Those that can't attend temple wedding ..

[dory]

My son will be getting married in the temple in a couple of months. We have some close family who live out of the country and are planning to make the long trip here to attend the wedding; however, they are not members of our church and I am very worried to have to break the news to them that won't be able to attend the ceremony.

How do I explain this to them without causing offense?

Sometimes it just doesn't seem right that all loved ones can't attend a wedding ceremony .... I mean, I understand that a recommend is required to enter the temple, but trying to tell someone that they cannot attend the wedding of a loved one almost makes me feel like I'm telling them that they aren't "good enough" . . . Know what I'm sayin'?? When I try to put myself in their shoes I think I think I might be offended if were them.

[MorningStar]

Maybe explain that not even all members can attend? I couldn't attend my brother's wedding because I was 19 and wasn't endowed yet. I also told my friends and relatives that it is a completely different experience - no walking down the aisle, flower girls, music, etc.

[Guest]

You can also hold a "ring ceremony" at the reception and make it separate from Temple ceremonies. You can have the temple trip in the early morning session then have the "ring ceremony"/reception at night. Then the lovebirds can ponder and reflect on the Temple experience in between - by themselves away from the hubbub of a wedding party - and just have them show up, walk through the doors of the ring ceremony hall with the wedding crowd cheering. Hmm... I think it sounds very romantic.

Edited September 15, 2012 by anatess

[Dravin]

My son will be getting married in the temple in a couple of months. We have some close family who live out of the country and are planning to make the long trip here to attend the wedding; however, they are not members of our church and I am very worried to have to break the news to them that won't be able to attend the ceremony.

You need to tell them as soon as humanly possible before any plans are made on their part. Some may understandably not want to travel from out of country if they can't come to the ceremony.

How do I explain this to them without causing offense?

The simplest explanation is that entrance into the temple is predicated upon the making and keeping of certain covenants and since they haven't made and kept those covenants as non-members (members shouldn't need why they can't attend the ceremony explained to them) they aren't allowed within.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

Have a nice ring ceremony performed by the bishop. Invite them to that ceremony.

[applepansy]

"The marriage will be solemnized in the "insert temple name". You are invited to the ring ceremony at such and such a time and such and such a place. The Reception is at such and such a time, same place."

I agree...tell them soon so they don't make a long trip and then are disappointed.

[dory]

Thanks for your suggestions. There isn't going to be a ring ceremony though. We're putting on this wedding by ourselves on a very limited budget and to me this would just add one more big stress to have to figure out.

[pam]

Seems to me that would help settle some of the stress you would be feeling about some not able to attend the temple. There wouldn't need to be any additional expense involved.

[Guest]

I deeply regret not having a ring ceremony for my inactive sister. It's been years and I think doing something to include her would have gone a long way toward helping her feel loved and included and not so bitter against the church now. She still has a hard time understanding why she couldn't be a part of her little sister's marriage.

It doesn't have to cost anything. Do it at the reception. No one even needs to officiate. My nephew just got married and they made a sweet canopy in the backyard where the reception was with patio lights on a couple of trees. The dads gave them some wisdom about marriage, the couple spoke of what they loved about each other and how they promised to make each other happy, they exchanged rings, and they kissed. It was simple and sweet, and those of us who didn't get to go to the wedding (even some endowed family couldn't make it, because it was far away and our families are too big for everyone to fit) got to be a part of some of the special day.

[Backroads]

Indeed, it is crucial to make the details of the wedding clear and obvious before there are any misunderstandings. Yes, you might have some relatives still miffed at not attending the ceremony, but at least they'll be traveling/not traveling informed.

Are you having a reception?

[RMGuy]

What I am going to say here will probably make me unpopular (if I wasn't already).

Situations like these are why I would get married civilly first...even if I had to wait 1 year to be sealed in the temple.

