Why?

[_stemelbow]

From my limited experience, I have seen LDS people throw it in the face of their non-LDS friends and family. Its as if many an LDS couple getting sealed think of themselves more worthy and better than those who can't attend--often those who love them to death. I can't stand the policy. It needs some definite fixing.

really, what's the point of not allowing a full fledged wedding ceremony for all people before or after the temple sealing?

[_Inconceivable]

I think its important to point out that if a couple decides to have a civil wedding before the temple "sealing" they will be punished for it: they must wait 1 year in order to qualify to be sealed.

When I was a missionary in Australia (28 years ago), Bruce R. McConkie ripped the membership a new one for getting married civily before making the pilgrimage to Aukland, NZ. He warned them that it was a mockery of sacred ordinances and the Mormon God.

As I get older I realize what a humiliating slap in the face it must be for parents to be banned from witnessing/experiencing the most important commitment their children will make in this life. Besides, you would might consider that it is generally the dedication of the parents in how they raised their children that would influence them to make such sacred vows in the first place. This is a mockery of the sacred institution of the family.

[_Buffalo]

It's amazing to me that the Mormon god supposedly won't recognize a marriage in the Mormon hereafter unless you exclude from the marriage people who do not pay tithing, are not Mormon, do not meet the test of TR interview. It is an extremely petty and small god that would turn his head, his heart and his blessings from a couple that is itself 'worthy' for their marriage to be eternal simply because they do the charitable thing and hold their wedding where all that want to can attend. Extremely petty and small god.

We create God in the image of ourselves - which means the LDS general authorities are extremely petty and small.

[_Buffalo]

It's amazing to me that the Mormon god supposedly won't recognize a marriage in the Mormon hereafter unless you exclude from the marriage people who do not pay tithing, are not Mormon, do not meet the test of TR interview. It is an extremely petty and small god that would turn his head, his heart and his blessings from a couple that is itself 'worthy' for their marriage to be eternal simply because they do the charitable thing and hold their wedding where all that want to can attend. Extremely petty and small god.

duplicate

[_Buffalo]

This is a favorite punching bag of the postmos and exmos. And there is a good reason for this. Now that they have left the church or do not have a temple recommend, they bitch and moan about not being able to go to a temple wedding. However, when they were members most had no problems with the exclusion clause about going to the temple or temple weddings. Very few had a problem with cousin Bink not being able to attend the wedding because all knew that cousin Bink was not worthy and that was his decision.

Such is the hypocrisy of postmos and exmos. Get over it. The rules are the rules.

The problem is the church punishes people who choose to have a civil wedding first - but only in America. You can do that outside the US.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey Mr. Inactive barely ever a Mormon. Kiss off. I am active and hold a recommend. I think the policy is awful. At least let a TR holding couple have a civil ceremony before ( or after) so non member families or other non TR holders can celebrate. Drop the over the top control of making such people wait a year.

And by the way in my more TBM days when one of my daughters was temple married and her never mo grandparents could not come it broke my heart. My MIL said " I don't understand why I am not good enough to come to your churches weddings. My church doesn't exclude people from weddings.". I had no answer. I did make sure we did a very good ring ceremony afterwards for the many non member families and friends. But it seemed just less than best for them.

Your hard nose attitude is sickening really. I am glad you are not an active LDS.

I can't take the whining. All knew the rules when they were active LDS. Now that they are inactive they are whining about the temple wedding and its exclusion process. The Mormons have a temple reserved for people deemed worthy to attend. That is the rule. You know it and all here know it. Now that some are inactive or left the church, they still want to go to the temple to see the wedding.

And lets be honest. Many here would spit on the ceremony anyway by finding fault with it and post their feelings on this board or on some other exmo board.

The ring ceremony can be what the bride and groom want it to be. And it can be just as good as attending the temple wedding. And even more beautiful if it is in a beautiful setting.

Did you read what I said? I am not proposing to open the temple. I proposed to let couples do a civil ceremony first and then go to the temple later that day or the next rather than make them wait a year. The LDS Church allows this in countries where it is legally required to have a government marriage. No year wait then, What purpose does the year wait for US couples. It would avoid a lot of heart ache if this option were granted.

I really don't understand it and yes Why Me I felt this way even in my TBM days. I have the issue for all my kids that went or may go to the temple due to the large part of the family that is NOT LDS. I had this issue when I got married. But my way around it was my wife was two months away from being a member for a year. So we had the bishop marry us and everyone could come. Then two months later we went to the temple.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hello,

Why not just have a secular wedding after the sealing? Keep the sealing event private, but explain to the folks it's a Mormon religious rite that must be observed. That's all. I don't really see the reason for people to make this an occasion for negative feelings.

Get sealed.

Have a lavish wedding, afterward.

Too easy.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

Well sure but it is strongly discouraged to do that and no bishop can participate in such an event. So there is still pressure to comply to the Church demands.

[_Themis]

The problem is the church punishes people who choose to have a civil wedding first - but only in America. You can do that outside the US.

Not everywhere. The church will punish members anywhere where the country recognizes the temple marriage. It's only in countries that only recognize marriages done by the state that the church makes an exception to get married by the state first and then go anytime after to the temple. The policy is to keep members paying thithing and such in order to be able to see family married in the temple. Granpa is not to active but will go to church and pay some tithing in order to get a temple recommend to go to Sally's wedding. If Sally could have done a civil marriage first and then go to the temple after, it lets off a lot of members and lost revenue.