When you email your story to us, please indicate if you wish to have your name displayed online or to remain anonymous.
I Wish I Had Waited
I joined the Church at 16. I had to receive parental permission. My parents weren't church-goers and left the decision up to me. I joined. When I decided to go on a 2 year mission, my parents were afraid that I would be sent somewhere dangerous. They met with my bishop. I ended up going to Europe. When I came home, I met my future wife that first Sunday back. When we decided to wed, my parents were concerned about being left out. My parents, my fiancé' and I met with our Stake President (the official overseeing 5-10 congregations in a given area) to see if there was a solution. He offered none.
My folks weren't at the temple, inside or out. It was painful. The most depressing thing about it though was that the pain wasn't necessary. LDS Church POLICY states that if a couple marries outside of the temple, they are given a 1 year probation until they can be sealed in the temple. The couple is still considered in good standing and can go to the temple together to perform proxy weddings/sealings for the deceased, but not for themselves. How weird.
This penalty is lifted if local law requires that marriages be done in public or if unchaperoned overnight travel to a temple is required (to avoid any chance of premarital hanky-panky). This 1 year probation penalty is only imposed in the US and Canada. If the Church would abandon this evil policy, such pain would be avoided. Church leaders try to rationalize the policy by stating that having a ceremony outside of the temple denigrates the temple ceremony as if it weren't a REAL wedding. It's funny how the temple sealings everywhere else in the world aren't denigrated. If they REALLY were, those LDS living in foreign countries would get married outside of the temple and then wait the year or be required to come to the US/Canada and be sealed here if the 1 year probation penalty is to be avoided. It seems to me that if non-LDS see a couple get married outside the temple and then see them feel the need to get married in the temple right before/after the outside ceremony, that would be a witness to the non-LDS how important the temple sealing is to LDS. It doesn't denigrate the temple. It actually elevates it in the eyes of the non-LDS.
What happened to me? My mom was devastated. My father was angry (primarily because my mother was hurt). My dad used to comment at family gatherings that my wife and I aren't really married since “seeing is believing” and he didn't see anything. My extended family was all mad at me for hurting my mom. All of the good example I had been to them all previously was all destroyed. Any chance to any of them joining the Church was now gone.
If I knew that all of this would happen if my parents didn't get to see me married, I would have insisted on marrying outside the temple and waiting the year. There is NO doctrinal reason not to.
The Church was all very accommodating and deferential to my parents when I wanted to join and serve a mission, but they turned their backs on my folks when the Church had nothing to gain from them. The policy is anti-missionary work too. My being a light on a candlestick to them wassnuffed out.
The bottom line is that the policy is “a wicked tradition of our fathers”.It is EVIL. At church when I see an LDS couple engaged to be married, I tell them that if they have non-LDS parents, that they should wait the year.
I wish I had. Anonymous __________________________________________________________________________________ Why I Wasn't Married in the Temple
We here at the Temple
Wedding Petition came across a most special
personal story shared by a lovely LDS woman on a blog website.
Shortly after we became aware of it and contacted her, the author
removed the story that had been online for seven months. The
young lady had heard Mormon Apostle Elder Holland express that it
wouldn't be heaven to him if his wife and children were not with him as
an eternal family in the life hereafter.
"We believe that
marriage is eternal. One of the fundamental premises of
this church is that family is forever. I know, in my life, that it won't
be heaven without my wife, and it will not be heaven without my
children, because that's true, and if that's some eternal principle, and
if there's something eternally splendid about that, then God in his
goodness must have some way to let everybody share in as much of that as
possible. And I believe that our doctrine points toward that."
Elder Jeffrey Holland, PBS Special - The Mormons
I now share a brief quote from the original blog of why she didn't
marry in the temple
so as our readers may gain an understanding of the dilemma faced by
those members who choose to marry civil first before temple sealing.
The young woman prior to her civil wedding expressed the sentiment so
well in her blog when she wrote, "And yet the temple wedding
presents a rather cruel dilemma to those who are first generation
converts or those who come from mixed-faith families."
To
give you some background, on the one hand members of the LDS Church
have the promise of the temple sealing, to be with the people they love
as a family after death. Members of the LDS Church believe that a civil
wedding only binds the couple till death do they part. The temple
sealing is for time and all eternity. The irony is for active Mormon
members to secure for themselves those sealing blessings of an eternal
family, some have to leave the very people they want that promise to
apply to at the temple doors.
Had she decided to be married and
sealed in the temple, the person left behind would have been her
father. No doubt the words of Elder Holland, "it won't
be heaven without my wife, and it will not be heaven without my
children" gave her the peace of mind needed to make the choice to
have her father walk her down the aisle in a civil marriage ceremony
surrounded by all friends and family and excluding no loved one. In
doing so I believe she kept the biblical commandment to honor thy mother
and thy father.
We can only imagine the difficult choice she
and her fiance had to make because of the policy of the Church that
penalized a worthy LDS couple with a one year wait before they could go
to the temple to be sealed.
We hope that the words, the
sentiments, the emotions of hurt, pain and divisiveness of stories like
hers and others shared here will ring loudly in the ears, minds and
hearts of LDS Church leadership in giving consideration to the
petition calling for achange in
policy. _______________________________________________________________________________ The One and Only
I met my husband, a righteous RM [a returned Mormon missionary], at a
dinner group wherein our apartment of "girls" cooked for his apartment
of "boys". I now look back and see that even the landlords and perhaps
others at BYU contributed to the lack of development of the BYU students
by not recognizing them as men and women. Anyway, although we saw each
other frequently as part of this dinner group, we went on only four
dates prior to our engagement. Of those, two were group dates. We were
apart during the summer prior to our engagement and he insisted that
there be no mushy letters exchanged between us, so everything was quite
on a newsy and somewhat superficial level, except that towards the end,
he divulged his spiritual side.
