Why did this happen?

[Maureen]

I see what you mean -- the ring exchange ceremony is part of the overall non-lds wedding ceremony, and is therefore not new to non-lds weddings.

My point is this -- a SEPARATE ring exhcanging ceremony is not part of a non-lds wedding -- it's part of the wedding ceremony, and typically attached at the hip to the wedding vows and solemnization of the wedding.

To extract the ring ceremony from the overall non-lds wedding ceremony, and hold it at the reception or in a non-Church setting would make it significantly different to a non-lds family, and therefore, appears as appeasement rather than an accepted practice, separating the lighter aspects of the wedding from the meatier ones - the vows.

I asked if there can be expressions of love or even personal promises shared at the ring exchange ceremony, because this might helpmake the experience touching for thenon-mem family members present.

However, would this not cheapen the vows made at the temple wedding? Putting us back to square one?

Yes, expressions of love or personal promises can make a wedding ceremony wonderful but that doesn't mean that's the only way to make it touching for everyone. My nephew and his wife shared no words and their ceremony, for me anyway, was still wonderful.

I'm getting the impression you see this as an all or nothing solution. The LDS church should compromise to make you happy. You don't see that the solution might need some give and take from both sides?

M.

[Elgama]

I never said I didn't value my family eternally. I'm glad I got married in the temple.

I did apologize for the hurt it caused my parents, but I didn't recant my belief in temple marriage. I've encouraged many to do it themselves.

.

I am sorry if I mis inferred but your post had a bitter tone to it, . I actually think your parents left themselves out, the chose not to come with you, they chose to see the ring exchanging as empty. Would a ring exchanging have been empty to you? They could have chosen instead to take part as fully as they could in your temple marriage, they could have come with you and had a spiritual time in the grounds, maybe even a picnic. I am not saying they are bad people, but they also made decisions that lead to their own tears and regret,

I cannot envisage not supporting my children to my upmost if the tables are reversed, My husband's Father couldn't come to our wedding he was too ill to travel, of course he was disappointed but we had his blessing, support and love, it was too far for his Sister and neice. Your parents actively chose not to be present in the temple grounds.

They are not bad people but part of this is down to their own decision when they decided to not fully support their child in a decision they had made.

[carlimac]

I actually thought the same thing when I saw the conviction you have about my internal state of mind and emotions based on a few lines in a discussion forum! If there's an example of making assumptions -- that's it!

That's what I meant. I am the one making assumptions. This is the way the situation appears to me.

[hordak]

nope:) but there is a difference we wouldn't be married in the eyes of the law if we entered the temple only thus violating the law of chastity.

While it might be church policy now to be married legally at the time of the sealing (or concurantly with the sealing for us in the USA) i fail to see how it would be a violation of the law of chastity. If legal recognition was required for a sealing to be chaste then there is a whole generation of members, including our early prophets, in a heap of trouble.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I'm getting the impression you see this as an all or nothing solution. The LDS church should compromise to make you happy. You don't see that the solution might need some give and take from both sides?

M.

I simply disagree with the policy, and simply choose to accept it on faith for the time being.

Regarding the solution requiring give and take on both sides. The only give and take was the ring exchanging ceremony, and that was perceived by my parents as far inferior to the overall experience of the wedding. So, there was no win win solution, and from my parents perspective, they lost.

Yes, they chose not to come. And I respect their decision not to come. In their view, they were making a statement about their belief that I wsn't doing the right thing, and also disagreeing with a policy which seemed ego-centric for the Church.

Anyway, I'm getting a little tired of this topic.

I posted it because someone posted the Sunday dinner thread in the Advice section, and my situation here seemed like a more extreme example of that situation. I enjoyed reading people's responses here however. I hope someday the policy changes to provide more of a reaching out experience to non-member families, rather than excluding them from one of life's important experiences when they have not yet develoed faith in the gospel.

[FunkyTown]

I held back on commenting on this for some time, simply because it's something that terrifies me and something that I had thought about for the last few years.

