Kirby: Pushing A Couple Into The Temple

[the Ogre]

. . . Besides which, it the childrens decision was to deliberately have children out of wedlock and raise them on a free-love, survivalist commune in Wyoming, should the parents also respect their decision?

Yes.

If parents want to have a chance to continue a relationship, then they need to make sure separation is only disance, and not hatred.

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

As for Gabelma's claim that her temple ceremony was just acting in a play since she'd been married civilly first. That's a false statement, Gab. You hadn't been sealed yet when you went to be married in the temple following your civil marriage. You went through something new, and gained a new status (sealed).

Yet for someone who's married in the temple, and is both sealed by the priesthood and married according to the civil law too, a ring ceremony afterwards is nothing but an act, conferring no new status or position on either the husband or wife.

That isn't what Gabema said, you said it. She was responding to your post to Maureen.

(CrimsonKairos @ Aug 6 2007, 05:57 PM)

Maureen @ Aug 6 2007, 04:48 PM siad: May I make a suggestion - a ring ceremony.

CrimsonKairos said: I went to my buddy's temple marriage, and the ring ceremony right after at a local church building.

I personally think it's stupid to have a ring ceremony. Everyone knew they were already married. It was kinda' sad, actually, like they had to act in a play to make people happy. What a joke.

Maybe I'll change my tune if I end up marrying a non-member.

Gabelma said: by that theory my temple sealing would have been an act or pay - my husband an I were already married when we were sealed.

A Ring Exchanging is the chance to declare your loveto your friends. I loved both my civil and temple ceremony andboth had their place.

Charley

Some like both ceremonies so all can enjoy but I understand CK's position as well.

[Maureen]

Yes - but that wasn't you original point. It seems you not only wanted the parents to respect their children's decisions, you also wanted the parents to pay money for the children's decisions.

No, the article itself mentioned parents paying for the wedding; my main point was this:

...This isn't about whether getting married in the temple is important. This is about believing coercion is an acceptable way of getting people there. If you don't believe me, call the temple and ask if you can bring a hostage next time...

Which is why I had copied it in the first place.

Besides which, it the childrens decision was to deliberately have children out of wedlock and raise them on a free-love, survivalist commune in Wyoming, should the parents also respect their decision?

The article did not hint that the parents were upset with their children due to some immoral act, it only hinted that the adult children were not planning on marrying in the temple. Some may consider that a sin, but marrying civilly or through another religious ceremony is still quite respectable.

M.

[sixpacktr]

It is the parent's perogative on what they will and will not spend money on. I have known many a person at church that would not let their YM get their driver's license until they got their Eagle Scouting badge. That, too, is coercion, but life is full of those things, and it is up to parent's to determine what is best for their kids.

Marrying civilly is perfectly fine and acceptable, as Maureen said, but it isn't the best place for those of the LDS faith. Kids are taught from the time they are small to marry in the temple. Being "acceptable" isn't good enough: parents have a right and, IMO, a duty to expect their kids to excel and do their best. Kids, even teens and early 20s, aren't always that bright. They pick to do things that are easier and will give them immediate gratification rather than what is right. Not always, but in some cases.

I'm puzzled as to why this was a debate in the first place. It is the parent's money, it is the parent's right to do with it as they please, and the kids have absolutely no right to expect that their parent's will support them in doing less than what is expected of them.

[pam]

Because today's youth expect it. So much is handed to them today. Not like my generation where you are taught to work for things. Today's generation don't have the same work ethics and values that my generation has.

[Elphaba]

Because today's youth expect it. So much is handed to them today. Not like my generation where you are taught to work for things. Today's generation don't have the same work ethics and values that my generation has.

I worried about my children with this. What I discovered is they were slower to becoming dedicated to having a work ethic. Do you think that plays any part in this generation's work ethic?

I was very concerned about this for a few years. Now they seem fine. Whew!

