Why did this happen?

[Guest Godless]

But that's where i'm missing you.

Life long worthy members and RMs Brother Smith and Sister Jones after dating for 2 year decide at the age of 28. Even though they were born in the church thier parents are convert so a temple wedding would exclude numerous uncles and aunts plus great grandma Sue who isn't expected to live out the rest of the year. Given the circumstances they decide to wed civil first, because the church will not hold a wedding for them afterword.

Now without knowing the story the church says 1 year wait.

Converts of 2 years Bro BoB and Sis Sue, after meeting in the singles ward and dating for 2 months decide they wish to be married. They go to the temple and get sealed no questions asked.

Who would you think needs a feel for marriage?

Personally, I agree with you. I think it would be more accurate to say that, from a religious perspective, those who wait may need more time to consider the gravity of being sealed eternally because if they truly had an understanding of it, then they would have just done the sealing from the get-go knowing that it was more important for them to be sealed than to appease the parents. That's my understanding of the reasoning behind the policy, not necessarily my personal opinion.

My personal opinion is that a dual ceremony with a waiting period also gives the couple the opportunity to test their marriage before being sealed. You make a strong case for this not being part of the Church's reasoning, and I think you're right. Personally, I'm not all that comfortable with the thought of couples getting sealed OR civilly married after a brief dating period, but I realize that it happens fairly often in the Church (my parents went on one date before their engagement). And if you believe that one carries more weight than the other, then it makes sense to put some space in between the two. As a non-member, the best comparison I can make is the decision of many couples today to co-habitate prior to marriage. The reasoning is similar to my personal opinion as to why a waiting period is necessary. As I said though, I realize now that this has nothing to do with Church policy.

[Just_A_Guy]

And further, I don't see how having a civil ceremony followed by a sacred one lessens the sacred nature of the temple ceremony. How do you think it does this? In my view, the civil ceremony gives the law what it requires, and the sealing gives the Lord and the married couple the sealing it requires.

Frankly, I think having anything other than the temple ceremony on that day, to some degree, lessens the impact of the ceremony itself. Most of us (unwisely, IMHO) try to cram a wedding, a reception, and leaving for the honeymoon all into a twelve-hour period. I think most people would find adding another ceremony into the schedule, to be simply too much.

Even if everyone was up for that kind of schedule--logistically, what kind of sequence do you do that all in? If you do the sealing after the wedding but before the reception, you've got wedding guests standing around for two or three hours waiting for the reception to start while a select few bustle off to the temple with the happy couple. If we're timing everything to avoid giving offense to non-temple-goers, and a same-day sealing is desired, then really you'd really have to wrap up the reception by three or four PM in order to get off to the temple and do the sealing on the same day. And you're still creating the illusion of the couple going off to God's house with the "righteous", while the unworthy ones stay behind and clean up the dregs of the reception.

Bottom line: As long as a temple ceremony is done the same day as the civil wedding, people who want to be offended are going to find an excuse to become offended.

The only other alternative would be doing sealing a day or two later, and IMHO that pretty openly shunts the temple ceremony into second-place--where, of course, it doesn't belong.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest mormonmusic]

Then why were you worried about waiting a year?

As I said in the OP, I'd heard about how rocky the first year of marriage can be, and I was concerned that if we didn't do it from the get-go, we'd never have a temple marriage. Also, the stat that 50% of marriages end in divorce scared me. Getting married, like having a child, or taking a new job, or anything significant, carries risk, and I just didn't know what the future would hold, notwithstanding our love for each other at the time.

I thought the temple marriage would be another reason to stay together, if things deteriorated, and encourage us to try harder to make our marriage work if unhappiness entered the scene later.

I shared this thread with my wife a few minutes ago, and she said "If we had to wait a year, we would never have gotten married in the temple. we would've divorced."

She was 10 years my junior, and agrees in retrospect that she had a lot of behaviors of a teenager, plus there were other issues we couldn't see until after we got married.

I hate to sound harsh, but you're the one who chose to forgo the waiting period. The Church has a policy in place that would have allowed you get sealed AND satisfy your parents. This is a path that the Church doesn't recommend due to the sacred nature of the temple sealing, so I think requiring a waiting period as a condition of dual ceremonies is perfectly fair.

