Midwest LDS

You no longer have to wait a year between civil marriage and temple marriage in the US

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, carlimac said:

But how did Mrs. Unixknight feel? I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's right of passage. It's a big deal- big enough that Jesus even saw fit to change water into wine for the festivities. Some of you need to grow a heart. What do you think your child would think if you said to them, "It's YOUR big day. I don't really care if I'm there or not."  Don't you think THEY would WANT you there?  

She felt the same way.

I don't think you're being fair when you say "I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's [sic]right of passage."  

As I said right there in the post you quoted from:  " Was I sad?  yes.  Did I feel left out?  Yes."

Doesn't make it about me.  Did I not spend enough time writing about my feelings to convince you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unixknight said:

She felt the same way.

I don't think you're being fair when you say "I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's [sic]right of passage."  

As I said right there in the post you quoted from:  " Was I sad?  yes.  Did I feel left out?  Yes."

Doesn't make it about me.  Did I not spend enough time writing about my feelings to convince you?

You did not agree with her, which means that you were wrong. The fact that you personally lived through this and are offering first-person testimony is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Then your point as a counterpoint to my point fails, because I wasn't saying that it could not.

Thanks for the clarification. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

You did not agree with her, which means that you were wrong. The fact that you personally lived through this and are offering first-person testimony is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that you are wrong.

This is the part that's wrong!!  "Was it about me?  NO.  It was therefore not relevant how I felt.  It was his and his wife's day.  Not mine, not anybody else's." 

Now if you can't help but do something really offensive in public settings, peeing in the punch or hitting the grooms dad in the nose or flirting with the bridesmaids- embarrassing your child and ruining the happy party, then please don't come. But to say it was not relevant how you felt is very short sighted and self indulgent IMHO.. I would think most children getting married want very much to have their parents there in attendance to support them and rejoice with them.  To do this Eeyore thing, " Don't mind me. I'm not important" is ridiculous. YES, parents ARE important at a wedding!! The fact that they have been excluded for so long is heartbreaking.

 I feel the same way about some other chuyrch policies like  missionaries not going home for parents' funerals. What in the what??  That is cruel and heartless in my opinion. I've heard some returning missionaries flaunt this as a badge of righteousness and sacrifice and it makes me sick.I don't think there is anything noble in that.  Is that missionary really going to be effective while they know their family is conducting their mother's funeral? What about the lack of closure and extended grief and PTSD and all that?  OK now I'm going down a different road. Pardon me.

 

 
Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, carlimac said:

But how did Mrs. Unixknight feel? I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's right of passage. It's a big deal- big enough that Jesus even saw fit to change water into wine for the festivities. Some of you need to grow a heart. What do you think your child would think if you said to them, "It's YOUR big day. I don't really care if I'm there or not."  Don't you think THEY would WANT you there?  

Carlimac, my memory is of course always suspect; but my recollection is that you and I have been on the same side of a number of policy discussions in the which our more progressive brethren have accused both of us of being heartless.  You and I both know that, as important as feelings are, they are not the be-all, end-all determinative as to matters of right and wrong.

Moreover, suggesting that @unixknight didn’t want to be at his child’s wedding—or that his child didn’t want him there—or that the same is true of other families who supported the Church’s former policy, is not at all what Unixknight actually said.  I know you well enough to know that you’re capable of giving people credit for having mixed emotions; and given that he’s put himself out there by sharing a deeply sacred experience in a very personal way, there’s no need to try to present him as some sort of unfeeling automaton just to try to score rhetorical points.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, unixknight said:

She felt the same way.

I don't think you're being fair when you say "I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's [sic]right of passage."  

As I said right there in the post you quoted from:  " Was I sad?  yes.  Did I feel left out?  Yes."

Doesn't make it about me.  Did I not spend enough time writing about my feelings to convince you?

I think a lot of people would see things differently. Being "left out" of your kids wedding would be a devastating blow for some people. It might even effect their view of the church and worse, their view of family. 

I am not saying you are wrong for feeling like you do. Just that others might see it drastically differently. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Carlimac, my memory is of course always suspect; but my recollection is that you and I have been on the same side of a number of policy discussions in the which our more progressive brethren have accused both of us of being heartless.  You and I both know that, as important as feelings are, they are not the be-all, end-all determinative as to matters of right and wrong.