Elphaba

[Maureen]

I'm not the traditionalist when it comes to wedding cost etiquette. I think I am a bit surprised at the amount of posters who were concentrating on who's not paying for the wedding part in the article than the coercion part. I think in the 21st century, it's not unusual for the wedding couple to pay for the majority of the costs. I agree that it shouldn't be assumed that the parents of the bride or groom will foot the bill. It's nice if the parents can help but now a days it's just seems normal for the couple to pay their own way.

M.

[FrankJL]

We live in an entitlement society, why should it be surprising they expect someone to pay for their own wedding, college, health care, et cetera et cetera ad nauseam

[sixpacktr]

I'm not the traditionalist when it comes to wedding cost etiquette. I think I am a bit surprised at the amount of posters who were concentrating on who's not paying for the wedding part in the article than the coercion part. I think in the 21st century, it's not unusual for the wedding couple to pay for the majority of the costs. I agree that it shouldn't be assumed that the parents of the bride or groom will foot the bill. It's nice if the parents can help but now a days it's just seems normal for the couple to pay their own way.

M.

Hey Maureen,

I guess that is where I was coming from: why is this considered coercion? Not paying for it is coercion? If the parents held a knife to their throat and forced them to the temple that is one thing (which, of course, cannot happen), but simply saying "I'm not paying for their wedding" isn't coercion in my opinion. The kids still had agency, just they would reap the consequences if they chose to go another way...

[susieSA]

I'm not the traditionalist when it comes to wedding cost etiquette. I think I am a bit surprised at the amount of posters who were concentrating on who's not paying for the wedding part in the article than the coercion part. I think in the 21st century, it's not unusual for the wedding couple to pay for the majority of the costs. I agree that it shouldn't be assumed that the parents of the bride or groom will foot the bill. It's nice if the parents can help but now a days it's just seems normal for the couple to pay their own way.

M.

My hubby & I opened up a savings account when we got engaged. Basically as much as we could spare every month went into this account. We were both working at that stage.. I even moved back to my parents so that I could save what I would have paid for rent.

It was an added bonus when my dad said that they were going to give an amount towards the wedding.. We had not counted on that money at all so it was great..

So, when we went up to the Temple to get sealed we knew that everything had been paid for... We owed nothing for our wedding at all... We even had cash over to pay for our fridge & a few other appliances & our first months groeries.

[Dror]

A wise man who happens to be a good friend of mine likes to say that the Gospel is all about relationships, our relationships with God and with other people. Given that, I agree with Robert Kirby that treating one's child poorly because they are not getting sealed in the temple is inappropriate. Is the wedding about the parents or about the children who are getting married? Is it more important for parents to make a scene in order to uphold their ideas of what's best, or is it more important to celebrate the love the two young people have for each other, support them in the new life together, provide good memories of the beginning of that marriage, and be happy that they're getting married at all (instead of just "cohabiting!")?

Maybe some children have an exaggerated sense of entitlement, expecting their parents to pay for a huge, fancy, expensive wedding, but all don't--many I've been to are relatively simple affairs, but pleasant. I don't think it's too much for children to ask that their parents show support when they take the huge step of getting married, and welcome their spouse into the family (assuming, of course, that the spouse isn't a truly horrible person!), regardless of the spouse's religion or the location of the wedding.

It seems to me the way to impress the importance of temple marriage on children is to lovingly teach it to them as they grow up, not by making snide comments about buying them a ticket to Las Vegas or whatever. We may be disappointed if our children marry outside the temple, but it is their decision to make, not ours.

If the principle of temple marriage is so important to us that we're willing to damage our relationship with our children over it, well, that's our choice, and it shows just where our priorities are. Remember also that many of us are sealed to our parents and children, and that sealings will, in the end, be meaningless should the people we were sealed to not want to spend eternity with us. The relationship is more important than the ceremony.

