Have we got it right?

[Guest]

I think temple sealings are beautiful things, and my experience with non-temple weddings leads me to believe that they are more often concerned with pomp, imagery over substance, and lavish spending than they are with dignity and love. That's not a blanket judgment, just an observation based on the weddings I have witnessed.

This is also my experience.

On a personal anecdote:

There's a member in our ward right now who is getting married in the Catholic Church in the Philippines. They were married civilly in the court house a few months back but are getting the Catholic wedding thing for the bride's family. The bride is Catholic but expressed a desire to be baptized LDS. She is holding off on her baptism because she wants the "Philippine Catholic Wedding Experience" with all the white finery and flower girls and bridesmaids and party.

The interesting thing about this is that Catholic marriage ceremonies are treated of the same level as Temple Sealings as far as covenants are concerned. There is no divorce in Catholic weddings. And, even if one party is not Catholic, he has to make that solemn vow to have the children baptized Catholic and raise them Catholic. The groom is LDS with a temple recommend and has no intention of following through with a Catholic household. The bride told the missionaries she wants to be baptized LDS after the wedding.

I'm sure the Catholic wedding is going to be great and wonderful and full of love and joy, etc. But I can't help thinking it's just a ceremony devoid of meaning.

Edited October 14, 2013 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

The wedding occurs when the couple, the sealer, and the witnesses sign the marriage certificate.

As a matter of law, I don't think this is quite right. Many states (Utah, for sure) say that it is the ceremony that (when performed pursuant to a valid license) creates the marriage. In practice, we usually sign the documents before the ceremony for efficiency purposes. But if you've signed the documents and then you get jilted at the altar--generally speaking, you aren't married.

But I see and agree with your overall point. With regard to weddings, as with so much else--the world is too much with us.

[Traveler]

For those who are mistating the truth, my niece DID keep her temple covenants. Her first husband did not.

Not if she remarried with out the covenant. Temple covenants are sacred and eternal and as I said before include promises not just to one's spouse but to G-d.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Well, MoE hit one point I've been thinking about since last night. To sum up: sealing doesn't necessarily equal wedding.

My other point: carlimac, I think the special feeling you felt at this wedding had more to do with the love and good will of all involved than any of the to-do and finery, am I right that is what you were getting at?

If that is the case, that love and good will can apply to ANY wedding, whether it be a lovely dressed-up wedding, a sealing in the temple, a tiny group on the beach, a paper-signing at the courthouse, or even a Vegas elopement.

[Lakumi]

if I ever get married it will be totally insane - as it should be

[Guest]

if I ever get married it will be totally insane - as it should be

So, why are you not baptized yet?

[Lakumi]

So, why are you not baptized yet?

I fell into a ditch on one of my doll photoshoots, I mean I'm young but it really hurt.

it wasn't so much the fall, but the bike falling with me

at least Lakumi (the doll) was okay

but regardless of when, if I do get married -to a Mormon or not, there will be a ceremony outside and party. if it is to a Mormon then it will go a tad differently but, still will need the insane party complete with odd ideas.

[Roseslipper]

Im glad your daughter is in love with her now husband and that you all had a lovely wedding. I do hope that her husband will in time become a member of his own will and that they will later seal their marriage for eternity this is my wish and desire for them.

[carlimac]

Duly noted.

I think what people here are reacting to is that you seem to equate the abusive (we are told) first husband with a temple sealing. While it might be understandable that your niece make this false connection, you should not be doing so.

As for your point that the wedding you observed was just all sorts of superior to a temple sealing, well, you have a right to your opinion. Others have a right to theirs. And their opinion is that you are wrong in your characterizations. For myself, I tend to agree more with them than with you. I think temple sealings are beautiful things, and my experience with non-temple weddings leads me to believe that they are more often concerned with pomp, imagery over substance, and lavish spending than they are with dignity and love. That's not a blanket judgment, just an observation based on the weddings I have witnessed.

This one wasn't about pomp. We sat on hay bales. Flowers were potted mums. It.was all about love and compassion. Devotion and service to each other and to everyone present which embodies devotion to God. No alcohol was served at any of the celebrations. Food was simple. No wedding cake but they had a homemade apple pie made by the bride's father. I've seen lavish weddings. This one wasn't.

