RfM--why it's a useless site. (Simon will love this!)

[_why me]

And lets be honest here. Daughters and sons can have a ring ceremony after the wedding in the park under a beautiful blue sky and warm sun. And it can be just as meaningful for the parent or relative.

Baloney. Mormons make a big deal about the temple, even in the ring ceremony. It is very clear that the most significant event of the day has been missed.

And the former Mormons made a big deal of the temple too when they were members. When it comes to a temple wedding, it is over in a flash. If one blinks they may miss it, if I remember my ceremony correctly many moons ago. It is not very elaborate. Much better to have a ring ceremony in the park afterwards for all concerned. It lasts longer.

[_why me]

And lets be honest here. Daughters and sons can have a ring ceremony after the wedding in the park under a beautiful blue sky and warm sun. And it can be just as meaningful for the parent or relative.

Most involved parents and relatives would feel that exclusion deeply. It may be an accepted norm within LDS cultures, with minimal offense intended or taken, but it is not normal elsewhere for parents and close family to be excluded from the biggest event in a person's life (so far) and a ring ceremony in which they get an introduction to the church does not make it all better.

And what is your solution? Should the ceremony be open for everyone and the temple lessen its standards. There are probably quite a few people on rfm who would love to film the wedding ceremony and post the ceremony as one big mock and bash while secretly filming other aspects of the temple. Likewise for some who have never been a member of the church.

The temple wedding is not an elaborate ceremony. In the protestant, catholic, jewish tradition it is much more elaborate. A backyard ring ceremony complete with bouquet and reception can work quite well. Non-members most likely wouldn't mind as long as a ceremony took place and likewise for the parents who couldn't attend the temple ceremony. It is all a step in the process when one gets married in the temple.

Also, one can get married in the chapel. True, one has to wait a year for a temple marriage after a chapel marriage but...a year goes by fast.

[_why me]

Ring ceremonies would be great except the church feels they have to dictate how the ring ceremony is conducted. Heaven forbid the parents actually plan a ring ceremony that is better than the temple ceremony. A bishop once informed a friend that the ring ceremony has to be boring and crappy to encourage friends and family to become worthy to see the awesome temple ceremony. LOL.

And I am sure that all bishops recommend the same. :=) Most don't interfere in the couple's ring ceremony. In fact, it would be just the opposite for non-member friends. The beautiful the better for non-members. And no one would become active again because of a crappy ring ceremony. Just the opposite.

[_why me]

Here is the point: RFM is a whinning site. Whinning can be addicting. The more one whines and gets hugs, the more one wants to whine some more. The more angst that is shown, the more hugs one gets.

I would love to post a rant over there and get some hugs. Likewise for postmo. I am sure that it would feel good to get my hugs and love and understanding. But at the end of the day, how I have chosen to live my life is my choice.

I knew the rules of the club when I was an active member of the club. Why bitch and holler now if I were not an active member and could not do what the active members can do?

If I don't volunteer to cut the grass, I can't use the golf course. Such are the rules.

[_angsty]

And what is your solution? Should the ceremony be open for everyone and the temple lessen its standards. There are probably quite a few people on rfm who would love to film the wedding ceremony and post the ceremony as one big mock and bash while secretly filming other aspects of the temple. Likewise for some who have never been a member of the church.

The temple wedding is not an elaborate ceremony. In the protestant, catholic, jewish tradition it is much more elaborate. A backyard ring ceremony complete with bouquet and reception can work quite well. Non-members most likely wouldn't mind as long as a ceremony took place and likewise for the parents who couldn't attend the temple ceremony. It is all a step in the process when one gets married in the temple.

Also, one can get married in the chapel. True, one has to wait a year for a temple marriage after a chapel marriage but...a year goes by fast.

1.) Since what apostates do and think and joke about bothers you so much, why don't you just stay away from RfM entirely? If people want to mock Mormonism and all that it holds sacred, that's their business. If God cares, He'll deal with them. There's no reason to live in defensive paranoia over what perceived enemies of the church might do. If God is running the show, why be concerned? Let Him take care of his business.

2.) I think the most diplomatic, sensitive option would be to allow all couples who so wish, to marry in a civil ceremony first and have a sealing later, waiving the one-year wait period. In the UK, where marriages must be public to be legally recognized, the church allows this already. Here, if you get married civilly and wait the year to get sealed, people assume that it's because there was "unworthiness" involved. That stigma isn't something most people want-- I certainly didn't. Otherwise, I would have opted for a wedding that included my younger siblings, nonmember grandparents, and best friend.

