as a legal marriage. Thus, they are married civilly first, then sealed in the temple. We do not have such laws in USA.

Perhaps that should be changed.

Regarding a couple that elopes to Vegas--typically, eloping implies that they get married without others there. If they planned the wedding in Vegas--that is different than eloping. Therefore, the family could not attend because they didn't know about it.

That's fine and all.. and i'm sure it hurt the family. Much like the way it works now, right? The biggest difference is that they weren't excluded because they go to a different church.

*Edited by Moderator*

Edited June 8, 2009 by pam
Inappropriate remark concerning the Prophets of our Church

[Maya]

I just wonder... in this case... where would the family be willing to come to the wedding? Would they attend the civil ceremony? Or would they say we are not coming unless it is in the xxx church? (Just not in LDS Temple or church). Would they go for a civil marriage just it is done in front of them?

I might be so nasty, that I would give them the civil marriage on my backlawn or in the city hall in work clothes.

Then live separate a year before attending the Temple.... in Whites. The problem might be that they might automathicly devorce us before that as we would have a different adress.

[Wingnut]

It bothers me when people think they know better than the leaders of the Church. Leaders that the Lord has put in place.

[NeuroTypical]

I might be so nasty, that I would give them the civil marriage on my backlawn or in the city hall in work clothes.

I had to giggle at this. I was once best man at a wedding, where the line ditched our formal attire early on, put on their t-shirts with "groom", "bride", etc on them, and took off for McDonalds.

I've also been to a backyard deal where the parents had poured about ten grand of home improvements and landscaping into their property in order to throw a very fine reception.

One of the chinziest low-class weddings was my old boss' 'bounce back' marriage he threw to get even with his ex-spouse. He held the wedding in his ward's cultural hall, right there under the basketball hoop. Slam dunk. It took his new bride about a week to wise up about the guy she married, and had it quickly annulled.

My mom married my dad (drinker, smoker, gambler on his 4th marriage), in order to tick off her very LDS parents. He married her so he could 'have wunna them subservient mormon wimmin.' Oddly enough, their marriage lasted to death - a lot of people lost money on those bets!

I hope to someday go to a wedding where there is a real fist fight.

LM

Edited June 8, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[MarginOfError]

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?

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

No one is being punished for anything. Those who choose to be sealed in God’s temple receive the blessings of priesthood keys and power that are beneficial to worthy and committed spouses. You only call it a punishment because it isn’t what you want.

And yes, there are legitimate reasons for this policy.

1) The important part of the Sealing ordinance is not the temporal marriage, but the covenants made with the spouse before God and his angels, and the promises and blessing guaranteed by the ordinance. When we choose a civil ceremony instead of the Sealing ordinance, we indicate that our temporal desires are more important to us than the eternal. The policy exists to teach and demonstrate what is truly important.

2) If couples were permitted to be sealed any time after their civil wedding, it would be entirely possible for a couple to have sexual relations before their civil marriage, be married, and then go for the temple recommend interviews a month later to be sealed and claim to be living the Law of Chastity. This does not reflect a repentant attitude and is rightly guarded against as such behavior would make a mockery of God. If you think this is a rare thing to have to guard against, recall that in the 1990’s, the Church changed its definition of the law of chastity from sexual intercourse to sexual relations because so many people were claiming that oral sex wasn’t a violation of the law of chastity.

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.

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)

I wouldn’t be upset at all. In fact, I would encourage them to get married by the standards of their religion, because I understand that their marriage is about them and not about me.

As for your statement that the focus should be on the family and not a family, that is just patently wrong. The Sealing ordinance takes place to bind a husband and wife together and provide them with the keys and authority God intended them to have to raise a family in this world. The Sealing ordinance is a covenant between a husband and wife with God that extends to their posterity. Nowhere in the Sealing ordinance are other family members mentioned. The presence of family members is entirely unnecessary. The only people that need to be present for a Sealing are the man, the woman, the sealer, and two priesthood witnesses.

Your implication that Sealings should be about the family demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Sealing ordinance and a preference for the temporal aspects of marriage.

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.