1. We claim that family is central to the church, but I have seen this exact situation cause so much heartache and grief among families in the church. Imagine for a moment that you are a good, upstanding christian whose spouse converts to the church, you allow your children to be raised LDS, you firmly support them, but retain a strong believe in your own faith, and then are told that you cannot attend the wedding of this child.

2. Sometimes individuals use the argument "what if something happens to you before you are able to be sealed?" Perhaps the classic example is a car crash that kills one or both before attending the temple. Yet, isn't that what vicarious work is for? Is it of any less validity than for my grandparents who knew of the gospel, believed it, but could never bring themselves to join due to their attachment to their own religion?

3. This situation already plays out in many other areas of the world. In fact, my wife and I were married civilly in the country of our residence and then sealed later the same day. Hence, we must acknowledge that doing so is not doctrinally incorrect, but is rather a policy of the church.

Those are my thoughts, but I can support others in theirs. In this situation, the bride and groom have made a decision to move forward with a temple wedding. In doing so they place a premium on certain priorities over others. In this instance that means excluding certain close families members from the ceremony. Clearly that is their choice to make and I am sure they understood the ramifications when them made that choice. However, I think they have an obligation to share this information with these family members so that they can also make an informed decision.

-RM

[applepansy]

Dory,

Just a quick note: Rings are not part of the Temple Sealing ceremony.

Best Wishes

[applepansy]

What I am going to say here will probably make me unpopular (if I wasn't already).

Situations like these are why I would get married civilly first...even if I had to wait 1 year to be sealed in the temple.

1. We claim that family is central to the church, but I have seen this exact situation cause so much heartache and grief among families in the church. Imagine for a moment that you are a good, upstanding christian whose spouse converts to the church, you allow your children to be raised LDS, you firmly support them, but retain a strong believe in your own faith, and then are told that you cannot attend the wedding of this child.

2. Sometimes individuals use the argument "what if something happens to you before you are able to be sealed?" Perhaps the classic example is a car crash that kills one or both before attending the temple. Yet, isn't that what vicarious work is for? Is it of any less validity than for my grandparents who knew of the gospel, believed it, but could never bring themselves to join due to their attachment to their own religion?

3. This situation already plays out in many other areas of the world. In fact, my wife and I were married civilly in the country of our residence and then sealed later the same day. Hence, we must acknowledge that doing so is not doctrinally incorrect, but is rather a policy of the church.

Those are my thoughts, but I can support others in theirs. In this situation, the bride and groom have made a decision to move forward with a temple wedding. In doing so they place a premium on certain priorities over others. In this instance that means excluding certain close families members from the ceremony. Clearly that is their choice to make and I am sure they understood the ramifications when them made that choice. However, I think they have an obligation to share this information with these family members so that they can also make an informed decision.

-RM

I don't find your views helpful to the thread. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, maybe not. But a discussion of the benefits of civil marriage prior to temple marriage has been discussed repeatedly. You could always start another thread.

Best wishes,

A chronic "off topic" poster.

<standing up> I'm apple and I'm a derailer.

[Maureen]

I don't find your views helpful to the thread. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, maybe not. But a discussion of the benefits of civil marriage prior to temple marriage has been discussed repeatedly. You could always start another thread....

I disagree, I think RMGuy's post can be very helpful. Part of this thread is about weddings and RMGuy's wise words can give the OP something to think about. The couple could change their plans if they chose to do so and have a public ceremony instead and be sealed at a later date. Dory would have a solution to her family predicament and everyone could celebrate together.

M.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Maureen

[Backroads]

I see nothing wrong with RMGuy's contributions. Yes, having a civil ceremony rather than a temple sealing right off the bat is a valid way of including family members in the wedding ceremony.

However (and some may disagree with me on this) the marriage ceremony really should be ultimately up to the bride and groom and I don't think the demands of family should be the deciding factor in what to do.

[Guest]

On the flip side of my other comment, something I love about sealings is that they are just about the couple and Heavenly Father. Other than the witnesses and the sealer, no one else needs to be there at all. When I got married, ring ceremonies were discouraged, for fear that they would take away from the importance of the sealing. That is really the most important of the day for most of us who are married in the temple. I could not have slept peacefully for a year if we'd married civilly first, for fear that something would happen to one of us before we made it to the temple alter.

