Under the topic "What are Mormon weddings like?" CA Girl posted a link to the dialogue presented at a Mormon wedding

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon127.htm

And all I could think was how terribly sad that is. Nothing about loving each other or affection. No rings or kissing. All it talked about was obeying laws and ordinances, and "special" handshakes. How does this not raise a red flag to more people?

What a cultish ritual.

Meaning is highly individual. Just because there are no rings and no kissing does not mean that there is no meaning.

It is unfair to assume that your standards for expression of meaning are the same for everybody else. In fact, expressions like these are arbitrary and are decided among the two people involved.

You are right about that. I shouldn't say that it is meaningless because of a lack of what I view as affection. What bothers me is the fact that instead of talking about the couple, it talks about obeying the church. There is certainly something to be said for that.

snb likes to play devil's advocate. The point he/she made is a bit out there - most people don't find meaning in sterile, identical, preprogrammed vows although if snb does, then they make a good point. Also, there probably is a sense of satisfaction from doing what the Mormon couple deeply believes is the "right thing" that shouldn't be overlooked either.

However your point is essentially correct. Most people do not like to have something as life changing as a marriage become as stiff and sterile as being packaged like a can of Campbell's soup. Marriage should be an expression of love, commitment to each other, inclusive of family and beautiful - whatever you find beautiful whether it is being married by Elvis in Vegas or on the beach at sunset or in a big, traditional church wedding like your parents had. That is denied Mormons in the temple, no matter what they do at the reception afterward. It's one size fits all or else - just like pretty much everything else in Mormonism. You fit into THEIR mold, they don't adjust to consider individuals.

You are right, I do like to play devil's advocate. However, I don't think my point is all that out there. We just can't make assumptions about how someone else views these kinds of cultural expressions or rituals.

I'm getting married very soon myself and there are a lot of traditional cultural aspects of the ritual that we don't care about and are not going to observe. There are several things that are important to us, but unorthodox, that we both embrace as meaningful. This is my second marriage though. My first was in the temple. Nonetheless, those weird, sterile, highly ritualistic religious expressions in my first marriage were very important to me. They held a lot of meaning for me and were a huge part of my life.

While those religious expressions ended up not being a part of my life, and even caused damage, I embraced them at the time with just about as much excitement and significance.

You are completely right, most people would not find a Mormon marriage to be meaningful (sterile, identical or preprogrammed as it may be). That is because most people aren't Mormon. Instead of Mormon cultural rituals, they have their own sterile, identical and preprogrammed rituals to engage in (you may now kiss the bride, lifting the veil, cutting the cake, standing in a line during a reception, etc).

But standing in a line at a reception IS Mormon. I abhorred it from the getgo. When even our oldest was married in the temple, I avoided being in a reception line as best I could. In a traditional wedding, the couple et al get the congratulations at the church immediately. At the reception the couple would be sitting and dancing and eating. While they sit, people may talk with them. Standing in a reception line is stupid.

I agree that the standing in a reception line is a Mormon thing, as at the weddings I've attended that weren't Mormon ones, if anyone congratulated the couple, it was outside the church before the party had their formal pictures taken.

The bridesmaids and groomsmen actually participate by walking down the aisle before the bride, and after the ceremony is over. The maid/matron of honor holds the bride's bouquet, and she has the groom's ring on her thumb for the appropriate moment, and the best man has the bride's ring in a pocket. In Mormon receptions, the bridal party is only there to make it seem like they had attendants.

At the reception, the couple gets a chance to sit down and eat the meal, and usually they get up and visit their guests by walking around to all of the tables. There's also the dancing and bouquet/garter tossing that's done as well as the cake cutting, and by that, I don't mean some sheet cake like you might find at some Mormon receptions.

The trouble is that the couple in question may (and in fact, likely) has never witnessed a Mormon wedding before they themselves are married. They have no basis for making an informed decision. How many stories have been shared on this board of brides and grooms who were disappointed with their quick, impersonal, and badly dressed temple wedding?

I completely agree, in this example I think there would be elements of regret and unhappiness with how it went down. I'm talking in a much broader sense (and should have explained that as the case). :)

I sat with the "unworthy" family members and other kids when my older siblings got married and had never attended a temple wedding ceremony before my own.

