Have we got it right?

[Vort]

You just can't say that temple weddings have a corner on the market for holy.

Who has said or implied such a thing?

[beefche]

Yup. You've hit the nail. There is no good answer. LDS sealings are absolutely out of the norm. It's hard to argue it because each perception is different.

If I were gonna plan a wedding, I'd do it with Martha Stewarts entire staff and I'd add all the drama and ambience to create a celebratory experience for everyone. Mormon sealings just aren't like that. And so I'd admit that Carlimac is right in a sense. It's a different kind of display. Not sure how to measure joy though. It's not like traditional marriage ceremonies are guaranteed to produce joyfulness.

Again, why is it that carlimac's experience and your experience means that sealings are not joyful? There have been several posters in this thread that has said they felt joy at their own sealing or at other's sealings. Why is it that is either discounted or ignored completely?

My issue with this is carlimac's insistence that we "got it wrong" because she doesn't feel joy or happiness or can jump up and scream in the temple. I understand that she doesn't feel the same way I do in a temple sealing. Fine....but why does that make the temple sealing wrong? Why is her experience more important than my experience?

We had laughter at my sealing. We had joy at my sealing. We kissed in our sealing (and later in the Celestial Room). There was happiness in my sealing. I certainly didn't feel like I was at a funeral during my sealing. But, so what? What if I didn't feel joy, happiness or laughter during the sealing? There certainly was that during the 2 receptions I had. My non-member family weren't allowed in the temple. My dad waited in the waiting room. That was hard--very hard for me. He was really disappointed, but respected my decision. And I have no regrets. I wish he could have been there, but honestly once Dravin and I knelt across from each other, everyone else faded in the room. Donny Osmond himself could have been singing and dancing behind me and I wouldn't have noticed it. All I saw was Dravin and briefly the sealer.

And I would love to see a reference to someone who has said that weddings outside the temple are not holy or less special than a temple sealing. It is my belief that God wants us to be sealed in a temple. However, I have felt joy, happiness, and the Spirit at weddings, funerals, and (GASP!) even during church of other denominations.

[Misshalfway]

Maybe I wasn't clear Beefche. I wasn't agreeing that sealings weren't joyful. Do you get that?

[McLainDow]

I looked at my wife during the entire ordinance.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I have no stake in this conversation really. However, could it be that you are reading the OP incorrectly? You suggest that it opposes Temple weddings, judges God, etc. All I saw was some admiration of a joyful and poignant non-temple ceremony, and the question why can't ours have some of that spirit?

Do such questions and observations really call for repentance???

One of the projects I worked on when I lived in North East Tacoma (near where you live now) was work on the guidance system of the cruse missile. Unlike most delivery systems the curse missile relies on constant updates of exactly where the missile is on a predetermined path to reach it destination. Using this method a cruse missile can deliver its cargo through a specific window (3 feet X 3 feet) 1,500 miles from the launch point.

At such distances even a 100th of a percent error in calculations could mean mission failure. Jesus tells us that the path of his disciples is narrow and straight and that it is a sin to modify the path he has designated - to any degree. Another example in LDS theology is the doctrine of the iron rod that will safely guide us through the hazards (choices) of life. One of the milestones along the path of LDS theology is temple marriage. Not just something to check off but something to prepare for, plan for and to work for.

The concept is very simple - Paul said to him that knows to do go and does not do it - to them it is sin. For a person that has no experience or understanding of a covenant - there is no sin in breaking what they do not understand. Paul also said (in essence) that those things we fall short of because if ignorance that G-d will wink at but when we become aware of what we ought to do that we should repent and do it.

I am surprised that there is not a common understanding among evangelicals. That there is a very big difference between someone that is given much from someone that is given much less - that more is expected of those that have received more (the parable of the talents). There are other examples - such as king Saul where he got tired waiting for the prophet Samuel and offered sacrifices. Scripture tells us that at the time it was good to offer sacrifices but it is not good to disobey G-d and offer sacrifices (marriage) the way we want and is convent to us at the time.

