JLD wrote:
Jaye wrote:
JLD wrote:
Life Rocks wrote:
It's unfortunate as wonderful as emails are we can't see or feel the humanity behind them. For all you know I could be hiding inside your computer monitor.

I thought I made it clear. I'm not a member of the Church any longer. For over 25 years I was really active. Went on a mission. With no family support I actually worked 18 months to save up all of my mission money.

I didn't really learn to read until I was 20.
I was pretty naive and accepting about what I was told. I read only what was "approved by the Church". A few years ago some events occurred that had me really question things. The more I thought about it, the more I learned,I got to a point where, out of integrity, I couldn't say I believed it anymore and I couldn't pretend, so rather than lie about, I chose to leave.

At the outset, I appreciate those that take their valuable time to comment. We can engage in a discussion here and even if we disagree can still be thoughtful and considerate. I may not agree with your point of view, but I'll be respectful of it. To imply that there's something wrong with me, that I need counseling for being frustrated or angry or hurt at not being able to attend my kids weddings when marriage is such an important event has me wonder even more about those in the Church.

I have a better idea. Why not change the rules for all those parents and family members that are in this situation? There are tens of thousands of us.

Now I know a devout religious person wouldn't consider that. You have your rules and revelations from God. We have little in common in that regard.

But you're really disappointing a lot of people. Since we have more in common as parents I'd rather appeal to you as another parent. I've been through some tough things in life, but this beyond hard.

You know, at first I wasn't even going to attend the Temple to stand outside, at all because I knew how disappointed I was about it. In those tough moments I ask myself, "What would a good dad do?"
I knew what was going to happen and someone suggested to support my daughters I should be there when they came out. So I did.

It's been insightful on this forum.

Those who are in the Church clearly defend or support their ideas. I should just get counseling and get over it. Be a big boy. Love your children no matter what.

But I don't think those in Happy Valley have a clue as how the world perceives them for practicing this. It may work for those who get to see their kids weddings, but for the 10's of thousands of us who don't get to go, they don't understand it. We're angry as hell and like someone said, might just as well do something about it. We intend to.

If you can, try zooming out of this situation and get a broader perspective. Outside of Utah, a convert couple gets married. Say they're Catholic with a large extended family that doesn't get to go to the wedding. So among the entire family, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins, brothers and sisters who have a culture of attending family weddings... all don't get to go. You're stealing a long anticipated experience from them. How do you think they perceive the Church?

I remember getting married in the Los Angeles Temple. My brother flew all the way from easter Canada to attend the wedding. I was new to the Church and didn't understand that he couldn't go. It's 25 years later and what does he still remember?

You go to a restaurant and have bad service. What happens? You tell everyone. So this extended Catholic family tells everyone how their kids got married in the Mormon Temple and not even the parents could go. Excuse me, that was only one side. Even worse if one family is in the Church and the other isn't. My daughters inlaws to be, hardly even knew her and they got to go and I understood it...well not really.

Those outside the Church, I'm sure I've talked to at least 150 people and to a person, all find this idea of parents going to their kids weddings as just part of what it means to be a human being.

I just learned this morning that exclusion of family even non-LDS from the weddings in the Temple was only instituted after the Church started following polygamy. Further, that there are other countries in the world where people must first be married in a public place and then they get sealed.

Given the Church says it doesn't practice polygamy any longer why not resume things as they were. Why not make some concessions for people who have more at stake in this.

The very idea that your "temple recommend" makes you worthy to go compared to my 25 years of service as a dad makes your idea of "worthiness" look stupid. As a Mormon you'll argue with me. But as a parent you'll agree.

It's duplicitous for the Church to project a public image of family and marriage and then have this. This is the fine print that sure takes some of the fun out of the experience.

In all honesty, why not just have a 2nd ceremony?

But back to the issue at hand, you are asking a religious organization to change their standards to allow anyone into the temple. Those who respect the temple as a "house of God" and have had to strive in their lives to be "worthy" to enter the temple do so knowing it will bring them closer to God in a way that walking into no other place will. Why should that change? Why do you think your child wanted a temple marriage if there was nothing significant about it???

And you are intermingling worthiness as a parent to be the same as worthiness as an LDS member with a temple recommend and they are two different things. Your not being able to enter the temple has nothing to do with your parental devotion.

I know I said this before, but I'll say it again. This was for your daughter and not for you. She chose to marry in the temple and hopefully she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it. Be happy for her, respect her choice, be proud that despite the obvious hardships and hurt feelings she felt it was important to her and her spouse to pursue a temple marriage, something that likely really means a lot to them.

Why not have a second ceremony? Because the Brethren have forbidden this...or at the very least...discouraged it strongly.

And we all know that when the Brethren speak...the fold obeys.

Too bad really. Can't see where a second ceremony for the benefit of these parents would upset the Lord in any way.