My general authority in the making was almost mine!! I was nearly 21,
an old maid by BYU standards, where so many women/girls (take your pick)
got married by the mature age of 20. We had a short engagement, during
which we limited ourselves to five-second kisses in order not to stir
up any passions. Little did I know at the time, there weren't any
passions, nor would there be any for the duration of our marriage, for I
felt no physical attraction to him. No wonder, I mused later, it was
so easy to comply with our self-imposed restrictions. At the time, I
felt that a spiritual attraction was the ultimate and he certainly was
righteous, having served in a branch presidency. All of our restraint
was a sign of our strength.
At no time before or after my marriage do I remember hearing a church
leader advise young people to find someone they love, someone they can
be emotionally close to for the rest of their lives, someone with whom
they could develop a relationship that would grow and flourish. The
"eternal companion" label used again and again always seemed to reek of
missionary overtones, not best friend and lover.
The Wedding
A temple marriage was the only way to get married, as I was taught at
BYU. People who got married outside the temple in a civil ceremony were
second class citizens who lived with their mistake for at least a year,
if not a lot longer. At the least, those who had civil ceremonies were
not as righteous as those who had temple marriages. Also, they were
told they would not have the benefits of being sealed or if they gave
birth to children within the first year, of having their children sealed
to them. I was new in the church and quite impressionable. I wanted
so badly to please and impress my friends and church leaders. So there
would be no marriage outside the temple for me.
Although my family lived in another state where there was a temple
nearby, they could not attend, so it seemed logical to marry where my
husband's family could attend. After all, what would a wedding be
without guests?
Cold feet is one thing, but as I sat in my parents' hotel room the night
before the wedding, I wished they would just ask me if I wanted to
reconsider and go back home. They didn't, and I was too proud to ask.
As I have reflected back on it in the years since, I remember my wedding
day as one of the worst days of my life. I agonize still over how much
the events which transpired during my engagement and wedding day must
have hurt deeply my parents. I was their only daughter. Yet, I refused
to drive to the temple with them for fear of smelling like my dad's
cigarette smoke. Surely that would get me in trouble with the people at
the recommend desk. Since the church teaches that Mormons are superior
to non-members, I felt justified in more or less snubbing my parents at
my wedding, in the name of righteousness of course. They were, after
all, not "worthy" to be at the ceremony. If they would have only
changed their evil ways, i.e. stopped smoking and drinking, and become
active, tithe paying members of the LDS church, they could have shared
in my happiness. Of course, my thoughts at the time were heavily
influenced by my fellow students and teachers at BYU, but still, I must
take full responsibility for this arrogant attitude I portrayed.
I was 21 when I married in the Salt Lake Temple, which to me resembled a
magical fairy castle. I have grieved many times since about my
decision to get married in the temple, with only my husband's family
(many of whom I did not meet until that day or shortly before the
wedding) there and my parents standing outside the temple shivering in
the December cold. My grandparents and my brothers stayed home, as did
my aunt and uncle and cousins.
My husband and I got to the temple and waited in a long line of brides
and grooms. What kind of a factory was this, I wondered. It was so
communal and impersonal. We stood in one line, then in another. The
temple was really busy that day and I did not know my way around, so it
was that much more intimidating. I went to the bride's room alone,
alone with at least twelve or more brides, that is. All of the other
brides there had mothers helping them fix their hair and dress. I had
no one with me. A temple worker came up and told me that my
high-necked, long-sleeved dress was immodest and that I needed to put
white fabric inside to "make it look nicer". Yes, the fabric appliques
might have been a little sheer but nothing was revealed. I was
completely covered. Nonetheless, I had to remove my dress and put
pieces of fabric on under my dress to satisfy the temple worker.
We walked into the sealing room. Who was there for me? Few of my
friends were there. But not my best friends. Not my soon-to-be former
roommates or friends from high school. Not any of my family or people
who really knew me, cared about me, and loved me throughout my life.
The room was full of people I scarcely knew or did not know at all. The
only relatives of my husband's that I even knew beyond a five-minute
hello were not in attendance because of an accident. I knew we hadn't
even invited a lot of the people who were seated there and was angry
when I found out later that my husband's mother took the liberty of
inviting them. I thought this was supposed to be my wedding.
The temple sealer gave a short talk on marriage and children. All I
could think was how bad I wanted to get up and run out of the room. I
just wanted to leave and never come back. These people didn't know me
so I would never have to face them again. But I kept thinking that
Christ wanted me to be married and that this was the only way for me to
progress. So I proceeded. Fake tears of joy came to my eyes at the
conclusion of the ceremony which was little more than the opportunity to
say "yes". There was no music, no flowers, no ring ceremony, nothing
like the wedding I grew up looking forward to. But because of it being
sacred (in my opinion, a secret meant to draw people in), I had no way
of knowing all of this until it was too late.
We were pushed out of the sealing room by the sealer in order to avail
the room to the next couple already waiting. Cycle time between
weddings was about 20 or so minutes, it seemed. We walked down a long
hallway to the temple grounds where my parents were waiting. Of course,
my mom was crying and not tears of joy. My dad said I looked pretty. I
felt horrible. I will never forget that sick feeling in my stomach as
long as I live. We got our pictures taken on the steps of the temple,
after waiting our turn behind several other couples. It was a wedding
factory. We were nothing like the happy couple (one happy couple as
opposed to a dozen or more) coming out of the church with crowds of
loved ones throwing rice or confetti I had always envisioned.
My husband's family seemed to keep to themselves and not even extend
themselves to my parents, the foreigners by all accounts. Of course, my
parents, as non-members, were to be feared for their potential evil
influence. My husband's family have not changed much in the years since
either. Anyone who is not a member or who lives above the poverty
level is not righteous like them. But that is another topic for another
time.
My feeble attempt to absolve myself of guilt for not including my
parents in the wedding was to have the ring ceremony outside the temple.
Of course, it would happen that my husband didn't have my ring.
Eventually that got straightened out, but it was not what you would call
picture perfect or a cherished Kodak moment.
