Wren wrote:
Go with God, Life Rocks.

I'm sorry he isn't going to stick around. We need more genuine people on this forum.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
JLD wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
I understand his feelings. there is a certain amount of "emotional extortion" that goes on in the LDS Church, and my family experiences this every so often. When a church member who finds out that I'm not a member starts to tell my mother how see needs to get me to join the LDS Church so that we can all be together in the next life. I feel this shows a great deal of insensitivity to her feelings as a mother. My mother knows that I respect her choice to be a LDS member but it's a subject I won't get in to a discussion about with her, because I feel that my choice also deserves to be respected. But sometimes my wife will talk to her about it out of kindness. Which usually leads to my wife getting upset because she truly loves my mother and also because my mother wants to talk about somethings, my wife feels really aren't any of her business. Anyway it's probably clear that this has raised it head again recently. I'm not sure there's a solution to this type of problem in families because of the nature of some of the LDS beliefs. Anyway there's my two cents.

I would think that those discussions come up with most, regardless of being LDS or inactive, or any religion for that matter, unless I misunderstood your point.

How many religions teach that they need to convert other family members so they can be together in the next life? How many other religions teach that non member relatives will be consigned to a "lower Kingdom" and that they won't be permitted contact with them?

I could think of a few.

itchy peaches wrote:

Try actually reading his comment and you'll find that he DID discuss it with his family.

I've read this lengthy thread from the beginning, and I don't see anywhere that it says that he actually talked to his family about this. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Even when directly asked a few times, the closest he came to answering was to say how disappointed he is in his wife and kids.

Some have asked if I had talked to my daughters about this. I was disappointed with my wife and my kids too. My whole life I've always put them first. Because I had a really lousy home life, I went to great lengths to do much more. I rearranged my life to be an attentive, available, involved dad. What this experience tells me is that no matter what you say or do for your wife or kids matters.

I just see him unhappy about their choices - since they didn't choose what he wanted.

Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe he said something about it in an earlier message....but I didn't see it. If so, could someone point it out? I can't seem to find it.

As far as your anecdote about knowing kids who did ring ceremonies and separate weddings for non-members...if this is true...then they were in direct violation of LDS Church policy.
This is not true. The LDS Church doesn't want elaborate ring ceremonies, but having a small exchange of rings (no vows or separate wedding though) at the reception or elsewhere is perfectly fine - from what I've seen and read.

This has been interesting reading. Thanks. Hope it is ok to add my two cents worth.

You are entitled to add whatever you wish.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
We know a wonderful woman from Kaysville, who, at 23, was preparing for marriage. She was temple worthy, he was temple worthy, but her father had never been a member of the LDS church.

Her bishop told her that her duty was to go to the temple.

She told him to butt out, that she had praying about the matter, and that the Holy Spirit informed her that her duty was to honor her father who had supported her finacially and emotionally all of her life, that she owed it to him and to God to make sure that the father could be there for her wedding.

She married civilly and was sealed in the temple a year later.

In my opinion, she acted like a true Christian.

I agree...as well as acting like a daughter who truly loves her father, and remembers her duty to honor her parents.

The LDS Church professes the importance of family first and foremost. How geneology is so important in turning the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to their children.

"Families are forever".

But as this man's experience indicates...they do not always practice what they have professed.

To "honor" our parents, or anyone, means to show high regard and respect. I don't think LifeRocks children who married in the temple dishonored him or proved to be less than Christian. On the contrary, I find it very honorable that they DID marry in the temple. How so? They were obviously taught in their home by LifeRocks and their mother about temple marriage. They obviously had a testimony of it, and then chose to marry for eternity.

Yes, the Church does teach that family is first, foremost, AND eternal. Civil marriage is but for a moment, hence, we go to the temple to be sealed. As for genealogy and temple work for the DEAD ("turning the hearts of the children to the fathers. . .", Jaye, that is for our family members and others who have passed on and weren't able to take care of their temple work while living. Remember, we are talking about ordinance work for people still ALIVE.

Now about ring ceremonies. . .Itchy Peaches is right. There is nothing in Church policy that says you can't have a simple ring ceremony at the reception. I just spoke to one of my priesthood leaders with many years of service in bishoprics and stake presidencies, and now serving in a bishopric, and he said there is NOTHING prohibiting this as long as marriage vows aren't exchanged again ('til death do us part), which would make a mockery of the temple ceremony.

And I have spoken with a number of priesthood leaders over several decades on this matter. And they were of the opinion that once a couple were sealed in a Temple Ceremony...it was deeply disrespectful to the Lord to have any kind of a ring ceremony at the reception.

We all have our personal experiences and anecdotes G.R.I.T.S.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this matter.

But whether we agree or disagree on this point doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the damage and the pain inflicted upon non-member parents, relatives and friends at being left out of their children's wedding ceremony.

This is very real.

I've witnessed it happening in my family, and in my wife's family.

I've seen the misery and dejection in the faces of mothers and fathers as they were led to the waiting room, and their sons or daughters entered the Temple.

I've seen the looks on their faces while they waited...and the tears in their eyes.

I've seen the pain and sadness in their faces when their children emerged from the Temple.

And I've seen them walking sadly to their cars after the receptions as their kids drove away, and they were left to walk to their cars and drive home.

I've witnessed this many times in our families...and I've witnessed this with other families when my wife and I have been through the Temple.

And I'll go so far as to say that if, as you claim your leaders have told you, there was nothing wrong with a simple exchange of rings at the reception, (which goes against every answer I've ever received on the subject) then what the heck could an exchange of vows hurt?

JLD wrote:
Now about ring ceremonies. . .Itchy Peaches is right. There is nothing in Church policy that says you can't have a simple ring ceremony at the reception. I just spoke to one of my priesthood leaders with many years of service in bishoprics and stake presidencies, and now serving in a bishopric, and he said there is NOTHING prohibiting this as long as marriage vows aren't exchanged again ('til death do us part), which would make a mockery of the temple ceremony

Ahh, OK. That makes more sense to me now, thank you.

Well of COURSE it does. And of COURSE I would know little to nothing about it...having only held the Priesthood for about 45 years now.

Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
Go with God, Life Rocks.

I'm sorry he isn't going to stick around. We need more genuine people on this forum.


Jaye's definintion of Genuine=Likes to bash the LDS faith.