- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If any of my comments came across as dismissive or disparaging, I apologize. That absolutely wasn’t my intent. I get the grief. My own family has been impacted by it to a degree. One of my adult sons and our teenage daughter can’t attend my daughter’s sealing tomorrow. If this change had been made a few months ago, my daughter probably would have chosen to be married civilly first and then sealed. The change has been announced, but my family STILL is being impacted tomorrow by the old policy.
Am I upset? Yes, to a degree. Am I sad? Absolutely. However, I have wanted this change for a long time. So has everyone here. All I am saying is that I think it is important to acknowledge that, even with the grief. I refuse to be bitter about it, even though it impacts my family tomorrow.
My joy about the change is greater than my sorrow about two of my kids not being able to attend their sister’s wedding tomorrow. I mean no disparagement or judgment whatsoever in saying that. I simply have read angry, bitter, condemning responses elsewhere, and that saddens me.
Thanks Curt. The price an organization pays for reversing bad policies is often a heightened sense by its members of being a casualty of the past at the time of reversal. Of course, if you don’t reverse the policies, then the damage continues. There has to be a turning point where the organization takes the hit if they care about the future. We’re taking that hit right now.
I believe this casualty syndrome is something that will fade away eventually and the hurt will dull eventually. People deserve a certain period of time to experience whatever emotion the gash dictates and then move on. We are in the gash period right now.
Right now my sadness and yes, anger about this policy is more prevalent than my joy for future people getting married. But I trust that will change as time heals most wounds. And it’s never a good thing to feel persistent negative emotion.
On a weird, positive note — this reversal further justifies Brian Johnson’s comment about “being on your own clock”. Bad policies do happen, and we will likely see more in the future, in spite of the current prophet’s apparent affinity for a purer, less harsh approach to religion. There will be new leaders, misguided zeal, and fear to guide bad policies. Hopefully not too many. But self-direction is the antidote for bad policy.
Further, this discontinuation only justifies the idea that our own sense of what is right and wrong must prevail, as it’s ourselves with whom we must ultimately live. The reversal of this policy, like the priesthood ban, and plural marriage only underscores that the Lord DOESN’T remove prophets who lead their people astray, and that justifies my current program of maximizing personal joy — wholesome joy — based on worshipping according to my personal needs and conscience. Prophets should be listened to, and considered, but what they say isn’t
alwaysright. And history has shown past prophets are more than willing to let past, destructive policies persist, even when in error. Tradition can blind them at times. And last of all, I have a son who is not married, and if he chooses the temple (he may not, and that is fine too), then at least there will be a final balm to spray on the wound.
I had a question, I’d like to put out there: How often do you think this “new policy” will be put into effect? It’s great to have that option available. There are several weddings I would’ve loved to attend. But I wonder if the emphasis on temple marriage over civil is far too strong. Despite the policy change, I wonder if most members would’ve still opted for only the temple ceremony; it’s definitely now a chance to “one-up” the “less-faithful”, which is often a problem I see in the membership. It still seems like Bishops will strongly encourage only a temple ceremony, though without the threat of penalty. Plus, adding an additional “wedding” onto the occasion, seems like both an added stress and added expense to an already expensive and stressful day.
Would I have felt worse, if it was my family which “excluded” me, rather than the Church? The policy has changed, but the doctrine remains the same. I think I would’ve still been left alone on the temple grounds.
I’ve deliberately waited for this change to marinate a bit before I commented anywhere. I’m coming down in the camp that basically is thankful for the change, but why did this take so dang long???? I’m also very grateful that this change was made. I can’t emphasize that enough. One of my biggest regrets now (I didn’t care 25 years ago) was that 95% of my wife’s family could not attend our wedding. I have since been to many non-LDS weddings in their family, and they are so much more festive and enjoyable that mine ever was. They are truly good people and they have never pointed the finger at us for excluding them. Most of them grew up Catholic in Provo, Utah. They get it.