If I had married in the temple and my family couldn't see it, it would have hurt them terribly.

My Mom, brothers and sister would never understand. Worse, because my Mom has mental issues, depending on how she was feeling that day she would either fly in to a rage or decide she couldn't come to the wedding because she was worthless. No matter what I said, this would have caused huge problems within my family.

I had prayed about it. Now, I'm living in England and looking at marriage and it turns out that we are legally required to have a public wedding, meaning that most people get married in the afternoon and go off to the temple immediately after. I have truly been blessed in this regard.

However, I can't deny that this was something that had bothered me for some time. On a day that families should be closest, in a church that actively teaches that families should be forever, a rule tears families apart.

Does this mean that the rule isn't necessary or is bad or wrong?

No. I had thought about this for some time and decided early on that, no matter what, I was getting a temple marriage; The temple is something that requires sacrifice.

The hurt to the family is temporary and transitory. In exchange, to those who are willing to make sacrifices in the now, eternity opens up.

Luke 14:26 - Harsh lesson, but necessary.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Know that you aren't alone. Know that, as hard as it is right now, you made the right choice. Don't torment yourself over what could have been. Instead, look towards what will be.

[Traveler]

First off it is not my purpose to criticize anyone. I am not giving this point of view in any attempt to “look” better or any such thing. I am posting this comment because of my faith, belief and understanding of covenants.

First thought: Thou shall worship the L-rd thy G-d and him only shall you serve. Jesus said once said that to love father or mother more than him would make us unworthy of him (Matt 10:35-37)

Second thought: Do we pitch our tents facing Sodom and Gomorrah?

On many occasions I have offended employers and friends because of my covenant concerning the Word of Wisdom. There have been times that my Sabbath covenants have conflicted with family activities (LDS family activities) and I have been criticized and ridiculed because of my “holier than thou” attitude. But this is my point – when it seems that there has been nothing between me and the powers of darkness I have not regretted at all that I have kept my promises to G-d and I have experienced the power of being honest before my L-rd in my plea for assistance and guidance as I have been loyal to and kept my promises. (see hymn “Firm as the Mountains around us”.) And on every occasion that I have compromised, even the slightest, my covenants – the day has come that like the Apostle John – I have regretted it and wept bitterly.

So I put this question to the forum – what is your birth right and for what might you consider some small compromise for it?

The Traveler

[carlimac]

As I've thought more about this, it occurred to me that many people who are beloved to me, dear friends and family members weren't in attendance at my actual marriage- the sealing ceremony in the temple that was short - the sealing words take about 2 min. for the officiator to say. There was no grand processional down the aisle or flowers or music- all the things that most people think of in traditional weddings outside the temple. What did occur in the temple was very personal and quiet and sacred- the sealing words that 25 years later I'm still trying to comprehend and grasp. But what happened after - the celebration, the pictures, the food, gathering of hundreds of people, laughter, smiles, well wishes, cutting the cake, tossing rosebuds, and even bagpipers! All that was part of my wedding, too. If non members chose to be offended and miss out on all the joyful celebration simply because they couldn't be in attendance for the 15 min sealing ceremony- how sad for them and me. I had aunts, uncles and many friends who still chose to celebrate with us- to be a part of our wedding to extent that they could. I didn't attend my older siblings temple ceremonies because I hadn't been endowed yet. But I still was very much a part of the wedding.

Point being- the temple rooms can only accomodate so many people anyway. There are many - even members of the church who would like to be there for the actual ceremony but have to be cut from the list. The ideal situation would be for those closest to the bride and groom- the parents, grandparents, siblings, etc., to be there. But if they can't- they can still participate in the "wedding" by graciously congratulating and offering love and support before and after the actual temple sealing.

[Elgama]

Carli I think that is precisely why they discourage us having a civil ceremony, I have a strong testimony, value my husband etc but its very easy for the civil ceremony to overshadow the temple one

[dizzysmiles]

Funky Town summed it up perfectly. AS much as I love my parents, I want to be with my spouse for eternity. My best friend lost her husband after a year of marriage in a tragic car accident. This always crosses my mind of how short life is. I would do a ceremony after for them, but they love me for me, and after all the crap I may have caused them, They still will love me, and hopefully understand one day.