I don't think this is harsh at all, as you aren't lacing this with a personal attack or anything, and I appreciate the dialogue.

The Church did have a policy in place, but it actually RISKS families and relationships by putting a year of delay in the eternal commitment, allowing negative experiences and the fact that "you don't really know your spouse until after marriage" potentially risk the marriage.

I feel the choice placed in front of me was a) forgo the spiritual benefits in this life of a temple marriage (ie commitment) or b) alientate your family for the rest of your life.

What terrible choices!!!

The policy doesn't HAVE to be this way. It's been chosen and developed, just as the temple ceremony has changed over the years.

Now, Moe made a good point above I'd like to respond to. It's the only compelling statement so far, and one that I accepted years ago. So far, I see no good reason for this policy when non-member parents are at stake.

[Guest mormonmusic]

mormonmusic, If you had to choose who is more important who would you pick??? Your Heavenly Father or your earthy parents?

Heavenly Father every time -- but now my question -- why force me to choose between the two of them, for what appears to be weak reasons?

Anyway, I would never raise this question at Church, and as I said, I accepted it, in spite of my bewilderment about it. It's simply something I don't completely understand yet. To me, having both ceremonies is no less sacred than having only one.

It's not as if the two ceremonies are equivalent -- the temple ceremony is definitely more sacred given its place in the temple, the covenants made, etcetera. Having a civil ceremony beforehand doesn't cheapen the experience in any way. In fact, the blight of my parent's exclusion is a blight on the whole experience.

[Just_A_Guy]

The policy doesn't HAVE to be this way. It's been chosen and developed, just as the temple ceremony has changed over the years.

Indeed. And, while it may make us feel better to impute some degree of provincialism to the policy's authors, the hard truth is that they knew exactly what the results of that policy would be. See, e.g., future Apostle Matthew Cowley, whose father--excommunicated former Apostle Matthias Cowley--stood outside the temple at his son's wedding.

[hordak]

Personally, I agree with you. I think it would be more accurate to say that, from a religious perspective, those who wait may need more time to consider the gravity of being sealed eternally because if they truly had an understanding of it, then they would have just done the sealing from the get-go knowing that it was more important for them to be sealed than to appease the parents. That's my understanding of the reasoning behind the policy, not necessarily my personal opinion.

My personal opinion is that a dual ceremony with a waiting period also gives the couple the opportunity to test their marriage before being sealed. You make a strong case for this not being part of the Church's reasoning, and I think you're right. Personally, I'm not all that comfortable with the thought of couples getting sealed OR civilly married after a brief dating period, but I realize that it happens fairly often in the Church (my parents went on one date before their engagement). And if you believe that one carries more weight than the other, then it makes sense to put some space in between the two. As a non-member, the best comparison I can make is the decision of many couples today to co-habitate prior to marriage. The reasoning is similar to my personal opinion as to why a waiting period is necessary. As I said though, I realize now that this has nothing to do with Church policy.

Ah i see. The non member resident atheist was looking at it from a religious standpoint while the member was looking at it from a more secular view.

At least we know the ability to see things from the other side is not lost based on church membership ,or lack there of.

[applepansy]

I think this might be a little overly simplistic, and sometimes leads to a level of over-zealousness that I find disconcerting. As I've said previously, I feel this kind of a stand is appropriate on this issue only because the sealing is so vital as a part of our worship and eternal progression.

Actually not overly simplistic, just realistic. I've seen too many people in these exact circumstances. And I've seen extended family join the church because the couple getting married were so committed to being obedient to God. The extended family who have held a grudge were those who had a harder time putting their wants second to their children's.

Isn't Obedience what what we are here to learn anyway? Sometimes doing what's right has consequences that aren't the happiest. The scriptures are full of examples.

[MarginOfError]

Actually not overly simplistic, just realistic. I've seen too many people in these exact circumstances. And I've seen extended family join the church because the couple getting married were so committed to being obedient to God. The extended family who have held a grudge were those who had a harder time putting their wants second to their children's.

Isn't Obedience what what we are here to learn anyway? Sometimes doing what's right has consequences that aren't the happiest. The scriptures are full of examples.

