Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BR and tori are still around, lurking. LOL

So flippin' what? No crime against reading comments on a forum.


big whoop is right, who cares, I know they are, you know they are, that's why I post to them. Hi rick and tori.

I wasn't planning to post any more on this subject here, but something came up.

For those who may be wondering, I checked with a woman in a comparative world religion class who is Muslim and asked her, "If you were getting married as a Muslim to another Muslim and wanted to invite a non-Muslim, could they attend your wedding."

To which she replied, "Why yes, of course."

So I've talked to a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist and Muslim and all say non-members are permitted to attend their weddings...except for the Mormon Temple wedding.

Hmmmmmm.

Jaye wrote:
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?

Here's the difference in what you say your leaders said to you, Jaye. . .You said "in their OPINION". In one of your earlier posts, you said having a ring ceremony was against church POLICY. Your leaders expressed an opinion; mine said there was nothing in church policy against ring ceremonies. Big difference!

And then, Jaye, are you insinuating that I didn't tell the truth about talking to my priesthood leader when you said "as you CLAIM your leaders have told you"? And, because the information you've received about simple ring ceremonies isn't the same as my information, does that mean what I've been told is invalid?

Your words, "What the heck could an exchange of vows hurt?" That second set of vows at the reception would be for "time" only. Do you not see the mockery towards their "eternal" vows exchanged earlier?

Life Rocks wrote:
I wasn't planning to post any more on this subject here, but something came up.

For those who may be wondering, I checked with a woman in a comparative world religion class who is Muslim and asked her, "If you were getting married as a Muslim to another Muslim and wanted to invite a non-Muslim, could they attend your wedding."

To which she replied, "Why yes, of course."

So I've talked to a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist and Muslim and all say non-members are permitted to attend their weddings...except for the Mormon Temple wedding.

Hmmmmmm.

Just take whatever Dubbs says with a grain of salt. He wants actual proof from everyone else, but won't back up his statements with proof when challenged.

Jaye wrote:
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, you get ornery when we don't take YOUR word as gospel truth, don't you? No one cares how LONG you've held the priesthood, nor do we care about anyone else's longevity in the priesthood for that matter. What matters to us is what you do with that priesthood, how you present yourself while wearing the mantle of the priesthood. There are plenty of us who post on this site who know a thing or two about the gospel. Maybe you think because you're older and have been in the church longer that we should take your word as the "final" word on matters. I enjoy any opportunity to learn from my elders. I would think that someone with your maturity level would appreciate points of view from others with a spiritual IQ.

Life Rocks wrote:
I wasn't planning to post any more on this subject here, but something came up.

For those who may be wondering, I checked with a woman in a comparative world religion class who is Muslim and asked her, "If you were getting married as a Muslim to another Muslim and wanted to invite a non-Muslim, could they attend your wedding."

To which she replied, "Why yes, of course."

So I've talked to a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist and Muslim and all say non-members are permitted to attend their weddings...except for the Mormon Temple wedding.

Hmmmmmm.

Welcome back, LifeRocks. Of course they would invite non-members to their weddings because it is permitted in their religions. Every religion has their own unique qualifications. We're not like everyone else.