That doesn't make it any easier for those who can't attend to understand, though. It's not an easy choice.

[applepansy]

On the flip side of my other comment, something I love about sealings is that they are just about the couple and Heavenly Father. Other than the witnesses and the sealer, no one else needs to be there at all. When I got married, ring ceremonies were discouraged, for fear that they would take away from the importance of the sealing. That is really the most important of the day for most of us who are married in the temple. I could not have slept peacefully for a year if we'd married civilly first, for fear that something would happen to one of us before we made it to the temple alter.

That doesn't make it any easier for those who can't attend to understand, though. It's not an easy choice.

I lived the year of no sleep and constant worry. It isn't worth it. Civil ceremony before sealing isn't recommended by GAs or the Prophet except in countries who require it by law....just something to consider.

The reason I think RMGuy's post was not helpful in this thread is the temple has already been chosen and she's asking for help with the relatives who can't attend. Is she suppose to talk the bride and groom into waiting a year to be sealed?

[applepansy]

However (and some may disagree with me on this) the marriage ceremony really should be ultimately up to the bride and groom and I don't think the demands of family should be the deciding factor in what to do.

I agree with this.

[Leah]

I lived the year of no sleep and constant worry. It isn't worth it. Civil ceremony before sealing isn't recommended by GAs or the Prophet except in countries who require it by law....just something to consider.

The reason I think RMGuy's post was not helpful in this thread is the temple has already been chosen and she's asking for help with the relatives who can't attend. Is she suppose to talk the bride and groom into waiting a year to be sealed?

I think those that would recommend anyone putting off being sealed for a year just to appease family members or friends, don't truly grasp what sealings are all about. And I personally would not take the advice of anyone outside the church who suggests that the importance of a civil ceremony takes precedence over being sealed.

Sealings are about a covenant with Heavenly Father. THAT is what should be most important.

[Traveler]

My son will be getting married in the temple in a couple of months. We have some close family who live out of the country and are planning to make the long trip here to attend the wedding; however, they are not members of our church and I am very worried to have to break the news to them that won't be able to attend the ceremony.

How do I explain this to them without causing offense?

Sometimes it just doesn't seem right that all loved ones can't attend a wedding ceremony .... I mean, I understand that a recommend is required to enter the temple, but trying to tell someone that they cannot attend the wedding of a loved one almost makes me feel like I'm telling them that they aren't "good enough" . . . Know what I'm sayin'?? When I try to put myself in their shoes I think I think I might be offended if were them.

It has been the custom in my family to hold a family home evening the evening before the wedding and the fathers that are LDS give a Father's blessing to each one of the new couple. One of our son-in-laws parents were not LDS and could not be at the temple. So we have invited all those close family that cannot attend the temple to our home for dinner and the blessings. We then presented a gift (LDS book on temples) to those that cannot attend and had a discussion - using the book - and talked about the temple and then answered any questions.

This worked very well and ever since this event we have bonded quite well to our new relatives, who have invited my wife and I to come stay in their home and attend the BYU football game with them when BYU has come to their city. They have also come on a number of occasions to our annual white water rafting trips in the summer.

Our main purpose was to make sure that they understood they were not lesser people in our eyes. My daughter and her husband did hold a ring ceremony at their reception and asked the groom's father and mother to say a few short remarks to compliment the Father's blessing.

The Traveler

[idahommie]

Temple Marriage and the part member Family........

My wife of 15 years is a non member and I was born in the Church. When we were married I was "less" active in church, in fact we lived together before we were married, my wife(then girlfriend) would go to Relief Society with my Mom, and was accepted by the girls I grew up with. We were married by A great family friend whom was also the Bishop at the time.