See here

Quickly put, an infrequent Sunday dinner seems trivial and so I might "choose family over God" there. But the sealing isn't nearly so trivial.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Moe -- you said earlier that the policy may have been developed considering people not in my situation, and that my situation may have been caught in the crossfire. If this is what you meant, (since I can't find the statement easily anymore), then I agree with you. All of a sudden, I can accept the policy more easily -- that it's for person that has member famillies on both sides, and isn't sure enough about their spouse to commit to temple marriage. In that case, it makes sense to wait a year before making such a commitment. In that case, I accept the policy wholeheartedly, and hope that revelation and consideration leads the Brethren to adopt a kinder, gentler policy on people who come from non-member families. Just as they altered the temple ceremony, and changed policies of matters of eternal importance in the past.

However, in my own situation, it posed a lesser of two evils decision (avoidance-avoidance) where I had to choose to either tick off my family or take a risk I'd never have a temple marriage given the reports I'd heard from others that the first year of marriage was really difficult.

Well, except for this: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen. 2: 24)

When the Church speaks of your responsibility to your family, it almost always means to your spouse and your children; and your children only until they become fully accountable to themselves. It's a nicety to include your parents and siblings, but doctrinally speaking, the sealing is about you, your spouse, your children, and God. No one else is included in that covenant.

Moe, this scripture has to do with marriage in general and seems to have nothing to do wtih temple sealing. And further, adults are both parents and children -- sealed to their parents, and then, as adults, sealed to their children.

You seem to imply that once a person becomes an adult, the sealing to their parents as children no longer matters. It does matter. The "wait a year policy" really alienated my parents to the point they don't even want to talk about the church. In essence, the policy hurt the Chuche's own aim of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" by imposing a policy that has weak reasons, and isn't easily understood by non-member parents without testimonies yet.

I never claimed it was about grandstanding your beliefs. I only said that a second ceremony sends the false impression that a temple marriage can be validated by something non-binding.

I never viewed it this way -- the argument isn't compelling. The civil ceremony promotes harmony and respect among the non-member family. The temple ceremony grants the potential for exhaltation -- something the civil marriage can't do. It's inherently sacred inspite of any legalistic ceremonies that happened before it.

And to me personally, the real experience would've been the temple; the civil ceremony would've been something I did to respect my parents and potentially, spread the gospel to my family so they understand it better. Nothing more.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mormonmusic

[applepansy]

See here

Quickly put, an infrequent Sunday dinner seems trivial and so I might "choose family over God" there. But the sealing isn't nearly so trivial.

Exactly, we're not talking about a family Sunday dinner. I thought this thread was about the temple sealing.

Did I miss something? yup, I guess I did. :)

Sunday dinner with family on a Sunday is different than a covenant.

Edited May 4, 2010 by applepansy

[MarginOfError]

Heavenly Father every time -- but now my question -- why force me to choose between the two of them, for what appears to be weak reasons?

Anyway, I would never raise this question at Church, and as I said, I accepted it, in spite of my bewilderment about it. It's simply something I don't completely understand yet. To me, having both ceremonies is no less sacred than having only one.

It's not as if the two ceremonies are equivalent -- the temple ceremony is definitely more sacred given its place in the temple, the covenants made, etcetera. Having a civil ceremony beforehand doesn't cheapen the experience in any way. In fact, the blight of my parent's exclusion is a blight on the whole experience.

I'm trying to find a way to say it more clearly, but the only thing that really comes to mind is something along the lines of, "it isn't a policy instituted by doctrine. It's a policy to protect doctrine."

For instance, if I recall correctly, a few years ago there was a new policy made that couples would no longer be allowed to kiss over the alter following their sealing. There's nothing doctrinally wrong with kissing, but too many couples were engaging in kisses that were not respectful of the place, setting, and ordinance. It wasn't a doctrinal policy, it was an instructional policy. Those of use who understood what an appropriate kiss would be were 'penalized' as well. Sometimes policies are made and they stink for those of us who understand the doctrines but still can't have things the way that would be ideal for us.

Would it be fair to say that you had to alienate your parents because of stupid people? (nope, that's not judgmental at all)

[Guest mormonmusic]

I'm trying to find a way to say it more clearly....