In addition I have tried to point out one very important thing about someone that wishes to draw closer to G-d. That is the principle of repentance is always available. It is the one way we can get back on course to reach our destination (return to G-d). I speculate if Saul had repented of his sacrifices and accepted the sacrifices of that G-d asked - that he would have remained king. So my point is a temple marriage is not out of the question for a person willing to repent. One of the great charges to a disciple of Christ is to give a clear and certain call to repentance.

The Traveler

[Kawazu]

This thread would have been better received if it were titled, "Feeling the Spirit at a Non-LDS Wedding". Then, describe the happiness you felt at the wedding. The current title is likely to incur defensiveness. None here will advocate changes to the present sealing ceremony.

There seems to be some inconsistency in experience as to whether one is allowed to look at one's spouse during the temple ceremony. Why is this the case? Isn't the protocol standardized?

Thank you for your time.

[beefche]

Maybe I wasn't clear Beefche. I wasn't agreeing that sealings weren't joyful. Do you get that?

I get that now from this post. Your earlier post seemed to agree with carlimac that there is no joy in sealings. Thank you for clarifying.

[prisonchaplain]

I get that any challenge to liturgy, ritual, or doctrine--especially from active members--should be immediately discouraged. Traveler's admonitions about not straying one iota from truth is spot on. Beefche's affirmations of her own joyful experiences are worthy counter-perspective. Still, I wonder why the question, "Why can't our weddings be more joyful--like this non-LDS one I went to was..." can't be seen as an innocent inquiry. I sensed no call to change anything official. Perhaps this could have become a discussion about how we prepare ourselves--how to get the most out of the ceremony--how we celebrate afterwards--and maybe just about assuring that those who volunteer and "work" the weddings be trained to balance the gravity and seriousness of the event with the excitement and joyfulness of it.

[carlimac]

One of the projects I worked on when I lived in North East Tacoma (near where you live now) was work on the guidance system of the cruse missile. Unlike most delivery systems the curse missile relies on constant updates of exactly where the missile is on a predetermined path to reach it destination. Using this method a cruse missile can deliver its cargo through a specific window (3 feet X 3 feet) 1,500 miles from the launch point.

At such distances even a 100th of a percent error in calculations could mean mission failure. Jesus tells us that the path of his disciples is narrow and straight and that it is a sin to modify the path he has designated - to any degree. Another example in LDS theology is the doctrine of the iron rod that will safely guide us through the hazards (choices) of life. One of the milestones along the path of LDS theology is temple marriage. Not just something to check off but something to prepare for, plan for and to work for.

The concept is very simple - Paul said to him that knows to do go and does not do it - to them it is sin. For a person that has no experience or understanding of a covenant - there is no sin in breaking what they do not understand. Paul also said (in essence) that those things we fall short of because if ignorance that G-d will wink at but when we become aware of what we ought to do that we should repent and do it.

I am surprised that there is not a common understanding among evangelicals. That there is a very big difference between someone that is given much from someone that is given much less - that more is expected of those that have received more (the parable of the talents). There are other examples - such as king Saul where he got tired waiting for the prophet Samuel and offered sacrifices. Scripture tells us that at the time it was good to offer sacrifices but it is not good to disobey G-d and offer sacrifices (marriage) the way we want and is convent to us at the time.

In addition I have tried to point out one very important thing about someone that wishes to draw closer to G-d. That is the principle of repentance is always available. It is the one way we can get back on course to reach our destination (return to G-d). I speculate if Saul had repented of his sacrifices and accepted the sacrifices of that G-d asked - that he would have remained king. So my point is a temple marriage is not out of the question for a person willing to repent. One of the great charges to a disciple of Christ is to give a clear and certain call to repentance.

The Traveler

With all due respect for your straight arrow take on this, my niece does not need to repent of marrying her fiance outside the temple at this time. I'm surprised you don't find it odd or disrespectful to say that she does. It's attitudes like this that turn people away from the church. I recommend taking it down a notch into the realm of compassion and seeing things the way the Lord does and allowing people to make their own decisions based on their own personal revelation. God knows the beginning from the end. My niece got a yes answer to prayer on marrying this young man right now. So please keep your pontifications under your hat.