[carlimac]

Carli I think that is precisely why they discourage us having a civil ceremony, I have a strong testimony, value my husband etc but its very easy for the civil ceremony to overshadow the temple one

Are you saying you don't think there should be any celebration at all after the temple sealing?

[Elgama]

Are you saying you don't think there should be any celebration at all after the temple sealing?

no not at all I am in the UK so we do have a civil ceremony first before the sealing. As a result when your non member family are with you, its the civil ceremony they are celebrating, not the sealing. Whereas if they support you in a temple wedding, its actually your wedding for eternity they are celebrating with you. Because of where we live in relation to the temple we were sealed the next day, as a result non member friends and family send cards for the 13th and expect any celebration then.

I completely see the wisdom in only having a sealing if you can do that legally. The sealing ceremony is beautiful, simple and short. As a result its very easy for it to be overshadowed, I was unprepared for the sealing ceremony, I had never been to one, or I would have done the civil ceremony differently

[rameumptom]

We place the temple ceremony ahead of and above any other considerations. Those who wish to have a civil ceremony can choose to do one of two things:

1. Have the civil ceremony first, then wait a year to go to the temple, or 2. Have the civil ceremony after the temple ceremony. I've known many to have a small ring ceremony/etc., and reception after the temple ceremony.

[Lilac]

I'm not LDS but I was reading this and was thinking that all religions have customs and culture that seems odd to outsiders/non members. It's just the way life is sometimes.

I couldn't be a godparent to my niece because I'm not Catholic. My mother in law could not take communion at our wedding. My husband had to sit in a separate area and wear a yamulke at our friend's Orthodox Jewish wedding. My uncle is my godparent but not my aunt because she is Catholic. My husband was a godparent and then it was revoked because he is not Catholic anymore. I think there was some questions if I could go up to the altar when I was in my friend's wedding. I remember another uncle being upset he could not take communion at his son's wedding. The list goes on and on....

It's not just the LDS that have these issues. Sometimes cultures clash and we have to be understanding of that. It's not personal...it's just the nature of religion/culture. Sometimes there are rules unique to that religion and you have to be gracious about it, whichever end you land up.

I think sometimes you just have to let these things go and just be happy for the people getting married, sealed or whatever.

I understand your parents missing your wedding was very devastating to them and you. But you have been married for how many years? You are happy? You live a good and holy life, pleasing to the Lord? Then both your parents and you have to let it go. Dwelling on that is going to just let bad feelings fester and bring negative stuff into your relationship. You said you apologized and you said your family are good people. What else can you do?

Christianity is a beautiful thing...focus on that. I love our Christian faith. Enjoy it and let the wedding thing be behind you.

[carlimac]

Awesome response Lilac! Thank you for that perspective.

[MormonMama]

Lilac, wonderful post. Thank you so much!

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 have to disagree here. For one thing, no one should get married, in the temple or otherwise, unless they are sure they are ready. For another, no one can be offended unless they choose to be. Your family has CHOSEN to be offended by your decision to have the wedding that was, as the time, the most sacred to you. In addition, they have CHOSEN to carry a grudge about it all these years and you are CHOOSING to allow their grudge to drive a wedge between you and your faith.

I wasn't able to be at my sister's wedding because she chose to have a very small ceremony at a JP with only our mother and her mother-in-law present. I respected that decision, even though I would have liked to have been there. I have no resentment about it at all. It was HER wedding and she did it in the way that was important to her. What right do I have to be angry about that?

Don't try to blame the church for your family members' inability to accept your decision in a mature and respectful manner. That is squarely on their shoulders. I'm sorry if my post sounds harsh, but I get so tired of hearing people try to blame the church for the bad behavior of people who aren't even members!

[Guest mormonmusic]

Lilac, For one thing, no one should get married, in the temple or otherwise, unless they are sure they are ready.