Moreover, suggesting that @unixknight didn’t want to be at his child’s wedding—or that his child didn’t want him there—or that the same is true of other families who supported the Church’s former policy, is not at all what Unixknight actually said.  I know you well enough to know that you’re capable of giving people credit for having mixed emotions; and given that he’s put himself out there by sharing a deeply sacred experience in a very personal way, there’s no need to try to present him as some sort of unfeeling automaton just to try to score rhetorical points.  

Well I'm sorry he wasn't able to go. I'm not suggesting he didn't want to be there. But I disagree that the wedding day is only about the couple. It is very much about the parents who raised those children, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, unixknight said:

She felt the same way.

I don't think you're being fair when you say "I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's [sic]right of passage."  

As I said right there in the post you quoted from:  " Was I sad?  yes.  Did I feel left out?  Yes."

Doesn't make it about me.  Did I not spend enough time writing about my feelings to convince you?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to indicate you specifically were ambivalent about the wedding. But I've read here and on other forums those same words about how it's about the couple and not about the parents. I heartily disagree. I couldn't be more pleased that this doesn't have to be an issue anymore because of Church policy anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to indicate you specifically were ambivalent about the wedding. But I've read here and on other forums those same words about how it's about the couple and not about the parents. I heartily disagree. I couldn't be more pleased that this doesn't have to be an issue anymore because of Church policy anyway. 

Fair enough.

I do agree that it's about the parents as well, in the sense that the parents are a critical part of the kids' life.  All I'm saying is that it isn't right to cause drama over it if one can't be there... Because the kids hurt too when loved ones can't attend, and that  just makes it worse, and taints the memory of the most important day of their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I do fear now is that some girls who always dreamed of their fairytale wedding in a temple- ONLY in a temple, or a parent who dogmatically disagrees with the change in policy will ignore it and leave important people out of their child's wedding day.  I remember so many lessons taught and temples crafted and created out of ceramic or photos or whatever  at  Activity Days for impressionable 8-12 year olds that glorified the building more than what goes on there. To the effect that  many girls  have been so programmed that making a necessary switch to a civil wedding first may cause more guilt and mental anguish than is necessary.   I imagine some manuals will need to be edited to say that civil weddings are perfectly legitimate as long as the intention to go to the temple is a high priority and done ASAP after the wedding.   

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, carlimac said:

 

 I feel the same way about some other chuyrch policies like  missionaries not going home for parents' funerals. What in the what??  That is cruel and heartless in my opinion. I've heard some returning missionaries flaunt this as a badge of righteousness and sacrifice and it makes me sick.I don't think there is anything noble in that.  Is that missionary really going to be effective while they know their family is conducting their mother's funeral? What about the lack of closure and extended grief and PTSD and all that?  OK now I'm going down a different road. Pardon me.

 

AFAIK there is not now, and never was, such a policy/prohibition.  What the Church has said is that if a missionary returns home for any reason, they cannot be assured of being re-deployed to the same mission to which they were originally assigned; and there are pragmatic reasons for that.  Knowing that, many missionaries have elected to remain in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, carlimac said:

Well I'm sorry he wasn't able to go. I'm not suggesting he didn't want to be there. But I disagree that the wedding day is only about the couple. It is very much about the parents who raised those children, too. 

Actually, I agree with this. The very nature of a wedding is a social event, or perhaps more correctly a societal event. Marriage is about creating a new entity, a fundamental operating unit of society—a married couple, man and wife. The sealing is, of course, much more personal, a sacred and individual covenant between God and his son and daughter. But since a temple sealing accomplishes both ends at once, it's nice when it can fill both roles.

I don't think anyone disagrees with your fundamental idea that a wedding, including a temple sealing, is ideally a family event. But when a choice needs to be made, I hope those involved in the choice see the eternal value in the temple sealing and forgo whatever social pleasure may attend a secular wedding in favor of making that crowning covenant. That should never, in any circumstance, take a back seat to a social event, no matter how important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, carlimac said:

To the effect that  many girls  have been so programmed that making a necessary switch to a civil wedding first may cause more guilt and mental anguish than is necessary.