[beefche]

This one wasn't about pomp. We sat on hay bales. Flowers were potted mums. It.was all about love and compassion. Devotion and service to each other and to everyone present which embodies devotion to God. No alcohol was served at any of the celebrations. Food was simple. No wedding cake but they had a homemade apple pie made by the bride's father. I've seen lavish weddings. This one wasn't.

So what was it that you think made it superior to the temple sealing?

Looking at the vows and consequences one makes in a non-sealing ceremony and compare those to the vows and rewards of a sealing ceremony are far, far, inferior. I'll take the promses I've been given in our sealing over those given in a non-sealing ceremony (even if the officiator is a Mormon). The joy and happiness promised in a sealing far outweigh anything that a Mormon bishop or other denominational pastor can try to promise (no matter how well intentioned).

[Guest]

So what was it that you think made it superior to the temple sealing?

The guests. That's what I understand is carlimac's beefche with the temple thing.

And I had to post this just so I can use beefche in a sentence.

[Vort]

This one wasn't about pomp. We sat on hay bales. Flowers were potted mums. It.was all about love and compassion. Devotion and service to each other and to everyone present which embodies devotion to God. No alcohol was served at any of the celebrations. Food was simple. No wedding cake but they had a homemade apple pie made by the bride's father. I've seen lavish weddings. This one wasn't.

Then it was the kind of wedding I would have enjoyed. But I doubt I would have enjoyed it more than the temple sealings I have attended.

[beefche]

The guests. That's what I understand is carlimac's beefche with the temple thing.

And I had to post this just so I can use beefche in a sentence.

Haha!

Honestly, once the sealing began, everyone in that room faded away. I was so unaware of who was in that room besides Dravin.

[Roseslipper]

ive seen big weddings small ones they can all be sweet and good, and u can feel the spirit but I know better to me its lacking the Forever part- (the sealing) and this to me no matter how good it was if I really enjoyed it the other wedding was for me it leaves a sadness knowing what they could of had. But a joy knowing they can still have it.

[Lakumi]

ive seen big weddings small ones they can all be sweet and good, and u can feel the spirit but I know better to me its lacking the Forever part- (the sealing) and this to me no matter how good it was if I really enjoyed it the other wedding was for me it leaves a sadness knowing what they could of had. But a joy knowing they can still have it.

I've never been to a wedding I enjoyed

[Traveler]

So what was it that you think made it superior to the temple sealing?

Looking at the vows and consequences one makes in a non-sealing ceremony and compare those to the vows and rewards of a sealing ceremony are far, far, inferior. I'll take the promses I've been given in our sealing over those given in a non-sealing ceremony (even if the officiator is a Mormon). The joy and happiness promised in a sealing far outweigh anything that a Mormon bishop or other denominational pastor can try to promise (no matter how well intentioned).

I hope I do not say something about the sacred temple covenants that are improper in this forum - if I do you may remove my post.

As I understand the temple covenants - marriage is the apex of all our covenants. More than a covenant of salvation the marriage sealing is a covenant of exaltation. It is the highest covenant a mortal can enter into and is in essence the Celestial covenant that establishes a Celestial Kingdom after the holy order (covenant) of G-d. It is not an individual covenant but a covenant of three - G-d, a man of the priesthood, and a daughter of G-d.

I would focus on the covenant of the daughter of G-d that gives herself to serve G-d as a mother and queen in the priesthood of G-d. This covenant is not broken nor can it be broken by the husband or man of the priesthood in the marriage covenant. Regardless of any vile breaking that the man may engage in the breaking of his covenant before G-d, the woman and daughter of G-d is not released of her covenant with G-d - only her covenant with the man and the covenant of G-d with the man. The covenants of the daughter of G-d with G-d are still 100% in effect - until she turns herself from the covenant with G-d and seeks instead the honors of the world by entering instead a covenant of man.

I would point out that in the parable of the prodigal son that a son or daughter of G-d having wasted the riches of their divine covenants in far off places of man - can come to their senses and return to the "home" of their divine covenant and be lovingly rejoined with G-d. Some may wast the covenants more lavishly than other - that is not the point to determine who had wasted more lavishly as did the eldest son in the parable. The point is to return and honor G-d and one's covenant with G-d. And I would point out that many that have been offended in their temple covenants by those they have married have remained faithful to their covenant or have returned to their covenant with a worth son or daughter of G-d to complete their covenant.

For me, I have a hard time rejoicing in my heart for those that turn to the false riches of the world (regardless of how beautiful or "spiritual" they seem at the time) when their promises to G-d become difficult - for what ever reason.