Just because you and local leaders don’t know the reasons for the policy doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reasons. It may come as a big surprise to you, but you are not the end all of all intelligent thought. Sorry to burst your bubble.

That's part of my loophole.

There are no loopholes. In countries where the government does not recognize the Sealing ordinance as a marriage, couples are counseled and strongly to encouraged to plan their weddings and Sealings within a couple weeks of each other. Note: I served a mission in Ukraine where there is no operating temple. Members had to travel to Germany to be Sealed, and Ukraine did not recognize a marriage performed in Germany. As such, members were married usually within 3-4 weeks of their scheduled trip to be Sealed. It was up to the Mission President to decide if the one year waiting period should be imposed on a couple who was married months before attending the temple (based on individual circumstances).

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.

As stated before, you seem to be caught into a temporal notion of family. Think about the eternities for a moment and you’ll realize that the majority of your time will be spent with your spouse, and very little with your siblings, your parents, or even your children. They’ll all have their own spouses, and they will be working on their own eternal progression. You walk into eternity with one companion, and that is your spouse. The Sealing is about you and her, and the blessings God grants to raise your children.

Both sides here are complaining. The OP is complaining that her extended family does not want to come.. and they are complaining that they aren't allowed to celebrate this ceremony with her and her family.

How often is change made without rebellion? I've asked church leadership the reason behind it and nobody i've asked knows the reasoning behind it. Most do not even know the rule exists. I suppose I don't consider myself worthy to go if honoring every rule is necessary (especially ones that vary by country). Do you eat meat frequently? Because if you do.. you aren't worthy either (just another rule that people seem to glance over).

We're not speaking of 'my case'. We're speaking in general here. So you feel that a perfectly worthy couple should be punished for entering into a civil marriage before being sealed in the temple?

Besides -- in the UK this is the practice. Why the difference?

Perhaps they're already worthy. Not everyone who gets married outside of the temples are unclean. Unless you think that it's the marriage itself that makes them unclean..? I'm not sure what you were getting at.

What if tragedy strikes the couple before they make it to the temple regardless? They schedule a date to get married in the temple, and get a regular marriage before that date. It's that simple.

The difference is that they could have attended the ceremony. They have no option to attend a temple marriage and it's due to religious belief.

Exactly how it should be in all countries.

People are not punished for entering civil marriage. People lose privileges for choosing the authority of man over the authority of God. The only difference between the US and the UK (and other countries with similar laws) is that the UK does not recognize LDS clergy as authoritative in matters of marriage. The Sealing ordinance would be just as valid in the UK if couples went without being civilly married first, and they would receive all the same keys. However, they would not be able to use those keys because the Lord--in a bizarre fit of mercy--saw fit to define chastity as sexual relations between men and women who are legally and lawfully married to each other. Can you see the complication that might arise with giving two people the power and authority to raise a family but not granting them the wherewithal to have a family?

Don’t think that the Church established this policy only to meet temporal laws. There were eternal laws that had to be satisfied as well.

Again, everything you have said indicates strongly that you are focused on the temporal aspects of marriage and not at all knowledgeable about what the Sealing ordinance is nor what it is for. Perhaps you should begin studying the ordinance and the covenants instead of criticizing something you aren’t prepared to understand.

[bmy-]

No one is being punished for anything. Those who choose to be sealed in God’s temple receive the blessings of priesthood keys and power that are beneficial to worthy and committed spouses. You only call it a punishment because it isn’t what you want.

Wrong. If it were not a penalty or a punishment.. there would be no problem entering into a civil marriage before a temple marriage. You enter into a civil marriage and you are forced to wait one year to be sealed to your wife.. instead of simply allowing (for example) a civil marriage to take place on wednesday, and the temple ceremony the following monday. I'll go through your legitimate reasons one at a time..

And yes, there are legitimate reasons for this policy.

1) The important part of the Sealing ordinance is not the temporal marriage, but the covenants made with the spouse before God and his angels, and the promises and blessing guaranteed by the ordinance. When we choose a civil ceremony instead of the Sealing ordinance, we indicate that our temporal desires are more important to us than the eternal. The policy exists to teach and demonstrate what is truly important.

