- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As I said earlier, we did have a ceremony a few days after our wedding, at the church, and in the presence of our ward leaders and SP (who spoke). The SP was encouraging of the whole idea and a ready participant, and there was no opposition at the ward level, either. So, is this discouragement of a ring ceremony rooted in an old (or current?) manual or something? Or maybe it was one of those off handed remarks by a GA that he now wishes he didn’t say? Honestly I haven’t encountered it, but a wedding is something I really only want to do once in my life and I don’t really pay much attention to what others are doing as far as weddings go. A ring ceremony is NOT the same thing to nonmembers or even to members. You are already married at that point. What is the point of showing people “hey we just took our rings off so you non temple people can watch us put them back on for no reason, kind if like if we were doing dishes together.” It is not even close to the cultural significance that the actual ceremony represents. If this issue realy has been on the table for 10 years then I realy can’t help but believe that this is the church’s way of getting members to toe the line and pay tithing/other temple questions. The other main reason I would prefer civil marriage followed by temple sealing is exactly because of the higher spiritual significance it would add to sealings. baldzach wrote:Ring ceremonies (in addition to, or after a temple wedding) are discouraged? That must be new(-ish).
In 2002, when my sister got married in the temple, her husband’s non-LDS (or inactive, not sure which) family obviously couldn’t participate in the sealing inside the temple, but they had a ring ceremony just before the reception that was presided over by the same man who sealed them, my uncle — a GA, then in the 70 Presidency, now a Q12.
Can’t help but notice that there are different rules for different folks. (ETA: Maybe this was in a time when ring ceremonies were allowed…. I don’t know.)
Dax wrote:A ring ceremony is NOT the same thing to nonmembers or even to members. You are already married at that point. What is the point of showing people “hey we just took our rings off so you non temple people can watch us put them back on for no reason, kind if like if we were doing dishes together.” It is not even close to the cultural significance that the actual ceremony represents. If this issue realy has been on the table for 10 years then I realy can’t help but believe that this is the church’s way of getting members to toe the line and pay tithing/other temple questions.
Isn’t the exchange of rings in the temple an add-on that has no real place or significance in the (fairly perfunctory) sealing itself?
I see no problem with waiting a year to go to the temple. In fact I think everyone should get married civilly then in a year they can get sealed if they desire. Pushing people into a temple marriage first seems the problem to me. I think the sealing a year later would actually have more meaning. I think of my three children that married in the temple. Each one of them had an old man rambling on hardly making sense. All of them were an uncomfortable ceremony. Let people get married how they wish and really let it be a special occasion. Who cares if you have to wait a year or 5 years.
I teach my family (kids) to see both sides of the temple marriage issue. I have explained the impact it had on my non-member family and the pros and cons. The way things are going, it’s likely I will have to wait outside the temple for my daughter. Cadence wrote:I see no problem with waiting a year to go to the temple. In fact I think everyone should get married civilly then in a year they can get sealed if they desire. Pushing people into a temple marriage first seems the problem to me. I think the sealing a year later would actually have more meaning.
Good point.
I do know however, some couples refuse to have sex until the sealing. Not sure how that would work for a year though!
Another “problem” you could run into with a policy of waiting a year for everyone is that I imagine most people are going to want to be sealed on the same day as their civil marriage. What happens when January 28th falls on a Sunday/Monday next year? What if the temple is closed for maintenance a year later? People would have to settle for their less than ideal anniversary situation of having two anniversaries that are days apart… January 27 and January 28, for example instead of having just the one date. A small thing when compared with the other problems mentioned in the thread, but there it is. I still prefer the method of a civil marriage and a temple sealing on the same day, like they currently do in other countries.
This particular rule is one of my biggest pet-peeves where Church-policies are concerned. We are actually punishing young couples for honoring their non-member parents when we say, “Okay, so go ahead and get married civilly, if it makes you happy. But you won’t get to have your marriage sealed for a year afterwards.” How can the Church be so lacking in compassion, especially when it comes to family unity. If I were the parent who was not able to watch my son or daughter be married, that would pretty much make squelch any interest I may have otherwise had in investigating the Church further. We’re talking out of both sides of our mouth when we say that our focus is on families but then inflict the kind of guilt we do on kids who just want to show respect for their families who can’t attend the sealing. I can’t even begin to say how strongly I feel about this policy. Quote:We’re talking out of both sides of our mouth when we say that our focus is on families but then inflict the kind of guilt we do on kids who just want to show respect for their families who can’t attend the sealing.
That, in a nutshell, is the largest reason I would love to see the waiting period eliminated world-wide. It simply isn’t “family friendly” or respectful of family who believe differently.
Amen… I want to add, that after I came to my senses 20 years after getting married about how incredibly insensitive it was to my non-member parents and family to shut them out of my wedding — I apologized to my whole family.
However, by that time, the fact that I was a Mormon in what they considered an exclusionary, extracting, cultish religion had been firmly entrenched in their minds. The wedding was the trigger, and it had opened the doors to all kinds of negativity as they shared it with their Evangelical friends, who then used my parent’s dissatisfaction to heigthen their exposure to anti-Mormon ideas. Now they see the wedding as only part of the whole Mormon experience their tainted son has embraced. So any amount of apology regarding the wedding is like removing a grain of sand from the beach and considering the excavation complete.
So, the apology didn’t matter very much.
But I know for a fact the one-year waiting period, and my desire to be a good Mormon/Discipline/Mormon was a gateway experience for my non-mem family’s anti-Mormonism.
I hope and pray the time comes when the church leaders come to their senses on this one and eradicate their egocentric policy from our General Handbook of Instructions or whereever it exists.
Late to the party. My opinion….yes.
This policy is going to be changed. Whether its because God changed his mind, or from political/social pressure stemming from the TP lawsuit… it is going to be changed.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I sure hope you are right Cwald. I feel SO adamantly upset by this unnecessary policy, and yes, I consider it unrighteousness dominion. I had the goal for temple marriage. My fiancĂ© and I struggled to keep our hands off of each other. We would repent and talk to the bishop. We would be good for a few weeks and slip again. After a time, we just decided to get married civilly. It was the best thing we ever did. First, we did not have to lie to get a tr. I believe many young couples do that. Second, we had a year to figure things out. Third, the pressure was gone. Nobody expected anything of us at that point. Fourth, my wife got to be sexy for one more year. That may sound superficial but for a virgin newlywed it was important. Finally, a year later, we were sealed and it was much more meaningful. It was about me and my wife. There were just close family and friends. So, I guess I don’t see it as unrighteous dominion. I see it as a church letting couples get to know each other. Where i see some of it is the not allowing the civil ceremony for non member family.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.