Those that can't attend temple wedding ..

[applepansy]

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

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say earlier.

[Backroads]

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say earlier.

Yeah, I caught that.

I think it's been debated enough.

[Mute]

I agree with RMGuy and idahommie. My brother was just married yesterday (Saturday) in a temple. It's his choice but I felt like it was absolutely pointless for me to go just to sit outside of a temple. Imagine sitting outside on a church's steps waiting for the wedding of a friend or loved one to get out. Then you get to watch the bride and groom take a few pictures outside the building right before they drive away in their car. That's about all you get to see.

My lds sister married outside the temple first before ever being sealed. I remember that event well and it was a wonderful wedding. In my opinion, I'd agree with getting married outside a temple first and then marrying in the temple after. That way all your family can actually attend. To each their own though. I don't know of a great way to tell someone they can't attend the wedding without them feeling at least a little let down about it.

[Leah]

I agree with RMGuy and idahommie. My brother was just married yesterday (Saturday) in a temple. It's his choice but I felt like it was absolutely pointless for me to go just to sit outside of a temple. Imagine sitting outside on a church's steps waiting for the wedding of a friend or loved one to get out. Then you get to watch the bride and groom take a few pictures outside the building right before they drive away in their car. That's about all you get to see.

My lds sister married outside the temple first before ever being sealed. I remember that event well and it was a wonderful wedding. In my opinion, I'd agree with getting married outside a temple first and then marrying in the temple after. That way all your family can actually attend. To each their own though. I don't know of a great way to tell someone they can't attend the wedding without them feeling at least a little let down about it.

And it was your choice to leave the church. In doing so, you were aware of the consequences, this being one of them. When you made your choice, you also chose the consequences.

I don't see it as "absolutely pointless" for you to wait outside of the temple. Their sealing was not about you or about what you wanted to do. Their sealing was about entering into a covenant with Heavenly Father. I know you do not believe in these ordinances and covenants, but the point of you being there would have been/should have been about loving and supporting your brother.

I am not sure I will ever understand why former and non-members complain about not being able to attend sealings. A sealing is not about having a party, nor is it about the whims and wishes of family and friends. It is about a covenant with Heavenly Father. This is a very sacred thing. Current and former members should understand this, and if it is important to them to attend, they know what they need to do in order to attend. It is their choice to do so or not.

I have a daughter. Were she to be married in the temple and I was unable to attend because I did not keep my covenants, I have no one to be upset with other than myself. If I were not LDS and my daughter was to be married in the temple and I couldn't go, I would accept her choice and support in all the ways I could, instead of complaining about things and making it about my wants.

Being sealed in the temple isn't about putting on a party or a show for all to see.

[Mute]

I never once said people cannot do as they please. Nor I was I complaining about consequences to leaving the lds faith. You make it sound like I'm saying it is pointless for someone to do a sealing at all. By all means, be sealed in the temple if that is what a person believes. However, I feel it would be a nice thing to hold a marriage outside of the temple first in order to allow others to attend. If you're unhappy with me for saying that, then that is fine. But don't snap at me because I have a differing opinion than you. I'd have thought it obvious why a non member wouldn't be shouting for joy about not being able to attend their loved ones wedding. If you can't understand why a non member would be disappointed by being unable to attend a wedding of their loved one, then I'm not sure what to tell you other than to reread a few posts in this thread. You could also try asking those that feel broken hearted about not being able to attend their family member/friend's wedding.

[Backroads]

When I read Mute's "absolutely pointless", I did not read it as "what a horrible family for leaving me out of the wedding". I read it as "well, I'm not watching the ceremony--I can't help but feel on a personal level there is something better I could be doing with my time". (Is that more or less correct, Mute?)

I continue to agree that holding a ceremony outside of a temple is a nice and fine thing to do if that is a decision. However, I disagree with the notion that the ceremony should be held outside for the primary reason "so that others can attend."

I would liken this to the decision between my cousin and her husband years ago. The choice was between two civil ceremonies. Well, you're thinking, that's easy enough. All friends and family can attend a civil ceremony. That ought to make everyone happy.