If the temple sealing is set months down the road.. say in December. This is the first possible opening (temples are booked). Should you be forced to wait another year because you choose to get a civil marriage in August? Yes or no.. if you don't mind.

2) If couples were permitted to be sealed any time after their civil wedding, it would be entirely possible for a couple to have sexual relations before their civil marriage, be married, and then go for the temple recommend interviews a month later to be sealed and claim to be living the Law of Chastity. This does not reflect a repentant attitude and is rightly guarded against as such behavior would make a mockery of God. If you think this is a rare thing to have to guard against, recall that in the 1990’s, the Church changed its definition of the law of chastity from sexual intercourse to sexual relations because so many people were claiming that oral sex wasn’t a violation of the law of chastity.

What of those who obtain their temple recommend and then break the law of chastity that night? It's between them and God.. period. Any mormon devout enough to get sealed in the temple would likely have an understanding of the process of repentance.. and it is their responsibility to post-pone their sealing if they are not worthy.

I wouldn’t be upset at all. In fact, I would encourage them to get married by the standards of their religion, because I understand that their marriage is about them and not about me.

As for your statement that the focus should be on the family and not a family, that is just patently wrong. The Sealing ordinance takes place to bind a husband and wife together and provide them with the keys and authority God intended them to have to raise a family in this world. The Sealing ordinance is a covenant between a husband and wife with God that extends to their posterity. Nowhere in the Sealing ordinance are other family members mentioned. The presence of family members is entirely unnecessary. The only people that need to be present for a Sealing are the man, the woman, the sealer, and two priesthood witnesses.

That's all that's necessary -- true. The Church does place emphasis on family especially for members with non-member family. They don't want to divide the families.. they want to unite them. Anything that unnecessarily divides a family should be fixed, that's my point.

Just because you and local leaders don’t know the reasons for the policy doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reasons. It may come as a big surprise to you, but you are not the end all of all intelligent thought. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You make an incorrect assumption. I'm simply trying to change a practice that can be improved and possibly help the Church. It's not like things have not been changed for conveniences sake.. like the temple ceremonies themselves.

Have you experienced this situation? Have you seen your mother cry because her child became a member of the LDS church? One of my mothers specific reasons for being upset was that she wouldn't be able to see me get married if it was in the temple. I've made my decision to honor my mother and father and get married outside of the temple first -- that's in accordance with the gospel, no? Why should I be penalized for that? I'd like to prevent myself from 'walking through Hell for a Heavenly cause..' if I could..

There are no loopholes. In countries where the government does not recognize the Sealing ordinance as a marriage, couples are counseled and strongly to encouraged to plan their weddings and Sealings within a couple weeks of each other. Note: I served a mission in Ukraine where there is no operating temple. Members had to travel to Germany to be Sealed, and Ukraine did not recognize a marriage performed in Germany. As such, members were married usually within 3-4 weeks of their scheduled trip to be Sealed. It was up to the Mission President to decide if the one year waiting period should be imposed on a couple who was married months before attending the temple (based on individual circumstances).

Which is exactly what I was suggesting. Why is that so terrible? Why is it terrible to suggest that a practice can be improved or to ask people to examine an issue from the other side? This Church is perfect.. but us members sure as heck aren't.

Edited June 8, 2009 by bmy-

[MarginOfError]

Wrong. If it were not a penalty or a punishment.. there would be no problem entering into a civil marriage before a temple marriage. You enter into a civil marriage and you are forced to wait one year to be sealed to your wife.. instead of simply allowing (for example) a civil marriage to take place on wednesday, and the temple ceremony the following monday. I'll go through your legitimate reasons one at a time..

Well, if you want to consider it a punishment that people aren't permitted to go to the temple when they don't consider the covenants in the temple to be of higher value than the temporal arrangements, then sure, go ahead and think that way.

But remember, the waiting period is enforced because these couples don't appear to understand the significance of the temple. Priesthood leaders are responsible for preparing the hearts and minds of these couples . No one is benefited from going to the temple before they are spiritually prepared to receive what is taught there.l

By the way, Provo and Salt Lake temples are the only temples in the world that are open on Monday.