I’m grateful for my own sake as well. As a non-TR holding member, I will now be able to attend the weddings of my children. This takes some pressure off of my mixed faith marriage, since I will not be excluded from one of the biggest events in my children’s lives.
One thing that stood out for me was the following:
Quote:The Church asks that these civil marriage ceremonies be simple and dignified.
Even with this announcement the church has to tell us what to do. I get where this is coming from, but it seems like the church always has to take the stance that we can’t govern ourselves and need guidance in all things. Like missionary farewells or homecomings, this seems like an effort to suck the pageantry and “fun” out of significant life events. I’ll admit I’m probably reading too much into this.
Finally, in validation to those that are hurt by this change, for whatever reason, I get it. I feel that way too. I think it would go a long way if the church would simply apologize, or even just acknowledge that some of these
policies(emphasis mine) have been hurtful and divisive. We talked about this very concept the other night in what I call my “Mormon’s Anonymous” support group. If the church practiced what it taught about repentance, there would be much less fear and anger surrounding changes like this. This was a good change. Keep them coming, please.
dande48 wrote:
I had a question, I’d like to put out there: How often do you think this “new policy” will be put into effect?It’s great to have that option available. There are several weddings I would’ve loved to attend. But I wonder if the emphasis on temple marriage over civil is far too strong. Despite the policy change, I wonder if most members would’ve still opted for only the temple ceremony; it’s definitely now a chance to “one-up” the “less-faithful”, which is often a problem I see in the membership. It still seems like Bishops will strongly encourage only a temple ceremony, though without the threat of penalty. Plus, adding an additional “wedding” onto the occasion, seems like both an added stress and added expense to an already expensive and stressful day.
Would I have felt worse, if it was my family which “excluded” me, rather than the Church? The policy has changed, but the doctrine remains the same. I think I would’ve still been left alone on the temple grounds.
I thought about this as I reflected on being married for 12 years. Both sets of parents were active temple goers, and all sets of grandparents were not involved. I would have absolutely taken advantage of getting married civilly first.
a) I had 7 siblings wait outside for me when I got married – was a headache to arrange babysitting for and such. It felt anti-climatic for them and for me – they couldn’t be there at the experience, just got to be in pictures.
b) Finding a beautiful wedding dress that works for garments and doesn’t look dumb with the long sleeved temple style is almost impossible.
c) It was too much to put our wedding day and our sealing day on the same day. I like the idea of it being a special date night…
For me, the elephant in the room is that the temple sealing itself is just so disappointing. It’s very business-like and cold, and when I went, included sexist inequalities in what was said. I don’t remember a word of what the sealer said, who was a person unknown to me and that I had no personal connection to at all, but having been to other sealings, I’m just glad he didn’t go on some old-man sexist soliloquy about gender roles like so many of these guys do. The sealing feels more impersonal, more like something that happens to you rather than something that you choose to do, that I would have found a court house registry more meaningful. hawkgrrrl wrote:
For me, the elephant in the room is that the temple sealing itself is just so disappointing. It’s very business-like and cold, and when I went, included sexist inequalities in what was said. I don’t remember a word of what the sealer said, who was a person unknown to me and that I had no personal connection to at all, but having been to other sealings, I’m just glad he didn’t go on some old-man sexist soliloquy about gender roles like so many of these guys do. The sealing feels more impersonal, more like something that happens to you rather than something that you choose to do, that I would have found a court house registry more meaningful.
It’s been a long time since I was in one of these ceremonies. But I can compare it to my sister’s non-mem wedding. It was so much more personal and moving than the rote prayer of the sealing.
SilentDawning wrote:
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?
In case it comes up again for something else: my favorite way to read this is as
descriptiverather than prescriptive. The sword Jesus “brought” was already in the hands of the people. In particular, for centuries, the Pharisees had used disgust and shame to regulate their behavior to try to guarantee God’s grace, because they were terrified they wouldn’t measure up and he would let them be conquered again. How would such fear cause them to respond to their family members forsaking their traditions? Take up your disgust and shame, brothers! Defend! Attack! Anyway, here’s my perspective on the policy change, as someone who has decidedly left the church: it’s complicated.