This implies that I'm just not getting it or understanding you. I understand you perfectly MOE -- it's just that for me, the decades of antagonism it caused me and my family don't' seem worth the bit of weak symbolism found in making the temple ceremony the ONLY ceremony as a matter of Church policy.

Would it be fair to say that you had to alienate your parents because of stupid people? (nope, that's not judgmental at all)

I've never said that I think this policy was a result of stupid people. I do think it may have been the result of considering the issue from only one angle. And one that I hope changes eventually, just as other Church policies have changed over time.

It seems incredibly odd that the Church does purport to be pro-family, but only pro-family as it applies to families who are already united in the faith. Not to families in transition, like mine.

As I said, many times I've wished that policy wasn't in place so we could respect my family, draw them into our culture, and also have the commitment benefits of a temple marriage all at the same time, on the same day.

All these are good things, and would've removed a stumbling block to my parents in taking the Church seriously. They are good people, and deserved more than what they got at the time.

I actually apologized to my parents years later for the impact it had on them -- after the birth of my daughter. I had to word it carefully -- saying that I still believed it was important to be married in the temple, but I disagreed with the policy that forced me to choose between the commitment benefits of the ceremony and them. And I asked for their forgiveness for the hurt it caused.

It appeared to mean a lot to them.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mormonmusic

[MarginOfError]

Moe -- you said earlier that the policy may have been developed considering people not in my situation, and that my situation may have been caught in the crossfire. If this is what you meant, (since I can't find the statement easily anymore), then I agree with you. All of a sudden, I can accept the policy more easily -- that it's for person that has member famillies on both sides, and isn't sure enough about their spouse to commit to temple marriage. In that case, it makes sense to wait a year before making such a commitment. In that case, I accept the policy wholeheartedly, and hope that revelation and consideration leads the Brethren to adopt a kinder, gentler policy on people who come from non-member families. Just as they altered the temple ceremony, and changed policies of matters of eternal importance in the past.

Yeah, it's something like that.

However, in my own situation, it posed a lesser of two evils decision (avoidance-avoidance) where I had to choose to either tick off my family or take a risk I'd never have a temple marriage given the reports I'd heard from others that the first year of marriage was really difficult.

Then you must not have done it right. People keep on telling me how much work marriage is, but I've felt like it's been pretty easy

Moe, this scripture has to do with marriage in general and seems to have nothing to do wtih temple sealing. And further, adults are both parents and children -- sealed to their parents, and then, as adults, sealed to their children.

You seem to imply that once a person becomes an adult, the sealing to their parents as children no longer matters. It does matter. The "wait a year policy" really alienated my parents to the point they don't even want to talk about the church. In essence, the policy hurt the Chuche's own aim of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" by imposing a policy that has weak reasons, and isn't easily understood by non-member parents without testimonies yet.

I could quote you the text of the sealing ordinance, but that probably wouldn't be appropriate. Try to focus on the principles and not the text.

I never viewed it this way -- the argument isn't compelling. The civil ceremony promotes harmony and respect among the non-member family. The temple ceremony grants the potential for exhaltation -- something the civil marriage can't do. It's inherently sacred inspite of any legalistic ceremonies that happened before it.

or you could say that a second ceremony seeks to replace the sacred, authoritative, and binding with something that is familiar, common, and superficial. It'd be akin to holding a mock baptism in your bathroom because your parents couldn't make it to the church.

And to me personally, the real experience would've been the temple; the civil ceremony would've been something I did to respect my parents and potentially, spread the gospel to my family so they understand it better. Nothing more.

Say what you will, but you're still probably better off having done it the way you did than any alternative could have produced.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Yeah, it's something like that.

The only acceptable reason I've heard so far.

Then youou must not have done it right. People keep on telling me how much work marriage is, but I've felt like it's been pretty easy

I think you need to be careful about analyzing the situation from your own narrow experience in life. This forum is replete with marital issues due to the surprising choices of their spouse -- and in your case -- you have no idea what the future holds. So don't get too comfortable.

Say what you will, but you're still probably better off having done it the way you did than any alternative could have produced.

Agreed, given the choices the policy presented me with. As I said, we would be divorced if I had've opted for the civil ceremony and waiting period.

