Why did this happen?

[Moksha]

Policy is NOT given to conform to the ways of man.

God wrote this policy? If so, are the member in England and Brazil out of compliance?

[Elgama]

God wrote this policy? If so, are the member in England and Brazil out of compliance?

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. And actually having done it with a civil ceremony and a sealing ceremony straight after I understand better why its shouldn't happen. My Civil Ceremony was around 45 minutes it had harp music, reading of a commitment poem by my husband etc and it was truly beautiful and spiritual attended by family and friends. Having a quiet 15 minute ceremony the next day at the Preston Temple with only my Mother in Law, the offciator, and 2 temple appointed witnesses, more effort is required to think of that as my wedding, my first thought is often the glorious gorgeous day, It took practice to celebrate our wedding anniversary on the 14th rather than the 13th when everyone else sends us cards on the 13th etc.

Keeping the temple sealing ceremony as your priority and focus when you have it straight after the civil ceremony takes a lot of effort. All your focus before is in preparing for the civil ceremony etc And even if it ment having a function that including my non member family and friends after the sealing ceremony, I personally wish I could have been sealed without the civil ceremony.

[Intrigued]

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?

You're missing the point of the thread. We are not discussing the legitimacy of a civil marriage.. we are discussing going through both ceremonies. It would be incredibly simple to take the civil marriage part out of the sealing process. It would be a perfect fix. It would satisfy all parties involved.

Are there any cons to doing it like that? The only one I can think of is the 30 minute trip to the court house. You could do it after the temple sealing if it made you feel better. Why would God care? It's up to the couple to keep their covenant holy and sacred, the ceremony has absolutely squat to do with it.

Also, you are downplaying the 'mortal' family in a major way. It really sounds like 'mortal family' is almost a derogatory term in the LDS Church sometimes. LDS believe they can be sealed to their wives, husbands, and children for all eternity.. their very own children. This would also apply to every members parents and themselves. What i'm trying to say is that their mortal family is their eternal family.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Intrigued

[Connie]

Intrigued: What religion are you? (you don't seem to have a profile page)

[Just_A_Guy]

It would be incredibly simple to take the civil marriage part out of the sealing process. It would be a perfect fix. It would satisfy all parties involved.

Are there any cons to doing it like that? The only one I can think of is the 30 minute trip to the court house. You could do it after the temple sealing if it made you feel better.

Do you really think a thirty-minute trip to the courthouse after the temple sealing would satisfy the non-Mormon relatives?

[zippy_do46]

Did your parents realize how much this ment to you? If they did then I think they should have respected your choice even if they did not believe in it. It is not as if you ran off to Vegas. Having said that I think you should tell them you are sorry their feelings were hurt, but you felt the need to do this for you and your wife. That you felt that you made the right choice. You have been bless Mormonmusic. You were able to be married in the Temple. As your dear wife said if the both of you had to wait then you would not have done it. This is the bottom line. You are still together. Try to heal the wounds of your parents. The past is the past. Go forward not backward.

I really thought I was going to delete my post because I realize that your real concern was the policy. But you know you did make the right choice what ever your thoughts are now. I just felt the hurt and responded to that.

Edited May 5, 2010 by zippy_do46

[Intrigued]

Do you really think a thirty-minute trip to the courthouse after the temple sealing would satisfy the non-Mormon relatives?

The 30 minute trip to the court house would be the minor con to the LDS members with LDS families. The LDS member with the nonmember families could still have a traditional wedding if they so chose.. with rings and vows both.

[Brik]

Its simply because civil marriage's potassium is inferior to the priestly marriage offered only through Jesus's conduit to earth, the LDS church.

[carlimac]

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.

Your parents have chosen to continue to be bitter about it. What about THEM being happy For YOU, that with integrity you made choice as an adult and followed through with something you felt was important. Sounds like you are being drawn into their bitterness. Don't allow them to make you feel guilty about it. You made the right choice and will be blessed for it if you allow yourself to be blessed. If you continue to dwell on it, I get the sense that the bitterness will continue to grow and may really become a stumbling block in the path of the growth and progression of your testimony.

