- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
People can see reasons and excuses in everything. Conjecture flows from individual perspectives, and negative explanations for positive actions always will be put forward as reasons to complain about and reject positive actions. Frankly, I flat-out refuse to play that speculation game. All it does is entrench negativism and cynicism, even when truly wonderful changes are made. I feel for those who suffered in the past as a result of the policy, but I will not be mad that others don’t have to suffer in the same way now – and I flat-out refuse to look for speculative reasons to dismiss a wonderful thing. This is a great change. Everyone here wanted it, based on previous posts and comments about it. If we say we want something to happen, we ought not complain or dismiss it when it does happen. That is true about pretty much any relationship, whether it be organizational or personal.
nibbler wrote:
The challenge… the policy needed to change. 20 years ago, 20 years from now, whenever it changed it was going to hurt, especially knowing there will be no formal recognition of the real pain the policy caused. The only solace is that this particular policy will now hurt less people.
I’m in the boat of wishing it happened even a couple years soon. I’m glad it happened.
Maybe this goes back to other topics on this forum, but I can’t help but feel no matter how many changes are made, it doesn’t change the underlying truth or validity of the Church. If this change had happened sooner, would it have made it easier for me to remain active and believing? Absolutely. But it’s never been about policy for me, and retrospectively I don’t feel this improves my opinion much. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a wonderful thing! But so were facebook’s policy changes on how they handle user data, and I’m still not getting back on board.
LookingHard wrote:
I have seen some chats about this being announce was to distract from the negative press coming from the Vice episode released a few days ago that focused on how the church responds to sex abuse. Not sure, but it is a normal PR strategy to pull the limelight away from the negative.
While I don’t think so, I completely get the cynicism. I have a hard time believing there is anything the Church wouldn’t do, if they thought it’d increase membership conversion and retention rates. Sometimes the best way to do that (as all companies know), is to do things that make your customers happy. But being “happy” isn’t always in the best interest of the customer, especially when there have been other shenanigans going on since the beginning.
Or like in grade school, when a bully comes up to you and apologizes and hands you a cupcake… it might be a fine cupcake. They might be genuinely sorry. But I wouldn’t blame anyone if their knee-jerk reaction in “Why are you being nice to me? What’s your angle?! What are you trying to pull?!”
Quote:We tend to forget about the younger kids in all of this.
This was one of my double struggles 30+ years ago. Grandparents that I loved could not attend. But I’d grown up with that. My mom, their only child, married in the temple. They didn’t even go to the building and wait.
But when it came time and my 4 year old sister and my dearest baby brother (just 2 years younger than me) couldn’t come – even though I knew it all my life – it stung. We knew it happened for everyone, but somehow on the day “my entire family’ wasn’t in the room that was supposed to mimic all of eternity.
For my siblings alone, if this choice had been available, I would have taken it. Then done the sealing as a date night.
Like others here, I am a convert who married in the temple with no family present. I am one of six children, my wife is one of seven. Only her mother is a member and she was the only relative on either side present in the temple. Do I believe this hurt some in my family and hers? Absolutely. I honestly didn’t like it myself and my wife and I did discuss marrying and going to the temple a year later but TBMs that we were decided against it. We did put on a very nice “program” in the chapel prior to our reception. Our bishop and the SP both spoke. That was then,this is now, ’twas I but ’tis not I. I have moved past it and now I can rejoice with those who rejoice that others will not have to make this choice. Am I upset about all those third hours I spent at church over the years? Nope, I’ve put my behind in the past. Am I sorry for those who were hurt by the gay policy? Yes, but I now rejoice for those who will no longer suffer. We’ve complained so long about the culture and tradition of the church and how these things will “never” change. Alas, times they are a changin. Doctrine is not what many people thought it was. I’m with Curt here. We want change and want change of things we thought wouldn’t change and now those things are changing. Now we complain about the change.
SilentDawning wrote:
So, the main reason appears to be family unity. But only family unity at the immediate level. If the single temple ceremony will cause disharmony among grandparents, or aunts and uncles, then the policy doesn’t apply. I wish it said it was at the preference of the couple for reasons of harmony. Granted, nothing is stopping a couple from phrasing their concerns about parental or immediate familial discontent with a temple-only marriage in a way that justifies it, even when immediate family members are OK with either kind of wedding.
I read a comment over at BCC that I believe to be a good reading of the new policy:
Quote:the line about separate ceremonies being “authorized” under certain circumstances, on my reading, is only a limitation to the instruction that bishops “encourage” couples not to separate the civil ceremony from the sealing. As I read it, couples are allowed to separate the ceremonies under any circumstances they feel is appropriate, and bishops are to encourage them not to, unless it would exclude a parent or immediate family member, but are not to impose a waiting period where the couple is otherwise meeting the standards for having a temple recommend.
Therefore, in SD’s example above, if grandparents, aunts, and uncles wish for a civil wedding in order that they may attend the bishop will likely “encourage” the TR holding couple to get married in the temple. However, if the TR holding couple decide to push forward (against the encouragement of the bishop) with a civil ceremony to be followed by a temple sealing then the bishop is not to impose any sort of punishment or waiting period for the couple’s personal decision in this matter.