As soon as the pictures were done, we rushed off to a dingy, dirty,
poorly lit, cluttered hotel room full of crying children so that my
husband, his father, brother, and brothers-in-law could give a blessing
to my husband's brother's newest baby. Well, I guess our moment in the
sun was done and it was time to focus on the next family event. The
sheer size of my husband's family meant that there would be several
events in a single month, so it was rare that anyone was really special
for more than a few minutes, even if it was a wedding day for a family
member. Nonetheless, this little side show blessing hardly seemed like
the perfect way to cap off what was supposed to be the morning of my
life.
We raced back to BYU after the blessing to our next stop, to turn in my
husband's final paper for school. Remember, we were BYU students, and
there getting married in the middle of the semester or during finals is
quite normal and natural. I had spent the entire day before typing the
paper, so I had had little time to get myself ready for the wedding
day, but that, too, was normal.
After dropping off the paper, we headed for the hotel. When we went in,
my husband tried to french kiss me. He might as well have raped me.
Up to that point, I had kissed him for five seconds or less in order to
keep our strict moral code intact. I had a stomach ache for the rest of
the day just thinking of what was to come later.
I knew I did not seem like a happy bride but at the same time I felt
like no one really seemed to notice. My husband's relatives
conglomerated in the kitchen of the home where our open house was held.
We, the bride and groom, were sort of the sideshow. My parents, being
non-members, were on the periphery. I heard later that when my new
brothers-in-law learned my dad worked for the government, they nearly
decked him (they were all faithful John Birchers who hated government
interference in the lives of citizens). I hated every minute of our
reception and was so upset at being asked to open all of the presents
afterwards. And then what we received from my husband's family was
obviously bought at Pic and Save or else 20 people went in on a $20
gift. How generous they were! How special I felt! NOT!
Our motel room smelled like smoke. We masked the smell with mint air
freshener provided by the motel office. There was no other room, nor
could we leave and go to another. We had only $3 in funds so we were
forced to use my husband's gas credit card to charge our motel room.
Unfortunately, this was the only motel in town which took his card.
Ironically, and I did not find out until later, the wedding night and
honeymoon are supposed to be a groom's gift to his bride. I had made
all of the arrangements since my husband did not have time. This
pattern of me taking over for his inadequacies continued throughout our
marriage.
Some Conclusions
Over the years, the worst cross to bear about my wedding has been having
to keep all of this to myself, or, at least, feeling obligated to do
so. Several times, heated discussions between my mother and I nearly
ripped me apart. She continually told me how painful my wedding day was
for her, how she threw up in disgust at my marrying into such
impoverished circumstances. (The poverty, too, was normal for BYU
students.) After these discussions, I would go home and cry for days
afterwards. Oh that I could only tell her how painful that day was for
me! But I had to keep up a strong front for the church, so I thought,
and I did. To this day, I cry and sob every time I see a wedding on
television or movies, a wedding where the people who are married are
surrounded by loved ones in a special, exclusive celebration.
After my daughter was born, I got a glimpse into what it must have been
like for my mom to be on the outside while strangers attended my
wedding. I knew how special my daughter was and how much I wanted to
share as much of her life as possible. I realized my mother must have
felt likewise for me. It was much later that I shared with my mom that a
temple wedding is not a real wedding as non-LDS people know it. I feel
as if I had no wedding. It is a simple, generic, impersonal ceremony
in a wedding factory. There are no candles, no flowers, no music, no
bridesmaids, no decorations.
Worst of all is the propaganda from the LDS leadership that
righteousness (i.e. pay your tithing, have as many babies as you can as
fast as you can, etc.), not love, is the main ingredient which makes a
marriage work. For me, this engendered years of guilt because I was
unable to reconcile why my marriage didn't work, when I had tried so
hard to do what was right. I don't blame my husband that I did not love
him: I blame the LDS culture and the pressure to be married and to
select a spouse based on a checklist approach where righteous and RM are
the two key ingredients for a husband. Also, I do feel that it would
have helped if we had gone on more than four dates before we got engaged
and written more freely of our feelings when we were apart.
Essentially, we had no courtship, no time of testing the waters of a
relationship. This was fairly typical of many BYU students with whom I
came in contact.
I often fantasized about but never had the courage to write a letter to
the general authorities of the church, telling them of my deep hurt and
grieving over temple marriage, which they continue to proclaim is one of
the greatest accomplishments and blessings of all for all LDS people. I
felt like my wedding was a total exception to that. I often thought
maybe hearing a well reasoned letter which describes the excrutiating
heartache created by including and excluding families according to their
"worthiness" was an absolute travesty. Yet, I feared that so doing and
signing my name would jeopardize my standing in the church.
My wedding broke my heart and that of my family. In some ways, we may
never heal from the pain, each for our own reasons. Today, I face the
prospect of having one or both of my children marry in the temple, since
they have been raised in the church and taught that temple marriage is
the only marriage truly acceptable to God. If this happens, at least I
will know that what they are getting is an impersonal, watered-down
version of a real wedding. I, like my parents before me, will grieve
because I cannot attend and share in their moment, but at the same time,
I will grieve more for what they could have had instead, an intimate
and personal celebration shared by all of their beloved family and
friends, not only those who are supposedly worthy.
I find it interesting that the that I could enter through a
temple door through a computer but if I wanted to enter a real temple I would
be barred from entering because I. I am not an active member of the LDS church
2. Because I do not have a temple recommend, saying that I have been found
worthy to enter.
Let me start at the beginning, I was married in the LDS
temple in California,
and I could not have my own mother attend my wedding. I am her only child, and
she was very hurt, so much so that she did not even fly down from NYC for the
reception. I never knew really how she felt until now….my only son is
marrying in the Temple
this sat. and I have left the LDS church to become a Christian. I will
along with many others of the family left standing outside the temple, while my
son and his bride are inside saying their vows….pain, hurt,
disappointment, so many feeling going on inside of me, what should be a joyful
time is a time of deep hurt. My son and his bride first were going to do a
civil ceremony so all the family could witness their union, but after finding
out that if they did this they would not be able to marry in the temple
until a year had past decided to just do a Temple wedding. Why does the Mormon Church do
this? Why do they take something that should unite a family and instead divide
a family, into the cans and the can nots? How selfish and controlling of them
to make a young couple have to choose between offending a god and offending a
family member, especially a parent. I am trying to be supportive, and not
let my hurt feelings show…but my heart is broken, and I do feel offended,
and very, very hurt.