Of what necessary switch are you speaking? The policy does not dictate that people marry outside the temple before getting sealed; it only allows that possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, carlimac said:

One thing I do fear now is that some girls who always dreamed of their fairytale wedding in a temple- ONLY in a temple, or a parent who dogmatically disagrees with the change in policy will ignore it and leave important people out of their day.  I remember so many lessons taught and temples crafted and created out of ceramic or photos or whatever for impressionable 11 year olds that glorified the building more than what goes on there. To the effect that  many girls  have been so programmed that making a necessary switch to a civil wedding first may cause more guilt and mental anguish than is necessary.   I imagine some manuals will need to be edited to say that civil weddings are perfectly legitimate as long as the intention to go to the temple is a high priority and done ASAP after the wedding.   

A person can still choose to be married civil and sealed in the temple at the same time.  Many people this will be the case-- my sister and her fiancé are getting married thus this summer, both coming from strong LDS Christian families.  But for the many people who are converts or come from part-member families, having them done separately is now an option.  

The stress has always been for every married couple to get to the temple and sealed ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to indicate you specifically were ambivalent about the wedding. But I've read here and on other forums those same words about how it's about the couple and not about the parents. I heartily disagree. I couldn't be more pleased that this doesn't have to be an issue anymore because of Church policy anyway. 

When I got married, some of the best advice I got was "this day isn't just about you and your husband, it's also about all the people whom love you coming together to celebrate".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

AFAIK there is not now, and never was, such a policy/prohibition.  What the Church has said is that if a missionary returns home for any reason, they cannot be assured of being re-deployed to the same mission to which they were originally assigned; and there are pragmatic reasons for that.  Knowing that, many missionaries have elected to remain in the field.

OH no! I have heard the very words- " My mission president wouldn't allow me to go home." or the more "righteous" comment,  "I knew my mom (or dad) would have wanted me to stay and continue my mission." Call me faithless, but I would have wanted my child to co me home and be with their family at that time. I think it could do some really messy things with one's mind to not be able to grieve  and have closure. Plus, what companion at 18- 20 yrs old is really equipped to deal with that mind boggling situation of having to keep their companion busy and engaged in the work while that missionary's parent is being buried? That is too much to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Of what necessary switch are you speaking? The policy does not dictate that people marry outside the temple before getting sealed; it only allows that possibility.

I'm only saying that perhaps a girl who always dreamed of getting married in the temple finds herself engaged to a guy who's parents or beloved grandparents can't attend and then faces having to make the choice of a civil wedding  first to keep unity in the family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

When I got married, some of the best advice I got was "this day isn't just about you and your husband, it's also about all the people whom love you coming together to celebrate".  

I can’t think of any doctrinal backing behind this advice. The importance to your friends and family pales massively in comparison to the individual.

I have always been under the impression that if the father didn’t give me “permission” to marry his daughter, I would marry her anyway. I think asking in the first place is resiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

A person can still choose to be married civil and sealed in the temple at the same time.  Many people this will be the case-- my sister and her fiancé are getting married thus this summer, both coming from strong LDS Christian families.  But for the many people who are converts or come from part-member families, having them done separately is now an option.  

The stress has always been for every married couple to get to the temple and sealed ASAP.

The stress in lessons has always been marriage ( THE wedding) in the temple only with no mention of a civil wedding first. I hope as teachers and advisors we can role with these changes and not inflict guilt on any girl or boy who chooses civil marriage first. There is just no need for it now. Instead we could suggest and encourage  the sealing being  still a high priority and happening within a quick amount of time if a civil wedding happens first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, carlimac said:

OH no! I have heard the very words- " My mission president wouldn't allow me to go home." or the more "righteous" comment,  "I knew my mom (or dad) would have wanted me to stay and continue my mission." Call me faithless, but I would have wanted my child to co me home and be with their family at that time. I think it could do some really messy things with one's mind to not be able to grieve  and have closure. Plus, what companion at 18- 20 yrs old is really equipped to deal with that mind boggling situation of having to keep their companion busy and engaged in the work while that missionary's parent is being buried? That is too much to ask.