DarkJedi wrote:
We want change and want change of things we thought wouldn’t change and now those things are changing. Now we complain about the change.
I don’t think anyone on here believed it wouldn’t change; nor do I see any complaining about the change.
dande48 wrote:
Or like in grade school, when a bully comes up to you and apologizes and hands you a cupcake… it might be a fine cupcake. They might be genuinely sorry. But I wouldn’t blame anyone if their knee-jerk reaction in “Why are you being nice to me? What’s your angle?! What are you trying to pull?!”
:think: It may be more like a bully in grade school that has stopped doing something bad while withholding all apologies.
The situation kind of reminds me of
The Prodigal SonIMO we’re better at forgiving the aggressor than we are at healing the people that were damaged by the aggression.
In the context of the removal of the POX and the removal of the one year ban… people are in that mode where they’re lifting church leaders up on their shoulders, shouting huzzah, and celebrating change… and the news causes people that were hurt by the policy to be reminded of the hurt, which now feels more intense because it is juxtaposed with people celebrating.
When we forgive the policy makers I’d ask that we think of the people the policies hurt. I feel they often get the short end of the stick both coming and going.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:We tend to forget about the younger kids in all of this.
This was one of my double struggles 30+ years ago. Grandparents that I loved could not attend. But I’d grown up with that. My mom, their only child, married in the temple. They didn’t even go to the building and wait.
But when it came time and my 4 year old sister and my dearest baby brother (just 2 years younger than me) couldn’t come – even though I knew it all my life – it stung. We knew it happened for everyone, but somehow on the day “my entire family’ wasn’t in the room that was supposed to mimic all of eternity.
For my siblings alone, if this choice had been available, I would have taken it. Then done the sealing as a date night.
I imagine the scenario where family waits outside while a couple both gets married and sealed inside a temple will continue to play out in the majority of cases where a couple intends to be sealed. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see many orthodox couples opting to have a public civil marriage and later sealing in the temple to accommodate children (younger siblings, cousins, friends, nieces, nephews). Parents and grandparents might be a different story, depending on the relationships and circumstances.
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Sealing-After-Civil-Marriage-Letter.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Sealing-After-Civil-Marriage-Letter.pdf Quote:Where possible, leaders should encourage couples to be both married and sealed in the temple. Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is authorized.
At least the power is now given to the couple getting married to make the determination.
On the topic of shouting huzzah… I think it depends on the person and on personal circumstances.
Had this policy change been made 15 years ago, I could have attended all of the weddings of my kids. That would have been great. For me, personally, and for me alone, I’m OK with the change happening too late simply because I have long-ago come to terms with it and was already at-peace. But for anyone who is still not at-peace with that exclusion, having this announcement arrive just a little too late will not feel great. In fact, I’m sure that for people who just missed a wedding, say last year, this will sting. Celebrate? Of course we can celebrate future beneficiaries, we can celebrate the movement toward better policies, we can celebrate where we are as a people, but it might be too close to home for some to shout for joy regarding their own situation.
Not that long ago, we had a participant here (since gone) who struggled mightily with the upcoming temple marriage he could not attend. We were all able to discuss it with him; performing our mission of support for our fellow FTer when he hit a bad spot that we had maybe already overcome or avoided. I think he came to an OK place about it. But, I’ve been thinking about him today, wondering how he feels having recently gone through what for him was a personal meat grinder. He’s likely glad for others not to have to experience what he did, but I’m sure it opens up some not-so-old wounds, too.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:
Where possible, leaders should encourage couples to be both married and seal in the temple. Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would causeparents or immediate family membersto feel excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is authorized. We anticipate that this will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a
man and a women. So, the main reason appears to be family unity. But only family unity at the immediate level. If the single temple ceremony will cause disharmony among grandparents, or aunts and uncles, then the policy doesn’t apply. I wish it said it was at the preference of the couple for reasons of harmony.
I suspect this will be handled on an individual level, and believe most bishops will happily grant temple recommends to couples who choose to marry civilly for pretty much any reason — as long as they otherwise meet the requirements for a temple recommend. I think they want to unite even extended families to the degree possible and aren’t going to dray the line at “parents only.”
When I got married in 1970, I know I’d have been married civilly first if I’d had that option. I’d have done the whole nine yards — with all the pomp and ceremony possible. I’d have walked down the aisle on my dad’s arm in the most regal setting I could find. I’d have worn a lavishly elegant dress with a long train and Wagner’s Bridal Chorus from Lohengrin would be playing. There’d have been flowers galore and works. Alas, the announcement came 49 years too late for me. Still, I’m really, really happy it came at all.