I think it's OK to question and be frustrated by things that we experience. But continuing to dwell needlessly on the negative for years can't be healthy. Why not focus on all the joys you can share with them right now! Do you have children? Involve them in as many aspects of your life that you can that will give them pleasure in seeing their child act in the role of a responsible, loving adult. In other words, put this behind you.

[Guest mormonmusic]

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.

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.

My wife and I agree that the temple marriage had a huge impact on our commitment to our marriage. I think you might need to read the posts above closer.

In terms of bitterness and lack of forgiveness -- you're reading emotions into the post here that doen't exist, and I think you scanned the posts above rather than reading them (don't blame you, long discussions are a bear to read when they span many pages).

First of all, I don't have any bitter feelings about my parents. I empathize with how they felt, and as I said, I apologized for the hurt I caused them, without surrendering my belief in temple marriage. I don't think I expressed any bitterness anywhere, as I have none toward them.

Nor do I have any bitter feelings about the hardship the policy of no dual ceremonies on the same day. Granted, I regret the feelings it caused in my parents, how it pushed them further away from the Church, and the hurt it caused. And I'd love to see the policy changed for people who have non-member families. It also put me in a position to CONSIDER delaying temple marriage so my parents could see me get married. If one could be married civilly first, and then for eternity on the same day, the dangers of even considering delayhing temple marriage would never have come to my consciousness.

It seems that here, and in other discussion forums, if you openly hold your position in the face of weak arguments you can't accept, people immediately infer negative emotions.

In holding my ground, and being honest about my reactions to people's reasons, MOE finally came out with something that helps me make sense of this policy -- it's for a different situation, with non-member families caught in the cross-fire.

Edited May 5, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think it's OK to question and be frustrated by things that we experience. But continuing to dwell needlessly on the negative for years can't be healthy. Why not focus on all the joys you can share with them right now! Do you have children? Involve them in as many aspects of your life that you can that will give them pleasure in seeing their child act in the role of a responsible, loving adult. In other words, put this behind you.

Carlimac -- all I've done here is give my impressions of the arguments people have given in favor of the policy. For me this is simply interesting discussion.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Did your parents realize how much this ment to you? If they did then I think they should have respected your choice even if they did not believe in it. .

My parents handled the situation publicly as exemplary people. My Dad paid for my wife and I to go on a vacation, and also offered my LDS in laws money for the reception. They accepted my wife in the family, and paid for a vacation for us to a resort that has been a traditional gathering place for our family.

However, they made it clear they didn't agree with the policy that excluded them as if they didn't matter. They struggled with the animosity they felt against the Church, but the whole experience left a bad taste in their mouth.

Can you put yourself in the shoes of people who have no testimony of the gospel as understood by the LDS faith, and who are left out a milestone event in their child's life? Or is it this simply not possible for you?

I point this out not as a testimony issue on my part , but to help others see the perspective of non-member parents who have convert children get married in the temple.

By the way, my Bishop told me to approach my family about funding my mission years previously. I thought this was incredulous as my family was unsure about the Church, and with an Evangelical affiliation, didn't approve. My Dad refused to fund the mission, but when I got home, he'd put the money I asked for aside each month to fund my re-entry into non-missionary life again. That was his way of affirming me without validating my LDS affiliation or funding the proselyting effort.

That's the kind of people they are -- firm opinions, but also showing kindness and love without surrending their values.

Edited May 5, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Maureen]

As a non-LDS who has LDS relatives, I have attended a few Mormon “receptions” and waited once outside a Temple during a wedding. I have come to realize that the perceptions and expectations that non-LDS and LDS have of weddings are very different. Growing up LDS, a child is taught how special the Temple is and that through sealings families are forever. LDS children do not attend their own siblings and relatives weddings. The concept that a wedding ceremony is defined as a spiritual covenant between the couple and God is the norm for someone growing up Mormon. BIC members do not question why they do not attend the ceremony; that is just how it is in Mormon culture. Non-LDS children on the other hand, grow up attending wedding ceremonies, being a witness to the new family that was created that day. Weddings for a non-LDS child are shown as a celebration and everyone is invited.

