- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Anything that might be seen as cheapening or de-legitimizing is “frowned upon” – but that is my solution, essentially. Have two ceremonies – but make sure the civil one follows the sealing, doesn’t devalue the sealing in any way (through direct reference to the belief in an eternal sealing that has occurred already, for example) and make sure there is NO “til death do us part” or similar language. If the non-member family really wants it, have them pay for it – but retain the right to veto or modify anything that would violate the basics above.
I asked my wife what she thought of the waiting period policy and the petition to get it removed and she said, “There is a lot of novelty to getting married in the temple. If you could get married civilly and get sealed later with no big deal, why exert yourself so much to be worthy for that one special day.” 3 observations:
1) I can’t believe DW used the word “novelty” in this context.
2) DW feels that removing the waiting policy would have lessened the urgency of remaining “pure” before marriage.
3) The sealing is inextricably enmeshed with marriage in the minds of many, emotionally if not doctrinally. Little LDS girls don’t dream of getting sealed, they dream of getting married in the temple. I woke up this morning with a line from the Old Testament seminary video in my head, “Like Rebecca, I will forsake the rest, to marry in the covenant, my posterity will be blessed.” The dedication that Rebecca showed in marrying within the people of Israel is used as an example for young women to marry, not just fellow Mormons, but in the temple. I think that the removal of this policy may cause some to reevaluate long held assumptions about what it means to get sealed versus married in the temple. The issue becomes more complicated for me now, what would be the net effect of removing the waiting period on each individual, couple, and family inside the church? Add that cumulative effect to the presumably positive effect that this move would have on public relations/missionary efforts. Do you end up with a net positive or a negative? It is hard to say.
I do however have a compromise. We already have 4 exceptions to the one year waiting policy (for a list of these exceptions please see my previous post on this thread), perhaps it would be much less challenging to add a fifth exception in cases where the immediate family of the bride or groom is not a member of the church.
SilentDawning wrote:Roy, no offence is taken. We can explore this without agreeing necessarily, with no hard feelings or anything. Comment away as you wish. I respect your ideas, and who knows, you may even change my mind — you have before in positive ways.
SD, I’m glad there is no acrimony. I respect you and I recognize that this issue is very personal to you, while I have much less at stake with my postulating. Should I ever cross a line, please don’t hesitate to point it out. I have said some insensitive things towards Fundamentalists and LDS nudists here in the past (just as an example – not to insinuate that you are Fundamentalist, nudist, or any combination thereof). As a result of good feedback, I like to think that I am now more aware.
Roy wrote:SD, I’m glad there is no acrimony. I respect you and I recognize that this issue is very personal to you, while I have much less at stake with my postulating. Should I ever cross a line, please don’t hesitate to point it out. I have said some insensitive things towards Fundamentalists and LDS nudists here in the past (just as an example – not to insinuate that you are Fundamentalist, nudist, or any combination thereof). As a result of good feedback, I like to think that I am now more aware.
I laughed out loud at your LDS nudist comment above. I didn’t know they existed and your comment really hit my funny bone.
Regarding your other comments — I think I have learned that to some, the whole getting sealed first carries a significance I can only appreciate as a spectator. I never felt it or saw it as others do. The fact that one is sealed in the temple with all the eternal blessings was all that really mattered, and whether there a reception, a civil wedding, or anything else on the same day doesn’t invalidate the binding of my marriage in heaven or make it less sacred or important.
I did call my father and told him I signed the petition, as I said earlier. He and I spoke about religion in general, and it was such a relief to feel we were on the same page with this one, even though he disagrees with the LDS faith in general. He cited how he feels what matters is the individual’s relationship with God, and that all the rules and cultural hype of any religion (in his case, a certain faction within the Evangelical school of thought he was using as a case in point) are not necessary, and in many cases interfere with personal spirituality. He sounded like Martin Luther placing the individual and God as the two centerpieces of spirituality, with churches only as facilitators which need to step aside when they start demanding too much or getting too involved in our daily life decisions.
I felt myself in full agreement. It was quite liberating for me to apologize and let him release his feelings. And I don’t think I cheapened my sealing one bit. I stayed faithful in my marriage because of my commitment to that eternal covenant under very trying physical and emotional circumstances for a VERY long time as a result of the covenant I made. That is what makes has made it sacred and meaningful to me now, not the fact that I shoved family and all other things aside on that day — in exchange for symbolism that matters to others more than myself. My Dad told me I was VERY unusual to do what I did in staying with my marriage, and I explained that it was my eternal covenant that kept me on that path of faithfulness, even though it was, and still is difficult at times.
However, I now realize that others attach a different kind of significance to marriage in the temple than I do. I will do my best to purge stigmatism and egocentricity about temple marriage from my own children,
while teaching them to respect how others feel about it. I will support them in how they decide to view the temple sealing.