15 years later finds us active in church(not in my hometown any longer), with myself living worthy of my priethood and our children being members but my wife has not accepted the gospel. She attends church with us every Sunday, even though she is really not accepted by the sisters in our ward.

Our daughter has mentioned her desire to marry in the temple on numerous occasions. My wife has confided in me it would be the worst day in her life to not see her daughter marry.

My council to my daughter and her soon to be husband (when the time comes AND if my wife is not a member yet) will be to marry outside the temple and then seek a temple marriage. I hope and pray I never have to say that, but my wife is the love of my life, we have a wonderful family and a wonderful relationship, I could not stand by and watch her be crushed in such a way. My wife would be supportive and never voice her hurt, the best non Mormon Mormon I've known.

I truly believe the church should allow a civil marriage prior to a temple ceremony here in the States without the year long wait. Has anyone ever held their temple marriage then had a civil marriage after as an option? If our families may not experience eternal life together for one reason or another, can we not try to make our time together in this earthly existence as wonderful as possible?

Edited September 18, 2012 by idahommie

[applepansy]

Temple Marriage and the part member Family........

My wife of 15 years is a non member and I was born in the Church. When we were married I was "less" active in church, in fact we lived together before we were married, my wife(then girlfriend) would go to Relief Society with my Mom, and was accepted by the girls I grew up with. We were married by A great family friend whom was also the Bishop at the time.

15 years later finds us active in church(not in my hometown any longer), with myself living worthy of my priethood and our children being members but my wife has not accepted the gospel. She attends church with us every Sunday, even though she is really not accepted by the sisters in our ward.

Our daughter has mentioned her desire to marry in the temple on numerous occasions. My wife has confided in me it would be the worst day in her life to not see her daughter marry.

My council to my daughter and her soon to be husband (when the time comes AND if my wife is not a member yet) will be to marry outside the temple and then seek a temple marriage. I hope and pray I never have to say that, but my wife is the love of my life, we have a wonderful family and a wonderful relationship, I could not stand by and watch her be crushed in such a way. My wife would be supportive and never voice her hurt, the best non Mormon Mormon I've known.

I truly believe the church should allow a civil marriage prior to a temple ceremony here in the States without the year long wait. Has anyone ever held their temple marriage then had a civil marriage after as an option? If our families may not experience eternal life together for one reason or another, can we not try to make our time together in this earthly existence as wonderful as possible?

Why do you feel that your family will not enjoy eternal life together? We do work for the dead in the temple for this very reason. If your wife does not enter the waters of baptism in this life she will have the opportunity to accept the ordinance which will be done on her behalf (and maybe by the daughter you're talking about).

I do understand the pain this policy can cause. My mother chose to not come to my wedding because it was a civil ceremony and she reluctantly was there at the temple a year later.

I would like to gently suggest more study of the sealing ordinances, specifically why. Being a faithful member sometimes means we have to sacrifice sometimes when we are obedient to God's commandments. I also know that great blessings come to us when we have made a sacrifice to be obedient to God.

From Pres. Packer (Come to the Temple, Oct 2007):

To explain something of the significance of the ordinances, I begin with the third article of faith: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”

The word ordinance means “a religious or ceremonial observance,” “an established rite.” Now, what about the ordinances of the gospel? How important are they to us as members of the Church? Can you be happy, can you be redeemed, can you be exalted without them? Answer: They are more than advisable or desirable, or even than necessary. More even than essential or vital, they are crucial to each of us.

[Guest]

Temple Marriage and the part member Family........

My wife of 15 years is a non member and I was born in the Church. When we were married I was "less" active in church, in fact we lived together before we were married, my wife(then girlfriend) would go to Relief Society with my Mom, and was accepted by the girls I grew up with. We were married by A great family friend whom was also the Bishop at the time.

15 years later finds us active in church(not in my hometown any longer), with myself living worthy of my priethood and our children being members but my wife has not accepted the gospel. She attends church with us every Sunday, even though she is really not accepted by the sisters in our ward.

