Yahoo Bot wrote:As a long-time agent bishop for my stake I strongly opposed wedding receptions in buildings. Our stake president permitted them but they were the lowest possible priority over other church events.
The problems we would face were legion: Smoking and drinking in the building or on the grounds; dress that didn't meet church standards; loud rock or punk or country bands. Cigarette butts, condoms, litter.
We tried to control that by limiting the buildings to ward members, but that didn't work. Kind-hearted bishops couldn't say no to a wedding reception.
Morever, funerals and baptisms would take precedence, and they don't schedule their events to meet the needs of the bride and groom so there is conflict.
So that is why they are not all that liked.
Guess I was too kind hearted for you bot. And my SP encouraged the policy we had. We never had any issues I was aware of with drinking, smoking, inappropriate music and so on. I see more and more that you and certainly had a different world view even when I was a TBM type.
Infymus wrote:Weakness? Lack of balls? Really Yahoo? Well then, I'll have to quote Jason here, you must be a s****y member.
It is hard for me to determine is bot is just yanking everyone's chain here in order to get a rise out of many including me at times. But that does not make sense as most here know who he is and he really tarnishes his reputation in order to make himself look like a hard liner. I know there are not too few members that are like bot. But given some of his views on other things his hard nose stance surprises me at times.
Yahoo Bot wrote:As a long-time agent bishop for my stake I strongly opposed wedding receptions in buildings. Our stake president permitted them but they were the lowest possible priority over other church events.
The problems we would face were legion: Smoking and drinking in the building or on the grounds; dress that didn't meet church standards; loud rock or punk or country bands. Cigarette butts, condoms, litter.
We tried to control that by limiting the buildings to ward members, but that didn't work. Kind-hearted bishops couldn't say no to a wedding reception.
Morever, funerals and baptisms would take precedence, and they don't schedule their events to meet the needs of the bride and groom so there is conflict.
So that is why they are not all that liked.
The people in Southern California must be much more rude than they are in North Carolina. We had my daughter's reception at a clubhouse, but could have just as easily had it at a ward building. Even though my daughter's in-laws were non-members, and we had a decent mix of members and non-members attend the reception, everyone respected the fact that the reception was "dry." There was no alcohol allowed on the premesis, and we had none of the other problems you described.
If the wards in Provo and Orem have problems with couples from BYU leaving condoms and alcohol around after a wedding reception consisting largely of fellow Mormons from BYU, then it sounds like rowdy wedding receptions are the least of their problems.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
MsJack wrote:If the wards in Provo and Orem have problems with couples from BYU leaving condoms and alcohol around after a wedding reception consisting largely of fellow Mormons from BYU, then it sounds like rowdy wedding receptions are the least of their problems.
Now the Church isn't true because of difficulty scheduling the cultural hall for a wedding reception. What next? No paper towels in the dispenser in the bathroom? A hymnbook with a missing page?
I had no idea that in some wards, wedding receptions were not allowed. Six out of the seven of my children's wedding receptions were held in the church in the cultural hall/gym. Had there been ANY problem with that, you can bet I'd have been ... ahem... upset.
My youngest was married in my ward chapel. True, only because there were 'way too many people to fit into the relief society room, but still... the chapel was nearly filled. No one balked about it at all; the stake president performed the ceremony; the bishop suggested the move, since his wife was one of the ones standing in the hallway unable to see or hear anything.
Truly, this just astounds me. This just adds to the concept that Utah Mormons are a different breed. We've had nonmember funerals in our chapel; why would we not allow wedding receptions in our gym? (and there has never been a problem with smoking, drinking, or coffee... anyone who enters the building knows the rules).
(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.