I’ve felt relieved rather than happy. I live in the UK, so the old policy had been less likely to affect me – though one child is moving back to the US, and others might follow. For me, it’s more symbolic. It lifts an emotional burden somewhat.
There’s still a burden, though. There’s somewhat less discrimination now, and a little less prejudice. A lot of both will remain for a long time.
My wife is relieved enough to be happy about the change. The first time she was more upset about some aspect of the church than I was, it was about the old policy.
I can’t work out what the change means. Does it indicate compassion for active, believing members? Certainly. Compassion for active members who are “unworthy”? It’s very likely. Compassion for people like me? Hmm. We’re existentially scary, and are spoken of more as cautionary tales than anything else, but compassion is a definite possibility. Maybe the change is a de-fanging of anti-Mormon rhetoric. Maybe it’s a step toward protecting the temple from same-sex marriage. Maybe the old policy bothered most church leaders for a long time, but they had to wait for some apostles to age out.
Maybe all of it. It’s complicated on the other side, too.
I haven’t been angry, but I really do understand the anger. It makes me sad that the policy change has dredged up hurt for so many people all at once.
I’m relieved on behalf of believers who faithfully excluded family, who have had to bury their feelings as their stories were steamrolled by the official narrative.
I’m looking forward to seeing photos of weddings that everyone can attend.
I’m not looking forward to the early growing pains, as early affectees (like Curt’s family) have to decide between excluding family members and scrambling to change plans.
I appreciate the guidance to keep civil weddings simple. Temple weddings have put soft pressure against extravagance and one-upsmanship. A bishop’s counsel can do the same.
I don’t like the word “authorized” and I find exegesis that skirts around it to be wishful thinking at best. But realistic expectations tend to turn into reality.
I’ve noticed more believers talking about past hurts. While the announcement doesn’t contain an apology, it makes some space for grieving together by implicitly acknowledging that the old policy caused pain. Members are moving into this space. This is a good thing.
There’s probably more I’m forgetting. It’s complicated.
I’m really excited for this change for two main reasons. 1) It will likely impact me as children, siblings, in-laws, nieces, etc get married and hopefully I can participate in a civil ceremony as I have no intention of renewing my recommend anytime soon.
2) I hope more and more LDS couples can experience the joy and excitement of a civil marriage celebration. As others have pointed out, the temple ceremony is kind of dull, impersonal, and somewhat anti-climactic. I get the joy of eternal sealing, but there is something to be said for a little more “pomp and circumstance” for something as joyous as a wedding. I hope more couples can celebrate and feel the special joy that should accompany this day beyond what is offered in the temple itself.
I’m so happy about this change. It’s been my dream to have a civil wedding, (even before my faith crisis) but I didn’t feel like I could until now.
Now couples can choose how many people they want to invite or none at all to their sealing. Instead, they can invite most of their friends and family to a wedding ceremony.
Rumin8 wrote:Quote:The Church asks that these civil marriage ceremonies be simple and dignified.
Even with this announcement the church has to tell us what to do. I get where this is coming from, but it seems like the church always has to take the stance that we can’t govern ourselves and need guidance in all things. Like missionary farewells or homecomings, this seems like an effort to suck the pageantry and “fun” out of significant life events. I’ll admit I’m probably reading too much into this.
I don’t think you’re reading too much into this at all. It seems like whenever the church makes a change, they have to have some sort of control over the members and I think it’s because the church is afraid if they let members govern themselves, that might cause some of them to have doubts.
My brother got married on the beach in St Thomas on what he called their “wedding cruise” he and his then fiancé invited friends and family to join them. Any who could were welcome. They did this because she was previously married, widowed, and did not want to cancel her sealing to her first husband for various reasons (all of them good ones). They arranged for the local branch president to marry them, rented a venue for a few hours for a wedding lunch, and then we got back on the ship. Of my three siblings wedding ceremonies, it was by far the one I remember and appreciate the most.
I’m excited for couples who will now get to experience weddings like this without the pressure or stigma of a non-temple wedding.