I. Stump __________________________________________________________________________________
Family Centered
There is NO reason for the LDS Church to enforce it's 'one year wait' policy in ANY country. If it is not enforced in countries where it is legally required to have a public civil ceremony then there is no reason to enforce it in countries where there is no legal obligation. Upon abiding by LDS confession policy and teaching as a LDS missionary I was sent home to England from France. I was engaged and planning on marrying my fiancee in just under six months of my return. The bishop at that time expressed that if I went ahead with the marriage, being under disciplinary procedure and unable to have a temple wedding, I would have to wait a year to be 'sealed'. The discipline was carried out under the direction of the stake president and little did the bishop know that my excommunication would mean a one year wait before re-baptism, a further one year wait until the 'restoration of blessings' ordinance - let alone a one year wait after a civil marriage ceremony for a temple ceremony.
I am thankful that the LDS Church provided me with such an abusive disciplinary experience that I was able to question and discover the truth about the church. It's just a shame that so much emphasis is placed on a temple marriage as essential that other forms of marriage are placed second class. My wife continues her belief in the LDS Church even though the church was unable to withdraw the penalties of her disciplinary procedure well over a year since the initial sanction was passed, and over a year since our marriage - it is now nearly nearly two years since the sanction was passed and she is still not accepted fully because belief and desire to be a part of and follow the LDS Church isn't enough for them - she has been told essentially that she has to have a divine manifestation that she has been forgiven before the church will forgive. It's just a shame that she still hopes I will return to a church that has no concern for it's members and even less for their family and friends.
There is an outward mask of being family centred but this is not a reality - my knowledge and integrity that forbids me to be re-baptised in the church is the source of friction in our marriage. I respect my wife's beliefs, support her and even accompany her to her church meetings but I do not believe what she believes - LDS teaching however will never allow her to be satisfied with that as it, for the LDS, is the source and destruction of our family. The lack of respect and acceptance of people with different beliefs is the true source of destruction of the family, yet they claim in their 'Articles of Faith' that they respect and allow others to believe what they wish - or is that as long as it doesn't get in the way of their hope of an 'eternal family'? My wife is unable to accept that I have fully rejected my previous beliefs as this would be the source of her eternal regression - being unable to be a 'celestial heir'.
I was born LDS. My family lines go back to Kirtland and Nauvoo. Yet, even with my history, one day (almost literally in one day) I realized that religions were man-made and stopped attending when I was 18. I married a man who was never LDS.
However, I didn’t see the church as any worse or better than all the other religions and churches out there, so was not threatened when my mother or brother took the children to church on Sundays, nor when a classmate of my daughter took her to church youth dances. When my daughter wanted to join the church in high school, we didn’t stand in her way and even supported her decision, attending the baptism and providing a lunch afterwards. After all, this church was a good influence, right?
Flash forward to the pending marriage of this daughter to a very nice, very devout returned missionary. We had not considered this possibility. In fact, I am not sure that my husband even knew that such an exclusion existed. We were faced with the prospect of not attending this daughter’s wedding, and if we did want to support her with our presence, would have to drive 1000 miles to hang about while this most important day of her life was shared by her soon to be in-laws.
We chose not to attend. There were many reasons. One was knowing that we would be so unhappy that we would not be an asset on her day. Another was a dread of being excluded while others went in. And of course there was the traveling and hotel expense it would cost us to then be treated second class.
To my horror, I learned that the neighbor from up the street, who had been her young women’s president would be there. She was deemed more worthy than we were. This was particularly crushing.
My brother, who was a stake president at the time and lived within driving distance of the temple, phoned me a few times... once to encourage me to “be worthy” to attend (I believe the status of my husband was left entirely out of that conversation). And once to try to talk us into making the 1000 mile journey. I said, “No, we do not stand on the sidewalk while our darling daughter is being married.”
His response still amazes me, “They have lovely gardens at the temple.” How insensitive, how useless, and 20 years later I am still hurt, angry and amazed as I write this. My brother and his wife did attend and were the only members of her family present. At least she had them (oh and let’s not forget the neighbor).
For our part, we went to our respective jobs on her wedding day (being sure that everyone knew what day it was and why we were at work) and then went out for dinner together, more to celebrate our togetherness than the separation from our daughter. We now have five grandchildren who are temple bound.
A few years later my daughter and I discussed how awful it had been for her. She loved being married to her chosen man, but cried and cried on her wedding day that we were not there. She concluded the conversation with, “At least I won’t have to ever go through that again.”
“Yes, my dear,” I replied, “But we will.” I try not to dwell on the future pain of the grandchildren’s weddings. I prefer to only feel it when it happens, but it is looming, and soon.
It is impossible to heal from this. Even snapshots of her wedding bring back the pain.
Now, when I shop for wedding presents for my LDS relatives, I always mention to the clerks that we won’t be able to attend the wedding because the wedding is mormon, and we are excluded.
It is my prerogative to be sure to counteract any conversation with anyone who mentions how they admire the mormon church because it is so “family oriented” by telling them .. “Yes, very family oriented, but only if one is worthy by church standards which means paying tithing and professing that Joseph Smith received gold plates from an angel.” One then sees the admiration fade from their faces.
I hope that this is one message that spreads out like ripples on a pond. It is very important to me to counteract the smiling church image and let others know of the barbaric power the church exerts when it excludes family, particularly parents who birthed, raised, supported, educated and loved their child more than anyone else in the world possibly could.... but who are welcome to stand in the “lovely gardens” on that child’s most important day.