It can be difficult on both sides trying to understand each other’s expectations and values when faced with also trying to accept and respect them. IMO, the LDS church has made an effort to try and help members with non-member family and friends have a more enjoyable, less burdened wedding through the ring ceremony. mormonmusic, 14 years ago, ring ceremonies were not as common or practiced like I believe they are (or could be) today. A ring ceremony doesn’t have to be something to placate a non-LDS family member. It can be an additional step of celebration that the couple can have with all family members involved as witnesses. With help from bishops, couples should be able to explain to family members why the Temple sealing is important, what it means and that a ring ceremony is given to help the couple share their day with everyone. My nephew and his wife had a beautiful ring ceremony when they married 5 years ago. It lasted about 30 minutes and they made it very personal and special. I think because they had such great support from their bishop, it made the whole day enjoyable for everyone involved.

Unless Canada or the US take on marriage laws like those practiced in the UK, I doubt the LDS church would want to make a “civil wedding ceremony and sealing in one day” the custom. Mormon culture and doctrine has evolved to make Temple marriages the best for an LDS family. If mutual understanding can be practiced by both LDS and non-LDS families then wedding celebrations don’t have to be so divided.

And as a side note; IMO, the LDS church should offer Temple marriage counseling classes. [Many non-LDS religions offer pre-marriage counseling classes.] Bishops and leaders can take the time to explain the importance and purpose of a sealing to all couples and especially to converts. Such classes can help the ambivalent couple with non-LDS members make a more knowledgeable decision regarding a temple wedding and teach them how to explain their decisions and values to family members. Although after such a class, if the couple did decide to have a civil wedding and wait the year, it would be helpful if that decision was not frowned upon by the church but accepted as the couple practicing their free agency.

M.

[carlimac]

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.

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.

I don't know. You say you aren't bitter, but the fact that you felt you had to apologize to your parents and that you think it is a weak symbolism doesn't sound very convincing to me. No wonder your parents don't want to consider the church at all when you apologize to them about it. When we make excuses or apologize for the church, it give people a reason to not take it seriously. Maybe you should apologize to your parents for making the church and it's policies look silly.

I'm taking the hard line on this because I really believe from what you've said that this little issue (in the eternal scheme of things) is just an excuse for them to not go to the bother of investigating the church. Your apologizing for the church enables their lack of interest. " Why should we be interested in a church that even our son doesn't think is right.?"

Assumptions, assumptions. But that's what it sounds like to me.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Assumptions, assumptions. But that's what it sounds like to me.

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!

[Guest mormonmusic]

IMO, the LDS church has made an effort to try and help members with non-member family and friends have a more enjoyable, less burdened wedding through the ring ceremony.

Using the line of reasoning above, would not a ring exhange ceremony cheapen or eclipse the eternal marriage ceremony? And would not a reception do the same thing, with it's frivolity, and dancing?

By the way, my parents rejected the ring ceremony thing when I offered.

[Maureen]

Using the line of reasoning above, would not a ring exhange ceremony cheapen or eclipse the eternal marriage ceremony? And would not a reception do the same thing, with it's frivolity, and dancing?

By the way, my parents rejected the ring ceremony thing when I offered.

A cash bar? Are you forgetting we are talking about an LDS wedding? Did you not have a reception after your sealing?

A ring ceremony in no way cheapens the sealing ceremony. A ring ceremony gathers all wedding guests together with their attention on the couple. At my nephew's ring ceremony, the Bishop said a few jovial words about the couple. The rings were exchanged and because both the bride and groom are of Scottish heritage the groom's family presented the bride with a tartan sash. There were even bagpipes. It is one Mormon wedding I will never forget. For me, it was very special that the couple would make the extra effort for their non-member family and friends. They definitely practiced what they preach - all family is special.

M.