After all...what is gained by enforcing the absolute exclusion of non-member parents, relatives and friends?

Only further distancing and misunderstanding.

I'm not talking about changing rules to allow them into the Temple...but to allow them the right to see the children that THEY raised and THEY supported...and the wedding that THEY are paying for, for THEIR children...they will open the doors to mutual respect and understanding...and closing an old chapter of misunderstanding and separatism.

I've never heard that they frowned on a 2nd ceremony...
Yes, it is. But I do know people who went ahead and had the second ceremony. They did keep it small and simple. Nothing was said to them by the Church. At the time I got married, they also allowed us to have a civil ceremony, then go to the temple immediately afterwards. Now there is a one year wait. Quite honestly, I don't like these changes. Forcing them to wait a year could backfire and keep some out of the temple. Who knows?

Yes, it is. But I do know people who went ahead and had the second ceremony. They did keep it small and simple. Nothing was said to them by the Church. At the time I got married, they also allowed us to have a civil ceremony, then go to the temple immediately afterwards. Now there is a one year wait. Quite honestly, I don't like these changes. Forcing them to wait a year could backfire and keep some out of the temple. Who knows?

Yeah, knew about the 1 year thing, but not about the frowning down on 2nd ceremony. Don't understand that, I was always under the impression that the church ceremony shouldn't be a 'civil' ceremony at all, that it was just a courtesy to the betrothed to take care of the legalities. Thus, a 2nd civil ceremony would make perfect sense...to me at least.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Life Rocks wrote:
That's not something that is taught to people when they're investigating the Church. As for myself, I was the only member of my family and didn't know my brother was coming to visit.

To say that a child's wedding isn't about the family or the parents or the all the extended family seems crazy. If it's just about the kids, why not exclude everyone from the wedding ceremony worthy or not?

Maybe it's just an LDS way of seeing marriage. Is that it?

I'm not sure this is the place to talk about why I left the Church. It was an excruciating and informed decision. I think that principles are beyond even the Church. I couldn't lie and pretend to be a believer.

I would like to clarify what I meant about the marriage being "just about the kids". I apologize for not being clear. Your child and the fiance decided they wanted to be sealed in the temple from the get-go. . .they didn't want a civil ceremony, with a temple sealing a year later. That decision was theirs to make. I'm sure they weighed all the options, plus all family issues that would arise. I would guess they talked with you about this. In any event, that's what I meant -- they (the kids) made the decision.

"And the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers".

The Church makes much of this verse.

In D&C Section 27, verse 9, it is written that regarding Elijah..."unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse."

I have been asked, from time to time, why I believe some doctrines, and some scriptures and disregard others.

My answer was, and remains...inasmuch as a principle, a doctrine, or a scripture is beneficial, and lifts the hearts of mankind, and does NOT cause harm, injury, or broken hearts...I will believe that it is of God.

But that which I can clearly see causes harm, and injury, and heartache...I do NOT believe it is of God.

I cannot see where God would readily deny a mother and father from witnessing a wedding ceremony for their sons and/or daughters.

And I cannot see why, as the Mormons hold the inner-sanctum of the Temple to be sacrosanct...and only the worthy might enter...they do not provide for the comfort and loving fellowship of non-member parents, siblings, relatives and friends by allowing a separate ceremony or even a simple exchange of vows.

This would serve, indeed, toward keeping the hearts of the children turned toward their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers turned toward their children...as the LDS Church professes is the whole point of Celestial Marriage and eternal bonds of the family.

JLD wrote:
Yes, it is. But I do know people who went ahead and had the second ceremony. They did keep it small and simple. Nothing was said to them by the Church. At the time I got married, they also allowed us to have a civil ceremony, then go to the temple immediately afterwards. Now there is a one year wait. Quite honestly, I don't like these changes. Forcing them to wait a year could backfire and keep some out of the temple. Who knows?

Yeah, knew about the 1 year thing, but not about the frowning down on 2nd ceremony. Don't understand that, I was always under the impression that the church ceremony shouldn't be a 'civil' ceremony at all, that it was just a courtesy to the betrothed to take care of the legalities. Thus, a 2nd civil ceremony would make perfect sense...to me at least.
Maybe they should just 'outlaw' all religious ceremonies. Everyone has to get married by civil authorities, then they can have their religious ceremony. That's how it's done in France, I think. Pittakos would know. Pitt??

Life Rocks wrote:
Certainly anyone has the right to believe as they will until what they do affects someone else.
You want to howl at the moon--go for it,until your howling wakes the neighbors.

This situation with the FLDS in Texas...if all these women want to be married to the same guy. Have at it. The problem comes in where they're teaching children this kind of lifestyle and forcing young girls to marry or ripping off the welfare system. Like someone else has said, "how far does this freedom of religion stuff go?"