The temple and the sacred: Dutch temple experiences
WALTER E.A. VAN BEEK Tilburg University African Study Centre, Leiden
One last field in which the Dutch temple experience is different from the USA one, is marriage. Church-wide the ideal start of a marriage is a temple wedding. In Deseret the temple sealing is the wedding ritual itself, with a reception afterwards as the social event. In the Netherlands (and that holds for most European countries) a civil wedding is required, as the Dutch do have an encompassing and efficient civil registration system (‘Burgerlijke Stand’). So the Dutch couples have two weddings, the first at the City Hall – or at a special venue functioning as civil wedding locations, usually a spectacular building imbued with history such as a castle. Conform the general Dutch trend of ritualizing public space 1 a large number of impressive locations has been officially registered as wedding venues for civil registration. Also, many retired public figures perform those ceremonies as part time volunteer civil servants. Thus, this civil wedding is orchestrated as an impressive ceremony, with all the friends and families present. For the majority of the weddings in the Netherlands, this is the ceremony; for the religious Dutch – nowadays a minority only – this is followed by a church wedding service. Like the latter category, LDS couples – a miniscule minority in the Netherlands – then leave for the temple, to ‘seal the wedding’. Even if the church puts the temple sealing into high profile, and a couple sometimes has to hurry from wedding to sealing to reception, the civil wedding still is important and ritualized. Formerly, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, the Dutch church performed a church service right after the civil registration, solemnizing the wedding in the chapel before a large audience, drawing large crowds who visited an LDS chapel for the first time. Though the missionaries had a field day in these services, the Church leadership advised against this particular practice, also in the Handbook of Instructions, as it would detract from the centrality of the temple. However, the experience of the Dutch Saints who married in these years and did have a wedding service in the chapel, was different: the additional services did not detract from but in fact augmented the sacred nature of the temple sealing. With the civil and the social aspects of the marriage taken care of, the couple oriented itself towards the temple, which became even more a sacred place, with the sealing viewed as the apex of series of rituals which led step by step from marriage for time only towards marriage for eternity. For them, the essential eternal nature of the temple ritual became more prominent by having temporal rituals first. This process was easier when the temple was far away and some time could be put between civil wedding and temple sealing. Nowadays the civil wedding – the real ‘wedding’ – functions more or less in the same way, as the temporal stipulation of an eternal journey. With the temple ‘around the corner’, the sealing becomes a private ritual inside a social wedding day, a moment between the couple and the Lord. Thus, in the eyes of the Dutch having ‘just’ a temple sealing does not replace a real wedding, nor would it render the temple more sacred, but instead would detract from the importance of marriage. 2
Here, an important consideration is that the temple rituals actually are not well suited for a wedding. The endowment is in fact an individual initiation journey, undertaken as an almost anonymous part of a collective of men or women, progressing into the direction of the divine. Life as a couple in this world is depicted in dreary terms, a necessary step down before attaining further exaltation, a depiction that is not a stimulating start for a life together. The actual wedding comes more or less as an afterthought in the form of a sealing without any personalization of the ritual, done rapidly. Even stronger, for many couples the marriage sealing comes long after the own endowment, ideally even, as the husband would be a returned missionary. In such a case the sealing starts with a proxy endowment, which has no relation at all with the wedding, a situation many couples experience as strange and disconcerting, and highlights the fact that the endowment is not suited for a wedding. Neither does the ritual of sealing itself in fact unite the couple, as the formula links an existing couple to the authority of the ‘New Covenant’, not to each other. The ritual is, in all respects, a sealing of a marriage, not a wedding. Anyway, the almost universal involvement of the personal networks of the newly weds, their family, friends, colleagues, that forms the core of the wedding rituals throughout the world, is completely absent in the temple. Viewing the character of the temple rituals and the absence of the social element, the LDS Church does not ‘do weddings’, just ‘sealings’. Thus, in European eyes, there is a definite room – even need – for an additional ritual, which better be Church managed, but if not, might be civil as well.
Also, this European ‘double’ wedding solves a huge and persevering problem inherent in the Deseret way, which is the absence of non-member family and friends at the relevant ritual. The internet is replete with powerful (and justified) complaints of parents who could not participate in the wedding of their child after he or she converted to Mormonism. Nobody takes the post-temple reception for a wedding. If there is one reason why the LDS church retains the image of a sect, it is this exclusion of parents from their child’s marriage celebration. In Europe the major parts of one’s social networks are outside the church, so here the civil wedding is absolutely essential. Thus the non-member kin and friends fully participate in the wedding, which is all for the better. After all, the Church is in Europe closer to being seen as a sect anyway, and having just an exclusive LDS-only temple wedding would be a devastating argument for it really being a sect.3
1 - P. Post & A Molendijk, Holy Grounds 6,7. 2 - Also, in Europe many marriages occur between spouses from different countries, including the USA. In many of these cases all kinds of ad hoc arrangements have to be made in order for the marriage to be legal for all concerned. This always involves a civil wedding of some sort, also for those Europeans who marry in the USA. 3 - Here I follow the definition of Stark & Bainbridge of the cult-sect-denomination-church continuum, which focuses on the relationship with the surrounding culture, Stark, R. & W.S. Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (Berkeley, University of California Press,1985). __________________________________________________________________________________
Why?
Why is the question I was asked on facebook about my participation in the petition. I guess my first question would be as to whether you actually read the petition itself -- in addition to some of the introduction and/or comments. If you haven't, you may have misunderstood what the goal of this petition is. It is DEFINATELY not to get the church to change anything about who can and who can't enter the temple for any of its ceremonies, etc.
What the petition is asking for is something that I actually thought a lot about over the years as my kids were approaching the age of marriage, and personally felt it was a policy the church could and should change. Since there are many countries in the world who require a civil ceremony before the temple ceremony, as they don't recognize temple weddings "officially", and since in those countries the church allows couples to have those civil marriages (to which any and all family and friends can be invited), it is obvious that this is a "policy", not a "doctrine" or "revelation", etc.