Yes, I’m not looking at this as all tickles and giggles. I’ve acknowledged it’s here and that’s great. And I’m very glad they did it. I mentioned in another thread that I go back and forth between giving credit when credit is due, and feeling sad about the suffering with these decades-long policies cause, knowing full well such suffering is happening. The answer is again, boundaries. Where possible SET THOSE BOUNDARIES! When you have the power, don’t let them use their considerable influence to put you in positions of misery if you can help it. My wife and I were both saying we wished we’d simply gotten married civilly and waited a year. This was before Facebook, so we would have had to stand up in Fast and Testimony meeting and told everyone we were doing it for family unity reasons. Then, immediately after the civil ceremony, met with our friends to do marriage sealings for the dead to show the world we hadn’t bedded each other or otherwise become unworthy.
I mentioned to my wife that maybe I should tell my non-mem family about the change in policy. She said ‘no’ it will only inflame them further about how unnecessary the policy was. Plus, they care so little about me now anyway I don’t think they’d care.
mom3 wrote:
Well SD – Conflicted or not, you got your wish.As I search online, many people are in your boat. TBM’s whose shelves are cracking big time. I don’t think your alone in your grief. The first conversations my husband and I had about it all centered around parents who didn’t/couldn’t have family with them on their day. For my generation it moved into Grandparents who couldn’t/wouldn’t come.
@Mom3, I’m glad you acknowledged this. I’m sad that other people’s shelves are cracking now. And conflicted and both glad, but really sad this reversal shows the policy for what it was — a bunch of arrogant crap.
Sorry everyone, I know we are supposed to be positive, but it’s the wee hours of the night this evening and I couldn’t sleep over this.
Remember that scripture everyone would quote to objectors to the one year penalty “I come to turn son against father….”? Pretty hollow justification now, isn’t it? With the reversal being touted in the name of family unity?
If I may draw an analogy. I was an insurance broker back in the 80’s in Canada. A left-wing party got control of the provincial parliament with a majority. They were basically like the Democrats but to the power of 10. They thought it would be a cool whim to further their ideals by making it illegal for the auto insurance industry to discriminate between drivers on the basis of age, religion or sex when setting their auto insurance premium quotations. So, no more discounts to Mormons because they were non-drinkers and thus, less of a driving risk. No more billing younger drivers massive premiums due to their reckless driving habits while giving middle-aged responsible adults a discount. No more billing less for women than men due to their safer driving habits. As a broker, I had to attend a ton of seminars by each of the insurance companies we represented in our family insurance business. New software development companies spring up, investing huge sums in creating new auto rating software around the new policy imposed by the socialist government. Their new law turned the industry on its head.
Then, guess what — my Dad came home and told me that on the eve of the effective date of the new policy, the government repealed the legislation — no longer would the insurance companies have to abide by this law. Why they overturned it — not sure, but in the end, it wasn’t required. My Dad was incensed. I said
“Why, are you angry, we don’t have to do it now!”.I still remember him saying:
“SD, the insurance companies have spent MILLIONS OF DOLLARS implementing this new law. Entrepreneurs have lost their life savings creating software to accommodate this new law”.
Sure people were happy everyone could go back to rating policies according to the risk of the drivers. But there was a huge cost to the government’s poorly thought out law. Many people suffered, and there was NO ACCOUNTABILITY on the government for their losses they imposed on that industry.
Shame on them.
So, when people here make disparaging comments about how sad it is that people want a change in policy and then complain about it when it comes, think about that analogy.
There also needs to be time for people grieve over it. Grieve over the power that religion gives egocentric leaders to make arrogant policies that cause the people they are supposed to care about to suffer. Grieve over how the spiritual and familial “millions spent” were for naught — in my case, the loss of family relationships, of being alone with only my struggling marriage to go through this life with — as a result of my family being so ticked at me for reflecting the same arrogance the one year penalty did. And then having to suck it up myself when my daughter got married less than a couple years ago.
It would be nice if people let feelings be raw for a while until we can move past them, and then be truly happy for the next generation.
I say it one more time. It was a stupid policy borne of arrogance and insensitivity, reversed without accountability or apology that again, caused large numbers of people to suffer. It hurt family unity and left many people alone, dashing hopes that their family would ever join or be friendly to the church.
I regret, deeply, I gave the church leaders and policies so much control over my life when I was younger. And I regret that I alienated the only people who are sujpposed to be your only source of constant friendship and support in your life — my family — in favor of this poorly thought-out policy, arrogantly maintained for decades. Glad it’s reversed, but feeling a bit raw now. Let me have my day in court for the moment until myself and others move past this. And let me keep reading about forgiveness and trust in committed relationships in hopes of healing.
dande48 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
We want change and want change of things we thought wouldn’t change and now those things are changing. Now we complain about the change.
I don’t think anyone on here believed it wouldn’t change; nor do I see any complaining about the change.
Maybe you’re reading different posts than I am.
SilentDawning wrote:
It would be nice if people let feelings be raw for a while until we can move past them, and then be truly happy for the next generation.
Yes. Extend the same mercy we ask people to apply to the church to the people that were wronged.
nibbler wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
It would be nice if people let feelings be raw for a while until we can move past them, and then be truly happy for the next generation.
Yes. Extend the same mercy we ask people to apply to the church to the people that were wronged.
I wish we had a like button for this one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.