Definitely an excellent article- I couldn't gauge whether the author of the blog was a mormon though? Some of his language seems to point that he's not but I couldn't tell.
Oddly enough, if such a big deal hadn't been made about temple marriage, I might be a mormon today, albeit an unhappy one. When my husband and I were engaged and I was planning to get baptized, my MIL threw a fit when she found out that we weren't planning on getting married in the temple first. I would have been the only person in my family to be there. Nearly all my husband's older relatives (including both his parents and all his living grandparents) would have been able to be there. I would have had no one there with me. I thought it was unbelievably selfish to expect that of anyone. My husband had no problem with it one way or another. But MIL kept saying "The blessings WILL NOT be the same. Who told you the blessings would be the same? You DO NOT get as many blessings if you wait."
Well, if she was going to throw such a hissy fit about it then forget it. We eloped anyways and she threw an even bigger one about HER not being there. Big deal. It still pisses me off to this day that she could be so selfish.
I really hope that this policy gets reversed sooner rather than later. It's so damaging to so many people.
At first people could get civily married and THEN sealed in the same day. But then, Mormons didn't fight so hard and pay their 10% to get into the temple because they had already been an important part of the day. Until the church decides they don't want to squeeze money out of people for temple ordinances, I doubt it'll change.
My TBM daughter will be getting married sometime in the next few years I think. This article made a lot of sense and I sent it to my TBM wife. We'll see what she thinks of it. It will be an interesting discussion no doubt.
I thought this guy's analysis was well-researched and well-reasoned.
I think I've read on this board that England doesn't recognize "secret" wedding ceremonies, so couples are allowed to marry civilly and in the temple immediately.
So, Mr Monson, if it's OK in the London temple, why not in the Logan temple?
Yes, absolutely. I am an English Ex-Mo and, here, the law is that a marriage cannot be performed in a building that is not open to the public.
Therefore, a marriage cannot be performed in a Mormon Temple. In my experience, most mormon couples get married at their local chapel, and then get sealed in the temple the same day.... but not always... occasionally a couple will get married, and not sealed until the next day, or a few days later. [It would be seen as quite scandalous if a couple went on honeymoon without being going through the temple sealing, though]
What struck me about that article is the author just barely touched on it, but had she emphasized it a bit more, it could have a stronger impact.
She danced all around the point that the temple sealing is all about polygamy and isn't about one man-one woman marriage at all. It's not even really about marriage.
If more mormons realized this, I think many more would be getting civil marriages. If I knew someone who plans to marry in the temple soon, I'd show them this article and some other scriptural back up to demonstrate that a mormon temple marriage is tantamount to committing yourself to polygamy.
Wow, I never got that before! Thanks for sharing. One of the reasons I officially resigned my membership was so my ex, upon his remarriage in the temple, would NOT be thinking he'd EVER get me back in some made up next life, after the horrible ways he treated me. (I do know it is all BS anyway.)
But here is my question now. I wonder if the one year waiting period the church currently dishes out as punishment for not going to the temple in the first place, I think only here in the US, to be married is for the purpose of making family and friends think the young couple is unworthy, have been messin' around, maybe even knocked up. I have to wonder about that, because they so love inflicting shame.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2011 09:56AM by think4u.
I worked with a guy whose brother got married civilly. He married a convert and not one member of her family could have attended the temple. Most of his family could. But HE was the one who insisted on the civil marriage. He was not going to start his marriage by telling his in-laws they couldn't be at the wedding. His fiance actually had a hard time with that at first--she had only been a member a few years and was very indoctrinated about the need for a temple marriage and was afraid to get married outside the temple. But she finally agreed and was pretty happy about it by the time they married.
The thing that got to the groom the most was people asking "what if something happens to one of you before you get to be sealed?" His answer to that was essentially that if he died in that first year before they were sealed, he'd want his wife to really take her time and be very sure she wanted to go and be sealed to him. He said he'd rather she find someone who she could spend her life with and that person would probably be the father of her children and he wouldn't want her to be stuck sealed to him. Then people would start in on the "well the blessings aren't the same" crap. He'd throw "Well, I haven't heard anyone say that to Mitt Romney" in their face.
Temple weddings are the biggest joke in TSCC. I felt so jipped and I was as Molly Mormon as it comes. I know most, if not all, girls feel the same way, whether they'll admit it or not. My daughter felt even more jipped because there were no parents of either the bride or groom at her wedding. One of the first thing she researched about church history and doctrine was where the rule about temple weddings came from and could find nothing. That led her to much more research and she found the Exit door rather quickly. So temple marriages often DO serve a good purpose. As other couples start figuring that out, things might start to change.
Mitt's wife is a convert and her family is not Mormon. They had a huge non-temple wedding (circa 1960's) and then flew to SLC the next day to get sealed.
During his campaign when that would come up, Romney said it was common back where there were few temples and it was hard for a couple to get there, to let them marry outside the temple and then be sealed.
Well, that reasoning works if it had really been hard for them to get there. But if they could fly there the next day, why couldn't they fly there the day of the wedding. His daddy was governor of Michigan at the time. How would it have looked to the press that the governor's son got married and his wife's parent's couldn't attend? That story is SO lame. My daughter's ex-inlaws were married about the same time frame. They were living in Nova Scotia at the time. They were told if they married outside the temple they'd have to wait a year to be sealed. So they went to SLC by themselves to get married because their families couldn't afford to go.
Trust me, it was much harder for me and my family to go the 4 hours to Atlanta when my daughter got married and pay for hotels and stuff (to stand outside) than it was for Mitty and his family to go to SLC. But for us lowlies, the church just says "tough beans."
I dont like the fact it didnt touch on the vows themselves how the woman is basicly given by god to the guy and has to promse to be faithul yet the guy dosent promise anything to the woman just promices stuff to god.