[carlimac]

Does the church have THE MOST IMPORTANT part of marriage right? Yes. Of course.

Did I ever indicate that Beefche's temple wedding or anyone else's on this forum wasn't joyful? NO!!

Do I think the priesthood ordinance of sealing needs to be changed? No.

Do we need to allow people to express their emotions a little more in the temple? Yes please.

Would it be nice to be able to allow singing ( a nice joyful hymn of love) in the temple wedding? Yes.

Fresh flowers in the sealing rooms? Yes, that would add to the ambiance.

Would it be lovely if we could extend a hand of inclusion to non-members- to allow civil marriages first that include all family members, perhaps in a special area of the temple that allows unendowed, like the waiting room of the temple. Then they could go straight to be sealed. If they are temple worthy, why the need to wait a year? I personally don't think it would cheapen the sealing at all to do the civil part first.

Is a temple wedding sad like a funeral? NO. Does it require funeral- like silence and reverence? Yes. Does that feel happy and joyful like the wedding I just attended. No, not really. Is it more quiet and contemplative. Yes. Do I prefer loud and joyful or quiet and contemplative at weddings? Joyful was much more ...joyful in my experience!

Did Vort say temple weddings were more holy that others outside the temple? Not in those words but it was implied.

Did my niece do anything wrong in marrying this wonderful guy outside the temple? No. Is there hope that one day she'll be sealed to him. Absolutely! Is she still temple worthy and keeping her covenants? Yes.

Anything else I didn't cover?

Edited October 17, 2013 by carlimac

[Vort]

Did Vort say temple weddings were more holy that others outside the temple? Not in those words but it was implied.

Wrong. You are confusing your (false) inference with my (nonexistent) implication.

[beefche]

Vort, I think carlimac must have been talking about me and got you confused. I've looked at your posts in this thread and nothing you said even remotely appears that you said temple sealings are more holy. But I said this:

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 stand by that quote. I think that temple sealings have far better promises than a non-temple wedding. But that doesn't mean that I think non-temple weddings can not be special or holy or even filled with the Spirit.

edited to add: I also personally believe that God wants us to be sealed, not just married. However, God being the loving, kind, God that He is, allows us to make choices and provided a way for all who will accept such, to be sealed later in life or by proxy. So, while I believe we should choose to be sealed, that doesn't mean that I don't value non-temple weddings or marriage.

Edited October 17, 2013 by beefche

[Vort]

Vort, I think carlimac must have been talking about me and got you confused.

Completely understandable. We are easy to confuse. Which probably explains Dravin's strange behavior toward me...um, never mind.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon carlimac. I hope you are having a wonderful day today! :)

Does the church have THE MOST IMPORTANT part of marriage right? Yes. Of course.

Did I ever indicate that Beefche's temple wedding or anyone else's on this forum wasn't joyful? NO!!

Do I think the priesthood ordinance of sealing needs to be changed? No.

Do we need to allow people to express their emotions a little more in the temple? Yes please.

Would it be nice to be able to allow singing ( a nice joyful hymn of love) in the temple wedding? Yes.

Fresh flowers in the sealing rooms? Yes, that would add to the ambiance.

Would it be lovely if we could extend a hand of inclusion to non-members- to allow civil marriages first that include all family members, perhaps in a special area of the temple that allows unendowed, like the waiting room of the temple. Then they could go straight to be sealed. If they are temple worthy, why the need to wait a year? I personally don't think it would cheapen the sealing at all to do the civil part first.

I guess for me it comes down to this: Hypothetically speaking, we could have the sealing done in a sewer and it could be a most wonderful sealing. We don't need any worldly thing in order to have access to the Spirit. What is more sweet than the Spirit? If I am at a sealing and I am being edified by the Holy Ghost then I can't think of a more joyous or awesome thing for me to experience.

The focus should be on spirituality. The things that you mentioned as being things that you think should be changed or allowed would not affect the spirituality of the ceremony one iota. It isn't about ambiance, it is about personal righteousness and personal knowledge of what the sealing actually is. It is NOT just a wedding.

What we need in order to experience joy in any occasion is to keep God's commandments and to always be a receptacle for the Spirit. There simply is no substitute.

