When I was a Bishop (many years ago), I attended over 50 temple sealings/weddings. I was often times saddened when close family members (including parents) could not be there. It seemed wrong and I saw some very unhappy parents and other family members. I was also underwhelmed by the ceremony and experience each time. Of course, I was totally on board with everything at that time and I would tell myself I just didn't understand the importance or the sacred nature of the thing. But, I experienced thoughts of unfairness, weirdness, and cultish policies.

Once I learned that outside of Utah, (there were not hundreds of temples at the time) you were married civilly then made your way to the temple sometimes years later, the whole sham was pointless.

We had a church defying civil marriage and finally after the birth of my first child 5 years later made it to the temple.

The temple is a revenue generator for TSCC and I doubt they will ever do away with the 1 year penalty for those who defy them and marry first outside of the temple (although as Heartless points out, this is SOP in many countries outside the US). They would also have to change the cultural Mormon view that a temple marriage is the best and only way to marry for the good cult member - a more difficult feat than merely changing a policy (and it is just a policy).

Our entire family was excluded from our convert daughters temple marriage. Ten years later, my extended family still make snarky remarks about it. It is a wound that has not yet healed over despite generally good relationships all around.

Did you ever notice that the ceremony mentions nothing about love?

Covenants and obedience. Love is not a central theme.

Great post Sam. If more people could just admit to each other that "this just does not feel right . . " the church would be turned upside down.

Yours is a textbook example of how the Mormon church manipulates you into ignoring your own moral code and sense of decency in favor of supporting their agenda. Don't anybody tell me this is not a cult tactic.

We all learned to accept the unacceptable because of those phrases they use. I know I did.

"It will all be explained in the hereafter."

"Heavenly Father doesn't want us to delve into the mysteries."

"We aren't always able to understand the ways of the Lord."

"OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE"

Mormonism adopted the Puritan ethic that intimacy was "evil." The Church is structured to restrain all intimacy. It doesn't matter if it is physical, emotional or spiritual intimacy. All intimacy must be constrained.

Everyone is addressed by formal titles (Brother, Sister, President).
The Word of Wisdom.
No loud laughter (or other humour)
General Authorities speak in monotones (without vocal expression).
Bodies must be wrapped in garments.
LDS "uniforms" (male: white shirt, tie; female: plain skirt/blouse or jumper)

Why should the temple be any different?

I never went through the temple, as I was booted out of the church for being a big lez when I was 21. I have read the words of the sealing ceremony, though. I know people have said there is no mention of love, but what I am wondering about is this line: "with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant" - so are the laws rites and ordinances ever specified? What does this even mean? Is this clarified somewhere in the endowment ceremony? Does this refer to scripture? What are the couple promising to do?

did you write this article?

No. I did a search and saw that.

So D&C 132 is about polygamy - it commands Emma to accept the other wives "the Lord" gave Joseph Smith. It says men can take plural wives so long as they are virgins and the previous wives accept - though Joseph Smith had wives who were other men's wives, so not virgins, and Emma was not consenting. It also says that temple marriage is for eternity and not just time. But this still does not answer my question - this section of the D&C does not enumerate what laws, rites, and ordinances the couple are promising to obey. In a standard marriage ceremony, they are listed: love, honor, cherish, protect, in sickness and health, forsaking all others, etc. So this seems to me like the same "gotcha" you get the first time you get endowed - you promise to agree to everything before you now what it is you are agreeing to. In the wedding ceremony you agree to laws, rites, and ordinances that are not defined. So they could be whatever the church tells you later, right?

As a mother who left the church before her two youngest children were married, I had the following experiences:

When daughter got married, an extended family member drove 300 miles to be in the temple with my daughter because "somebody needs to be here to support her"

When youngest son got married, I traveled 800 miles to sit in the room reserved for those who could not go into the temple itself. It was packed. One person looked around the room at all of us and remarked "this is where we, the great unwashed, get to wait". It was all very sad.

Now my grown kids, all still TBM know that I do not and will not attend LDS rituals, no matter what they are.

I've never seen a temple "wedding" where someone who should have been there wasn't allowed to be there. Even if it's siblings who are too young to get a recommend. The whole family should be celebrating the big day.

They need to quit calling it a temple "wedding." It is a sealing. They do not have weddings. They have a "rehearsal dinner" (still laughing about that one), a sealing, a luncheon, a reception.

I did NOT have anything I would call a wedding. Even though, yes, two people signed a paper saying they heard someone saying we were legally wed.

I completely agree NormaRae. It isn't a wedding.

Yeah, like it matters if someone with their Holy Ghost is there versus someone without it.

Light of Christ baby, they got it all wrong in their so-called right-eousness.