Nothing beautiful about the ceremony. Nothing like the glorious, so-much-better-than-a-non-temple wedding promises that I'd heard from my YW advisers from Beehives to Laurels. I remember walking out of that room and whispering to my new husband, "Is that it?" I really thought there must be more than the sterile ceremony and the totally over-rated eternity mirrors.

I went to my cousin's wedding in the L.A. temple about seven months after my wedding. From the point-of-view as a guest, it was every bit as cold and sterile. It was a tiny room and the guests were packed in their like sardines.

It is a commitment to TSCC, not a celebration of the couple. I have been to many non-Mormon weddings. Some religious, some expensive, one done on a shoestring budget, some indoors, some outdoors. They were all a celebration of the couple by their friends and family--none of whom were asked to wait in the "I'm not worthy" room.

"none of whom were asked to wait in the "I'm not worthy" room"
+1
Not only that, but children who are not "endowment age" (over 18) also never get to see their family's weddings. Many siblings have probably missed weddings just from being too young.

Many...people here have commented how they married the first guy/girl they were kind of interested in...per the Prophet's instructions ...because "any" man and woman, righteous enough, can make a mormon marriage work. I'm glad for the exmos who fell into theis trap and were able to make their marriages work, but many others did not make it.

Focusing a marriage ceremony on what the couple will do for the church instead of each other...is WRONG and the poster has a right to express that..

Yep, that's it. Notice there are 2 questions. 1) to the groom: "Do you take her unto yourself?" and 2) to the bride: "Do you give yourself to him?" And don't EVEN try to say "I do." That is too much like a real wedding. We don't have "I do's," we have "yes's."

And then you're told to go forward and multiply and replenish the Earth. The groom is just thinking, "OK, when can we start trying." Do they say the same thing to old people when they get married. What about Dallin Hoakes marrying some 50+ year old. Are they being commanded to do something they can't possibly do? Then why are they allowed to get sealed? We all know that marriage is only about children. Otherwise, they wouldn't have an argument in hell against gay marriage.

Yes, it's about all you can do to keep the tears back, at least it was for me. So cold and sterile and completely devoid of any feelings or intimacy or anything. Oh, you DO get to look in those wonderful eternity mirrors, though, and see what you'll look like when you get to be dressed in the clown costumes forever.

I agree that the ceremony is quite meaningless.

However to be fair, this does not give the full context.

- The officiator will typically give a 5-20 minute speech before the ceremony is performed. The quality varies widely, but there is typically at least a pretty strong reference to the couple and parents, etc. and often some pretty cool, sweet things can be said - along with a bunch of Mormon platitudes and nonsense.

- Immediately after the ceremony the couple is almost always invited to kiss across the altar which is considered to be very meaningful to those in attendance.

- After that there is a mini-reception line with lots of hugging and tears and such.

- To a Mormon in attendance it is very meaningful because they believe they just created an eternal bond.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2014 07:43PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

My daughter cried, not during, but afterwards, in the temple dressing room. Though the matrons were doing their best to shoo us out of the crowded area as quickly as possible, my daughter did find a chance to tell me, "This was NOT what I expected my wedding to be like."

Her father, her siblings, her best friend, cousins, bridesmaids, her husband's siblings (except for one), were not able to see her get married. Her beautiful dress was covered up, her hair was ruined, it was hot. She was rushed through like that "can of soup." Luckily, in the confusion, she didn't remember the exact words of the vows, except that the words "Love" and "Honor" and "Cherish" were missing.

I told my daughter, "You and Fiancee were legally married when you signed the document--and your Wedding Day is just beginning. The reception we planned together will make up for everything." And we had a great reception, that included EVERYONE, with lots of food and live music and dancing for unworthy friends and too-young children, a beautiful garden, and air conditioning inside. She and her fiancee said it was the best party they had ever been to. The pretty, romantic setting, the love of family and friends, the fun and merry-making put them in the mood for a rockin' wedding night and honeymoon.