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

Yes it is, Dror, and if kids are going to get in a huff and never talk to their parents again because the parents won't fund a civil marriage, then the kids need to learn that principle...not the parents.

[prisonchaplain]

Some perceptions I agree with:

1. Parents need to love their children unconditionally.

2. Children are not entitled to their parents monetary support for ventures that run contrary to those parents' moral or spiritual convictions.

3. Parents should be careful about using money to sway their children's decisions.

4. Everyone should be sensitive to the feelings of others (Temple/Ring/Reception ceremonies).

5. Most people have family experiences that foster passionate feelings on this subject. Generally, if we exercise the love of Christ, we can avoid most such incidences.

Did I cover all the bases? :-)

[CrimsonKairos]

Yeah, but who's on first?

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes - but that wasn't you original point. It seems you not only wanted the parents to respect their children's decisions, you also wanted the parents to pay money for the children's decisions.

No, the article itself mentioned parents paying for the wedding; my main point was this:

...This isn't about whether getting married in the temple is important. This is about believing coercion is an acceptable way of getting people there. If you don't believe me, call the temple and ask if you can bring a hostage next time...

Which is why I had copied it in the first place.

M.

So if you are not asserting that not paying for a wedding is coersion, why do you reference the article?

[Palerider]

Yeah, but who's on first?

I don't know

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes - but that wasn't you original point. It seems you not only wanted the parents to respect their children's decisions, you also wanted the parents to pay money for the children's decisions.

No, the article itself mentioned parents paying for the wedding; my main point was this:

...This isn't about whether getting married in the temple is important. This is about believing coercion is an acceptable way of getting people there. If you don't believe me, call the temple and ask if you can bring a hostage next time...

Which is why I had copied it in the first place.

M.

So if you are not asserting that not paying for a wedding is coersion, why do you reference the article?

Read the article Snow.

M.

[Dror]

Yes it is, Dror, and if kids are going to get in a huff and never talk to their parents again because the parents won't fund a civil marriage, then the kids need to learn that principle...not the parents.

I don't think kids have a right to expect their parents to pay for their marriage. Nor do I think it wise to buy into society's expectations that we have these huge, elaborate, terribly expensive weddings. My parents did not pay for my wedding (though my stepmother made a beautiful cake that was much tastier than your typical wedding cake! :)), and my wedding and reception were relatively simple and intimate (small). That's mostly a matter of taste, of course. My parents did not pay for my college education, either. I don't hold it against them at all--they did a good job of supporting us kids, they just weren't wealthy enough to pay for our education.

Maybe there are kids who get huffy if their parents don't pay for their wedding, and they may be wrong to do so. And yes, you are right, if the kids decide to never talk to their parents again, they have issues. My only point is (and I think it's the point of Kirby's article), why should the parents spoil the child's wedding day by being so openly disapproving if they're not married in the temple? It only tends to harm relationships. Besides, paying for a non-temple wedding is not exactly supporting sin. They are getting married, after all, not "living in sin." Civil marriage is not sin, it's just temporary (as opposed to sealing for eternity).

It's not just about paying for weddings, anyway. It's about how the parents react to their child's decision. Whether it's the right decision or not, it is the child's decision. The question is, how can we make the best out of a situation we don't like? Is showing your disapproval of your child's decision as strongly as you can really the best route to take? I mean, if I were in that situation, I would undoubtedly express my concerns to my child, but if they were definitely set in their decision, I would not argue the point ad nauseam, either. There comes a point where you just have to let it go and focus on the relationship as a whole instead of one particular issue.

IMO, it is possible to focus so much on individual rules, principles, policies, or commandments so much that we forget what they are for. That is, we can easily "miss the mark." It seems ironic that marriages, which are undoubtedly intended to help strengthen relationships, can be such a point of contention and family discord. Yes, let's definitely encourage temple marriage, but let's not let our devotion to the principle ruin our relationships with the actual people involved.