Wrong. Cousin and cousin-in-law wanted to have a VERY private ceremony in their favorite part of the woods with no one but an official and a couple of witnesses. They really weren't interested in having a big ceremony with a bunch of people.

This problem does not just occur with LDS folks and their non-member friends and family. This problem occurs every time a couple feels pressured into having a ceremony that primarily serves to please others.

I won't try to give a single right answer: Perhaps in some family cultures, the proper and correct thing to do is to please the family and I suppose it's not my place to argue with that.

And with no intention of snapping at Mute (as I suspect he follows the aforementioned line of thinking, and that's all right) but I personally believe the ceremony should follow the couple at hand's wishes.

To bring it back to the LDS wedding, I don't think a civil ceremony should be recommended 100% of the time--just as a temple sealing first might not be the best thing 100% of the time. But I don't think the family and friends should be making the decision.

I suppose you just can't please everyone.

[Dravin]

When I read Mute's "absolutely pointless", I did not read it as "what a horrible family for leaving me out of the wedding". I read it as "well, I'm not watching the ceremony--I can't help but feel on a personal level there is something better I could be doing with my time". (Is that more or less correct, Mute?)

I, personally, wouldn't begrudge anyone who only wanted to show up at picture time rather than showing up at zero hour and staying around the grounds until picture time.

[Backroads]

Further thoughts as I was brushing my teeth:

Not being able to watch a beloved family member or friend get married certainly must be heartbreaking.

But the line of reasoning there seems to be: "If they would put my needs and wants before their own, they would do their wedding my way"; "If they really cared about me enough, they would make me a priority in the wedding plans".

If I had to plan my wedding around the desires and wishes of friends and family rather than mainly around my own desires, how bitter would I have felt?

Is that really how a wedding should be?

Edited September 24, 2012 by Backroads

[Dravin]

But the line of reasoning there seems to be: "If they would put my needs and wants before their own, they would do their wedding my way"; "If they really cared about me enough, they would make me a priority in the wedding plans".

Which is amusing because such thinking (or emotional blackmail if actually voiced to the individuals in question) can cut both ways. "If you would put their needs and wants before your own, you would let them do their wedding their way."; "If you really cared about them enough, you would allow them to be the priority in their wedding plans."

Note, I don't think, "I wish I could be part of the ceremony and it makes me sad that I can't." falls under such thinking (at least not necessarily).

Edited September 24, 2012 by Dravin

[Backroads]

Note, I don't think, "I wish I could be part of the ceremony and it makes me sad that I can't." falls under such thinking (at least not necessarily).

No, it certainly does not. That's a fair and natural emotional response and not the sort of attitude that would demand a total overhaul of the wedding: "You WILL be doing such-n-such ceremony for my sake".

I really do believe bride & groom's wishes should be the deciding factors. It simply might come down to an individual having to decide "While I feel sad I can't be a part of this special day in the way I wish, I'm going to remember it's not my special day, put on a big smile, and be as supportive and pleasant as I can be."

[applepansy]

No, it certainly does not. That's a fair and natural emotional response and not the sort of attitude that would demand a total overhaul of the wedding: "You WILL be doing such-n-such ceremony for my sake".

I really do believe bride & groom's wishes should be the deciding factors. It simply might come down to an individual having to decide "While I feel sad I can't be a part of this special day in the way I wish, I'm going to remember it's not my special day, put on a big smile, and be as supportive and pleasant as I can be."

Non member parents are not the only ones who have this heartache. LDS parents face this sometimes too when their children choose to be married outside the temple.

[Leah]

I never once said people cannot do as they please. Nor I was I complaining about consequences to leaving the lds faith. You make it sound like I'm saying it is pointless for someone to do a sealing at all. By all means, be sealed in the temple if that is what a person believes. However, I feel it would be a nice thing to hold a marriage outside of the temple first in order to allow others to attend. If you're unhappy with me for saying that, then that is fine. But don't snap at me because I have a differing opinion than you. I'd have thought it obvious why a non member wouldn't be shouting for joy about not being able to attend their loved ones wedding. If you can't understand why a non member would be disappointed by being unable to attend a wedding of their loved one, then I'm not sure what to tell you other than to reread a few posts in this thread. You could also try asking those that feel broken hearted about not being able to attend their family member/friend's wedding.

