No big receptions if not married in the temple?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _harmony »

No reception is ever held in the chapel. The reception is held in the cultural hall/gym. Hence the jokes about decorating the basketball hoops.

Instead of chapel, I suspect you mean church house/ward building.
(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.
_SatanWasSetUp
_Emeritus
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _SatanWasSetUp »

Dr. Shades wrote:SatanWasSetUp:

IS THE RECEPTION GOING TO BE HELD IN THE CHAPEL, OR ELSEWHERE?

PLEASE let us know! Thereupon hinges the entirety of the argument.


Yes. It will be at the church, so I suppose the bishop has a lot more control over the type of reception that will be put on. But still, I didn't know the bishop was the wedding planner.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
_SatanWasSetUp
_Emeritus
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _SatanWasSetUp »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:BC

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?


Oh, I knew you were being cynical. But with church culture expecting young people to be married in the temple, I can understand kids that fall short of that goal preferring to just elope. I suppose it's easier to deal with the fallout afterwards, then deal with the cultural pressures before the marriage.
"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
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _Scottie »

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

Is there anything more tacky than a LDS gym reception??

The lengths some people go through to save a couple hundred bucks.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _Sethbag »

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

Is there anything more tacky than a LDS gym reception??

The lengths some people go through to save a couple hundred bucks.


Yes, there is something more tacky than a LDS gym reception, but I find the two typically go hand in hand, so it may be a moot argument. I'm talking about people who have one small little fancy-pants "wedding cake", that nobody ever eats and it just sits on some table looking all pretty, while tiny squares of sheet cake are cut out and served to the guests instead.

To heck with the gay little sheet-cake squares! I guess I'm one of the lucky ones - at my wedding, our fancy-pants wedding cake was pretty huge, and everyone got nice, substantial slices of it to eat. That's the way it oughta be. ;-)
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _The Dude »

Sethbag wrote:Yes, there is something more tacky than a LDS gym reception, but I find the two typically go hand in hand, so it may be a moot argument. I'm talking about people who have one small little fancy-pants "wedding cake", that nobody ever eats and it just sits on some table looking all pretty, while tiny squares of sheet cake are cut out and served to the guests instead.


But it is absolutely CRITICAL that this tacky LDS gym/sheet cake ritual be protected from the anti-Family homos in California who wish to defile it with gay pride.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _harmony »

The Dude wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Yes, there is something more tacky than a LDS gym reception, but I find the two typically go hand in hand, so it may be a moot argument. I'm talking about people who have one small little fancy-pants "wedding cake", that nobody ever eats and it just sits on some table looking all pretty, while tiny squares of sheet cake are cut out and served to the guests instead.


But it is absolutely CRITICAL that this tacky LDS gym/sheet cake ritual be protected from the anti-Family homos in California who wish to defile it with gay pride.


Dang it all, I lose both ways. We served both sheet cakes and almost the whole freakin' wedding cake... and my gay office manager came to help us celebrate.
(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.
_mentalgymnast

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _mentalgymnast »

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

Is there anything more tacky than a LDS gym reception??

The lengths some people go through to save a couple hundred bucks.


This last summer our family went to Ventura and helped out with a wedding reception for my wife's sister's daughter and her new husband. The reception was in a LARGE cultural hall. It was not a typical cake and line gig. They went all out. So there are exceptions to the norm.

Regards,
MG
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _bcspace »

However, I think you're probably making it all up. lol

Guess what, BC?


I got another rise out of you? You are putty in my hands. lol

Did I ever tell you I'm a pretty good fisherman? I'm embarrassed to say it, but one of my best days fishing was on a Sunday. I caught over thirty native trout on spinners no less and still felt bad about it.

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.

That seems very narrow-minded.


You know it would seem so, but my experience with gatherings that attract a lot of antiMormons, especially of the exmo variety, tend to include a lot of "Paul H. Dunnishness". Add that to the fact that there is a whole lot of strawman arguments, lazy research, and other forms of yellow journalism and well, the credibility of these stories is close to zero if not less.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: No big receptions if not married in the temple?

Post by _bcspace »

Is there anything more tacky than a LDS gym reception??


One that's held under the pavillion in the Church owned park adjacent.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply