(mild swear)

Awhile back the church changed it hard core policy by allowing members to attend a temple sealing without waiting the 1 year "punishment". So I was looking through the church policy handbook for the bishop and came the music part for civil marriages performed in a church building. We already know that weddings are never held in the chapel, but dammit! They won't allow a wedding march to be played!

Music for Weddings
A wedding ceremony that is held in a home or Church building might include prelude music, hymns, special musical selections, and postlude music. Civil marriage ceremonies should be simple, conservative, and without pomp in the proceedings. When a wedding ceremony is held in a Church building, a wedding march is not appropriate.

Damn them!

You can't sing "Here comes the bride, big fat and wide. Here comes the groom, skinny as a broom." In church? I bet you can at Fester's 24 hour Wedding Chapel in Cousinscrew, Nevada.

-No flowers
-No music
-stupid temple costumes
-nothing personal (vows, promises, poems)

They are terrified that young people getting married want a special ceremony; if not THEIR day THEIR way!

Didn't the first temple have a deflowering room? That strikes me as both efficient and holy.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't the first temple have a deflowering room?
> That strikes me as both efficient and holy.

The FLDS do. Don't think our modern church does.

I was very pushy with my son that he DID NOT want to be married in a mormon church or have a Mormon bishop (the bride’s father) marry them, since he wasn’t having a temple wedding. For this very reason. They want to make you have as ugly and unjoyful of a wedding as you’d have in the temple. As it was, the marriage had little chance of success and I think we all knew it (they rushed it because they had a baby), so I wanted them to at least have something that felt like a real commitment, was beautiful and where everyone who was trying to support them could attend and feel joy, not feel like they were at a funeral or some lesser wedding.

No, it didn’t last, but I can look at those pics with my granddaughter and tell her what a beautiful day it was and remind her that even though her parents didn’t have enough in common to make a marriage work, they were both so in love with her that they wanted to try and did their best. I love reiterating to her how beautiful it was, and how neat it was that everyone got to be there. Maybe she’ll opt for a nice wedding, even if she does a temple sealing the next day.

They are terrified of a regular ceremony upstaging the standard temple sealing, so they make it as insipid as possible. They have reason to worry.

Yes, this! ^^^

I think you are onto something.

That's in the handbook, if I recall correctly. Bishops doing civil ceremonies are instructed to downplay the thing and speak of the necessity to do it the right way as soon as possible.

"Civil" weddings done by a Mormon bishop (like ours, in the RS room!!) are amazingly tepid, but they are both cheap and legal, which was ideally suited to our situation nearly 30 years ago.

My soon-to-be MIL bought the lovely dress I was married in (fortunately, she liked me). Our "floral arrangements" consisted of a single red rose, long-stemmed, tied with narrow ribbons of light and royal blue (one each), which I carried, and a red rose boutonniere for DH. We spent what should have been our honeymoon (a three-day weekend) finishing up moving stuff out of our respective apartments into the one we would share with our 4 children.

We were able to take a lovely trip up the West Coast from San Diego up to Anacortes some years later, and considered that trip our honeymoon.

Of course, a temple wedding was out of the question, because DH was too noble to fib about minor transgressions just to get into the temple (I had no such reservations, even then.) And I would later leave the church altogether.

But it has all worked out very well. We are happily married and have no issues about church.

I think it depends on the bishop. My sister was married by our bishop who also was a good family friend. He did a great job and said some nice things and wished them well.

We went to the first pre-temple Mormon wedding ever, Saturday. The couple were married under an arbor of flowers, in he bride's parents beautiful garden, with a backdrop of the Wasatch mountains. All of the bridesmaids and groomsmen were at the ceremony, along with the flower girls and ring-bearer, and all the family and neighbors. No one was "unworthy" or too young. They said they did this because the bride's father was not a Mormon.

Many questions were asked, though, such as, "When are they getting married in the temple?" The couple said, "We're getting married in the Draper temple, after our honeymoon. We haven't made any reservations yet."

I know the groom well. His stake president father and his mother were all smiles, but a few of us know that he will never go to the temple, and his bride won't care one way or the other. They were an attractive couple, age 33, and neither had ever been married before. A new generation of Mormons is rising up!

I think this is why the church changed it's policy on weddings. The church knows pressure to have gay temple weddings will increase and the way things are today the media and special interest groups can really come down on the church for discrimination and not being with the times.

How the church avoids being pressured to have gay temple weddings is to allow it's members to be married in a civil ceremony and have the temple sealing done separately. That way the church can say a temple sealing is an ordinance and not a wedding.

Some real clever legal maneuvering done in not a very visible way.