I am not unhappy with you (you're an anonymous stranger on a computer screen) nor am I snapping at you. If you have issues with the responses here, that is for you to deal with.

Again, sealings are not about having a party or making friends and family members happy. They are those who either disagree with what a sealing is or do not comprehend what a sealing is about. That doesn't mean the Church should change ordinances just to make people (especially non-members) happy to to conform to how the world thinks marriages should be conducted.

I understand that some people feel "broken-hearted" that they cannot attend a wedding. They have a viewpoint of weddings that differs from the sacred ordinance of a sealing. Would I rather be at (for instance) my daughter's wedding than not? Sure. But I do not feel there is anything to be heart-broken about if I am not or cannot be. It would be HER wedding and her choices, not mine, she's not going to be any less married if I am not there, and whether I am there or not, should not lessen my joy for her. If I were not at her wedding (or someone else's) because I made choices that caused me to lose my temple recommend, or I made the choice to leave the church, than I have absolutely no business complaining about it, as I have no one to blame but myself.

I undertand that some parents are hugely emotionally invested in being there the day their children wed. I get that. What I don't get is why they put their wants above that of the person getting married or the ordinance involved. And that's okay. I am allowed not to get that, I am allowed to disagree with that, just as you are "allowed" to have your own opinion about how things should be.

But even more than that, I "get" the ordinances of the Church, and I "get" Heavenly Father's plan of salvation. And I will defer to that above my own wants any time.

[idahommie]

I can understand the "it's the kids wedding/sealing" and it's up to them. I don't buy for a minute that any mother responding here would be ok with not witnessing their daughters wedding. As I've said before, my daughter has expressed the desire to have a temple marriage. I truly pray that my wife will join the church before that day comes, and for the right reason. I'll council for a wedding that is inclusive of my wife's presence. I've thought of this a lot, and I may even have to stay with my wife if it was not inclusive, she deserves the love and respect from me, and frankly from the daughter she gave birth to.

The church should be more receptive to weddings/dealings of worthy members and not require the year wait. It makes no sense when it pertains to a worthy couple. Just me 4 cents.......

[idahommie]

I even more than that, I "get" the ordinances of the Church, and I "get" Heavenly Father's plan of salvation. And I will defer to that above my own wants any time.

Meaning others "don't get it".?

[Guest]

If for some reason I couldn't be at my children's weddings, I would certainly be disappointed. But especially if they chose to be sealed in the temple, I would be very happy for them, and happy to celebrate with them however and whenever they could.

[Maureen]

IMO, there are differences between wedding, sealing and marriage.

A wedding is a celebration, joining a man and a woman together to become a new family. It is usually a public event witnessed and celebrated by family and friends. A sealing is a covenant made between a man, a woman and God to extend a couple’s marriage into the eternities and to make covenants between the man, woman and God - a very private event. A marriage is what happens after the wedding is over. A marriage is the man and woman working together to be a family, hopefully with God's help. What is possible is for an LDS couple to have a wedding, a sealing and a marriage. Maybe it will take time for many LDS to realize that having a wedding and a sealing and a marriage is not a bad thing; IMO, it is very much a family focused thing.

M.

[applepansy]

I can understand the "it's the kids wedding/sealing" and it's up to them. I don't buy for a minute that any mother responding here would be ok with not witnessing their daughters wedding. As I've said before, my daughter has expressed the desire to have a temple marriage. I truly pray that my wife will join the church before that day comes, and for the right reason. I'll council for a wedding that is inclusive of my wife's presence. I've thought of this a lot, and I may even have to stay with my wife if it was not inclusive, she deserves the love and respect from me, and frankly from the daughter she gave birth to.

The church should be more receptive to weddings/dealings of worthy members and not require the year wait. It makes no sense when it pertains to a worthy couple. Just me 4 cents.......

You might not believe it for a minute, but it happens. My mother refused to come to my wedding. And then refused to come to my daughters wedding.

It happens.

For me personally, because I understand the importance of the sealing ordinance, if I wasn't worthy and couldn't get myself worthy prior to the temple sealing I would wait outside and be happy for my daughter.

