- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cadence wrote:DarkJedi wrote:Cadence wrote:
I am not sure waiting a year is such a big deal. I would advise everyone to get a civil marriage first. If the choose at some time to go to the temple that is fine. So what does it matter if you have to wait a day or a year.
The real issue is the church should not be in the marriage business anyway.
I don’t disagree with you Cadence, and I think that’s what will bring about the change – I think the church will get out of the marriage business and stick with the sealing business.
However, the argument could be made that it’s not the church (or any religion) that doesn’t belong in the marriage business – rather it’s the government.
There are many legal issues associated with marriage. Just look how hard some fought to legalize gay marriage. It was to obtain those rights and benefits a legal contract between individuals insures. Call it marriage or a binding contract but the government does get involved in marriage
Agreed, but marriage was a religious ceremony long before the government got involved. My initial opposition to gay marriage was that it was all about money and benefits. I no longer hold that view, however, I’m also not sure gay marriage would have gained much traction without that aspect. I also recognize, of course, that in modern times there is some necessity for government to be involved in marriage – my view is it needs to be one way or the other. The LDS church is probably better suited to get out of the marriage business than most other religions because we view marriage and sealing as different.
The one year waiting period highlights the difference between the two, church and state involvement. Maybe marriage and sealing should be unbundled, and everyone should have a 1 year waiting period to prepare to be sealed. What would be the downside?
The church in the business of sealing, the government binding contracts for marital rights.
Heber13 wrote:The one year waiting period highlights the difference between the two, church and state involvement.
Maybe marriage and sealing should be unbundled, and everyone should have a 1 year waiting period to prepare to be sealed. What would be the downside?
The church in the business of sealing, the government binding contracts for marital rights.
I think either way (everyone wait a year or everyone can do it ‘at the same time’) it should be the same.But I do wonder if there is concern about if you go much more than a year, you could get past the honeymoon and you could have some marriages (for better or worse) get cold feet about actually sealing as they realize their partner isn’t perfect.
LookingHard wrote:Heber13 wrote:The one year waiting period highlights the difference between the two, church and state involvement.
Maybe marriage and sealing should be unbundled, and everyone should have a 1 year waiting period to prepare to be sealed. What would be the downside?
The church in the business of sealing, the government binding contracts for marital rights.
I think either way (everyone wait a year or everyone can do it ‘at the same time’) it should be the same.But I do wonder if there is concern about if you go much more than a year, you could get past the honeymoon and you could have some marriages (for better or worse) get cold feet about actually sealing as they realize their partner isn’t perfect.
That’s why there should be no waiting period.
IIRC in New Zealand couples had a certain amount of time after being married until they were supposed to go to the temple for sealing. It was also possible to get civilly married at the chapel in visitor center and be sealed immediately, although many did not choose to do so. I don’t recall what the time frame was – maybe 6 weeks? – but if they didn’t go within that time frame they had to wait a year.
Cadence wrote:I am not sure waiting a year is such a big deal. I would advise everyone to get a civil marriage first. If the choose at some time to go to the temple that is fine. So what does it matter if you have to wait a day or a year…The real issue is the church should not be in the marriage business anyway. The only way I could see that actually happening for active and obedient Mormons in most cases is if they don’t really believe in the Church and more importantly they don’t care that much what other Church members think about them which is much easier said than done in many cases. Like it or not, for two Church members to get married outside the temple currently generally ends up being a form of public shaming and you can pretty much guarantee that other Church members are going to notice, gossip, judge this harshly, and basically assume that the main reason why was because they didn’t obey the Law of Chastity.
You might as well go around wearing a fornicator tag similar to the Scarlet Letter as far as the way many Church members will view you after that. Even if they are right, I don’t see why this should be any of their business to begin with but the Church has certainly made things like this other people’s business in a major way. That’s why I didn’t really like the idea of getting married outside the temple but I thought the idea of confessing to the bishop and going through the whole drawn out groveling repentance process and facing possible Church discipline sounded even worse by comparison so I basically took what I saw as the easier route even though it was still punishing as well thanks to the Church and its judgmental culture.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:The only way I could see that actually happening for active and obedient Mormons in most cases is if they don’t really believe in the Church and more importantly they don’t care that much what other Church members think about them which is much easier said than done in many cases. Like it or not, for two Church members to get married outside the temple currently generally
ends up being a form of public shaming and you can pretty much guarantee that other Church members are going to notice, gossip, judge this harshly, and basically assume that the main reason why was because they didn’t obey the Law of Chastity.
There comes a point where your mistakes don’t hurt anymore. I am excommunicated and, to my own shame, broke more than one law to accomplish this. Lets see….Apostasy, LOC, WOW (drank a beer once…UNTHINKABLE!!!!) And, I am WAY past feeling ostracized. I am the most social guy in my ward,..going up and down the isle saying hello BECAUSE I love the people and care. I have been asked regularly if I will pass the sacrament, or who my wife is, or such and such. I respond in ways that are disarming and yet show love from my place on the outside. I say: “I am currently working through some things and can’t participate in those activities. But,..PLEASE don’t feel bad by asking me to help…it feels just flattering and complimentary for the request. You are and will always be free to talk to me about anything you want…I value your friendship.”
THAT response changes everything. And, if they ask me what I did, I say: “I broke some pretty serious rules, made some big mistakes, and decided to own it and work toward repentance.” And that is that.
It is possible to overcome the shame and stigma. But, it requires one to be independent and learn to walk alone as needed.
PS. I have discovered something interesting. When I show this sense of — well, invulnerability is strong but close to accurate — to people, you would be AMAZED at how many people seek me out and want to draw close. Why?…because they have problems themselves, and the stigma of being ostracized creates fear for them to move forward in their own lives,…so they hide it. It goes underground, and they begin to feel alone and outcast,..because they have a secret they can’t cope with. Some of my best friends have been made this way…joining at the wounds. Go figure. Perhaps this is why the hurt Jesus is more appealing to me than the glorious one.
Heber13 wrote:The one year waiting period highlights the difference between the two, church and state involvement.
Maybe marriage and sealing should be unbundled, and everyone should have a 1 year waiting period to prepare to be sealed. What would be the downside?
The church in the business of sealing, the government binding contracts for marital rights.
I agree that is how it should be. But I think the church wants to get young people as tied to and dependent on the church as possible. Hence the push to go to the temple.
I do hope it changes and the leaders see the potential harm it does to families
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here is where I’d like to see a separation of church and state responsibilities. I know quite a few couples who didn’t get married in the temple who weren’t publicly shamed, judged harshly, etc. – especially when they continued to attend church regularly. Some were open about their reasons (more and more, so non-Mormon family members could be at the wedding), while others weren’t. Continued activity does a lot to shut up the critics, and there have been fewer critics than supporters in most instances about which I have known. If the couple is inactive, the automatic assumption probably is pregnancy, but imagination always leans toward extreme conclusions – across humanity. Of course, there are places that are different than that – that are more judgmental and harsh, but this is not the church of my youth and early adulthood. Far more places/congregations are much more accepting than in the past, and the younger generations, especially, are less uptight than their predecessors. That is true of situations involving pregnant teens, as well.
I would recommend that the couple who is “worthy” should go to the temple before their civil ceremony for their own endowment, or if already endowed, to prove to the naysayers that there is nothing unworthy preventing their civil marriage. Or better yet, go to the temple immediately before and afterwards so there is no question that the civil marriage is for practical reasons, such as inclusion of family members. I agree with Ray above. The trend in the ward level, from what I see, is more patient and kind. It is really a wonderful thing to see. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.