TSCC excludes non-tithe payers, including non members, parents from seeing their child get married. Ok. weird, unfair, exclusionary and odd. But that is their choice. They can play the doctrine card on this one.
However, if a temple worthy couple decides that they do not want to exclude their family and hold a regular ceremony/wedding, then the TSCC punishes them with a "year long penalty" before they can be sealed? WHY????
If they are completely worthy for the temple from day one, what the hell is the penalty for(doctrinally speaking)? what else could the penalty waiting period be except to punish them for not marrying into an LDS family and to coherce money out of all the people involved.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2013 12:32PM by erictheex.
To withhold TSCC's holiest matrimonial ritual for a year from those who are 'temple worthy' - but who are also compassionate enough to have a regular wedding beforehand where all their loved ones can attend the ceremony - is indefensible from any perspective except punishing the couple for not towing the line.
From a cult perspective it makes sense while the rest of us look on - jaws on the floor. I remember detailing the whole temple sealing debacle for a friend: explained who gets in, how, who is excluded, why, and the one year penalty if a couple has a wedding ceremony where everyone can attend. There was no comprehension as to why an organization would do that to its faithful members - none at all.
TSCC can't relinquish such an important tool to wield over such an important day in one's life. That would represent an unacceptable loss of control, kind of like letting people wear whatever underwear they want.
The policy is applied differently in different countries.
On my mission in Germany, couples go to the staatsamt for the legal paperwork and the temple might happen that day or later that week, to my recollection.
Scully this is another logical problem. You are right, in countries were LDS ceremonies are not considered legally binding, then they have to do a very contrite ceremony at the courthouse and then go over to the temple. So this actually proves that this is not about worthiness or doctrine.
This is true only in countries that require it by law. In England for example a couple must marry in a public place but the secrecy of the temple forces couple to marry outside the temple first and do their sealing later. In central and south America couple marry civilly first and then in the church of their choice. The religious ceremony is not accepted as a legal marriage. So the lds church must abide as well or else nobody would marry in the temple.
The church is punishing you for not participating in their shunning ritual.
This is the "stick" that goes with the fake "carrot" they invented-- that they control whether or not your family stays together in heaven.
They must be in control of you, so if you are eligible to go to the temple and don't accept their control over who attends your wedding, then they will punish you.
Interesting enough, this type of punishment is never employed for Royal Mormons (see Marie Osmond's Las Vegas wedding) or Golden Collars, for that matter. It is selective punishment handed out with a heavy dose of discrimination.
"God is no respector of persons" is not a principle practiced by Mormons.
They are afraid if the sealing, a pretty grim ceremony by all accounts, is slapped onto the end of the wedding like a caboose, it will become socially acceptable to postpone it a few days, then a few weeks, then people will hardly notice if it is skipped altogether.
Also, lots of relatives now pay up to get a TR for a sealing. If they can attend a regular wedding, they may feel that their family obligation has been met, and they skip getting a recommend.
Lastly, if everybody gets a regular wedding first, the present stigma for a regular wedding now, indicating you weren't worthy for a "real" wedding, will be vastly diluted.
I was invited to go to Utah, spend a lot of money, and not see my nephew get married because it was in the temple. I had the "privilege" of going to the wedding reception (utterly sober event natch ;-).
I refused on principle. Why does the Mormon church get to call all the shots? If I couldn't go to the wedding, then I wasn't going to go to the reception.
I gave the money I would have spent to my nephew instead. The only thing that frosts me about that part is that the Mormon church will get their required 50 bucks from the amount.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The cult always wins.
There is no logical reason that the LDS church should not let a couple have an outside marriage then a temple sealing. No one can find any good reason to not let a couple do this. Some countries (UK) actually require a civil ceremony before any religious one and the church has no problem letting things happen in that order. The only reason left to explain their resistance to this ordering of events is extortion. Telling a couple they can't have a temple sealing for a year after having a civil marriage is meant to create fear in them about the survival of their marriage after death, with the only remedy being paying tithing by the couple (AND any interesting family members) so that they can go inside the temple. That's it. There is no GOOD reason for doing it that way. They will always exert any influence they have to make money, it seems to me anyway.
BTW, the UK doesn't require a civil ceremony before any religious wedding. they just don't recognize Mormon temple weddings. British law requires that the building be open to the public to hold a wedding there, and a Mormon temple obviously fails that requirement.
As I understand it, in the UK, the statement about anyone objecting to a wedding should speak now or forever hold their peace actually means something, so the wedding has to be open to anyone who might object.
yorkie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But in the UK the sealing usually has to be done > the same day as the wedding, otherwise the 12 > month waiting period applies.
According to the Church Handbook of Instructions there is no specific time frame for the temple sealing following the civil ceremony and states that the one-year punishment does not apply in certain cases.