But much worse off had the policy shown more respect and consideration for my extended family by allowing both ceremonies on the same day. You know that I have very little hope now of ever being able to confide in parents about Church matters, talk about Church, report on, or share any of the important life events in my Church life or their grandchildren's. My parents grew deeper into anti-Mormon sentiments after my wedding, and it only deepened their feeling the Mormon church was all about control (wrongly, but I see how they would think that).

[Intrigued]

And further, I don't see how having a civil ceremony followed by a sacred one lessens the sacred nature of the temple ceremony. How do you think it does this? In my view, the civil ceremony gives the law what it requires, and the sealing gives the Lord and the married couple the sealing it requires.

It could not and would not. It's another reason people are scared to join the LDS church.. the fear of being alienated from their families (which can and does happen frequently). Try explaining this to a nonmember family.. ouch. The most commonly practiced option is to get sealed in a country that does not recognize it as a civil marriage, this way you can do both without penalty and potential 'damnation'.

The idea that a civil marriage somehow demeans or mocks the temple marriage is laughable. I'm glad I can see it from the other side of the fence really.. surrounded by LDS but unsure of the truth myself.. it really clears things up. The obedience side.. sure, I think it's ridiculous personally.. but it's a little less shocking than God telling Abraham to kill his own child (at least Abraham got told to stop at the last second, right?).

Edited May 4, 2010 by Intrigued

[ryanh]

The result of this decision I made was, as I said was to extremely alienate my family.

As one whose parents both were not allowed to attend my wedding, may I offer a potentially different perspective. . .

You state very clearly that your father/family was alienated. And I don't doubt all indications point to that. Do you really know that was the result? How can you know when the end hasn't even been reached to know what the ultimate result of you choice will be?

By small and simple things are great things brought to pass. Had we eyes to see the eternal perspectives, perhaps we would see that these "alienating" choices actually plant the seeds that later result in acceptance.

There is power in examples of people that will not compromise their values, and expose their testimony by making difficult choices. Although my father won't say it, I have seen glimpses at times that he respects my beliefs all the more simply because I would not compromise them. I know that is more powerful than any other way I could possibly communicate to him that God is real, and that the LDS church is the restored church. As much as it 'alienated' him, it appears to have also been the greatest factor in endearing him to my beliefs.

Perhaps your father/family is not at that point . . . yet. Perhaps the seed still needs time to grow. Perhaps our Heavenly Father has other plans and purposes in the way things worked out.

But much worse off had the policy shown more respect and consideration for my extended family by allowing both ceremonies on the same day. You know that I have very little hope now of ever being able to confide in parents about Church matters, talk about Church, report on, or share any of the important life events in my Church life or their grandchildren's. My parents grew deeper into anti-Mormon sentiments after my wedding, and it only deepened their feeling the Mormon church was all about control (wrongly, but I see how they would think that).

It is arrogance (a type of which I am often guilty of) to think we really understand such causes and effects. How can you possibly say with honest integrity (rather than simple obstinance) that such is the cause of being involved in anti sentiments? With our limited understanding, how is it that you know they wouldn’t be deeper into the anti sentiments?

Your parents are responsible for their own choices. Quit beating yourself up already. Your choice to do what was right cannot possibly be the cause of their sentiments. Their choices to harden their hearts is their choice, and theirs alone. Even if their hearts ‘appear’ hardened, I would again say you can’t possibly know that – esp given self profession that you don’t even confide in them about church matters!

Meekness is what we need in these situations, not manmade divinations of the ‘purpose’. I would say, if you want to know why, why don’t you ask Him? But, there is a lot of bitterness to let go of before I would think you could get such an answer.

Why should we all be spared from having to make difficult choices? Alas, we are not, but given our own opportunities to make Abraham-like sacrifices to prove ourselves herewith. Be grateful, not resentful you so far have taken the right steps. Don’t disown your own passing grade.

[Guest mormonmusic]

For now, the effects stand as they appear. As I said, this is one policy I reluctantly accept on faith -- the only really satisfactory answer I see is that the policy was made with a different set of circumstances in mind.

However to extrapolate from this, non-member families like mine are unforunate casualities since the Church leaders couldn't make an exception in my case, or they will be making exceptions all day.

As I said, I did what I could to repair the damage to my parents through an apology for how it hurt them. I don't regret that one bit. My mother shed a few tears.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Intrigued]

For now, the effects stand as they appear. As I said, this is one policy I accept on faith -- the only really satisfactory answer I see is that the policy was made with a different set of circumstances in mind.