I have never understood why the church has this rule in America, but not in these other countries -- since there is no doctrinal reason why couples here couldn't do the same thing. In a church that consists of so many converts, and where so many families have non-member parents or siblings or aunts & uncles, etc., I think members are historically very insensitive to the very deep emotional pain this causes for many families. When the child of non-members becomes converted, their families are stunned and crushed when they find out they will not be able to attend the weddings. I assure you this is not just a minor problem to them -- it is major -- and causes very bad PR for a church that is known for being so family-oriented. No matter what the child tells them (which usually boils down to "that's just the way it is"), none of it helps them feel better, and when they are told they are "not worthy" to be there, you can imagine the shock and hurt. They don't understand why there can't be a civil ceremony first, and then the religious one. And when they find out that this is allowed in other parts of the world, they become even more unhappy about it.
When one thinks about this all logically, one is forced, I believe, to acknowledge that there really isn't any reason to have this rule -- nor to "punish" the couple by demanding that they wait a year to go to the temple. If they are temple-worthy, how does having a civil ceremony make them unworthy? It seems to me that anything the church could do to foster and support an entire family at this very important wedding time would enhance the church's reputation with non-members, and create a "warm-fuzzy" rather than hurt and anger.
I don't know how often -- or if any -- times your family has been confronted with this dilemma -- many Mormon families have not since their children are marrying other long-term Mormons, but there are many, many families who do have to deal with this. I can't tell you how many people I have heard say that if they had to do it over again, they would have married civilly -- even if it meant they had to wait a year to go to the temple -- because they now understand how very badly their parents and/or siblings were hurt. It's not an imaginary hurt. It's real, and it's long-lasting -- and does nothing to further the church's goal of helping this convert bring their family into the church. I was asked to join an email group that consists of parents who have a child that has converted to the church -- and are having a very difficult time understanding the doctrine and/or the changes they see in their children. I was asked to join so that they could hear from me and a couple of other people who can answer some of their questions -- and help them understand some of the intricacies of the doctrine. I think you would be very surprised at the level of pain and personal offense that is felt by these people when it comes time for their child to be married in the temple. It causes hatred towards the church. And it does not help when their child can't give them any really good reason for being excluded from their child's marriage because of an arbitrary rule that the couple can't go to the temple for a year if they get married civilly, and there forces the couple to choose to exlude parents, etc. because they DO want to get married in the temple. And no, the reception does not make up for it with these families. Now you and I know that many of these parents are probably as nice, pure, and worthy as the Mormon parents, but can't be there because they aren't members. I have NO problem with this and really see no reason why any member of the church should -- and again --it's not the purpose of this petition to change THOSE rules!
So that is "why" I support this petition. I do believe that the church could bring itself all kinds of good will and friendship from non-Mormons if they would simply allow people to be married civilly first -- if they choose to -- and then allow them to go to the temple as soon as they can get there.
Sue Emmett __________________________________________________________________________________
Some Are Not Worthy
This is not an easy story to tell for it rips my heart, weighs heavy on my chest and brings tears rushing each time I think about it, let alone talk about it.
I was married at the time I became pregnant; nine months later and 21 hours of hard labour to give birth to my one and only child – a darling daughter.
When she was only a toddler (1 year old) her father and I separated and subsequently divorced. Through the years I was the one who loved, fed, clothed, comforted, educated, encouraged, supported and at times disciplined her all while working to keep a roof over our heads, food in our bellies and clothes on our backs. The buck stopped with me. Through no fault of hers, her father was an absent one who she finally was able to reconnect with when she turned 18.
Much to my surprise sometime during her college years she stumbled upon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I, not being a follower of organized religion, did some research and although not convinced this was a path suited to my high spirited, intelligent, creative, talented, educated only child; I supported her right to choose her path and destiny.
From the age of three she was a dancer, actress, musician and singer and I had the pleasure of making every one of her costumes – so I assumed I would also have the pleasure of helping design and make her wedding dress.
Imagine the horror I felt as a mother to discover I would not be able to attend her wedding or have any significant role in her life from that day forward.
I had not encountered that tidbit of information during my research of this path she had chosen.
To me a wedding is about two families coming together to celebrate the joining of two young people in love about to venture out into the world together, but still needing some guidance and support from those who love them. It is about standing up and being counted to support and encourage them not just on that day but for the duration of the marriage.
When that day is marred by the idea that some are “not worthy” (my soon to be RM son-in-law actually said those words to me) to attend the joining it sets up a whole set of unspoken (and sometimes spoken) hierarchies which even time, love and support cannot overcome.
It is exclusive and divisive rather than inclusive.
So in my opinion this particular practice is clearly NOT about families.
When I suggested to my daughter that she be married in the church first so all our relatives and friends could attend she responded that then she wouldn’t be able to be sealed for one year and that would not be a good thing. This clearly put me between a rock and a hard place for I had raised her to respect and adhere to the rules and regulations of any organization she belonged to. How, without being a hypocrite, could I possibly insist on her going against one of the clearly most sacred rituals of her chosen path?
So out of respect for an institution/organization, which clearly does not respect the parent/child bond, I stepped aside and gave them my support and love which I continued to do. But given that now I am banished from their lives, it is clear that their belief system does not reciprocate that respect.
Maybe, just maybe, if we had come together as a family to plan and celebrate this union it would have strengthened our relationship. This ritual (and others) teaches and encourages disrespect and alienation of those who have different beliefs which then contributes to division and discord rather than unity and harmony.
Truth Renaissance Edmonton, Alberta __________________________________________________________________________________
Tears of Joy, Tears of Heartbreak
I come
from a small, very close family. We did everything together -- we even
joined the Mormon church together, when I was a child. In adulthood I
decided to join a different church, and it caused some heartache in my
family -- largely because the Mormon church's teachings about the
consequences of leaving the church are divisive and frightening.
However, once my family realized I was the same person I had always
been, this obstacle was overcome, and we were able to remain as
tight-knit as always. It would have been unthinkable for us to miss
major events in one another's lives.
Until my sister's temple
wedding. We both cried as the realization hit us that I would not be
allowed to attend. As a faithful and obedient member of the Mormon
church, the only acceptable path she could take was to be married in
the temple. According to her beliefs, were she to marry civilly first
(thereby allowing my attendance and that of most of our non-Mormon
extended family and friends), she would have to wait a year to be
sealed to her husband in the temple -- and thereby risk putting the
eternal nature of their family in jeopardy.
