DiscussMormonism.com

A family we are friends with has a daughter who is getting married. The family is active, but the daughter has been out of the house for a few years and is marrying an inactive guy. They are planning to become active again, but for whatever reason they aren't getting married in the temple (I assume, being inactive, he isn't considered "worthy".) Not a big deal, we all know how the rules work, and both the family and the daughter are fine with a civil wedding and a temple sealing in the future.

What blew me away was when the mother of the bride said she can't have a big reception because the bishop told her not to. However, her rebellious side is telling her to ignore the bishop's counsel and throw a big bash for her daughter anyway. So I asked the obvious question of why the bishop doesn't want her to have a big reception. She said that parents are discouraged from making a big deal of civil weddings because the goal should be temple weddings. If her unmarried friends, young women in the ward, and younger siblings see her having a big fun CIVIL wedding, it sets a bad example. The mother of the bride was very understanding of the bishop's concerns, and although she wants a big blowout, she will tone it down for the bishop. I didn't say anything because it wasn't really my place, and besides I was basically speechless anyway. This is her oldest daughter. What mother would take this advice? Has anyone heard of this? Is this something from SLC, or is this a bishop going over the line on his own? Do bishops hold the keys of planning weddings?

It sounds like the bishop is pulling some maveriky wedding-nazi s*** on your friend. If somebody's willing to pay for it, they should get whatever party they want. What's next -- no birthday party for 8 year olds who haven't been baptized yet? Or for 16 year olds who aren't yet Eagle Scouts?

I think it depends.

Is the mother planning on throwing the reception in the church? If so, being private property, the bishop can require whatever he wants.

Is she throwing the reception someplace else, like her backyard or something? If so, then the bishop can't say squat.

So, if she wants a big bash, the solution is simple: Have it somewhere other than the church.

I have to relate a story here, true too, about a missionary who served in my area. When he got off his mission and went home, he didn't like his new bishop. I know all this because I remained in snail-mail contact with him after his mission. He knew of my doubts and heresies, and in one letter to him I wrote that I just couldn't believe in things like talking asses.

He replied that he knew, without any doubt, that jack-asses can talk. "My bishop", he wrote, "is conclusive evidence of that."

My youngest son was married last winter in the chapel of our ward building. We started out in the Relief Society room, but so many people came, the bishop moved it to the chapel, rather than have people standing in the hallway with the doors open into the Relief Society room. The reception was huge, hundreds of people came. (We nearly ran out of cake!)

At no point in this process did the bishop ever ever make any sort of comment about him being married in the church instead of the temple, or of us having a small reception instead of the big bash it was. He was most supportive all the way.

Of course, I'd have ignored him anyway, but still... he never said any such thing. That might be a Utah thing... or more likely, a bishop overstepping his stewardship (like we've never heard THAT before).

OP

What blew me away was when the mother of the bride said she can't have a big reception because the bishop told her not to. However, her rebellious side is telling her to ignore the bishop's counsel and throw a big bash for her daughter anyway. So I asked the obvious question of why the bishop doesn't want her to have a big reception. She said that parents are discouraged from making a big deal of civil weddings because the goal should be temple weddings. If her unmarried friends, young women in the ward, and younger siblings see her having a big fun CIVIL wedding, it sets a bad example. The mother of the bride was very understanding of the bishop's concerns, and although she wants a big blowout, she will tone it down for the bishop.

As an outsider/onlooker, yes, I've heard of this. I'm afraid I'm going to be blunt here. We (the collective we) hope that this beloved daughter gets one marriage and one wedding day. That the church via the Bishop would choose to resort to coercion by humiliating or downgrading the union-about-to-be is unrighteous at best.

Were I this LDS mother, I would do whatever my daughter's heart desired that was within my financial ability to provide.

The goal needn't be a temple wedding, though I understand why this is thought/believed to be so. The goal should be a healthy and long lasting union of two people who ideally would construct a long life together.

LDS folks would do well to overcome their fear of the bishop's scorecard (the less power the LDS community gives to this, the less power it has over them) and do as they see fit for their children.

I think the bish is being way to controlling. Her daughter is getting married. The Mother should politely tell the bish "Thanks for your suggestions bish" and then do whatever she feels is best for her daughter and family. Oh and the daughter ought to have some say in this as should the groom. Life happens. It is not all centered around the LDS Church and temple weddings. Sheeesh!!!

harmony wrote:My youngest son was married last winter in the chapel of our ward building. We started out in the Relief Society room, but so many people came, the bishop moved it to the chapel, rather than have people standing in the hallway with the doors open into the Relief Society room. The reception was huge, hundreds of people came. (We nearly ran out of cake!)

At no point in this process did the bishop ever ever make any sort of comment about him being married in the church instead of the temple, or of us having a small reception instead of the big bash it was. He was most supportive all the way.

Of course, I'd have ignored him anyway, but still... he never said any such thing. That might be a Utah thing... or more likely, a bishop overstepping his stewardship (like we've never heard THAT before).

You have a good bish. Be grateful. He did what is appropriate.

Jason Bourne wrote:I think the bish is being way to controlling. Her daughter is getting married. The Mother should politely tell the bish "Thanks for your suggestions bish" and then do whatever she feels is best for her daughter and family. Oh and the daughter ought to have some say in this as should the groom. Life happens. It is not all centered around the LDS Church and temple weddings. Sheeesh!!!

But for some people, Jason, life is all centered around the LDS Church and temple weddings. Surely you acknowledge that there are Bishop's who by some standards could be described as a little to interfering and "militant" in their delivery?

I know there are Pastor's who fit into that category.

But for some people, Jason, life is all centered around the LDS Church and temple weddings. Surely you acknowledge that there are Bishop's who by some standards could be described as a little to interfering and "militant" in their delivery?

I know there are Pastor's who fit into that category.

Oh sure. There are lots of controlling LDS Church leaders who over impose their will and in my opinion they fly in the face of counsel given in D&C 121. My personal motto when I have had leadership positions is that I really only had little authority over people and then only as much as someone really gave in their life. Oh sure I had authority in many ecclesiastical duties and responsibilities. But I am talking about personal lives. And I knew at times some people would give me lots of authority over them and some would give me little or none. For those who gave me lots because of their own personal faith and feelings about the church and church leadership I think avoiding unrighteous dominion is the prudent course to take.