I will teach them to distinguish between sealing and marriage. But I think I will do what I can to repair the damage it did to my non-member family. They matter, and what I did to my family was crass almost 20 years ago. I hope the Lord will forgive me for what I did to their hearts back then, and in signing the petition I have shown some repentence.
IN response to “lessening the urgency to remain pure” comment, you still have to wait and repent if you commit sexual sin prior to marriage. So if you didn’t want to wait the year (or more as it was in my case) to get sealed, sexual purity is still a requirement. You wouldn’t have to wait until the temple sealing, but you would until after the civil marriage. Just as a side note, I hear in much of S. America they do civil weddings and the couple doesn’t start sharing a bed or living together until after the sealing (which is maybe 1-2 weeks later). So you can still choose to make the temple sealing the “Real” wedding if you prefer. Personally, I think little girls here in Mormon HQ dream of a Disney wedding, not a temple wedding. It is evident when you see them in the temple in giant, elegant wedding gowns, or if not into the temple, they change into it for their bridal photos and wedding reception. The groom usually changes into a tux for the photos and reception. Often most of the trappings of a secular wedding are present. I think often many LDS couples cheapen the sealing experience by trying to cram these things around the sealing. I feel lucky to have done a normal wedding years before my sealing. I got to enjoy each one as a separate event, and so did my family. I feel bad for those that are forced to try and do some strange hybrid wedding day.
Ray, your comment about the “till death do you part” language reminded me of something else that kind of bothers me. I have been to several non-LDS weddings, and whatever language they use it sounds positive — it sounds like they are committing to stand at each others side until something they cannot control (death) rips them apart. I have even heard language used that implies a commitment to stand at each others side after this life if they are reunited in death. To me it sounds like the commitment is forever, as long as their “forever” can exist, the separating factor being completely out of their control. Death does afterall separate (or ‘part’), even if temporarily. On the other hand, an LDS civil wedding that I attended recently, performed by a bishop, used the words “…huband and wife for the period of this mortal life.” To me it almost sounded like an insult. Maybe I had a bad attitude about it but it sounded like “I am not bonding you for as long as your love can last, I am putting an expiration date on this union.”
All I could think of is we all know that a civil marriage is not the same as a temple marriage, but “do you have to rub it in?!” Why couldn’t the same words be used that others use: “for as long as you both shall live”? I like that so much more, it does sort of imply that if you continue to live after death your love can hold you together. Maybe that’s why they don’t say that. I think its a shame, and to me cheapens the wedding. It’s almost like we don’t really value family and relationships that don’t meet all our expectations.
Anyway, just wanted to share one thorn in my side.
Perhaps someone already linked this, but in case not, here’sQuote:“It is easy to understand how feelings of exclusion can develop, but exclusion is never intended,” says Farah, the church spokeswoman, citing the Mormons’ “deep concern for those of other faiths who cannot attend the temple marriage of a loved one.”
Just curious if anyone knows how the Church shows their “deep concern for those of other faiths who cannot attend the temple of a loved one”. Anyone?
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:“It is easy to understand how feelings of exclusion can develop, but exclusion is never intended,” says Farah, the church spokeswoman, citing the Mormons’ “deep concern for those of other faiths who cannot attend the temple marriage of a loved one.”
Just curious if anyone knows how the Church shows their “deep concern for those of other faiths who cannot attend the temple of a loved one”. Anyone?
They send over the missionaries to help them see the errors of their ways.
😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: Yes, my question was an invitation for answers — and I was pretty sure no one would have one that was defensible.. SD, I’ll give you a defensible answer: Quote:“The Church” encourages its members to love and serve those who can’t attend the temple, but “The Church” feels it can’t compromise on the requirements to enter its “most sacred space” – its monuments to holiness.
I think that is a totally justifiable answer – a good and simple one. Literally, nearly everyone really does believe there are some things that are so sacred / important that they can’t be compromised – and the temple is one of those for most active Mormons. (If you doubt that nearly everyone believes so, I can come up with all kinds of “rules” or laws or principles about which pretty much everyone would say at least one or two can’t be compromised.)
I think it’s impossible to say that the LDS Church doesn’t encourage its members to love and serve others. The members don’t understand that all too often, and there is divisive rhetoric at times, as well – but the encouragement absolutely is there in spades.
Old-Timer wrote:SD, I’ll give you a defensible answer:
Quote:“The Church” encourages its members to love and serve those who can’t attend the temple, but “The Church” feels it can’t compromise on the requirements to enter its “most sacred space” – its monuments to holiness.
I think that is a totally justifiable answer – a good and simple one. Literally, nearly everyone really does believe there are some things that are so sacred / important that they can’t be compromised – and the temple is one of those for most active Mormons. (If you doubt that nearly everyone believes so, I can come up with all kinds of “rules” or laws or principles about which pretty much everyone would say at least one or two can’t be compromised.)