The Traveler

Edited October 14, 2013 by Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

This whole thread has me shaking my head in bewilderment.

I couldn't help but feel that temple weddings are rather sterile and stiff and lacking in joy and rejoicing. It starts with being shushed every 5 min in the waiting room and ends with the couple being told they can't look at each other as the sealing is being performed. And having to be so quiet through the whole thing.

...

it feels too sterile and uptight

I've only been to one - my own. So in my limited experience, there wasn't anything sterile, stiff, lacking in joy, or uptight. Nobody told me I couldn't look at my bride at any point in the entire day, in or out of the temple. Nobody shushed me.

I mean, I'm sure you are describing your feelings, it's just that my experience was so totally opposite, I'm rather taken aback that these are even things someone could think about the experience.

I tried to feel there was something missing at the ceremony but it felt as complete and right as any temple wedding I've been to

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Why on earth would anyone want to "try to feel there was something missing" at a wedding ceremony?

I'm only guessing here, but has someone along the way taught you that you should feel better than others because you can go to the temple and they can't?

[Full disclosure: I've been best man at a wedding where the line ditched the reception and went to McDonalds. I have a picture of me sliding down the playplace slide in my tuxedo. I've also been best man at a wedding that involved walking two rottweiler/ring-bearers down the aisle. I never felt anything was missing - I was overjoyed that both couples were tying the knot.]

Edited October 14, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Backroads]

I've never been to a wedding I enjoyed

I now envision you the subject of a reality wedding show.

[Traveler]

This whole thread has me shaking my head in bewilderment.

I've only been to one - my own. So in my limited experience, there wasn't anything sterile, stiff, lacking in joy, or uptight. Nobody told me I couldn't look at my bride at any point in the entire day, in or out of the temple. Nobody shushed me.

I mean, I'm sure you are describing your feelings, it's just that my experience was so totally opposite, I'm rather taken aback that these are even things someone could think about the experience.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Why on earth would anyone want to "try to feel there was something missing" at a wedding ceremony?

I'm only guessing here, but has someone along the way taught you that you should feel better than others because you can go to the temple and they can't?

[Full disclosure: I've been best man at a wedding where the line ditched the reception and went to McDonalds. I have a picture of me sliding down the playplace slide in my tuxedo. I've also been best man at a wedding that involved walking two rottweiler/ring-bearers down the aisle. I never felt anything was missing - I was overjoyed that both couples were tying the knot.]

There is one very important point - any marriage that does not include the eternal Celestial covenant - is missing something very beautiful, spiritual and wonderful. If it is missing the Celestial element it will one day crumble apart and end. Some I know prefer it to be so - some very religious people devout in their religion are so determined based on their particular doctrine that we know by the restoration to be false.

Why anyone would think a marriage intended to crumble apart and end to actually have it right??? and that the restored truth of G-d is what is really missing something????

WOW!! - For sure someone is missing something.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Why anyone would think a marriage intended to crumble apart and end to actually have it right???

I've met a few. One, a sealed widower seeking companionship for his remaining years on earth with a nonLDS lady seeking the same. Most of the rest were folks who were taking steps away from their old lives, and a covenantal marriage was a huge step up for them.

Not everyone seeks exaltation, Traveler. Some are quite content with having a shot at entering heaven, and others consider themselves lucky to be in a life that includes someone else.

Does anything here help you understand why some folks would think a mortal-life-only marriage is doing it right? (Or were you speaking rhetorically as a way to help you make a point that unless people are seeking eternal marriages they're doing something wrong?)

[Lakumi]

I now envision you the subject of a reality wedding show.

that... could be...fun?

[carlimac]

Oye...how does anyone pretend to tell me what is right or wrong about my feelings when they weren't even there. I talked to several endowed women who were at this wedding and they all said the same thing. THIS was the most joyful wedding they had ever witnessed. These two good people who are serving the Lord, believe in Him, proclaim Him their Savior and follow the commandments were married outside the temple. How could we possibly believe that at the end of their rightoeus lives, the Lord says...OK you two, that's it. Off to you separate parts of the kingdom you go. I just can't grasp that. I believe in a more merciful Heavenly Father than that. Perhaps they won't rise to the highest level in the celestial kingdom but I honestly think they'd rather be together wherever. I think the Lord will make that possible for them. And they will do awesome things while on this earth together.