And then after that "lovely" ceremony that seems as borrowed from the Moonies as it does from the Masons, the bride and groom can greet guests at the Ward gymnasium as they stand under a basketball hoop laden with plastic flowers. A quick ice cream punch and a slice of banana bread with the other brothers and sisters to discuss home teaching assignments and then the guests can head home for another viewing of America's funniest home videos where--surprise, surprise! The baby wins again.

I've been to both the Temple Weddings and the Non-Mormon weddings. One was a beautiful celebration of love with friends and family and tears and toasts and dancing and funny stories that shouldn't have been told and the other is . . . . a sealing. Your fate is sealed. And yes, the ceremony itself is sterile and it is meaningless.

I have to laugh because this is so true. The baby always wins.

And you forgot to mention the tiny multi-colored bread sandwiches.

Usually the couple has been 'setup' with a life time of being told how wonderful it will all be. They have zero idea of what will be said, or who will be saying it. They have zero control over who will or won't be there. The church decides all of that.

They show up with high expectations. I'm sure there are a lot of very disappointed couples that have gone through the whole temple wedding thing.

I did. I was all of 18. I left the building shell shocked. It was the 70's. I'd just promised to die rather than talk about what went on at my wedding.

madalice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They have zero idea of what will be said, or who will be saying it. They have zero control over who will or won't be there. The church decides all of that.

Sometimes I've wondered if happiness correlates to how much control you feel you have over your own life.

And it's good to see posters talking about fairness and context.

Others have pointed out about the exclusion of non-worthy family members and friends, and I feel this exclusion can be considered one of the most important and meaningful parts of a Mormon temple wedding.

For the Mormon who is excluded - this is a fantastic time to reflect on where precicely they fucked up so that they can't witness their loved ones kneel across from each other and be bound together along with god and his church for all eternity.

For the non-member, they get to question what in the fuck did they do to deserve exclusion from a church they don't even belong to.

Both instances are a powerful opportunity for the spirit to whisper promptings to the unworthy to repent and/or be baptized.

What could be more meaningful than everyone committing/recommitting to the will of god and his church?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2014 09:40PM by Raptor Jesus.

Well..that's not what I was thinking while I was standing out on the sidewalk with lots of family and friends while my daughter was inside getting married with ward members in attendance. We were on the side walk in December because the waiting room was filled with teenagers waiting to do baptisms for the dead. There were lots of us out there because it was a Saturday during winter break and there was an assembly line of weddings that day. I wasn't thinking about how I messed up.

I was thinking that Mormons really don't believe marriage is that important. My daughter entered into hers quickly as in the mormon tradition, so quick that her brother who could have attended, had another mormon wedding on his wife's side of the family to attend in another state.

I was thinking that this is not a celebration of two families coming together, but rather this event is used to help members who can attend feel superior. Unless I conform I can not attend. It gave me a taste of being bullied.

I was thinking this is one of the meanest thing someone could do to a mom.

I was thinking how much I regretted every time I attended a sealing or a session and participated in this cruel tradition.
I think mormon weddings have lots of meaning. Even though when people talked about my daughters sealing they mentioned how impersonal it was, it still meant a lot. It makes people choose sides, because you give up a lot to choose to be on the side of the church. I hope it's worth it.

The true order of division.

IT is bullying! They use the love we have for our children as weapons to make us conform.

There are a lot of Mormons who conform just to avoid the humiliation of being labels "unworthy". Conforming means you pay tithing.

This is why I doubt they will ever do away with the one year punishment. Look up family first weddings and read the heartbreaking stories of regret. The one year punishment is merely a policy, but a policy that is more important than people because it keeps the dollars rolling in.

My Husband and I were married in the dc temple. It was over 100 degrees that day and I was bride 45 of 150. It was awful. My dress was covered. My family wasn't allowed in. Air conditioning wasn't working well. We were so rushed like brides on an assembly line. The officiator spoke about d&c 132 before the ceremony. At the time. ...I didn't know what it said and he encouraged us to read and study it to strengthen our marriage and too understand our covenants that day. Now. .... it makes me physically ill. Before we got married I told my husband I would never agree to or believe in polygamy. I was so stupid. So niave to ever trust the church. Now every time we drive by it.... it's just a pretty building where we spent part of our wedding day. If I think about the actual ceremony. ..I just get angry.
edited for spelling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2014 11:08PM by freckles.