My brother hadn't been paying his tithing and refused to let the Bishop talk him into a temple recommend with the promise he would start to pay his tithing just to attend his daughter's wedding. He didn't feel worthy to be in the temple so he didn't go to the sealing. However his wife did even though we found out later she lied to get her recommend. She was having an affair at the time.

so.... when you understand the importance and how sacred the ordinance is you do not mock God.

[Guest]

I can understand the "it's the kids wedding/sealing" and it's up to them. I don't buy for a minute that any mother responding here would be ok with not witnessing their daughters wedding. As I've said before, my daughter has expressed the desire to have a temple marriage. I truly pray that my wife will join the church before that day comes, and for the right reason. I'll council for a wedding that is inclusive of my wife's presence. I've thought of this a lot, and I may even have to stay with my wife if it was not inclusive, she deserves the love and respect from me, and frankly from the daughter she gave birth to.

The church should be more receptive to weddings/dealings of worthy members and not require the year wait. It makes no sense when it pertains to a worthy couple. Just me 4 cents.......

None of my family was present at my wedding - NONE. Yep. And I was Catholic! No temples to have to worry about! And I'm Filipino - the land of family clans. My parents were very upset that I married a non-Catholic, non-Filipino so they didn't attend. 5 years later, I gave birth to my first child and only my brother visited the hospital. My mother, who is a midwife, was absent through the entire thing. She saw my son for the first time when he was already 7 months old.

What do you consider the wedding? That might bring light to this whole affair. If your idea of a wedding is the "I do", "I do too"... then your wife can for sure attend that. You can hold a wedding ceremony without the legalities of signing a marriage certificate at any time before or after the temple sealing.

The Church doesn't have to do anything because what you need is not an "order of events". What you need is an understanding of what LDS believes constitutes a marriage. The wedding your talking about is a secular thing - not a religious affair. And there's nothing that bars you from having a secular affair anytime anyplace with anybody in attendance.

Edited September 24, 2012 by anatess

[fuse]

The whole "only worhty people can enter" belief is divisive and hurtful, so I have to wonder, does that really come from God? I sometimes wonder, if God is perfect, then why would he care if we get married in a specific building, especially if doing so causes pain to other good people.

[Vort]

The whole "only worhty people can enter" belief is divisive and hurtful, so I have to wonder, does that really come from God?

Then you have much bigger problems than incorrect beliefs.

[Leah]

I can understand the "it's the kids wedding/sealing" and it's up to them. I don't buy for a minute that any mother responding here would be ok with not witnessing their daughters wedding. As I've said before, my daughter has expressed the desire to have a temple marriage. I truly pray that my wife will join the church before that day comes, and for the right reason. I'll council for a wedding that is inclusive of my wife's presence. I've thought of this a lot, and I may even have to stay with my wife if it was not inclusive, she deserves the love and respect from me, and frankly from the daughter she gave birth to.

The church should be more receptive to weddings/dealings of worthy members and not require the year wait. It makes no sense when it pertains to a worthy couple. Just me 4 cents.......

so you are saying I am lying? You don't get to tell me what I think. What a absurd way to respond to something you disagree with.

[Leah]

Meaning others "don't get it".?

Are you having trouble understanding English?

I never stated anything like that.

[Backroads]

I can understand the "it's the kids wedding/sealing" and it's up to them. I don't buy for a minute that any mother responding here would be ok with not witnessing their daughters wedding. As I've said before, my daughter has expressed the desire to have a temple marriage. I truly pray that my wife will join the church before that day comes, and for the right reason. I'll council for a wedding that is inclusive of my wife's presence. I've thought of this a lot, and I may even have to stay with my wife if it was not inclusive, she deserves the love and respect from me, and frankly from the daughter she gave birth to.

The church should be more receptive to weddings/dealings of worthy members and not require the year wait. It makes no sense when it pertains to a worthy couple. Just me 4 cents.......

I could understand backing up your wife and staying with her during the ceremony, which is fine.

But I don't see how any of the "I am choosing to have my marriage solemnized at the temple for such-and-such reasons I've considered" is a complete lack of love and respect to your wife and I do hope she wouldn't consider it a personal snub.