-Finrock

Edited October 17, 2013 by Finrock
Grammar

[carlimac]

I can see how someone used to a large wedding with loud organ or band music, over-the-top decorations, and great theatricalities might find a temple wedding somehow disappointingly low-key. But for those of us who treasure temple sealings, non-temple weddings too often seem to us to be loud, vulgar displays of ostentation and/or self-involved focusing on the whims or idiosyncracies of the couple instead of a holy, beautiful ceremony uniting two souls for (what we hope to be) all eternity.

Now how am I supposed to understand anything other than that you believe non-temple weddings to be less holy (loud, vulgar displays of ostentation)?

C'mon Vort. Just admit it and lets get on with it. You know I'm right.

[Guest]

I think I may have hit something just now...

I think carlimac is talking more about how the guests feel than how the couple feels.

Just throwing it out there...

Because, if you ask me how my guests felt in my wedding, they probably enjoyed the afternoon at Pizza Hut after my wedding more than the little-bit-more-fancy restaurant reception after my sealing. But, honestly, I wouldn't know because I was too caught up with the hubby.

[carlimac]

Good Afternoon carlimac. I hope you are having a wonderful day today! :)

I guess for me it comes down to this: Hypothetically speaking, we could have the sealing done in a sewer and it could be a most wonderful sealing. We don't need any worldly thing in order to have access to the Spirit. What is more sweet than the Spirit? If I am at a sealing and I am being edified by the Holy Ghost then I can't think of a more joyous or awesome thing for me to experience.

The focus should be on spirituality. The things that you mentioned as being things that you think should be changed or allowed would not affect the spirituality of the ceremony one iota. It isn't about ambiance, it is about personal righteousness and personal knowledge of what the sealing actually is. It is NOT just a wedding.

What we need in order to experience joy in any occasion is to keep God's commandments and to always be a receptacle for the Spirit. There simply is no substitute.

-Finrock

Absolutely. And that is what this wonderful young couple is doing. I see them as on a continuum. The young man isn't a member of the church. But he is now married to a great LDS girl who is still very much active in the church. They are spiritual and service oriented. If he never grasps and accepts the whole of the restored gospel or is never baptized in this life, he is still serving and loving and living a Christlike life which I believe the Lord will bless him for. If his wife continues faithful ( which is the challenge for all whether endowed or not) then I believe that after death, they will have the opportunity to be sealed. I have all the hope in the world that this will eventually be a celestial marriage. They are doing the absolute best they can at the moment. I'm not going to begrudge him right now not finding belief in his heart in restored priesthood keys if he hasn't received a personal witness of the truth of it yet. If he had and then rejected it, that's a different story.

[Vort]

I can see how someone used to a large wedding with loud organ or band music, over-the-top decorations, and great theatricalities might find a temple wedding somehow disappointingly low-key. But for those of us who treasure temple sealings, non-temple weddings too often seem to us to be loud, vulgar displays of ostentation and/or self-involved focusing on the whims or idiosyncracies of the couple instead of a holy, beautiful ceremony uniting two souls for (what we hope to be) all eternity.

Now how am I supposed to understand anything other than that you believe non-temple weddings to be less holy (loud, vulgar displays of ostentation)?

C'mon Vort. Just admit it and lets get on with it. You know I'm right.

Yes, I can see how you inferred that from what I wrote. But note that I also wrote "too often". That does not mean "all", or even "a majority", but simply more often than it should be. Not trying to weasel out; that really is exactly what I meant.

Now, the actual fact of the matter is that I have never attended a secular (i.e. non-temple) wedding that felt remotely as spiritual to me as the temple sealings I have attended. But I also acknowledge that my personal experience may not be universal. I do not think that secular weddings are less holy than temple sealings, except in the obvious sense that the eternal is more sacred than the temporal and one is valid for this life only while the other is potentially valid forever. I certainly do not believe that those married for time only are somehow "less married" than those sealed in the temple. And I do not believe that secular weddings as an event are necessarily less holy than temple sealings as an event. I would think that a wedding, wherever it takes place, should and generally would be among the most sacred occasions any of us take part in. But my experience is that they don't feel as holy.