Women-folk...pls correct me if I am wrong or misinformed.

When you plan a NONmormon wediing, religious or nonreligious, just how many weddings can be done in that day. I've been to a few weddings and never was there an air of being "rushed" to get another couple married right after this one. It was at the churches I was at, a day set aside for the couple.

Usually, there would be one wedding per day. But there are exceptions. Catholic churches sometimes schedule more than one wedding on a given day, with the services being hours apart.

It's less stressful if there's only one, because it takes time to decorate the church or venue with flowers, etc., and it takes time to take them down.

But 150?? No no no

In early September at 2:00 pm. Its a big, grand church, stained glass, very formal and traditional. I wanted to get married in a simple ceremony without all the folderol, but my husband wanted the whole shebang, matching dresses and tuxes, organ music, but at least he agreed to nix a soloist! Anyway, there was another wedding scheduled for 5 pm that day, so we couldn't dally too long, as they needed time to set up.

There were flowers and candles that needed to be set up and removed, which didn't take too long, and we did not do it, someone else did. There was no feeling of being rushed at all. I got to the church with most of my attendants at 11 or so, after my hair appointment, to do makeup, dress, and get ready for family pictures before the ceremony, but I refused to see my groom until I walked down the aisle with my dad. I'm old fashioned that way, and considering how jittery I was, it was a good thing!

My FIL and BIL both read, one from 1 Corinthians 13, the other a Khalil Gibran quote. We picked all the music, went with the traditional vows, although I wanted to strangle the organist who refused to play the tempos I'd asked him to, and galloped through everything sloppily.

So, no, there's not such a rush to do weddings in any churches I know of. I'd guess no more than three a day, spaced out at least 3 hours apart.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2014 01:43PM by serena.

I'm appalled at just how many people are willing to rationalise that hideous ceremony as something special and meaningful. Sunk costs, anyone?
Love is completely absent from the ceremony and the couple marries the church, not each other!
As I've often heard in defense of mo-marriage rituals, "historically love had nothing to do with marriage". Really? In the 20th century I would say anachronistic and completely false comparison to anything in today's world besides an arranged marriage. But now it's the 21st century! Geez, still trying to pretend you are royalty marrying for political alliances, mormons?
Oh right, I forgot, mormons define love differently than anyone else and marry for sex anyways, not love, even though they say the rest of the world marries for shallow, insignificant reasons that make a mockery of their sacred rituals.
Mormons are trained to mistake a tingling in the "loins" for a message from gawd. Feelings, dontcha know.

Their contradicting teachings about marriage within the church and without are tailored to separate conversations, but taken altogether are a mass of contradictions.

Love is not necessary to make a lasting marriage.
Nonmormons marry for frivolous, worldly reasons.
If someone turns you on, you better marry quick lest you sin.
Secular marriage makes a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage.
Let's all dress in clown suits! (Who's making a mockery of marriage now?)

marriages. Its really insulting, as well as flat out wrong, as if all non- Mormon marriages are on a par with Dennis Rodman's or Britany Speers style of marriages. And how many times have I heard Mormons brag that Mormons dont put down other churches - crap! Pure, unadulterated bs.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I was an active, practicing, albeit liberal, non literal, non-fu damentalist Christian at the time I got married. It was a very solemn, yet joyful occasion, uniting our families, as much as posible, anyway, each joining the others family, and a wonderful celebration of love as we made a new separate family of just the two of us. Children eventually were part of the equation for us, after my husband graduated from college (his first day of college was 5 days after our wedding), but not the reason for getting married, and children were never mentioned in the ceremony, which was right out of the Lutheran order of marriage. I married him because I didnt want to live without him. No I am not talking about suicide. I was 33, and knew by then what I wanted and was important to me.

Frivolous reasons... frivolous?? Some people deserve a smack upside the head.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2014 02:03PM by serena.

Let's not forget that. D&C 132 where the "new and everlasting covenant" is spelled out also threatens Emma that unless she gets on board polygamy she will be "destroyed".

So by implication when you get temple-married you are also officially signing up for polygamy. Now isn't that special?