Someone actually wrote this...

[_Thama]

Congratulations Thama. Is your family still LDS and do they know about your loss of belief? Do you worry that they will speak up about your "lesser form" of marriage?

Thanks. My family isn't a concern for me, they know exactly where I stand and aren't about to risk alienating us. The stake president is more of a concern to me, though I think he's a good man with good judgment, people in leadership positions in the Church often feel morally obligated at odd times to pontificate where it isn't really appropriate.

My brother got married outside the temple about a year ago, because his bride was newly baptized and so was not eligible for the temple. There was no bishop or Stake president officiating, but my father made the same kind of remarks as Seven mentioned, regarding the temporal limitations of their civil marriage and his hope that they would eventually go to the temple together. (UPDATE: they are now totally inactive).

In that circumstance, I don't see you father as doing anything offensive, assuming that the temple was the couple's goal at the time. If a normal marriage is all they want to do or all they believe in, then degrading it by comparison would be quite offensive. Were they offended by your father's statements in the end?

[_truth dancer]

I don't plan the weddings, the women do. I have taught the correct principle and they are governing themselves.

GAG!

Glad there are those women who put the teachings of Christ over the words of egotistical, self-righteous men who think they have some sort of elite position to tell others how to live their lives.



Yeah, getting married in the temple was the single worst decision I have ever made. I got married by an older man I had never met, in a room without a family member of loved other than my DH. No beautiful music, no tender poems, no loving thoughts from the people who love me. No brothers or sisters there to share the moment. No parents to experience the beautiful moment in their daughter's live.

Just a twenty minute routine wedding as another couple waited for the room.

So, when my children get married, and my neighbors ask how the wedding was, how do y'all think the church looks when I tell them I have no idea because I am not allowed to see the wedding ceremony?

Think... CULT!

The leaders of the LDS church wonder why they have such a poor image in our County, well... for all you SCMC folk monitoring the site, take note.

There is no reason whatsoever to keep up with this nonsense, well, other than manipulating people into paying tithing, and helping some feel a sense of elitism and self-righteousness since they are one God's chosen.

I rarely use the word, "hate," but I will say that I hate the fact that I followed the church leaders rather than my own sense of decency, integrity, kindness, care, and love when I got sealed. I chose the teachings of some unenlightened men over the love and care of my family. I chose the church over what was holy. I chose ugliness and cruelty rather than peace and goodness.

I regret it to this day.

[_Dr. Shades]

We're using the Stake President of my parent's ward, as he's someone I and my family know well. He's promised not to make the ceremony any sort of a missionary opportunity, but I'll have to make sure I read ahead of time exactly what he will be saying during the ceremony.

Why risk it? Just go to a justice of the peace; you won't need to worry that way.

[_The Dude]

In that circumstance, I don't see you father as doing anything offensive, assuming that the temple was the couple's goal at the time. If a normal marriage is all they want to do or all they believe in, then degrading it by comparison would be quite offensive. Were they offended by your father's statements in the end?

I don't think they were offended, but I am not sure.

The wedding was the traditional Hindu kind, which has a lot to say about the eternal nature of things. The bride's family might have been offended, if they caught the comparison. It was rather subtle.

[_Thama]

Why risk it? Just go to a justice of the peace; you won't need to worry that way.

Most of my family are still believing LDS, and as of yet my LDS family and the local Church leadership have been quite good about respecting boundaries. If my family turns hostile or the Church intrusive, I'll rethink the degree of civility and contact which I maintain with them.

Besides, the SP is free.

[_Thama]

I don't think they were offended, but I am not sure.

The wedding was the traditional Hindu kind, which has a lot to say about the eternal nature of things. The bride's family might have been offended, if they caught the comparison. It was rather subtle.

Now that's interesting. Hindus usually aren't the type to be easily offended at other religious beliefs, but I can't imagine that a suggestion of inferiority would have played well with them.

[_Scottie]

Huh.

Something I had forgotten. In the LDS sealing ceremony, the woman covenants to "give herself" to the man and the man covenants to "receive her".

I guess I really shouldn't expect anything else.

[_Seven]

Huh.

Something I had forgotten. In the LDS sealing ceremony, the woman covenants to "give herself" to the man and the man covenants to "receive her".