You totally misread or misunderstood my post.

My desire was to get married in the temple from the get-go. Wanted it, believed it was ready to do it -- no uncertainty about wanting to be married immediately in the temple

However, enter the non-member family variable. All of a sudden, I have a choice -- either get married now in the temple because I want it, or appease my family and get married civilly now, and then wait a year for the temple marriage, thus introducing risk that something might happen in that year that might encourage my wife and I NOT to go to the temple.

And if I may speak frankly, something DID happen that would've pretty much ensured that we didn't go through the temple during that year, if I had've decided to get civilly married ffirst. My wife and I, clean and pure from all sexual experience before marriage, found AFTER the sealing that my wife had a condition that prevented intercourse. This lasted 10 years.

You know, if the policy wasn't in place, forcing you to wait a year, I would never have considered introducing the risk of things not working out and not getting a temple marriage by getting married civilly first. Do you see how that policy of excluding my family had me considering the year delay which probably would've led to me not having a temple marriage at all?

Now, we managed to stay together and are still together in spite of that condition, because we both felt we made an eternal commitment. We both agree we would not have gone through the temple a year later with that new knowledge in our experience as husband and wife if we were only married civilly. The first year was absolultely terrible for both of us.

Now, do I have to say this five more times for you guys to get it -- we didn't want a civil marriage because we weren't certain about our marriage success at the time. We wanted it to create a solution that was respectful to parents, yet also confirmed our commitment to eternal marriage.

Forgive me, but Sheesh! You need to read the posts above and understand them before you get all defensive about the policy!

[pam]

Hasn't this topic about run its course?

[carlimac]

You totally misread or misunderstood my post.

My desire was to get married in the temple from the get-go. Wanted it, believed it was ready to do it -- no uncertainty about wanting to be married immediately in the temple

However, enter the non-member family variable. All of a sudden, I have a choice -- either get married now in the temple because I want it, or appease my family and get married civilly now, and then wait a year for the temple marriage, thus introducing risk that something might happen in that year that might encourage my wife and I NOT to go to the temple.

And if I may speak frankly, something DID happen that would've pretty much ensured that we didn't go through the temple during that year, if I had've decided to get civilly married ffirst. My wife and I, clean and pure from all sexual experience before marriage, found AFTER the sealing that my wife had a condition that prevented intercourse. This lasted 10 years.

You know, if the policy wasn't in place, forcing you to wait a year, I would never have considered introducing the risk of things not working out and not getting a temple marriage by getting married civilly first. Do you see how that policy of excluding my family had me considering the year delay which probably would've led to me not having a temple marriage at all?

Now, we managed to stay together and are still together in spite of that condition, because we both felt we made an eternal commitment. We both agree we would not have gone through the temple a year later with that new knowledge in our experience as husband and wife if we were only married civilly. The first year was absolultely terrible for both of us.

Now, do I have to say this five more times for you guys to get it -- we didn't want a civil marriage because we weren't certain about our marriage success at the time. We wanted it to create a solution that was respectful to parents, yet also confirmed our commitment to eternal marriage.

Forgive me, but Sheesh! You need to read the posts above and understand them before you get all defensive about the policy!

Well, yours is probably an unusual circumstance (your wife's condition). I'm sure we're all impressed you stayed true to her. I hope things have gotten better.

But it sounds as if the consternation on the part of some of us posting here lies in the practice of people worrying too much and trying too hard to appease the non-member family. Yes we understand you ultimately didn't. Kudos to you for going ahead with your temple marriage. But your parent's reaction to completely abandon you on your wedding day and to continue to use it as a reason to turn their backs on any interest in the church, AND for you to continue to feel guilty about it is a sorry state to be in. Do you think they were justified? If so, this will probably always be an issue for you. I doubt there will be any policy changes any time soon. But if you can see that maybe they were over-reacting just a tad and that they are holding onto their grudge for whatever reason, it may help you to approach the whole memory of your wedding a little differently, yank that blight out of it and remember your wedding as the blessed event it was. YOU tried to involve them with a ring ceremony, but they rejected your offer. You tried to reach a middle ground and compromise but they wouldn't go for it. Sounds like it was "their way or the highway".

That said, from what you've described, they sound like good generous people. But they have hurt you with their close minded attitude. Somehow you'll need to come to terms of peace about your decision.

Sometimes there are church policies or work policies or school policies that we don't agree with. Often it takes a little more digging to understand the reason for the policy. This policy isn't just a result of controlling sargeant-like leaders of the church with no compassion (as would be the case with many annoying school and work policies) It's probably a policy that has been thought and prayed about sincerely by those who set it in place. All we can do is trust that they have come to their conclusion for a reason. And then pray our non-member families will have their broken hearts consoled and softened. But heaven forbid we say anything negative about it to our families. The long lasting results of that may be far worse than just humbly accepting the policy and doing the best we can with it.

[Moksha]

If one needs to insist on the primacy of the Church and the Temple Ceremony, what is wrong with thinking of it as the desert following a meal? Everyone looks forward to the desert afterward, whether Crème Brulée , Banana's Foster, Cherries Jubilee or Moksha's chocolate-marshmallow-peanut butter-macadamia nut shake at the Iceberg Drive-in.

It has been my assumption that most girls also yearn to have a traditional wedding with a processional, flower girl and throwing their bouquet to a crowd of other women who all envy her.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Hasn't this topic about run its course?

I believe it has.

[MormonMama]

You totally misread or misunderstood my post.

I can only go off what you post. You stated more than once that there were things in the first year of your marriage that might have led to a divorce had you not been married in the temple. If things were that severe, then perhaps you guys (meaning one or both of you) were not really as ready as you thought. That's unfortunately something we often don't really know until we have the benefit of hindsight, regardless of what type of wedding we have. Being ready for marriage means being ready for the things you know as well as the things you don't. Believe me, you are far from the only couple who discovered something major and potentially damaging to your marriage after the wedding. I dare say the vast majority of couples experience that.

You know, if the policy wasn't in place, forcing you to wait a year, I would never have considered introducing the risk of things not working out and not getting a temple marriage by getting married civilly first. Do you see how that policy of excluding my family had me considering the year delay which probably would've led to me not having a temple marriage at all?

It almost sounds as if you're saying that the experiences you had during your first year of marriage have not been worth it. You keep saying that the two of you have stayed together because you felt you made an eternal commitment. Yet you've also said that couples who marry outside of the temple make no less of a commitment. But then you turn around and very strongly imply that you would have been less committed to making your marriage work if you had not been married in the temple.

Forgive me, but Sheesh! You need to read the posts above and understand them before you get all defensive about the policy!

I have read all the posts. Every. Single. One. And I feel I do understand them as best as is possible. If YOU will look back through all the posts you will see that the majority of the posters in this thread seem to be on the same wavelength as me. So perhaps you need to look back at how you are wording things?

I don't think it's being "defensive" about a policy to defend it. Yes, they are two different things. You are trying to blame church policy regarding temple marriage for the rift in your family and I am saying put the blame where it belongs: on your family members and even yourself. As I said before, it is entirely their choice (and yours) to be offended.

Have you ever tried asking a bishop or stake president, or even someone higher up, to give you a real, honest-to-goodness answer as to why this policy is in place? People in this thread have made guesses and assumptions based on the best of their knowledge, but even those who have hazarded a guess have admitted that they just aren't sure. Why don't you actually ask someone with some real authority on the matter? If you already have and they couldn't give you an answer, ask someone else. Try writing to the First Presidency even. Who knows? They might actually respond, especially if you ask in a spirit of humility and a sincere desire for knowledge instead of with a combative attitude. Maybe you won't get an answer you like, but at least you might have a greater understanding of the "why's" whether you agree with them or not. Seems to me if you're going to have a problem with a policy, you should at least have a full understanding of that policy.

[john doe]

Since it is unanimous I'll close this.......