[Maureen]

By the way, my parents rejected the ring ceremony thing when I offered.

I think it would be great if ring ceremonies became the tradition for LDS weddings. Not something that just takes 5 minutes to accomplish but something given for everyone to really enjoy and feel a part of.

And BTW, you did mention "cash bar" in your one post before you changed it. :)

M.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think it would be great if ring ceremonies became the tradition for LDS weddings. Not something that just takes 5 minutes to accomplish but something given for everyone to really enjoy and feel a part of.

M.

I think this is a good idea, but I rephrase this to say "I think it would be great if ring ceremonies became a tradition at LDS and NON-LDS weddings." The point of this thread was the "no civil marriages on the same day as a temple wedding" policy hurts non-members, whose feelings we're trying to respect here. If you simply insistnon-members be happy with a solely LDS tradition, you're not respecting the non-members.

[Intrigued]

I think this is a good idea, but I rephrase this to say "I think it would be great if ring ceremonies became a tradition at LDS and NON-LDS weddings." The point of this thread was the "no civil marriages on the same day as a temple wedding" policy hurts non-members, whose feelings we're trying to respect here. If you simply insistnon-members be happy with a solely LDS tradition, you're not respecting the non-members.

And more importantly you're not respecting the members of someones eternal family.

[Guest mormonmusic]

A cash bar? Are you forgetting we are talking about an LDS wedding? Did you not have a reception after your sealing?

One LDS reception I attended had a cash bar for the non-members. That's why I mentioned that earlier. Another had two punch bowls -- one labelled alcoholic, another labelled non-alcoholic.

For me, it was very special that the couple would make the extra effort for their non-member family and friends. They definitely practiced what they preach - all family is special.

M.

I think this is funny because my concern is that the policy of not allowing civil marriages on the same day as a temple marriage doesn't show enough respect for the non-member stakeholders in the wedding!

And you implicitly think this is a valid thing to want to do as well!

Now, I have a question -- at the ring bearing ceremony, would the couple affirm their love for each other, make personal commitments in front of their family and friends? What is the content and format of a typical ring-bearing ceremony? It's been years since I saw the only one I've ever seen. Hence my question.

[Maureen]

...Now, I have a question -- at the ring bearing ceremony, would the couple affirm their love for each other, make personal commitments in front of their family and friends? What is the content and format of a typical ring-bearing ceremony? It's been years since I saw the only one I've ever seen. Hence my question.

Since a couple does not exchange wedding rings at a sealing, the main content for a ring ceremony is for the couple to exchange rings without words or vows (since that was done in the Temple). Ring ceremonies can be open for personal expression, especially if the couple has support from the Bishop.

M.

[Maureen]

I think this is a good idea, but I rephrase this to say "I think it would be great if ring ceremonies became a tradition at LDS and NON-LDS weddings." The point of this thread was the "no civil marriages on the same day as a temple wedding" policy hurts non-members, whose feelings we're trying to respect here. If you simply insistnon-members be happy with a solely LDS tradition, you're not respecting the non-members.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. A non-LDS wedding ceremony already has a ring exchange, it is part of the whole ceremony. The reason why a "ring ceremony" would be solely an LDS tradition is because rings are not exchanged during the sealing ceremony.

M.

[Intrigued]

I had a thought that I wanted to share..

This is an LDS forum, as such.. I've seen comments made that a civil wedding would somehow diminish (mocks, cheap imitation, not the real deal, etc) the supposed supreme nature of the temple ceremony.

This is exactly how nonmember families see the 'ring ceremony'. It's a point of perspective really.. and I know religious people all around the world believe themselves to be 'correct'. What I'm trying to get across here.. is be careful of how you word things, it may not seem like a big deal to you.. but you're stomping on something that is sacred to someone else.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Intrigued

[Guest mormonmusic]

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. A non-LDS wedding ceremony already has a ring exchange, it is part of the whole ceremony. The reason why a "ring ceremony" would be solely an LDS tradition is because rings are not exchanged during the sealing ceremony.

M.

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?