If the temple sealing is set months down the road.. say in December. This is the first possible opening (temples are booked). Should you be forced to wait another year because you choose to get a civil marriage in August? Yes or no.. if you don't mind.

That's just plain ignorant of how the temple functions. First, if a couple wants to be sealed, the temple makes it happen. The Sealing ordinance takes less than 5 minutes from start to finish. If the sealer decides to give some kind of talk about the ordinance for the benefit of the couple, that might extend the entire ordeal to about 20 minutes. Based on an operating schedule of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM, a small temple with two sealing rooms could easily schedule at least 20 sealings a day. So I have to kindly reject the premise of your argument because, quite simply, it wouldn't happen. If a temple were "booked", it would be a matter of a few hours, or at most, a day to find a time at which it was available. Perhaps you can tell me what's wrong with waiting a day.

What of those who obtain their temple recommend and then break the law of chastity that night? It's between them and God.. period. Any mormon devout enough to get sealed in the temple would likely have an understanding of the process of repentance.. and it is their responsibility to post-pone their sealing if they are not worthy.

So because the Church can't prevent every mockery of God, they shouldn't do anything to prevent any mockery of God. I agree with you that a couple that does so condemns themselves. However, the Church still must take action to ensure that temple ordinances are not exploited and unworthily received as much as possible.

That's all that's necessary -- true. The Church does place emphasis on family especially for members with non-member family. They don't want to divide the families.. they want to unite them. Anything that unnecessarily divides a family should be fixed, that's my point.

Again, you fail to see where the Church's notion of family truly resides. When the Church talks about responsibility to family, it almost always means father, mother, and children. No extension to that family is involved in the Sealing ordinance.

In addition, the Sealing ordinance does not "unnecesarily divide a family" nearly as much as it "necessarily unites a family." Once again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of the Sealing ordinance is. Your emotions are strongly tied to the conventional meaning of a marriage.

You make an incorrect assumption. I'm simply trying to change a practice that can be improved and possibly help the Church. It's not like things have not been changed for conveniences sake.. like the temple ceremonies themselves.

But you fail to recognize the travesty that would result in sending people to be Sealed before they have demonstrated that they understand the covenant and have accepted that as the highest and most important commitment they can make.

Have you experienced this situation? Have you seen your mother cry because her child became a member of the LDS church? One of my mothers specific reasons for being upset was that she wouldn't be able to see me get married if it was in the temple. I've made my decision to honor my mother and father and get married outside of the temple first -- that's in accordance with the gospel, no? Why should I be penalized for that? I'd like to prevent myself from 'walking through Hell for a Heavenly cause..' if I could..

You won't be penalized. You'll be justly rewarded with an extension of time to learn why you made a less valiant choice.

Which is exactly what I was suggesting. Why is that so terrible? Why is it terrible to suggest that a practice can be improved or to ask people to examine an issue from the other side?

You make the assumption that this hasn't been examined from the other side, and you seem to hold to that assumption only because it doesn't fit your desires. Let me in on a secret...not being able to have your family at your wedding sucks. You know what else I thought sucked...not being able to have sex before I was married. I thought it sucked that I got to be the subject of mockery and scorn because I always left the party when the drugs came out. I thought it sucked that the one time I let a vulgarity pass between my lips it became the only thing remembered about me as the only mormon in my school. All those things sucked. But it's a price you pay for having the blessings of the Gospel, and it's worth every sucky moment.

This Church is perfect.. but us members sure as heck aren't.

...case in point.

Edited June 8, 2009 by MarginOfError
I should say "not exploit temple ordinances"

[Wingnut]

You know bmy-, I can't think of one single female I have ever known who would settle for an civil ceremony before a temple ceremony (especially when she and her fiance are both completely worthy to have a temple wedding), just because her fiance wants to please his mommy.

[bmy-]

You know bmy-, I can't think of one single female I have ever known who would settle for an civil ceremony before a temple ceremony (especially when she and her fiance are both completely worthy to have a temple wedding), just because her fiance wants to please his mommy.

