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

[bmy-]

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?

It would be at his discretion. I tend to think that he would allow it.. I would not be breaking any laws, etc. I would imagine that he would be excited that I wanted to be sealed, and that would be it.

OP I was in class just a few moments ago.. and was thinking about this predicament. I might have missed it earlier in the thread.. but is your extended family from a different state or relatively close to you?

If they are in a different state or far away try to be understanding with them.. but if they're in your town you could always find a way to bring the afterparty (reception) closer to them.. just show effort and that you care. I can't emphasize that enough.. don't tell them "your loss".. tell them "what are you guys doing on the weekend of X, maybe we could get together".

[Seanette]

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

I'm in the same boat. A bit ticked at MIL at present (I didn't appreciate her shoving me aside on a decision that should have been between my husband and me), but still would rather be around her than my own original family.

[ploomf]

Sooo back to the OP. This is just me but I would not compromise on my temple wedding, I just wouldn't. I would paste a smile on my face, let them know that I loved them and if they changed their minds they would be welcome at the reception and ring ceremony and then I'd just go ahead with my wedding planning like nothing was wrong. I'd plan to have a ring ceremony just in case someone came, send them invitations, and basically put the ball in their court and let them decide what they were going to do. After extending the invitations I wouldn't try to convince them to come to the reception and ring ceremony I'd just make sure they knew they would be welcome if they did. I bet after realizing that the OP isn't going to back down on the temple ceremony they will change their minds and come after all and if they don't, well you can't control their actions just your own. I'd let them know that I love them know matter what they decide and then let the matter drop. I know how much this must hurt you and *hugs*. I'm sorry that what should be a happy time for you has become painful because of this.

[MorningStar]

I stressed a bit about my non-member or inactive relatives who couldn't be there for my wedding, but once we were in the process, the only thing that mattered to me was that my husband and I were making a covenant with each other and the Lord. It was a very intimate thing and we could've been alone for all I cared. You're not making a covenant with your whole family. It's about each other. And it's not a show. There's no music, no walking down the aisle, no bridesmaids, etc. It's so sacred and I wouldn't want someone there who would mock the ceremony in any way. I wouldn't so a civil wedding just to make my family happy because that would just cheapen the whole experience for me. Marriage is supposed to be eternal. I'm not going to take anything less just because my relatives are complaining.

[Guest SisterofJared]

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.

Well, I don't understand this attitude. Do you really believe that this is a policy that the GAs sat around and made up just to control the members and coerce them into temple marriages?

Silly me, I thought we were led by a prophet of God, and I thought perhaps this was the Lord's church, and that He was at the head of it, and that He gave His prophets guidance about His will for His church.

36 years ago I married my husband in a temple ceremony that was attended by few of my family and none of his. Since then I have watched some of my own children do the same. My husband and I have no regrets, neither do any of our children. (well, no regrets on this issue anyway!)

If we believe we are led by a prophet of God, and if we believe the scripture that says God reveals his secrets to his prophets.... well then, the time for attempting to get around the one year wait rule is over. Time to follow the prophet.

If we don't believe it, why are we members of this church? If we are NOT led by a prophet, all these sacrifices are unnecessary. Go find a pastor or priest and have a bang up wedding with the whole world watching.

Sister of Jared

[pam]

Amen SOJ. Good to see you back.

[Guest bmy_]

SOJ there's a thread in the gospel discussion started by myself titled 'A hypothetical question' that I would like you to visit. I would love to hear your view

[Maya]

I just heard my friend is getting married both LDS he ahs not gone throught the temple yet.. dont know about her, but I think she has... they marry next month and he goes trough the Temple in November and they will be sealed!

[WillowTheWhisp]

When I married my first husband our legal wedding ceremony took place in the LDS chapel which is hiow it has to be here in the UK because temple ceremonies are not regarded as legal marriages here.

At the time our temple was closed for 2 weeks and we were married in the middle of those two weeks so we were not able to be sealed until a week later which was a bit odd because I felt 'half married' for a week.

Although family and friends attended the church wedding no-one came with us to the temple. We were just pointed in the right direction and off we went. We didn't even know the names of the two people who acted as our witneses for the sealing. The sealing ceremony itself was very short and I would say that any non member not witnessing it didn't miss much. That is how I would explion it to anyone who grumbles about not being 'allowed in'. Of course it meant the world to my husband and myself but for our guests who had been at the church ceremony that was the be all and end all to them. It was followed by a meal and a party.

Anyone with the dilemma of not being able to invite non-member family to the temple I would just explain to them that it's a very short and personal moment just between the two of you and God and that any other celebration you have - ring ceremony or church ceremony or civil ceremony is the bit for everyone else to join in and celebrate with you.

I have been invited to weddings where I've only had the invite for the "night do" as opposed to the meal following the wedding and I haven't refused to go because I wasn't included in the rest of it. I've been invited to some where I have only been invited to the church service and not to any of the reception. I've still gone.

I hope your family will understand this is about you and not about them. It's YOUR big day and it's you two who matter here.

I hope I've managed to explain that OK. I know what I mean in my head but it doesn't always come out right.

[pyxiwulf]

I know this topic is a couple weeks old, but it's near and dear to my heart being a convert married to a non-member who does wedding planning on the side.

When I got married to my agnostic husband in a congregational protestant church, the ceremony wasn't about those other people in the room, it was about the two of us and the covenants and commitments we were making between God and each other. We had them there because we could, but we didn't care if they were and in fact many of our closest family on his side weren't there because they were preparing the reception. The reception after was all about honoring and celebrating the new family we had created as opposed to being a party to celebrate us.

As for the exclusion of people from the ceremony, it's not uncommon for secular and religious non-temple weddings to exclude people and invite them only to the reception party. In fact, in American wedding etiquette, this is the proper order of exclusion. If you cannot have everyone at both, the proper part to include everyone in is the reception not the ceremony. People seem to be accepting and understanding (for the most part) when a couple cannot have a full guest list due to secular issues such as size or location constraints, but they close their hearts to a couple's deeply held religious beliefs as wrong. I hope that the additional perspective helps someone.

[sanguine]

Sorry to hear about your troubles- getting married is stressful enough without all this added on top!

For converts like us, we were married in a civil service nearly 3 years ago... and will eventually go to the temple sometime in the future (next year?). I take it this course of action is only taken by converts? 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 some LDS get a civil service first. In some countries like the UK, the Temple sealing is not recognized by the government as legally binding. So we are married in the chapel first by the Bishop. I'm also a convert. (my family disowned me,dead to them on membership of the Church)

When it happens this way it is on the same day. Church marriage then, reception, then sealing. Those who live far from a Temple are allowed a few days between Marriage and Sealing.

[Laureltree]

I agree with you maureen...

I'm going to be getting married and I have the same problem with my family as an only member. Allow you grandma and others to decorate where the ring cereamony is, let them feel like they are a bigger part of the wedding :) This way everyone gets a piece of what they want and you can still enjoy your wedding day :) hugs and congrats