After a period of feeling pretty intense about this change in policy, the emotion has passed for me. I actually forgot about it until I saw this thread heading a few minutes ago. Happy for the change in policy now. Glad that at least a grandchild, maybe, or my son won’t be bound by the old policy. I also have a whole whack of nieces and nephews close to being married, probably in my lifetime if health and accidents don’t get me.
This means I can live my life even better as a boundary-setting Mormon and not have to sit out on steps like I did in weddings past — assuming others go for a civil first wedding.
I
t will be interesting to see what gives in the future. Do you think it will become a cultural badge to do the civil and temple wedding on the same day, and that people who do it separately will be considered “second class”, kind of like how people are sort of disenfranchised if they didn’t serve a mission? Or will it become acceptable either way — a non-issue?LOVE this change, but this idea here… “The Church asks for a simple ceremony”
Why do they think that they have that kind of power and can make that request??
I feel like a marriage ceremony is OUTSIDE of their reach — or at least, it should be. Kind of like how The Church stopped asking about oral sex in TR interviews (that was before my time). Some things need to be outside of the scope of The Church.
Bishops have a script that they must follow for wedding ceremonies.
I wonder if we will see couples asking their local protestant church leaders to conduct the ceremony and allow script changes.
In my state, couples can marry each other themselves…like, we don’t need clergy to do it. I’d like to see a ceremony like that!
:clap: My husband is bishop – I asked if he read the letter to mean that he has power to withhold authorization for a separate marriage/sealing.
He doesn’t read it that way, but “someone” is supposed to have that authority. Who?
Yesterday (Mother’s Day) we did the missionary call, which has lost a bit of it’s luster because it wasn’t 5 months since we last talked to him (but it was still great). It was a video call and all the children were on from their various locations. I had sent our missionary a link to the announcement about the policy change and he brought it up. To my utter and great surprise my wife said, “Yeah, I wish this happened before we got married because we would have done it so our families could see us get married.” Her orthodox ship has turned of late, but this one still caught me by surprise. The kids are all in favor, BTW, and the missionary son is in a location where there is no readily accessible temple so he said it doesn’t really change much for them anyway. QuestionAbound wrote:
LOVE this change, but this idea here…“The Church asks for a simple ceremony”
I had similar thoughts. They need to get out of the civil marriage business, and I like the analogy with oral sex.
Now, I do get it — what if couples start writing vows for the civil ceremony? This is common in civil weddings I’ve attended. The “vows” (the closest word we have in our Mormon sealing is ‘covenant’) could conflict with the temple ceremony, or at least, represent a loss of control by the LDS leadership over what the couple agree to. And with the church’s willingness to tear apart non-member/mem families because the civil wedding “cheapens the temple ceremony” in the past, I could see them being really, really concerned about this.
The vows were the most spiritual part of my sister’s wedding I could remember…
Quote:Why do they think that they have that kind of power and can make that request??
I feel like a marriage ceremony is OUTSIDE of their reach — or at least, it should be. Kind of like how The Church stopped asking about oral sex in TR interviews (that was before my time). Some things need to be outside of the scope of The Church.
I partly get their concern about the civil ceremony given how highly held the temple ceremony is. I hope we don’t run into uber-orthodox Bishop’s getting too involved in the civil side of things, nonetheless.
Quote:I wonder if we will see couples asking their local protestant church leaders to conduct the ceremony and allow script changes.
I could see a bride or groom considering this if their non-mem side of the family belongs to one of these other religions and suggests it. The problem I see is that it’s tacit acknowledgement of their “priesthood authority” even if they are only performing a civil/for-time wedding.
I know when I was in my 20’s I lacked judgment in these matters. After 5 years, feeling really badly that I shut my family out of the experience, I considered a wedding vow renewal for all to attend when we were on vacation. Anyway, my point is that I’m sure the local leadership would discourage this kind of “vow” renewal because that’s supposed to happen in the temple when you do sealing for the dead.
But what they don’t know won’t hurt them, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.