What exactly is missing in temple weddings? Music, laughter (out loud), squeals of joy and rejoicing, and participation in word and song by family members, the father walking his daughter down the aisle, the color and celebratory feeling, all loving members of one's circle of friends and family who haven't been baptized and endowed including younger siblings.

What was missing from this wedding? The priesthood ordinance. That's it. Was that enough for her to reject this good man's offer of marriage. No!! I believe it will be worked out between now and eternity. Another way of saying that I was trying to feel something was missing...I was trying to feel regret that she was marrying the right man (finally) but not in the temple. But there was so much joy it completely eclipsed any regret. Everything about the wedding was good. (And I just have to say, much more enjoyable than many dry, tense LDS weddings I've been too.)

I think MOE hit the nail on the head with his response. Is the priesthood ordinance necessary and important if one is trying to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom? Of course. I've never said otherwise. But I truly wish we could distinguish a little more between the priesthood ordinance and the ceremony of marriage. Why not allow a "wedding" off site and an immediate sealing right after instead of having to wait a year? In many ways I think it would even make the sealing that much more sacred.

Edited October 15, 2013 by carlimac

[Dravin]

How could we possibly believe that at the end of their rightoeus lives, the Lord says...OK you two, that's it.

Doctrine and Covenants 132. Additionally I think Love and Law - general-conference is relevant here. If they want their marriage to be efficacious in the next life they have to be sealed, either in this life or the next.

What was missing from this wedding? The priesthood ordinance. That's it.

That it is of immense importance, without it their marriage will end regardless of how nice a ceremony it may have been or how nice of people they may be. I'm thinking D&C 22 is relevant here.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Dravin

[Traveler]

Oye...how does anyone pretend to tell me what is right or wrong about my feelings when they weren't even there. I talked to several endowed women who were at this wedding and they all said the same thing. THIS was the most joyful wedding they had ever witnessed. These two good people who are serving the Lord, believe in Him, proclaim Him their Savior and follow the commandments were married outside the temple. How could we possibly believe that at the end of their rightoeus lives, the Lord says...OK you two, that's it. Off to you separate parts of the kingdom you go. I just can't grasp that. I believe in a more merciful Heavenly Father than that. Perhaps they won't rise to the highest level in the celestial kingdom but I honestly think they'd rather be together wherever. I think the Lord will make that possible for them. And they will do awesome things while on this earth together.

What exactly is missing in temple weddings? Music, laughter (out loud), squeals of joy and rejoicing, and participation in word and song by family members, the father walking his daughter down the aisle, the color and celebratory feeling, all loving members of one's circle of friends and family who haven't been baptized and endowed including younger siblings.

What was missing from this wedding? The priesthood ordinance. That's it. Was that enough for her to reject this good man's offer of marriage. No!! I believe it will be worked out between now and eternity. Another way of saying that I was trying to feel something was missing...I was trying to feel regret that she was marrying the right man (finally) in the temple. But there was so much joy it completely eclipsed any regret. Everything about the wedding was good. (And I just have to say, much more enjoyable than many dry, tense LDS weddings I've been too.)

I think MOE hit the nail on the head with his response. Is the priesthood ordinance necessary and important if one is trying to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom? Of course. I've never said otherwise. But I truly wish we could distinguish a little more between the priesthood ordinance and the ceremony of marriage. Why not allow a "wedding" off site and an immediate sealing right after instead of having to wait a year? In many ways I think it would even make the sealing that much more sacred.

You have it 100% wrong - G-d has not said nor will he ever say, "OK you two, that's it. Off to you separate parts of the kingdom you go". It is them that have said has decided that in essence "It is off to separate parts of the kingdom we go" - and at least one is knowledgeable of the end game of the path they have chosen. Why you want to blame G-d for the choices of others has me befuddled. And why you think it more beautiful and the more desirable choice????

I do not accept that turning one's back on their covenants with G-d is a grand service to him. There are things in life that are good and there are things that are better and there are things that are the best. But when we think to justify something that is better that something else that is horrible - that is not how we figure out to serve G-d. G-d is about doing what is best - not something that is not horrible.

The Traveler

[Seanette]

It's really starting to look like the OP is desperate to get faithful LDS to agree with her that a civil marriage ending at death is every bit as good as an eternal sealing by priesthood authority in God's House, obeying His commandments.

I really doubt that notion's going to get a lot of buy-in around here, at least from believing Church members.