Nobody outside the Mormon Church cares in the least who is or isn't allowed into temples for which ordinances. There is no more pressure to have gay marriages sealed in the temple than there is to have the marriages of smokers sealed in the temple.

All churches have total rights to marry (as long as said marriage is not a crime - e.g Warren Jeffs case) or not marry anyone they choose.

Mormon weddings are cheap though. So many women want weddings that cost tens of thousands of dollars.

I've been to a few lavish weddings. I had a few friends either marry into money or did well for themselves. The most memorable was a fashion designer friend of mine who was into the outdoors and never fully left his Idaho roots; even though he lived in New York City. Fabio actually was one of his clothing models. He was at the wedding. Haha! Nice guy actually. Anyways his wedding was outdoors Idaho themed and he had canoes full of ice with the beverages in them and the wedding was in this beautiful mountain setting. I remember his wife had a white leather beaded wedding dress that looked kinda native American.

Anyways the people who had the most lavish weddings had the shortest marriages. My designer friend's marriage fizzled I think mainly due to they loved their careers more than each other. Then a few years back he came out and said he was gay. I was a bit shocked because I grew up with the guy and knew him pretty well. He always seemed to like the ladies but maybe being around the New York fashion thing changed him. It did change him. He did become a different person in many ways.

>>He always seemed to like the ladies but maybe being around the New York fashion thing changed him. It did change him. He did become a different person in many ways.

Working in the fashion industry is not going to turn anyone gay. I'm guessing that your friend simply felt more accepted and able to fully embrace his sexuality.

I worked in the interior decorating industry in NYC years ago. There was some crossover with the fashion industry. IMO the fashion industry is a much tougher field. I could see it changing someone. They would need a thick skin to survive.

In my industry, I would say that at least during the 1980s, 9/10 guys were gay.

It doesn't mean they aren't gay. My ex's old boyfriend has a lot of women friends--A LOT. He goes places with them all the time. My ex had a lot of friends who were girls and went to every school dance, etc. My nephew's son just graduated from high school and went to every school dance and he always posts pictures of him and girls. He has COME OUT as gay and everyone knows he is.

No, being in fashion design will not make you gay. Just like when you go inactive, you don't choose to be gay (as members of this ward have said about my ex).

You are BORN GAY. Period. You might not recognize that you are gay until you are older--I mean Ed Smart finally came out--but he knew when he was a lot younger. You can fight it the rest of your life and it isn't going to change. People can't believe my ex had sex with a female, so he must be bi. Absolutely not. My ex is as gay as you can be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2019 05:53PM by cl2.

Yes, I've seen gays with really great female friends.

When I was living and working in NYC, I saw the phenomenon of the "walker." Widows and divorcees in high society would call upon a charming, cultured gay man to escort them to various high profile events. This worked for both the man and the woman. The woman would have an acceptable escort, and the gay man would enjoy events to which he might otherwise not have access, and make valuable social and business contacts. This was a widely accepted practice, and no one blinked an eye at it, or pretended that the man was anything other than gay.

For nevermos, there is a broad middle ground between cheap and expensive. For one couple I knew, they had their wedding in a university chapel with the reception at the faculty club. Refreshments at the reception included champagne and finger foods. Everything was perfectly elegant, but I don't think that the cost was terribly high. My nephew and his wife had a very nice wedding and reception, but costs were contained. For instance, family members did the flowers, decorations, and desserts (there were an assortment of pies in addition to the wedding cake.)

I think Mormons will figure this out as well. As they attend more non-temple weddings, they will see that there are many different ways to do things.

In the UK temple weddings are not allowed, as in they’re not recognised by the government as valid (I don’t know why?). So couples always have their wedding in the chapel, then they have to drive to the temple afterwards for the sealing. Some couples do it immediately afterwards, some the next day, some after the honeymoon. It always struck me as a huge inconvenience. But if a couple has ‘sinned’ it makes it less obvious when they just don’t do the sealing for another year. I know one couple who had to do that, and ironically the wife is super TBM now and acts like she thinks she’s the bees knees and super righteous for having the perfect mormon family. You know the drill.
Anyway, you’re right, these weddings always were quite bland compared to non mormon weddings. But I think I’ve seen flowers and heard the wedding march...at least I don’t remember noticing these being absent, but I could be wrong. Mormon chapels are so bland and boring anyway. Another thing I noticed is that sometimes the bride had to ditch her lovely wedding gown for temple clothing - I think it is if the dress is too lavish, etc. If I’ve remembered that correctly then it is a huge shame.
If or when I ever get married I wouldn’t want something lavish and expensive, but I wouldn’t want it that bland either. That means a registry office is out, as is a church because I’m now an atheist. Funny how life turns out not as you expect it at all. I guess an outdoor wedding, but not in England because it is bound to rain.