A mission is voluntary. A missionary cannot be made to stay on his/her mission if he/she doesn't want to.

My experience is that missionaries are encouraged to stay on their missions if practicable. It's really tough to want to go back out after returning home and in the case of foreign missions if you leave the country in some cases you can't come back. I know all this because I went home from my mission. My stepfather died when I had been out 9 months. My mission president encouraged me to stay out of concern for my eternal welfare. But when I told him that I had an impression that I needed to go home for the funeral he did not once stand in my way and quickly arranged travel back. I was only 9 hours from home by car where I was serving, and I'm a convert. If I had stayed, it would have irreparably damaged my family's opinion of the church. I went home and came back out none the worse for wear

But I also know my stepfather. If the choice had been stay and finish my mission or come home and not return he would have told me to stay. Fortunately that wasn't the case for me but statistically, many missionaries who go home early stay home. It's understandable that the church (and of course the Lord) does not want all those Elders and Sisters to miss the blessings of service.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it will wind up going further than that, and big ships turn slowly (usually).  The sealing was restored as an ordinance wholly divorced (pardon the pun) from civil marriage—we sealed lots of couples who never got civilly married at all.  Policies certainly can change quickly as a matter of administration; but we may be building towards a situation where the sealing is literally everything and the civil marriage reverts being to “just a piece of paper”—and possibly a nonessential one at that.

So you see marriage as becoming obsolete? Sounds pretty far fetched! Why would that happen? It would take a long time and some pretty extreme circumstances to kill off the tradition of marriage- in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, carlimac said:

OH no! I have heard the very words- " My mission president wouldn't allow me to go home." or the more "righteous" comment,  "I knew my mom (or dad) would have wanted me to stay and continue my mission." 

I’ve heard the second situation as well, per @Midwest LDS‘s experience. 

But the first—“My mission president wouldn’t let me go home”—you should get the names of the parties involved and forward them on to your U.S. Attorney.  That’s called “kidnapping”.

49 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

When I got married, some of the best advice I got was "this day isn't just about you and your husband, it's also about all the people whom love you coming together to celebrate".  

It’s great when it can be that way; and when everyone is bound by temple covenants it becomes even sweeter.  

But, if most of us look back far enough in our family trees we’ll find folks who eloped, folks who got quickie marriages in their parents’ living rooms, folks who moved west and whose spouse never met their parents, etc.  The most important family at the wedding is the one that’s being created. 

22 minutes ago, carlimac said:

So you see marriage as becoming obsolete? Sounds pretty far fetched! Why would that happen? It would take a long time and some pretty extreme circumstances to kill off the tradition of marriage- in my opinion. 

Please be careful not to take me out of context.  I am speaking of civil marriage.  And yes, that institution is quickly devolving into a temporary contractual arrangement that serves primarily as a means for allocation of government benefits based on (statistically false) promises of sexual exclusivity.  

People were entering into the divine covenant of marriage before there were ever marriage marital tax exemptions, or intestacy law, or wedding certificates, or county clerks—let alone fancy dresses, jewelry, tuxedoes, florists, caterers, photographers, and things borrowed and blue.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

Is there something secret about it?

Mods, if my post is inappropriate, please nuke  it.

(Since you brought it up publicly :) )

Yeah, it was probably a little more on-point than it needed to be; so I’ve taken the liberty of toning it down.  

That said, as a participant and not a mod—I think your point is dead-on.  It seems highly incongruous for any person who has made the covenants contained in the endowment, to then turn around and use the “Nunya bidness” line against the Church anytime it teaches a principle the person finds inconvenient.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Hogwash.  If we had been allowed to have a civil marriage so my family could attend, and then gone to the temple for our sealing it would not have lessened one iota the importance of the sealing.  The fact that you would even imply this is beyond ridiculous.   Seriously.

And because you completely went sideways with what I said, this comment is null and void.  There was NEVER a time where I said the sealing is lessened.  Rather, what I said is the COUPLE chose to rather have an earthly marriage rather than an eternal one - a lesser choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now