"Some areas require that a marriage ceremony be performed by a public official. Some require that the ceremony be performed in a public building or another public place. In these cases, a temple sealing necessarily follows the civil marriage as soon as possible....." (pg 83)
"A husband and wife who were married outside a temple may be sealed after one full year from the date of the civil marriage. However, the one-year waiting period does not apply to worthy couples in the following cases:
1. The temple in which the couple will be sealed is in a country that requires a civil marriage and does not recognize a marriage in temple." (page 84)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2013 11:36PM by caedmon.
Mitt Romney had a fancy secular wedding with the non-Mormon in-laws and then turned right around for a temple wedding. Meanwhile, my TBM friend put four grand on a credit card so she could pay up her tithing and see her daughter get married. She also filed for bankruptcy later that year.
PapaKen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I submit that the couple is not actually being > "punished." In fact, waiting a year is really a > BLESSING. > > Hopefully, during the year, they'll wake up to the > real truth: > > Mor(m)onism is a fraud, and they don't need to go > to the temple at all.
Papa Ken, I think that very thing happened to one of my family members. In fact, I think there is a good chance that the truth began to be realized when said family member was a missionary. Family wasn't extremely thrilled that the wedding took place outside the temple. But the LDS are good at ignoring that which they do not like but still can't control. A number of waiting years later family member explained, to me, their involvement in the DAMU. Explained that the family was enjoying the 10% raise.
Like you pointed out, this is not the policy in other countries where the temple sealing is not recognized as a legit wedding by the state, so it's not doctrinal. So why is it the policy in the U.S.?
Simple, if it were not the policy in the U.S., the church would lose money. I really believe that's all it is.
Imagine there were no one-year waiting period in the U.S., what would be different from the church's perspective? Those that WANT to get married in the temple first still would. Those that wanted a temple sealing, but happened to have a regular ceremony first, still would do the sealing...albeit a few days (or whenever) later. So what's the real difference here?
The difference is in who ATTENDS the the temple wedding. There is great familial pressure to attend as momentous a family occasion as a wedding. If the church were to allow the non-TR holding (that is to say, possible non-tithe paying) members to attend a non-temple wedding, there would be less incentive for them to maintain a TR (pay a full tithe) or perhaps scramble to get one really quick for the temple wedding (pay back tithing) because they would likely not CARE about attending the later sealing.
It's all about member family/friends maintaining a current TR, or being full tithe payers. It's about the MONEY. If the church were to lift this one-year restriction in the U.S., they would lose money, and they know it.
Do the math. If the couple has a small group of 8 who attend, (say both sets of parents and four other attendees -grandparents, siblings, friends) to make a total of 10. If each person has a relatively small income of $30k per year on which they paid tithing, that adds up to $30K paid to TSCC in just the previous year.
Let the walls come tumbling down. So happy my Daughters have chosen like to me to turn and run from the stupidity of Mormonism. Enjoyed one wedding last year and have another to enjoy next year. Great Son in Laws to say the least. It is so obvious that Mormondum is about $$$$ and control and will try to destroy everything in it's path to have it.
I really would love to have an apologist try to explain this to me. I want to hear how God wants this to happen in the Us but not in other countries and how inviting your nom family to your wedding invite his ire, but only on US territory.
They are equally snarky about ring ceremonies. You can hold a separate ring ceremony, but you are not allowed to walk down the isle or in any other way approximate a wedding.
I went to one years ago and the speaker was down right rude in the way that he explained that the marriage had already occurred in the temple and this was an add on for those who were not worthy to attend that ceremony and if they would just get their act together they would be able to attend the real deal.
this is so TRUE! they downplay the ring change in the temple as a frivolous thing, but it better not happen outside of the temple because that is serious violation and god will not be mocked!
So if its no big deal and worldly then why not allow people to do it on their own free time outside of the temple!
My son and his wife did the sealing in the temple without the ring exchange... They did that later for her parents in an all out wedding ceremony. It worked well. Not great but it was the next best thing we could do for her parents.
oldklunker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My son and his wife did the sealing in the temple > without the ring exchange... They did that later > for her parents in an all out wedding ceremony. It > worked well. Not great but it was the next best > thing we could do for her parents.
Because everyone loves the booby prize!
The ring exchange was invented by Mormons to make themselves feel better about their insulting, arrogant behavior.
My DD and her hubby had one for us too. I can assure you it did nothing to appease hurt feelings.
This ridiculous and frankly vindictive rule/punishment is one of my 'LDS red flags' - that is, something in complete isolation of all the other well known issues with TSCC that demonstrates that the church has nothing to do with God.
This is frequently my first topic to discus when mormons tell me Jesus runs their church. They never have good answers, and I make sure to let them know it's all about the (extortion of) money.