I wanted to be
there for my sister and support her as much as I possibly could, so I
went with her to the temple. I choked down tears when, after we said
our goodbyes in the lobby, I watched her in her beautiful gown, face
full of hope and anticipation, disappear through a door into the inner
sanctum. It felt like my heart went inside with her, and the rest of me
was left outside, empty.
I waited for hours, trying not to
think about what I was missing, trying not to worry that my sister
might be missing me. After the ceremony ended, the guests began to come
out into the lobby. Very few of them knew my sister intimately, as I
do; even fewer, I'm sure, would give everything for her, as I gladly
would. But they had been allowed to witness the most important moment
in her adult life thusfar, while I was excluded..
Perhaps the
hardest part of the day was when the guests came over to greet me. Most
of them knew me from my years growing up in the church, and with the
best of intentions, they began to relate the story of my sister's
wedding to me with joy and enthusiasm. I smiled and hugged, and while I
was filled with happiness for my sister, those tears of joy mixed with
tears of heartbreak each time someone told me about a detail, a moment,
something beautiful that had happened -- moments I had missed, and
could never get back.
I have never discussed my feelings or
experiences of that day with my sister or parents, and I probably never
will; I don't think any of us could bear to relive it. Also, the day
was about her, not me, and I would never want to add to the sadness my
family already experienced because of the Mormon church's absurd policy
-- a policy which, by the way, has no basis in doctrine, and doesn't
even apply in many countries.
My beautiful family joined the
Mormon church in large part because it proported to strengthen and
support families. Had we known then what we know now -- both about
temple polices, and about what the church teaches regarding members who
leave -- I am confident we all would have taken a long second look.
I served a
mission in England in the mid 70's and have long been aware of the
discrepancies in church policy. My husband and I married in the temple
in 1978 with no family members present, since we are both converts. It
was difficult, but we felt like we were doing the right thing. If I
had it to do again I might go for a civil marriage and get sealed a
year later.
The decision to wait a year is complicated not
only by the pressure of what people might think but also by the “what
ifs”. What if one or both partners die in that year? What if a child
is born? When you are young, the pressure of what others might think is
a lot greater than when age has mellowed you, but the “what ifs” are
still there. When my oldest daughter and son married in the temple, it
made me sad that my sweet mother, who traveled so far to support my
children, could not witness their marriages. It also made me sad that
my younger children were excluded. My daughter-in-law, also a convert,
had no family present for her wedding. My own children had only their
parents (daughter’s wedding) and 1 sibling (daughter at son’s wedding)
to represent the family.
Thank you for creating this
petition; I am happy to sign it. It may not change a thing, but it
feels good to me to speak out with others about something that has
bothered me for many years. I plan to mention it to my co-workers when
I go to the temple for my weekly shift. It is right to reserve the
sealing ceremony for recommend holders. But it is wrong to allow some
to be married civilly first, surrounded by their families and to deny
this opportunity to others. The people who make these policies must
live in a bubble.
About 7 years ago a recent convert in our area
married an active member civilly and got sealed in the temple 3 months
later on the anniversary of her baptism. I did not realize until then
that exceptions were made for converts.
Mary
__________________________________________________________________________________ The Heartache
Many
years ago, I found myself, a faithful, believing member of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, watching my soon-to-be
daughter-in-law and her dear mother hugging and crying. You see, I was
‘worthy’ to attend the temple marriage and she, a non-member was denied
the opportunity of seeing her youngest daughter married. I knew that
all her mother would have needed to do, at least one year previously
would have been to join the church too and then she could have shared
this wonderful moment with her daughter.
However, my surety of
this position did not stop the empathetic tears I shed as I watched
them and held the young bride’s hand as we walked sadly away from her
mother along the path that led to the temple doors. I was not the
rightful person to be taking this role; I had not earned it just
because I was a member of the same church. My daughter-in-law was
willing to make this sacrifice; one of many to come, in order to be
married in the temple. She had been taught and believed that this was
the right place for a marriage ceremony to be performed, even if that
meant leaving her parents out of the picture. Had she chosen to be
married civilly the one year penalty would have kicked in and would
have postponed their temple sealing. It would not have occurred to me
at that time that her agency and right to choose her own path and the
way she was to be married was being subdued by obedience to those in
authority. Couples could make a huge difference by non-compliance to
this authority, but the guilt and judgment they would experience could
be too much to bear for them and their families. Others might think
that they were ‘unworthy’.
The Difference
One year
after I learned for myself that my belief in the church was a dream; a
way of life and certainly it was not the one and only true church; my
beautiful, LDS niece invited me to her wedding. I was delighted to be a
part of the celebration; watching these two innocent, young love birds
gazing into each other’s eyes, smiling nervously yet with complete
confidence in their future together. They listened carefully to the
words of the marriage ceremony, responding in soft voices that they
were willing to make this commitment to each other for the duration of
this life. What? Read that again – not time and eternity? Why not? Were
they unworthy? Rebellious? What was the difference in this case? My
lovely little niece is blessed to live in England where the laws of the
land require a civil marriage ceremony first, before the temple
sealing. I’m not sure that members of the church who live in other
parts of the world where this requirement is the case, realize how
lucky they are. They do not have to make a choice between beloved
non-member relatives and a temple wedding; they get to have both. After
a short and fun reception the young couple, accompanied by people who
share the same beliefs traveled to the London Temple where the sealing
ceremony that is important to them took place. Because this is no
longer important to me, I did not mind being left out of this ceremony.
The part I was interested in most was the one I was able to participate
in along with my 2 other non-member sisters my mother and other family
members. It is still a treasured memory for me.
The Question
Why?
Why do couples in other countries get to do it this way while members
in North America do not? Just because the church CAN make rules that it
has to be this way does not mean that they have to be so mean spirited
as to take away the couples’ right to choose by punishing them with a
one year wait for the blessing of a temple sealing.