However to extrapolate from this, the Church leaders couldn't make an exception in my case, will be making exceptions all day.

As I said, I did what I could to repair the damage to my parents through an apology for how it hurt them. I don't regret that one bit.

It wouldn't be necessary to make an exception if they would tweak the process. They have done it before.. numerous times. It would require just a simple change and hopefully people with nonmember families can be spared the headmans axe.

I liked your point about how families were just as valid in any direction. People are quick to say your family is the one that is important.. but your family does indeed go in both directions.

[ryanh]

However to extrapolate from this, non-member families like mine are unforunate casualities since the Church leaders couldn't make an exception in my case, or they will be making exceptions all day.

You are in need of repentance. This is clearly cankering you more than you admit here, or perhaps even see yourself. Causalities? I HARDLY see my position as one that had to choose between mortal family and eternities as a "casualty". What an incredible opportunity you've been given, and you are pissing it away in a bath of self-pity. It's a dangerous road you are on.

The gospel is NOT given for our convenience and comfort. Policy is NOT given to conform to the ways of man. If that is what you would prefer, then there are plenty of other churches to join that will mingle scripture among the philosophies of man.

[Jenamarie]

Matthew 10

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 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.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

The church doesn't enact policies based on how many people will get the warm-fuzzies from them. The policies are to make sure that what is utmost Sacred remains Sacred, and that the will of the Father trumps all. The most important part of the Sealing Covenant is our Covenant with our Father in Heaven. The covenants we make with our parents, spouses, and children are importand and sacred, but completely worthless if we fail to make and keep Covenants with the Father. Indeed, many non-member families are hurt by this policy, but not all. And how must our Father in Heaven feel when he sees two otherwise Temple-worthy people pass up the Sealing Covenant in place of a wordly, non-binding, lesser commitment because they wish to stay on the good side of their mortal family, rather than on the good side of the Lord?

[Saguaro]

This is a tough one. Personally, I wish civil weddings would be allowed the same day as sealings.

The argument that a civil wedding would diminish the sacredness and importance of a temple wedding just doesn't hold water with me, especially if you consider than in many countries outside of North America it's the law that couples must be married civilly before a religious ceremony. Ask anyone from Spain, the UK, or Mexico if they think their temple sealing was less important or somehow degraded because of their civil ceremony, I doubt they will think so.

[Traveler]

From all that I have come to understand about the New and Everlasting covenant of Marriage and for all that I understand about family and the responsibility and laws of covenant (1Nephi 3:1-7). There is no way I would consider any other possibility except a marriage covenant in the temple of G-d. And I do not regret being married in the temple and I would not put anything even close to the importance of my wife as part of my covenant before G-d even if all my family and friends were excluded and our only witnesses were strangers.

I am sorry – I see no point in looking back from the greatest blessing and honor of my entire life.

The Traveler

[Elgama]

I don't understand why you don;t value your family eternally? You were unsure that your desire to be together forever would be present merely a year from your wedding day, and you now regret doing it the way you did. I appreciate the pain it caused your parents, maybe you could renew your vows and have wedding anniversary do. But your post indicates resentment for the sealing ceremony and really if being sealed to your own family for eternity is not the number 1 priority not sure what I am trying to say, but your post is full of bitterness and unforgiveness both on your part and your parents which is not condusive to the spirit

In 2 years time I fully intend to have a ring exchanging and party for our 10 year anniversary as my Mum's stiff neckedness ment she wasn't at our wedding intially.

[Moksha]

In some countries like England and I believe Brazil it is necessary to have a marriage outside the Temple first in order to be legally married.

No doubt the policy of not having a marriage before a Temple ceremony is to declare the primacy of the Temple. Even so, when both are sought as in the case of wanting family harmony and cohesiveness, excluding the marriage first seems punitive. No need for young couple to start out their marriage with their non-temple going friends and family feeling hurt and shunted aside.

The previous suggestion of a Temple ceremony earlier followed by a regular wedding afterward that day, seems like a remedy. That should satisfy both the law and the spirit.

[john doe]

Mormonmusic, is there anything about the way the church works that you DO like?