I guess I really shouldn't expect anything else.

Yep, and leaving the door open for his future harem.

[_Seven]

Interesting story. I'm getting married in less than a month to a never-mo (I'm still on the records but inactive and completely apostate). We're using the Stake President of my parent's ward, as he's someone I and my family know well. He's promised not to make the ceremony any sort of a missionary opportunity, but I'll have to make sure I read ahead of time exactly what he will be saying during the ceremony.

I hope your wedding day is beautiful Thama! Congratulations. :) That is very wise for you to read exactly what he plans to say.

My sister used our Stake President because it was her friend’s father and he knew our family well having also been the Ward Bishop. (and he was free) Even worse she had held the ceremony in the LDS chapel so it felt like we were at Sacrament meeting.

He also performed the civil wedding for my brother and the same types of degrading things were said but more toned down since they had given input on what to say. My brother had also added their own vows and a musical number my sister sang to them to perk it up. It was held outdoors which always makes it more spiritual. Since most of my family and friends were LDS, his pontificating would have seemed normal to them and expected but I can only imagine what the non members were thinking.
LDS use the eternal marriage/forever family doctrine more than any other for missionary opportunities.

[_Seven]

So, when my children get married, and my neighbors ask how the wedding was, how do y'all think the church looks when I tell them I have no idea because I am not allowed to see the wedding ceremony?

Think... CULT!

The leaders of the LDS church wonder why they have such a poor image in our County, well... for all you SCMC folk monitoring the site, take note.

When I saw this topic, it brought to my mind the research on the LDS image problem documented in the book How Americans View Mormonism.


in my opinion, the church’s policy in excluding non members from the sealing or not allowing a civil ceremony has made a most negative impact on their modern image. When you don’t allow people to share in the most special day of your family member’s life because they are not a member of your church, you are displaying a list of the negative traits currently causing the church’s image problem.
I believe the church would be better off doing the sealing the way they do for couples who are sealed later. As a special ceremony (like the endowment) separate from a wedding.

When the researchers read a dozen or so words or phrases half the respondents were asked whether or not they felt each word or phrase described the Mormon Church. The other half was asked whether these words or phrases described a Mormon. On the whole the individual members fared better than the institution in this evaluation, probably because it is easier to describe people than institutions.

(I only included the negative word associations for this discussion)

Word Associations: The Members


Blind followers (45%)
They keep to themselves (45%)
Narrow-minded (41%)
Self-righteous (39%)
Fanatical (38%)
Brainwashed by their leaders (38%)
Friendly as long as you are interested in their church (34%)
Think they are better than others (23%)
Arrogant (20%)


Word Associations: The Church

Powerful (55%)
Wealthy (52%)
Intelligent leaders (52%)
Mysterious (49%)
Secretive (42%)
Weird beliefs (44%)
Women are second class citizens (43%)
Uses pressure tactics (39%)
Pushy (38%)
Attitude of superiority (36%)
Classy (33%)
Power hungry (26%)
Contributes generously to non-Mormon charities (25%)
Racist (16%)
A church to be feared (16%)

How Americans view us has become a hot topic for Latter-day Saints since Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy and Proposition 8 pushed Mormonism into the glare of the media spotlight. In the foreword to Gary C. Lawrence's new book, How Americans View Mormonism , Seven Steps to Improve our Image, Senator Robert F. Bennett quotes something that Elder Neal A. Maxwell said to him, “The prophets always prophesied that the Church will emerge out of obscurity and darkness. As that is coming to pass, some members of the Church are finding that they prefer obscurity.”

Gary Lawrence's message in this book is one that everybody in the Church ought to read who cares about spreading the gospel. It is for missionaries, bishops, stake presidents, and every member who puzzles over how to talk about their religion. This is because he deals with a very stark reality—our image isn't as good as it ought to be. In fact, he says, “Few Americans have an accurate understanding of who we are and what we believe” and “The resulting ignorance is causing increasing antagonism and fear of us.” He quotes Robert Novak, who notes, “ Mormonism is the only minority category where bias in America has deepened.”

A church that is so obsessed with PR ought to consider how damaging this non doctrinal sealing policy is to the church's image. Since they obviously don't care about the harm and pain it causes non member family who are excluded, maybe this will cause a change.