The LDS Church
advertises itself as a family oriented church; but let me tell you
about my experience with the family values LDS Church. My daughter
joined the LDS church and was later married in an LDS temple. We, her
parents along with her entire immediate and extended family were
excluded from the ceremony. People who were virtual strangers to her
were present; we were not allowed to be there. Why? The LDS church
prohibits non-members from entering their temples, even for family
weddings.
Follow up:
Several people advised us to get over it or do what we needed to do to be “worthy”. The problem with that insensitive advice was that I figured I already had.
Nine months of pregnancy, ten hours of labor, sleepless nights of worry, and the hugs and kisses to make the little hurts all better doesn’t count? How about helping her learn to walk, ride a bike, drive a car? Does attending every parent-teacher meeting, school performance and piano recital count? Going on school field trips, supervising school assignments, and musical instrument practice? Helping her pick out her a dress for the prom? Cheering as she accepted her high school diploma? Moving her into her college dorm? No?
How about holding her hand through months of difficult medical tests and doctor visits, then spending weeks 24/7 next to a hospital bed to see her through a life-altering illness? Doesn’t count? How about the time spent discussing life choices? Rejoicing over triumphs and accomplishments; consoling over losses and disappointments? Even accepting choices I deeply disagreed with? After a lifetime of expressing unconditional love and support in all the tangible and intangible ways only a mother can; I was judged “unworthy” and excluded.
I suppose I was naïve to have ever thought that wedding ceremonies are celebrations to which everyone who wishes to share a couple’s joy should be welcomed; not judged and excluded on the basis of religious affiliation.
The LDS church’s exclusionary policy extends to church members who are considered “unworthy” in some way. Several years ago, a friend was excluded from his daughter’s wedding because he had fallen behind in his tithing. In other words, a father (and lifelong member of the LDS church) was denied permission to be present at the marriage of his daughter because he owed the church money.
A simple solution would be to encourage couples to marry outside the temple and have the temple sealing later. However, LDS couples living in the United States are actively discouraged from considering this option.
Those who do decide to include all those they love in their wedding ceremony and marry outside the temple are penalized by church policy which requires them to wait one year to be sealed in the temple. However, this waiting period is not church policy in the UK, France, Germany, Japan and many other countries. (It is not even a consistent policy within the US.)
In those countries, church policy allows couples to marry in a ceremony outside the temple and to be sealed in the temple on the same day or another day. They are not required to wait the one year period. In the United States, couples who do not live within an easy day’s drive of a temple are permitted to marry in their hometown and then travel to a temple to be sealed. Again, they are not penalized by a one year waiting period.
If the LDS church is unwilling to allow non-LDS family and friends to be present at temple marriages (and I don’t think they should be forced to), they should eliminate the one year penalty. This would allow for a more inclusive ceremony and would be consistent with its own policy in other countries and other areas of the US.
I have lived and worked with LDS people for more that twenty years and have found Mormons to generally be kind people; I am not “anti-Mormon”. To those LDS people who disagree with me’ I ask that you at least try to understand that I speak from a mother’s hurting heart. To those LDS people who do agree, I know that you have been counseled never to criticize church leaders even when you think they are wrong. However, I ask you to remember all the examples history gives us of how only when people find the courage to speak do things change.
If LDS church leaders are serious about their part in healing religious divides and honest about their public pro-family stance they must change their policy. It is time to stop coercing couples into insisting that the people they love stand outside LDS buildings with broken hearts.
Jolene Arnoff Lindon, Utah
__________________________________________________________________________________ Void left by the Church
I was born a Mormon to a TBM mother and a believing
but sometimes questioning father. I liked everything about the church and
participated eagerly for 50 years. I grew up on a dairy farm and graduated
from USU in agriculture. I have been involved in agricultural sales all of my
career. I have been stake missionary, ward mission leader, ward executive
secretary, scoutmaster, ym president and bishopric counselor. I felt like I
committed my all to each position that I held. I was a missionary in Japan
in the early 70's. I married in the temple and have 6 children, 4 boys and 2
girls. Three boys completed missions. The 4th is in Dallas/Ft Worth-Spanish
speaking now. The oldest girl married in the temple. The youngest is in high
school. Two sons have married in the temple.
Seven years ago a brother-in-law
introduced me to the idea that the church might have some skeletons in its
closet and I proceeded to look. After 2 years of extensive study, I came to
the conclusion that the church could not support its claims and I quit
participating other than attending on an ocassional basis. Three years later
I resigned. As I moved away from the church my wife moved closer to the
church and our relationship began to crumble. We are still married. We live
in the same house, but essentially go our separate ways. We have very little
interaction that one would consider healthy in a normal marriage
relationship. She seems to get reinforcement from going to church and talking
to church leaders. It has been difficult for me to know what I need to do to
meet her needs in this changing relationship.
At this time I am involved in
cycling, backpacking, canoeing, and in the winter, snowmobiling. I have a dog
that is a great friend. Through my religious trials I have participated quite
a bit with the Postmormon organization and I recently attended the exmormon
conference (2008). Several of my adult children pulled me aside and inquired
abut the direction I was taking. I tried not to bring up the historical and
doctrinal things that bothered me but mentioned vague generalities. I wanted
them to find it on there own rather than feel like I had influenced them,
especially where spouses were involved.
Last February/March (2009), my oldest
son called me with some concerns. Big Love and the depiction of the temple
ceremony were making headlines. Some coworkers that knew he was Mormon were
asking questions and he was unable to answer them to their satisfaction. He
went on line and searched as I had done. His wife agreed to study with him
and they came to a similar understanding. They no longer participate in
church on a regular basis and are continually looking for positive ways to
fill the void left by the church. His leaving has created an interesting
atmosphere in our family. It was just me for a while that was the black
sheep. Now there are two more and it tends to create a division.
We are
working to overcome the challenges that come with traveling this path of
life. At this time our marriage relationship seems to be improving. I
was born and raised in Lewiston (Cache Valley), Utah and have lived the past
26 years in Preston, Idaho. Feel free to use my name. I used to
be hesitant but not anymore.
I Wish I Had Waited