She said that parents are discouraged from making a big deal of civil weddings because the goal should be temple weddings.
Not a bad idea.
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.
I agree that civil wedding should be discouraged and wouldn't be suprised if that is the typical counsel.
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.
That someone would take the advice? Why?
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?
However, I think you're probably making it all up. lol
Certainly all active believing LDS want a temple marriage for their kids and would prefer it. And the LDS leaders prefer it too. Nobody said otherwise. But when it does not happen a bishop that imposes himself like this one seems to be over stepping. He can still perform a wedding and there can be a wonderful reception for friends and family. It does not have to be some shameful event like it seems this bishop is pushing. Really it seems the be since they are doing something less than best they should hide it, be quiet about it, not celebrate at all and so on. Maybe the couple should just elope and not tell anyone at all......
Certainly all active believing LDS want a temple marriage for their kids and would prefer it. And the LDS leaders prefer it too. Nobody said otherwise. But when it does not happen a bishop that imposes himself like this one seems to be over stepping. He can still perform a wedding and there can be a wonderful reception for friends and family. It does not have to be some shameful event like it seems this bishop is pushing. Really it seems the be since they are doing something less than best they should hide it, be quiet about it, not celebrate at all and so on. Maybe the couple should just elope and not tell anyone at all......
My opinion is... just be glad she's not pregnant! Celebrate to the max!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Certainly all active believing LDS want a temple marriage for their kids and would prefer it. And the LDS leaders prefer it too. Nobody said otherwise. But when it does not happen a bishop that imposes himself like this one seems to be over stepping. He can still perform a wedding and there can be a wonderful reception for friends and family. It does not have to be some shameful event like it seems this bishop is pushing. Really it seems the be since they are doing something less than best they should hide it, be quiet about it, not celebrate at all and so on. Maybe the couple should just elope and not tell anyone at all......
Funny thing is, my niece did this. She went away for college, fell in love with a non-member and they eloped. She apparently eloped because she didn't think her parents would support her marriage to a non-member. It turns out she was right. Her parents were pissed. But they were mostly upset that she felt she had to do all this behind their back.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
BC wrote:However, I think you're probably making it all up. lol
Why does it not surprise me that you would automatically assume that a negative story involving the Church just HAS to be fiction.
Guess what, BC?
People REALLY do go through negative Church experiences based on poor stewardship. It's amazing to me that in all of your years as a member of the Church, you have never witnessed anything contrary. If that's the case, then that's great for you. You have happened upon areas which were always properly run.
But please don't do people who have experienced otherwise the disservice of discounting their experiences as being untrue, simply because you, yourself, have not witnessed such things.
IS THE RECEPTION GOING TO BE HELD IN THE CHAPEL, OR ELSEWHERE?
PLEASE let us know! Thereupon hinges the entirety of the argument.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
liz3564 wrote:It's amazing to me that in all of your years as a member of the Church, you have never witnessed anything contrary.
Actually, I think he just wasn't paying any attention.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Certainly all active believing LDS want a temple marriage for their kids and would prefer it. And the LDS leaders prefer it too. Nobody said otherwise. But when it does not happen a bishop that imposes himself like this one seems to be over stepping. He can still perform a wedding and there can be a wonderful reception for friends and family. It does not have to be some shameful event like it seems this bishop is pushing. Really it seems the be since they are doing something less than best they should hide it, be quiet about it, not celebrate at all and so on. Maybe the couple should just elope and not tell anyone at all......
Funny thing is, my niece did this. She went away for college, fell in love with a non-member and they eloped. She apparently eloped because she didn't think her parents would support her marriage to a non-member. It turns out she was right. Her parents were pissed. But they were mostly upset that she felt she had to do all this behind their back.
Just to be clear you do realize my elope comment was cynical in response to the uber dorky remarks by BC?
But please don't do people who have experienced otherwise the disservice of discounting their experiences as being untrue, simply because you, yourself, have not witnessed such things. That seems very narrow-minded.
Uh....Liz.... This is BC. BC and narrow minded go hand in hand.
IS THE RECEPTION GOING TO BE HELD IN THE CHAPEL, OR ELSEWHERE?
PLEASE let us know! Thereupon hinges the entirety of the argument.
Certainly the bish has more control if the reception is at the chapel. But an understanding caring bishop, one concerned about all aspects rather than how things look, would be fine with a nice wedding and reception at the chapel.