beefcalf wrote: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.
This.
It should be remembered that the youth are told a story about a young newlywed couple who get in an automobile accident following their wedding ceremony. The message being that you wouldn't want to take the chance of losing your promise of eternal life because one of you could die at any second. There was also that talk in GC about bargain marriages and "upgraded" marriages.
Plus, everyone will think you did the nasty and aren't worthy of the temple.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
beefcalf wrote: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.
Which part is not necessarily true? Did you read what I wrote? The LDS policy is that when US citizens marry in a civil ceremony, they must wait the year-of-shame to then get sealed in the temple. How does what you wrote refute that in any way?
by the way: 'hungry' is what happens on Fast-Sunday. 'Hungary' is a country in Eastern Europe. Hope this helps.
just me wrote:Plus, everyone will think you did the nasty and aren't worthy of the temple.
QFT
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
None of the replies answers my question, actually a string of questions so maybe that's why. I just don't understand why LDS invite people to an event they can't attend, it's just so ill mannered, why do it? It's not uncommon to be invited to a "reception in honor of Mr. and Mrs. so and so", we just celebrated my nieces wedding this way, wouldn't this be a better option than inviting people so wait outside a wedding they can't attend.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
why me wrote:... 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.
I am not aggrieved by this. If somebody giving offense to me, and he is - drunken - mentally ill - or simply stupid then I cut him dead and move along.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
café crema wrote:None of the replies answers my question, actually a string of questions so maybe that's why. I just don't understand why LDS invite people to an event they can't attend, it's just so ill mannered, why do it? It's not uncommon to be invited to a "reception in honor of Mr. and Mrs. so and so", we just celebrated my nieces wedding this way, wouldn't this be a better option than inviting people so wait outside a wedding they can't attend.
The only people I invited to the temple (to wait outside) were, like, my own siblings and a few best friends. I was the first in my circle to get married. I'm actually not sure if they just drove to the temple grounds later to be in pictures. I was a bit preoccupied.
Everyone else was given an invite to the reception(s) only with an announcement of the marriage. Actually, the sealing invitations are usually seperate in the envelope. In my experience...
Perhaps some people just don't know proper etiquette and don't take the time to figure out what the proper thing to do is.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
café crema wrote:None of the replies answers my question, actually a string of questions so maybe that's why. I just don't understand why LDS invite people to an event they can't attend, it's just so ill mannered, why do it? It's not uncommon to be invited to a "reception in honor of Mr. and Mrs. so and so", we just celebrated my nieces wedding this way, wouldn't this be a better option than inviting people so wait outside a wedding they can't attend.
The only people I invited to the temple (to wait outside) were, like, my own siblings and a few best friends. I was the first in my circle to get married. I'm actually not sure if they just drove to the temple grounds later to be in pictures. I was a bit preoccupied.
Everyone else was given an invite to the reception(s) only with an announcement of the marriage. Actually, the sealing invitations are usually seperate in the envelope. In my experience...
Perhaps some people just don't know proper etiquette and don't take the time to figure out what the proper thing to do is.
How is the proper way to exclude people that should otherwise, naturally be included?
just me wrote:Plus, everyone will think you did the nasty and aren't worthy of the temple.
It is a funny culture in which we live that would think and gossip about whether a young, recently married couple did the nasty before the wedding if it is in one place, but not think about the fact and giggle that they're going to do the nasty after the ceremony in another place, as soon as the groom can get the bride alone and out of that white dress.
It makes so much difference if I think they have waited to do the nasty after they get married and all the public knows about it and brought them gifts, rather than that they had a night of spontaneous passion when their love for one another bloomed to the point they both wanted to.
Why not just have a secular wedding after the sealing? Keep the sealing event private, but explain to the folks it's a Mormon religious rite that must be observed. That's all. I don't really see the reason for people to make this an occasion for negative feelings.
Get sealed.
Have a lavish wedding, afterward.
Too easy.
V/R Dr. Cameron
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
café crema wrote:None of the replies answers my question, actually a string of questions so maybe that's why. I just don't understand why LDS invite people to an event they can't attend, it's just so ill mannered, why do it? It's not uncommon to be invited to a "reception in honor of Mr. and Mrs. so and so", we just celebrated my nieces wedding this way, wouldn't this be a better option than inviting people so wait outside a wedding they can't attend.
Frankly, I don't know.....maybe they think that the couple will come out with the everlasting glow of the spirit that will rub off and make them want to go attend and do this for themselves.....or some non-sense like that. Really I don't have an answer because it does seem like it is rude or at least an inconvenience or maybe even a neener-neerer "I've got something you don't."
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015