But again, while that is my personal experience, that's not what I wrote the first time. I really was not saying anything disparaging about secular weddings. That was your inference, or in any case not my conscious implication.

[classylady]

Marriage is ordained of God. From the Proclamation on the Family: "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.". Notice, that they did not say only temple marriages are ordained of God, but simply that marriage is ordained of God. So, if marriage is ordained of God, then I'm thinking that "yes" the spirit can be felt at a wedding that isn't held in the temple. And a marriage that hasn't been sealed can be wonderful, holy, and a blessing in the lives of the couple that is married.

Our scriptures tell us that the only way a man and woman can still be together as a married couple in the next life is to be sealed. Without the sealing the married couple has no promise. The gospel principle of eternal marriage is one of the points that many people find so appealing when investigating the church. They find peace and comfort in knowing they can be together forever as a family. This truth speaks to their spirit, and many that I have taught while a missionary would say "yes, I have always believed this. This makes so much sense". But, just knowing or believing they can be together throughout the eternities is not enough. The sealing ordinance must be performed (and of course worthiness is involved). That is why we do our family history work, so our ancestors have the blessing of being sealed together as a family.

What is sad, is when our young men and women in the church, who have been taught about the blessings of the sealing, ignore it, or blatantly disregard this wonderful blessing. The sealing is a blessing! This speaks peace to my soul. But, what I fear, is that our young people who choose to not be sealed to their spouse and children, in the next life may not be given the opportunity to fix it. They have been taught. They know they should be sealed, but then choose not to. Those of us who understand the blessing of the sealing ordinance, and the importance of it, rejoice when we see our young people sealed. This is why we rejoice when we see a married couple with or without children go to the temple to be sealed. We know how important this is. This is why, even though I am happy for a couple getting married civilly, there is a sadness in my heart. I know this marriage has no promise beyond this life. And I have the hope that they will get to the point where they can be sealed.

[Backroads]

Does the church have THE MOST IMPORTANT part of marriage right? Yes. Of course.

Did I ever indicate that Beefche's temple wedding or anyone else's on this forum wasn't joyful? NO!!

Do I think the priesthood ordinance of sealing needs to be changed? No.

Do we need to allow people to express their emotions a little more in the temple? Yes please.

Would it be nice to be able to allow singing ( a nice joyful hymn of love) in the temple wedding? Yes.

Fresh flowers in the sealing rooms? Yes, that would add to the ambiance.

Would it be lovely if we could extend a hand of inclusion to non-members- to allow civil marriages first that include all family members, perhaps in a special area of the temple that allows unendowed, like the waiting room of the temple. Then they could go straight to be sealed. If they are temple worthy, why the need to wait a year? I personally don't think it would cheapen the sealing at all to do the civil part first.

Is a temple wedding sad like a funeral? NO. Does it require funeral- like silence and reverence? Yes. Does that feel happy and joyful like the wedding I just attended. No, not really. Is it more quiet and contemplative. Yes. Do I prefer loud and joyful or quiet and contemplative at weddings? Joyful was much more ...joyful in my experience!

I suppose I agree with a lot of this. Yes, if the First Presidency came out and eliminated the year-long wait or put forth some waiting room ceremony option or gave the okay for hymns in the temple and all that, I think it would be pretty cool. I like the idea of pretty Pinterest weddings (sorry, but haybales and apple pie sounds like a Pinterest wedding) but I also like the idea of eloping without any fanfare, so I doubt I would put much of an effort to sign any petitions.

Perhaps there was a little too much miscommunication in this thread?

[Guest]

I suppose I agree with a lot of this. Yes, if the First Presidency came out and eliminated the year-long wait or put forth some waiting room ceremony option or gave the okay for hymns in the temple and all that, I think it would be pretty cool. I like the idea of pretty Pinterest weddings (sorry, but haybales and apple pie sounds like a Pinterest wedding) but I also like the idea of eloping without any fanfare, so I doubt I would put much of an effort to sign any petitions.

Perhaps there was a little too much miscommunication in this thread?

I still don't get it. You can sing all the hymns you want, have hay bales and parades and Mickey Mouse and laugh all you want. AT THE RECEPTION. No need to wait a year.