I think it’s impossible to say that the LDS Church doesn’t encourage its members to love and serve others. The members don’t understand that all too often, and there is divisive rhetoric at times, as well – but the encouragement absolutely is there in spades.
While I recognize there will always be non-negotiables in any religion, for this one, I don’t really see how this deep caring of the non-members affected by the penalty period is more than empty words on the part of the Church.
Your action item for the Church is that they encourage the members to “love and serve those who can’t attend” the temple ceremony. There is absolutely no evidence of this in my experience. It has been ALL about the Church enforcing its egocentric concept that somehow, a civil wedding “cheapens” the temple ceremony. And family members are the casualty of the experience, as is the member who must break the new to his family.
Here is my evidence:
a) There was no counsel from any priesthood leader I interfaced with about how to deal with my non-member family other than to hold a token ring-exchanging ceremony as appeasement, which my parents rejected. They did ask “how are your family reacting to this” but that appeared to be out of curiosity. When I said they were ticked off there was no advice given.
b) When I took the Temple Preparation class, there was no module on how to be sensitive to the needs of non-member families excluded from the wedding.
c) No one could give defensible reasons for the policy — even the Temple President who said he “didn’t know why it was that way” when I pressed for reasons, and also suggested that because my bride was from Britain, we fly my entire family out to Britain and get married there so we could have a civl and temple wedding onthe same day (placing a further burden on the non-members by imposing a costly flight across the pond).
For me, this one year waiting period business is akin to changing temple recommend questions without actually changing the temple recommend questions. (I know this is a paradox). They caboose another requirement on your sealing recommend-getting experience, even though you are fully temple worthy. And the fact that you are allowed to go through the temple as individuals during that waiting period also shows how indefensible the policy is.
“The worth of souls is great in the eyes of God” — well, in this case, with the hard feelings it causes the family who raised you, nurtured you, and who are often the ONLY constant in yoru lifelong experience in this life, I think we violate that principle for some symbolism that has uneven meaning to many.
Sorry, I can’t swallow that one Ray, but I appreciate the attempt because it helps keep some balance in the attempting and shows there are forces against the idea, even though in my imperfect understanding, the reasons scream egocentricity at the maximum volume possible.
As gently as I can say this, SD, you’re conflating two things in your last couple of comments. Your actual question, the quote from the Church’s rep and your subsequent example ALL deal with not letting non-members into the temple – and that is what my answer addressed. Then, in your last comment, you disagreed by citing the one-year waiting period. Those are completely different issues, really. Sure, they are related by the temple, but they are VERY different issues, at heart. My comment was not in defense of the one-year waiting period at all – and I’ve said already that I disagree with it outside of the repentance and preparation applications. It was a defense of not letting non-members enter the temple, which was the point of the quote from the Church being discussed – that they are sympathetic to the concerns but can’t allow non-members into the most sacred space they can create. That’s pretty standard throughout religion throughout history.
I understand viewpoints that want non-members to be able to attend the sealings – but I would MUCH rather compromise the other way and do away with the waiting period. I would MUCH rather adopt the European model church-wide. Have everyone be married civilly THEN sealed religiously. That seems like an easy solution to me with no downside whatsoever – whereas allowing non-members to enter the temple has plenty of downside. I would rather create a distinct separation between “marriage” and “sealing” – since I think it actually would “honor” the sealing more in a very real way.
Old-Timer wrote:As gently as I can say this, SD, you’re conflating two things in your last couple of comments. Your actual question, the quote from the Church’s rep and your subsequent example ALL deal with not letting non-members into the temple – and that is what my answer addressed. Then, in your last comment, you disagreed by citing the one-year waiting period. Those are completely different issues, really. Sure, they are related by the temple, but they are VERY different issues, at heart.
My comment was not in defense of the one-year waiting period at all – and I’ve said already that I disagree with it outside of the repentance and preparation applications. It was a defense of not letting non-members enter the temple, which was the point of the quote from the Church being discussed – that they are sympathetic to the concerns but can’t allow non-members into the most sacred space they can create. That’s pretty standard throughout religion throughout history.
I understand viewpoints that want non-members to be able to attend the sealings – but I would MUCH rather compromise the other way and do away with the waiting period. I would MUCH rather adopt the European model church-wide. Have everyone be married civilly THEN sealed religiously. That seems like an easy solution to me with no downside whatsoever – whereas allowing non-members to enter the temple has plenty of downside. I would rather create a distinct separation between “marriage” and “sealing” – since I think it actually would “honor” the sealing more in a very real way.
Guess what — we are in violent agreement then. I don’t think non-members should enter the temple either. But I disagree with the one-year waiting period. I would love to see the Eurpean model Churchwide as well.
As I’ve said before, I think the Church has its way, so to speak by excluding non-members from the temple. That should be enough. To then punish temple-worthy members on a point of dubious symbolism with the waiting period is, as I’ve said many times before, the ultimate in egocentricity.
Quote:violent agreement
That’s not to be taken literally, Tom.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.