Last year I was in Thailand and one of the tours was to the Hill Tribe north of Chiang Mai. Women of the tribe put brass bands around their necks and it stretches their necks to unusual lengths. To me if the women decided themselves to do that. Great. Have at it. The problem though is they've discovered there's money from tourists who come to see them. So now they're now training the young girls...6 or 7 year olds with bands of brass around their necks to start stretching their necks. To me that's wrong.

I'm not about criticizing the Church just to criticize the Church. I don't know how people can grow or develop without challenging their current way of doing things. If you knew there was something you were doing that was so offensive and hurtful to a lot of people, regardless of the organization, do you have the personal conviction and integrity as a human being to say, "This isn't right!"

I was under the impression that the gospel was to train our spirits to be sensitive, to be kind and honorable. I thought that God wanted us to think for ourselves and to look for opportunities to do good in the world rather than waiting to be asked. I was under the impression that we were "not to be commanded in all things" and that as citizens of this world we ought to have the courage to correct injustices.

I could quit here. I didn't even have to write at all, but I feel so strongly about this. The Church's policy to exclude family members from their kids weddings, to me is bordering evil. That a religious organization can willingly be ok with leaving the family outside under the banner of faith in God. I'm getting that those in the Church think it's a perfectly acceptable practice.

And if you don't get that or see the pain it's causing lots of people, and not even notice it or have the courage to speak up--notice that about yourselves.

As for being angry about this. You bet I'm angry. Anger in this instance is more than justified. I think God is angry too. The thought occurs to me that "God the Father", knowing how hard it is to be a parent, has a special place for devoted dads. A normal father who loves his kids should be angry at such a practice.

I, for one, am glad that you chose to share your story, and to voice your opinion.

I hope you continue to post...regardless of the more intolerant attitudes you will certainly find.

Dubbs wrote:
Life Rocks wrote:
Certainly anyone has the right to believe as they will until what they do affects someone else.
You want to howl at the moon--go for it,until your howling wakes the neighbors.

This situation with the FLDS in Texas...if all these women want to be married to the same guy. Have at it. The problem comes in where they're teaching children this kind of lifestyle and forcing young girls to marry or ripping off the welfare system. Like someone else has said, "how far does this freedom of religion stuff go?"

Last year I was in Thailand and one of the tours was to the Hill Tribe north of Chiang Mai. Women of the tribe put brass bands around their necks and it stretches their necks to unusual lengths. To me if the women decided themselves to do that. Great. Have at it. The problem though is they've discovered there's money from tourists who come to see them. So now they're now training the young girls...6 or 7 year olds with bands of brass around their necks to start stretching their necks. To me that's wrong.

I'm not about criticizing the Church just to criticize the Church. I don't know how people can grow or develop without challenging their current way of doing things. If you knew there was something you were doing that was so offensive and hurtful to a lot of people, regardless of the organization, do you have the personal conviction and integrity as a human being to say, "This isn't right!"

I was under the impression that the gospel was to train our spirits to be sensitive, to be kind and honorable. I thought that God wanted us to think for ourselves and to look for opportunities to do good in the world rather than waiting to be asked. I was under the impression that we were "not to be commanded in all things" and that as citizens of this world we ought to have the courage to correct injustices.

I could quit here. I didn't even have to write at all, but I feel so strongly about this. The Church's policy to exclude family members from their kids weddings, to me is bordering evil. That a religious organization can willingly be ok with leaving the family outside under the banner of faith in God. I'm getting that those in the Church think it's a perfectly acceptable practice.

And if you don't get that or see the pain it's causing lots of people, and not even notice it or have the courage to speak up--notice that about yourselves.

As for being angry about this. You bet I'm angry. Anger in this instance is more than justified. I think God is angry too. The thought occurs to me that "God the Father", knowing how hard it is to be a parent, has a special place for devoted dads. A normal father who loves his kids should be angry at such a practice.


God also wants a sacred place that he can dwell, it's always been so, Old Testement times God only allowed priests and high preists into temples, and only certain men into the holy of holy's. You want to be mad, take it up with God, not the church. And it's not just the LDS church, other faiths have sacred places that have rules to enter. Because temples have always been around and have ALWAY's had rules for entering.


It's like the argument that homosexuality could change in the church, allowing them to have their actions with no consequence. Possible? Yes, I guess, Historically Probable? No, since God has has the same command since the history of the world? Not very probable in your argument historically, in either arguement historically God has never changed in these two areas.

Again, to me you are being very damaging towards your relationship with your kids, they are following their religious testimonies, and doing something they feel very strong about, you should be honoring them, not going out publicly and bashing their decision and their faith at every public place you can. I'm sure they see your actions, or will at some point, and be disgusted with you, it's only hurting yourself at this point.

It was also written in scripture, Kent...at least until the Nicene Council chose to discard it...that the Spirit of God dwells within the hearts of men...and that God has no need of Temples built of wood, and of stone.