The thing I see here is that if you're not saying I DO infront of the priest on the hay bale it doesn't count even if you say I do a million times on the hay bale after you get out of the temple.

You know what I see this as? A refusal to let go of traditions that the prophet warned us Filipino Catholics about. Because, you know how Catholic tradition goes, when you're not having all the ceremonial stuff during Holy Week you feel there's something missing about the celebration of the Atonement. SAME EXACT THING AS THIS THREAD.

Edited October 18, 2013 by anatess

[Latter Days Guy]

The thing I see here is that if you're not saying I DO infront of the priest on the hay bale it doesn't count even if you say I do a million times on the hay bale after you get out of the temple.

So are you saying that unless your married in the temple your not really married at all?

As you cannot get married in the temple in the UK does that mean all UK saints aren't married?

As far as I know the only country you can get married in the temple is the USA, if that is true is the rest of the world excluded because they weren't married in a temple?

[Dravin]

So are you saying that unless your married in the temple your not really married at all?

She's saying that she's perceiving from comments in the thread, that after the sealing is being completely discounted as a place/time to have things like non-endowed family inclusion, songs, flowers, and so on. Or in other words, what she's seeing in people's statements is that if you aren't having the hay bale experience before the sealing it doesn't count, even if you do it a million times afterwards.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

So are you saying that unless your married in the temple your not really married at all?

As you cannot get married in the temple in the UK does that mean all UK saints aren't married?

:confused: I know my English is bad... But it's not THAT bad! But hey, you're from the UK so maybe my English has to cross many extra miles so it won't get lost in translation. So let me rephrase:

I'm saying that people seem to think that if you say I DO in the temple, somehow you can't have a hay bale anymore.

See how it's so far from what you're saying by miles and miles? It's probably as far as Mars!

As far as I know the only country you can get married in the temple is the USA, if that is true is the rest of the world excluded because they weren't married in a temple?

That's not true. Most countries outside of Europe consider marriages in churches (including the temple) as legally binding. Most countries in Europe recognize civil marriages as the only legally binding marriage. Most countries in the Middle East do not have civil marriages, so only church marriages are legally binding (Muslim governments).

[carlimac]

She's saying that she's perceiving from comments in the thread, that after the sealing is being completely discounted as a place/time to have things like non-endowed family inclusion, songs, flowers, and so on. Or in other words, what she's seeing in people's statements is that if you aren't having the hay bale experience before the sealing it doesn't count, even if you do it a million times afterwards.

No not quite. I honestly don't know what she's saying because it doesn't reflect my thoughts at all.

Sure you can have flowers and music and dancing and food galore after the ceremony. This couple had a reception line and a big dinner for the guests and dancing under a huge tent. My other niece had an elephant carved out of ice. ( She was adopted from India.) I had a big reception including bagpipers root beer floats and apple pie. That's not what I'm talking about.

ALL I'm saying is that this non-temple wedding ceremony ( just talking the actual ceremony part) felt wonderful and warm and sweet and spiritual and inclusive with music and flowers and daddy walking his daughter down the aisle and a man/woman team to perform the ceremony. It all felt as valid and "forever" as temple weddings I've been to. They may not be sealed yet but I'm sure that somewhere in the eternities this union has the potential of becoming a celestial one.

So I went to the temple this morning to do sealings to try to remind myself of the words said that make a marriage eternal. Yes they're important. More important than all the fluff of my niece's wedding that made us feel so good. But I'm still wondering why we can't add a leettle more fluff to a temple wedding, just for ambiance and warmth and love and joy and ... Oh well. It's just the way it is.

By the way, I'm not the only one that felt that way. As I said before, a few other endowed women who were at this wedding felt the same.

And one more important thing to note. This isn't a Mormon vs non Mormon wedding thing. I've been to a couple weddings ceremonies in cathedrals that felt as solemn and " funeralish" as any temple wedding. More so because EVERYONE except Moi was dressed in black. I didn't get the memo. In fact, compared to these two cathedral weddings, temple weddings are a garden party in regards to warmth and ambiance.