Is it cos they is Mormon? Da temple weddings is illegal in Britland cos u need witnesses an' there is no indy witnesses in da temple to say they is not relatid or is already married. Respect ya!

LJ12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the UK temple weddings are not allowed, as in
> they’re not recognised by the government as
> valid (I don’t know why?).


I think in most all European countries, a "Church" wedding is not recognized as valid. You must go get a civil ceremony in front of a civil magistrate. Seems these folks still realize (or still think) that a marriage is just a contract or business arrangement between two families, not necessarily between two people.

My oldest brother was married in Frankfurt about 44 years ago. They had a civil marriage in front of a judge or other official in Frankfurt the day BEFORE their church wedding at the Post Chapel.

Well I know in most churches in England, you can get married in a church no issues. It doesn’t have to be repeated anywhere else and that’s still the case. The law has even changed to allow gay couples to marry in the CofE. It’s been a part of our culture for along time to just get married in the Church of England, even if you’re not overly religious. Now you can do it in a registry office, and as our country has become more secular this is now a lot more common than it was.

The British law (as far as I know from what I have read on RFM) is that marriages must be held in a public venue. A church is OK, but a temple is not because it is not open to the public.

Apparently that clause about "if anyone objects, let him speak now or forever hold his peace" actually applies in Britain, and the general public needs the formal opportunity to object.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2019 11:31AM by Brother Of Jerry.

I Object.

Yes I always hold my breath when an officiator says those words. Is someone going to tell a huge secret that will ruin the wedding. I only saw this once on a British soap, which of course is fictional. But apparently it’s the real deal: you can object to the marriage.

In Scotland couples get married in the chapel then travel to the temple,you are correct Brother of Jerry,it has be be open to the public,our Daughter (resigned) got married in a beautiful Hotel,with gardens to die for and with so much character,Church weddings in Scotland were overtaken by other types of weddings eg humanist for the first time last year.

are opting for a civil wedding before a temple one. How can you change it so quickly and have the kids think it is just as special????? I asked my daughter what she would have done and she said get married in the temple, and that's fine. It is her wedding. I would have done the same thing if I was that close to when they made the change.

They'll probably silently change it back and nobody will know it. They have to micro manage everything--even your civil wedding.

I recently met up with a very old friend I had not seen since my teens. He and I used to go to a lot of the MIA functions together. He is now almost 70 and was divorced 20 years ago. He met a woman in the same situation and they decided to marry. Both were temple workers (he is in the temple presidency now). After all the years of paying tithing and being totally faithful in the church, they married in his sister's back yard because of all the various rules surrounding 2nd marriages, temples and even the use of the chapel for weddings. I couldn't beleive it, such a reward for years of service!!!!

It's so much easier, now, to plan the traveling, and to coordinate everything.

My uncle in California got married before the Oakland temple was built, and he and his wife travelled to SLC to get married, so they could honeymoon in Sun Valley. All the guests didn't want to travel to SLC, so no one was there for the wedding, except the parents, and they all went out to lunch at the Hotel Utah, afterwards. They came back home to California, and had a fancy reception at the country club, and the bride had a painful sunburn, and looked like a lobster.

It seemed like the cult enjoyed being overly important, and putting everyone else out, and passing judgments, and, especially holding members hostage for money. I can't believe the cult would give up this temple-marriage-first rule!

I do think that the rule change will free up a lot of Mormon families, and couples will have lovely (windows and fresh air and beautiful wedding dresses), private (no strange temple-workers) all-inclusive family weddings FIRST. When they go to the temple later, inactive and semi-active Mormons will not feel any pressure to pay tithing, like I did, and like my parents did. Couples can sneak off to the temple, alone. The temple sealing is something secret and embarrassing, and best kept on the down-low, IMO.

The cult is going to lose money and clout on this! Good!

Why would anyone want a ward house wedding in the anti-cultural hall standing under a plastic flower laden basketball hoop? There are other choices, even free ones, where love can be the star of the show.

And, even if they did let the couple walk down the chapel aisle with a wedding march and flowers and ribbons everywhere, the elephant in the room is that this is NOT a temple wedding. This is second rate. You have made heavenly father sad. It's as bad as having your kid come home early from the mission and disgrace the family name.

Years ago, don't remember the exact words, but, I was at a church wedding where in the ceremony the Bishop challenged the couple to make it a "real marriage" in the temple in a year. One of the tackiest moments I have ever witnessed.