I think I found a diamond in the rough then. She cares for my family like she does her own.. i'm sorry you haven't experienced anything like that. It really is great. Her entire family minus one of her sisters agree with my stance as well (not to mention multiple priesthood holders, missionaries, etc). Perhaps the entire southern portion of the U.S is backwards.. and i'm incredibly thankful for it.

There is a loophole, really. Do it in the UK.

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.—Henry David Thoreau

[Maureen]

There is a loophole, really. Do it in the UK.

A great loophole if I might add. Get married, then be a tourist and see the sites, for everyone!

[Just_A_Guy]

To exploit that loophole, I think you'd have to get your membership records transferred to a congregation in the UK and do your TR interviews there.

It's a cute thought, but I doubt it'll fly.

[ladykemma2]

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?

i have not read any of the other answers, so as to not bias my reply.

think about it from their side. they get to wait outside. woohoo. I wouldn't come either. is there a reception or ring ceremony planned?

[Dravin]

To exploit that loophole, I think you'd have to get your membership records transferred to a congregation in the UK and do your TR interviews there.

It's a cute thought, but I doubt it'll fly.

Why would your records have to be transfered? You can get ordinances done in temples outside your district. Plenty of people get married in temples who 'belong' to other temple districts, my sister did such, her temple district was Ogden but she got married in Bountiful (not to mention all those people who don't live in Salt Lake getting married at the SL Temple).

[Maureen]

To exploit that loophole, I think you'd have to get your membership records transferred to a congregation in the UK and do your TR interviews there. It's a cute thought, but I doubt it'll fly.

IIRC, sensibility's husband is a British citizen and he was sealed in the USA. If he can do it, what can't the situation be reversed.

[beefche]

I think the fact that someone wants to "exploit the loophole" says something significant about one's ideas regarding obedience.

[bmy-]

What is important OP is that you realize that your family loves you.. and they want to celebrate this turning point in your life. I think they want to see it as badly as you want to see them there. Don't take it as a slight, because that's not how they mean it. They should do the same as well.

I'd respond to you beefche (and others).. but I don't feel like taking a vacation from this site. I already received one infraction recently (for stating a fact and wording it poorly). Basically.. sorry, i've had my fill of flame bait today.

Edited June 8, 2009 by bmy-

[Wingnut]

I think I found a diamond in the rough then. She cares for my family like she does her own.. i'm sorry you haven't experienced anything like that.

Not that you care, but I'd rather spend two weeks with my in-laws than with my own family.

[Just_A_Guy]

Why would your records have to be transfered? You can get ordinances done in temples outside your district. Plenty of people get married in temples who 'belong' to other temple districts, my sister did such, her temple district was Ogden but she got married in Bountiful (not to mention all those people who don't live in Salt Lake getting married at the SL Temple).

Because you still have to have the temple recommend interview done where your records are.

You really think your bishop is going to give you a living-ordinance recommend if he knows you're planning on getting married in a foreign country solely to circumvent the established church policy for US-residents?

[Dravin]

Because you still have to have the temple recommend interview done where your records are.

Yes but you don't have to get the interview in the same temple district as you are getting married. So if I wanted to get sealed in Nauvoo Temple I imagine I'd get interviewed (as would my future wife) in my home ward (she in hers) and then fly (or drive) to Nauvoo after having made an appointment at the temple, kind like how it went for my endowment (Interviewed in in an Ogden temple district ward, endowed in Bountiful) just a little longer distances involved.

You really think your bishop is going to give you a living-ordinance recommend if he knows you're planning on getting married in a foreign country solely to circumvent the established church policy for US-residents?

Ah, see I was kinda responding in a general policy kinda way. For instance, if I and my wife had served a mission in London (or any Temple City really, foreign or domestic) and wanted to get sealed there I don't think any transferring of records would be required (I could of course be wrong, I'm questioning here, not trying to be a confrontational jerk under the guise of asking questions).

Having your Bishop be cool with, "You want to help me out with this loop-hole?" is different matter. I suppose I didn't present myself clearly.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Dravin