Our daughter has mentioned her desire to marry in the temple on numerous occasions. My wife has confided in me it would be the worst day in her life to not see her daughter marry.

My council to my daughter and her soon to be husband (when the time comes AND if my wife is not a member yet) will be to marry outside the temple and then seek a temple marriage. I hope and pray I never have to say that, but my wife is the love of my life, we have a wonderful family and a wonderful relationship, I could not stand by and watch her be crushed in such a way. My wife would be supportive and never voice her hurt, the best non Mormon Mormon I've known.

I truly believe the church should allow a civil marriage prior to a temple ceremony here in the States without the year long wait. Has anyone ever held their temple marriage then had a civil marriage after as an option? If our families may not experience eternal life together for one reason or another, can we not try to make our time together in this earthly existence as wonderful as possible?

On the bolded question above:

No. The marriage at the temple is a marriage that is legal in civil court. You can't get sealed in the temple without a legal marriage. Therefore, you can't just have the sealing without the marriage. So, a civil marriage (that is, having a judge officiate a marital ceremony for the purpose of legalization) after a temple marriage is not an option because the couple is already legally married.

But, there is nothing that stops you from having a wedding ceremony after the temple marriage without the legalization aspect of it.

If you really think about it - the civil ceremony in conjunction with a temple sealing is truly nothing more than just the court-required paperwork. THAT is NOT the marriage. The marriage is the joining of the hearts of a couple with the blessings of God.

So, your wife's "broken heart" is misplaced if she respects your daughter's belief in God. This marriage is not for the mother. This marriage is for her daughter. And for her daughter, her belief in God requires that she receive God's blessings to start her own family with the blessings of God in the temple. It would be selfishness and disrespect for a mother (and a father for that matter) to put her emotional state before her daughter's testimony.

The ceremony - what exactly are we talking about here? A dress, a ring, going down the aisle, saying I do... you can do all that traditional stuff outside the temple. You can make that part of the celebration. Your wife can be a part of all that.

But what really matters to an LDS faithful couple is the sealing at the temple. And if your wife wants to be a part of that - then she needs to have faith in that sealing. Which means, she'll need to be baptized and become worthy of entering the temple. And if she doesn't have faith in that sealing, then it doesn't make sense for her to have to be present in it.

Making a daughter choose - your testimony versus the mother's hurt - is to me, hurting your daughter for the sake of a mother's comfort. As a mother wanting the best for her child in her marriage, the mother's happiness should be hung upon her daughter's happiness in this very important event of her life.

[Backroads]

Making a daughter choose - your testimony versus the mother's hurt - is to me, hurting your daughter for the sake of a mother's comfort. As a mother wanting the best for her child in her marriage, the mother's happiness should be hung upon her daughter's happiness in this very important event of her life.

I realize that the family celebration of the marriage is a sensitive subject and that feelings can and do get hurt, but anatess is correct--this is the daughter's important event, not the mother's. I see nothing wrong with pleasing family members, but doing so should not be a sacrifice for the two directly involved in the marriage: the bride and the groom. A wedding--whether it be a sealing or not--should not aim to simply fulfill the fantasies of one or two people, even more so if those people are not the bride or the groom. This is about joining two lives, and those two lives are what matters.

Now, I personally see nothing wrong with delaying a sealing for a civil ceremony that all can attend--if that's what the bride and groom and no one else decide to do. idahommie, if your daughter decides to wait on the sealing and have a non-temple wedding her mother can attend, that's fine and may the wedding be beautiful.

However, your wife already had her opportunity for her dream wedding (and I do hope that's what it was). Hopefully your daughter only has the one opportunity, and that wedding should be what SHE, not her mother, wants.

[Backroads]

On further note, I motion this thread NOT vear off into the one-year wait debate, if at all humanly possible.

On other further note, in the U.S. (at least in Utah, where I was married) the patriarch at the temple is authorized to administer the legal marriage stuff--resulting in the temple sealing as being something of a two-for-one deal. Which allows the sealing to be performed on a married couple.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Backroads