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

I mean, if I were in that situation, I would undoubtedly express my concerns to my child, but if they were definitely set in their decision, I would not argue the point ad nauseam, either.

Agreed. This is what our family did when my oldest brother left the LDS Church and had both a Methodist wedding ceremony, and an Eastern Orthodox wedding ceremony. He knew we didn't agree with his choices or beliefs, but we did what we could to support him and we didn't do anything as stupid as say to him, "Hope you enjoy your 'until death do you part' marriage!"

In short, our love for him is unconditional, whereas our approval isn't. He knows we love him, but he also knows we don't approve of his choices. That doesn't really cause any tension in our family at all. We all still get along and talk pretty much weekly (he lives across the country).

[Dror]

<div class='quotemain'>

I mean, if I were in that situation, I would undoubtedly express my concerns to my child, but if they were definitely set in their decision, I would not argue the point ad nauseam, either.

Agreed. This is what our family did when my oldest brother left the LDS Church and had both a Methodist wedding ceremony, and an Eastern Orthodox wedding ceremony. He knew we didn't agree with his choices or beliefs, but we did what we could to support him and we didn't do anything as stupid as say to him, "Hope you enjoy your 'until death do you part' marriage!"

In short, our love for him is unconditional, whereas our approval isn't. He knows we love him, but he also knows we don't approve of his choices. That doesn't really cause any tension in our family at all. We all still get along and talk pretty much weekly (he lives across the country).

Eastern Orthodox, eh? That's interesting! We have a couple of Greek Orthodox churches here, and a Coptic one, too, but I've never attended their services, much less a wedding. Cool! Must say, the one Greek Orthodox cathedral has some of the most beautiful (IMO) architecture in town. But I'd better not get started on my gripes about LDS architecture (esp. the contemporary stuff)! To be fair, though, it is pretty practical/functional (in a good way ).

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

I wouldn't mind more traditional looking LDS churches. Y'know, with steeples, some stained glass windows.

I think our current utilitarian chapel design is in part due to the Church's efforts to separate ourselves--doctrinally and I guess architecturally--from non-LDS Christian churches.

Too bad.

[Dror]

I wouldn't mind more traditional looking LDS churches. Y'know, with steeples, some stained glass windows.

I think our current utilitarian chapel design is in part due to the Church's efforts to separate ourselves--doctrinally and I guess architecturally--from non-LDS Christian churches.

Too bad.

The chapel I go to has a steeple--now. It didn't used to, but after they announced the temple, which was to be built next to this chapel, somebody decided the chapel should have a steeple! Kind of cracked me up.

It could be my imagination, but it seems to me that if anything, we, as a Church, have been watering down our doctrinal differences from mainstream Christianity. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. My guess is that it's an attempt to show people we're not the bizarre cult some would make us out to be.

You could be right about the Church differentiating itself from other churches architecturally, but I think there are more practical considerations, too. Basic logistical things like having enough classrooms, etc., for all the different classes and programs we have going on during church (and in order to have more than one ward meeting at the same time), lowering building costs, and energy conservation (though I have no idea what the utility bills look like), right down to the difficulty they've had trying to decide how to finish the cultural hall floors.

I remember with fondness the chapel I attended as a child. It may not have been particularly beautiful or spectacular, but it had character, doggone it! It had a certain charm, and I've never seen any other chapel like it. Too bad we had to sell it.

*sigh*

Dror

[pushka]

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Doff%26sa%3DN

The chapel from the above link most resembles the LDS chapels I've seen across the UK...they are quite distinctive, I think, it isn't difficult to guess which is the LDS chapel when travelling to a new town.

[Maureen]

Here's something you might be interested in looking at:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/results.p...p;CISOSTART=1,1

M.

[Snow]

Read the article Snow.

M.

Yep - you want me to read the article (which I have - twice) yet you don't want to answer questions.

I have filed a protest with International Cycling Union in Geneva. That'll learn ya.