It's not like his daughters are suddenly getting married.
He knows full well what he must do to get that pass to go.
Watching his daughters get married does not mean enough to him, otherwise he would get off his lazy ass, reactivate and pay 10% on at least his net earnings.
Put up or STFU why me.
If it's not asking to much, I will remain unchanged and very firm on my last contribution to why me (That I am very sorry and deeply saddened to learn that he will not be at his daughter's wedding) by the way: That would be the very same response/reaction/opinion/suggestion that I would lend anyone on the planet who suggested that they would not be at their daughter's/son's wedding. (No matter the reason offered)
why me wrote:However, there is nothing wrong with having a civil ceremony after the temple wedding. No problem at all. And certainly all can attend such a wedding. Or one can get married in the LDS meeting house and wait a year before going to the temple. No problem.
Or one can have an exchange of rings ceremony after the temple wedding. No problem. It is really up to the bride and groom. Besides, the temple wedding is so quick, that it is nothing to brag about. It is in and out if I remember correctly.
Ring ceremonies are acceptable to the Church but no vows are to be exchanged and it is not to look like a wedding. And no LDS official could or would do a civil ceremony after the sealing because the church frowns on it. The solution is let worthy couples do a wedding before then get sealed later that day and drop the punitive one year delay in sealing.
It's not like his daughters are suddenly getting married.
He knows full well what he must do to get that pass to go.
Watching his daughters get married does not mean enough to him, otherwise he would get off his lazy ass, reactivate and pay 10% on at least his net earnings.
Put up or STFU why me.
If it's not asking to much, I will remain unchanged and very firm on my last contribution to why me (That I am very sorry and deeply saddened to learn that he will not be at his daughter's wedding) by the way: That would be the very same response/reaction/opinion/suggestion that I would lend anyone on the planet who suggested that they would not be at their daughter's/son's wedding. (No matter the reason offered)
Peace, Ceeboo
A very nice gesture ceeboo. But really a no-brainer.
This is a monument to the hypocrisy that why-me is. He does not value what his own daughters believe in, YET he defends it here to a bunch of strangers???
Seriously, if there was a city park named hypocrite park, there would be a massive statue of why-me in the center.
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
why me wrote:However, there is nothing wrong with having a civil ceremony after the temple wedding. No problem at all. And certainly all can attend such a wedding. Or one can get married in the LDS meeting house and wait a year before going to the temple. No problem.
Or one can have an exchange of rings ceremony after the temple wedding. No problem. It is really up to the bride and groom. Besides, the temple wedding is so quick, that it is nothing to brag about. It is in and out if I remember correctly.
Ring ceremonies are acceptable to the Church but no vows are to be exchanged and it is not to look like a wedding. And no LDS official could or would do a civil ceremony after the sealing because the church frowns on it. The solution is let worthy couples do a wedding before then get sealed later that day and drop the punitive one year delay in sealing.
Exactly.
The temple recommend is the pry bar which LDS Inc uses to open the wallets of it's unwitting members.
It is a cattle prod to the non members and in-actives.
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
Here, THE marriage is the civil one. It is typically committed in special rooms of the mayor's office, mostly in a beautiful, uplifting environment. This is the official, legal step.
Before or after this official marriage, the couple may/can marry in one - or in all - of 2473 churches/religions/sects/groups available. The government doesn't care. It doesn't count for them.
Hungarian Mormons marry in the civil offices where can take part everybody. Then, weeks or months later, they can travel to Freiberg or to Munich if they have the financial background to do. Many of them haven't.
If Your government give the right to every preacher or wizard to perform a marriage, then there may be side effects.
by the way Are there any centralized recording of the marriages performed under any denomination? For example can one marry with seven wives in different sects (and in different states...) - without getting known?
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
sock puppet wrote:I bitched about the temple wedding exclusion issue when I was TBM. It never squared with focus on family that the LDS claim.
Interesting. I took this exclusion thing as one of those issues that seems a little distasteful but it must be accepted anyway. It went in the drawer with my Kill the Amalekites issue. It just had to be.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
why me wrote:However, there is nothing wrong with having a civil ceremony after the temple wedding. No problem at all. And certainly all can attend such a wedding. Or one can get married in the LDS meeting house and wait a year before going to the temple. No problem.
Or one can have an exchange of rings ceremony after the temple wedding. No problem. It is really up to the bride and groom. Besides, the temple wedding is so quick, that it is nothing to brag about. It is in and out if I remember correctly.
You remember correctly. Most Mormons and outsiders think that the endowment is the wedding ceremony. It is not. The actual ceremony is the couple kneeling opposite each other over a padded "altar". And it is just a quick prayer and it's over. Just like the consummation, wham bam thank you maam. "It only took a minute, didn't feel a thing."
So if the couple already have there endowments there is no need to do it again to get married in the temple. BUT the practice is for them and all attending to go through the endowment again for some dead people and then have the 1 minute marriage ceremony. Beyond weird.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
BUT the practice is for them and all attending to go through the endowment again for some dead people and then have the 1 minute marriage ceremony.
This is rarely done anymore. Even 16 years ago it was encouraged to do the endowment on a different day than the wedding (for first timers). For previous endowed couples the guests wait while they do a quick veil ceremony. Our paperwork from the temple specified this. I've never been to a temple wedding where an endowment was done immediately prior to the sealing ceremony.
They also discourage anyone but the couple to be in temple white.
YMMV
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
BUT the practice is for them and all attending to go through the endowment again for some dead people and then have the 1 minute marriage ceremony.
This is rarely done anymore. Even 16 years ago it was encouraged to do the endowment on a different day than the wedding (for first timers). For previous endowed couples the guests wait while they do a quick veil ceremony. Our paperwork from the temple specified this. I've never been to a temple wedding where an endowment was done immediately prior to the sealing ceremony.
They also discourage anyone but the couple to be in temple white.
YMMV
Yes, they have done away with the "all white wedding", and probably a good move.
When I was married it was an "all white wedding".
It was the worst costume party that I ever did attend.
Talk about feeling like a total cult member looking around with all of the women's faces veiled and crooked damned baker's hats on all the men.
And those stupid aprons.. GOD!
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
BUT the practice is for them and all attending to go through the endowment again for some dead people and then have the 1 minute marriage ceremony.
This is rarely done anymore. Even 16 years ago it was encouraged to do the endowment on a different day than the wedding (for first timers). For previous endowed couples the guests wait while they do a quick veil ceremony. Our paperwork from the temple specified this. I've never been to a temple wedding where an endowment was done immediately prior to the sealing ceremony.
They also discourage anyone but the couple to be in temple white.
YMMV
Thanx for the update my last time was 1988 and it was the practice then.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015