3.) I don't understand the idea that because LDS sealing ceremonies aren't fancy, excluded people shouldn't feel like they're missing out if they don't get to go. You're missing the point. People don't usually attend weddings for the pageantry and entertainment value. People attend weddings because they are such important, transformative life events for the couples getting married. I've been to many, many weddings-- both in temples and out. I've been to LDS, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and atheist weddings. It doesn't matter how elaborate or impressive the ceremony is or isn't. Parents and loved ones want to be there for the one that counts. If the sealing ordinance is the wedding, and it is every bit as important as I was raised to believe it was, and not just an incidental formality, then not being able to attend should be felt as a loss.

If I don't volunteer to cut the grass, I can't use the golf course. Such are the rules.

I'm glad your black and white thinking is so satisfying to you. I can't dismiss my loved ones' feelings that way-- never could.

[_angsty]

Here is the point: RFM is a whinning site. Whinning can be addicting. The more one whines and gets hugs, the more one wants to whine some more. The more angst that is shown, the more hugs one gets.

I would love to post a rant over there and get some hugs. Likewise for postmo. I am sure that it would feel good to get my hugs and love and understanding. But at the end of the day, how I have chosen to live my life is my choice.

I knew the rules of the club when I was an active member of the club. Why bitch and holler now if I were not an active member and could not do what the active members can do?

If I don't volunteer to cut the grass, I can't use the golf course. Such are the rules.

I think it's hilarious that you are basically whining about other people whining.

[_RayAgostini]

Here is the point: RFM is a whinning site. Whinning can be addicting. The more one whines and gets hugs, the more one wants to whine some more. The more angst that is shown, the more hugs one gets.

I would love to post a rant over there and get some hugs. Likewise for postmo. I am sure that it would feel good to get my hugs and love and understanding. But at the end of the day, how I have chosen to live my life is my choice.

I knew the rules of the club when I was an active member of the club. Why bitch and holler now if I were not an active member and could not do what the active members can do?

If I don't volunteer to cut the grass, I can't use the golf course. Such are the rules.

I think there is a very simple "bottom line" assessment to all of this, and I'll try to be as clear as I can in addressing it. Let me give an analogy. What if someone, who never served in the Vietnam War, came out and said that "Vietnam veterans are just whiners"? "They need to get over it! and move on!"

It's very easy to dismiss things we have not personally experienced, as "whining". You have never been in the "shoes" of a true believer, and thus never experienced what it is like to see your whole, entire, complete, and "absolute" worldview fall apart right before your eyes.

You are commenting from the perspective of one who never had to do the "hard yards", and yet, after several years on these forums, you still have no reticence about mounting a podium and lecturing others about what they should do in a position you have never been in.

[_angsty]

Ring ceremonies would be great except the church feels they have to dictate how the ring ceremony is conducted. Heaven forbid the parents actually plan a ring ceremony that is better than the temple ceremony. A bishop once informed a friend that the ring ceremony has to be boring and crappy to encourage friends and family to become worthy to see the awesome temple ceremony. LOL.

And I am sure that all bishops recommend the same. :=) Most don't interfere in the couple's ring ceremony. In fact, it would be just the opposite for non-member friends. The beautiful the better for non-members. And no one would become active again because of a crappy ring ceremony. Just the opposite.

Have you ever been to an LDS ring ceremony? Because what DarkHelmet has described is basically exactly what I've seen at EVERY ring ceremony I've been to. Bishops absolutely do use the ceremony as a platform to discuss the importance of the temple sealing and gospel. When we were meeting with the stake president before getting married, we were specifically instructed that while a ring ceremony would be appropriate, we needed to take care that it was simple enough that it did not detract from the primary importance of the temple ordinance or give the impression that it was a wedding ceremony.

[_Bond James Bond]

Here is the point: RFM is a whinning site. Whinning can be addicting. The more one whines and gets hugs, the more one wants to whine some more. The more angst that is shown, the more hugs one gets.

I would love to post a rant over there and get some hugs. Likewise for postmo. I am sure that it would feel good to get my hugs and love and understanding. But at the end of the day, how I have chosen to live my life is my choice.

I knew the rules of the club when I was an active member of the club. Why bitch and holler now if I were not an active member and could not do what the active members can do?

If I don't volunteer to cut the grass, I can't use the golf course. Such are the rules.

I think it's hilarious that you are basically whining about other people whining.

Whining about stuff that is self evident is why me's way. 80% of his posts should be served with cheese and croissants.

[_why me]

I think it's hilarious that you are basically whining about other people whining.

I am not whining but venting. :=) I am just stating my opinion as I see it on RFM. If I stated a positive about the LDS church on that forum, I would be shown the door after being reported and disagreeing with the new worldview of posters would get me the door fast.

I don't find nothing wrong with venting. It is good to let off the steam. But stream can not become bitter. And this happens quite often on such boards.