Why?

[_Nightlion]

It's amazing to me that the Mormon god supposedly won't recognize a marriage in the Mormon hereafter unless you exclude from the marriage people who do not pay tithing, are not Mormon, do not meet the test of TR interview. It is an extremely petty and small god that would turn his head, his heart and his blessings from a couple that is itself 'worthy' for their marriage to be eternal simply because they do the charitable thing and hold their wedding where all that want to can attend. Extremely petty and small god.

Actually, the God of Mormonism, Joseph's God, my God, does not want the unwashed filthy beggars to profane what is dedicated unto him. If we waited for there to be a worthy couple in the eyes of God, angels and witnesses at the alters in his holy house, only one temple would suffice and only one officiator would be needed. And he could drive taxi all day long and into the night and nary be called in years and years of waiting.

What I mean to say is that there is no such thing as that 'extremely petty and small god' you suppose. Only vengeance, wrath and a burning recompense waiting as well.

[_why me]

Good morning, why me

I do not have a temple recommend and I am not worthy to go to the temple. So, I will not be there when my daughters get married.

I am very sorry (and deeply saddened) to learn this.

I don't know what else to type, so I will stop here.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo, The Mormon temple wedding is so fast if you blink an eye you could miss it. It is not the same as a catholic wedding. If one wants a longer wedding ceremony, one is better off getting married in the LDS chapel. More people can attend because there is more space to sit. Inside the Mormon temple wedding in the temple, room can be scarce.

A ring ceremony after the temple wedding is the best way to include everyone and certainly would be better to attend.

[Guest]

Boy, by the description why me gives you would think that the LDS temple wedding was really lame and not worth going through.

I think most believing Mormon's would disagree and say that it is the most beautiful, sacred and wonderful way to get married.

[_why me]

Hey Mr. Inactive barely ever a Mormon. Kiss off. I am active and hold a recommend. I think the policy is awful. At least let a TR holding couple have a civil ceremony before ( or after) so non member families or other non TR holders can celebrate. Drop the over the top control of making such people wait a year.

And by the way in my more TBM days when one of my daughters was temple married and her never mo grandparents could not come it broke my heart. My MIL said " I don't understand why I am not good enough to come to your churches weddings. My church doesn't exclude people from weddings.". I had no answer. I did make sure we did a very good ring ceremony afterwards for the many non member families and friends. But it seemed just less than best for them.

Your hard nose attitude is sickening really. I am glad you are not an active LDS.

I can't take the whining. All knew the rules when they were active LDS. Now that they are inactive they are whining about the temple wedding and its exclusion process. The Mormons have a temple reserved for people deemed worthy to attend. That is the rule. You know it and all here know it. Now that some are inactive or left the church, they still want to go to the temple to see the wedding.

And lets be honest. Many here would spit on the ceremony anyway by finding fault with it and post their feelings on this board or on some other exmo board.

The ring ceremony can be what the bride and groom want it to be. And it can be just as good as attending the temple wedding. And even more beautiful if it is in a beautiful setting.

[_why me]

Boy, by the description why me gives you would think that the LDS temple wedding was really lame and not worth going through.

I think most believing Mormon's would disagree and say that it is the most beautiful, sacred and wonderful way to get married.

As tator said too, it is quick and painless. Blink an eye and it is over. I would recommend a ring ceremony afterwards complete with nice promised words said, a nice kiss between bride and groom, maybe a speech by the best man and a walk up the park path by the bride and inactive father before the ring exchange etc. No problem.

[_just me]

Boy, by the description why me gives you would think that the LDS temple wedding was really lame and not worth going through.

I think most believing Mormon's would disagree and say that it is the most beautiful, sacred and wonderful way to get married.

As tator said too, it is quick and painless. Blink an eye and it is over. I would recommend a ring ceremony afterwards complete with nice promised words said, a nice kiss between bride and groom, maybe a speech by the best man and a walk up the park path by the bride and inactive father before the ring exchange etc. No problem.

I hope you are able to do that with your daughter. (((hug)))

It is too bad that this is frowned upon.

[_why me]

Move to Hungary.

Here, THE marriage is the civil one.
It is typically committed in special rooms of the mayor's office, mostly in a beautiful, uplifting environment. This is the official, legal step.

Before or after this official marriage, the couple may/can marry in one - or in all - of 2473 churches/religions/sects/groups available.
The government doesn't care. It doesn't count for them.

Hungarian Mormons marry in the civil offices where can take part everybody. Then, weeks or months later, they can travel to Freiberg or to Munich if they have the financial background to do. Many of them haven't.

If Your government give the right to every preacher or wizard to perform a marriage, then there may be side effects.

by the way Are there any centralized recording of the marriages performed under any denomination? For example can one marry with seven wives in different sects (and in different states...) - without getting known?

This was my point too when I said that some countries require a wedding in their own countries first. Also, for the more poorer Mormons living far from a temple, the chapel wedding is done followed by a temple wedding. No problem. Most family members do not follow the couple to the temple wedding if a chapel wedding was performed first.

[_why me]

I hope you are able to do that with your daughter. (((hug)))

It is too bad that this is frowned upon.

It will be up to my daughters. I don't think it matters if something is frowned upon. The thing is: the Mormon temple ceremony is fast, quick and noneventful. It's only purpose is to unite the couple for eternity which is a big event but the ceremony is not like a catholic ceremony or a protestant ceremony.

[_beefcalf]

I think it is worth pointing out what has been mentioned by ludwig...

It is church policy that if the couple is wedded in a civil ceremony, they must wait one year to then be sealed in the temple. But this policy applies only to the United States. In all other countries, perhaps to comply with local laws, no such restriction exists.

The temple marriages performed in other countries seem to be considered the real thing by the church, even when they were preceded, oftentimes immediately prior, by civil ceremonies.

Why would this restriction stay in place in the United States when God does not apparently require it? Perhaps it has to do with the analysis of the membership in the United States. I would conjecture, though I have no facts on hand to support this, that the overwhelming percentage of tithing receipts are donated by active temple-recommend-holding members in the United States. Any change in policy (and yes, this is policy, not doctrine) which might diminish this presumed status quo would be counterproductive.

Perhaps the prospect of spending an entire year of being a sub-standard couple, the couple who just couldn't wait for a the real ceremony, acts as a punitive deterrent to civil weddings. This policy, coupled with the deeply-ingrained belief that sex prior to marriage is verboten, seems to me to be an effective method of keeping temple-sealings at their current rate. If you drop the one-year wait, with all the whispered conjecture it sadly generates amongst the members of the ward, you diminish the societal pressure to stay in line.

[_why me]

I think it is worth pointing out what has been mentioned by ludwig...

It is church policy that if the couple is wedded in a civil ceremony, they must wait one year to then be sealed in the temple. But this policy applies only to the United States. In all other countries, perhaps to comply with local laws, no such restriction exists.

Actually this is not necessarily true. Certain countries may not recognize a wedding performed outside the country between two nationals. First they want the couple to marry in their homeland, then they can go to the temple for a temple wedding. If this is the case, the LDS church has no problem with a couple getting a chapel wedding before a temple wedding. However, once the law is changed, and couples can get married outside the country, the church then desires a temple wedding first.

I am not sure about hungry. Is it a law that nationals must marry in hungry first and then go to the temple. Or if members can not afford to go to the temple, it is okay to marry in the chapel without having to wait the standard year.