They're Stuck With Us

Discussions about holding onto your faith and beliefs, whether by staying LDS or by exploring and participating in other churches or faiths. The belief in any higher power (including God, Christ, Buddha, or Jedi) is true in this forum. Be kind to others.
Post Reply
User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

They're Stuck With Us

Post by Give It Time » Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:41 pm

Just for counterpoint to the woman inviting us to leave.

One small problem:

Family

For others, it may be job, as well, but I think for most of us it's going to be family. NOMs aren't going anywhere. The history is out, society is moving forward while the church is moving backward. The number of NOMs will grow and the number of TBMs will shrink.

There are so many ways to approach this issue, for now, I want to focus on the temple wedding. Now, all religions are going to commandeer important life events, i.e., birth, wedding, death. It's what they do. So, I'm not going to ask a Mormon bishop performing a civil ceremony to do things differently. If a Catholic priest can talk Catholicism at a Catholic wedding, a Mormon bishop should be able to do the same at a Mormon wedding.

Having said that. How could the church make weddings more inclusive of all family members? This may be perceived as a low blow. So be it. I remember my childhood and sitting outside the temple waiting for each of my siblings to marry. I was the youngest so I had to wait for every last one of them. I'm not going to even talk about doubters and non-members. I'm going to talk about believing unendowed family members who are excluded. I would have loved to have seen my siblings marry, my friends, my cousins. They can give limited use recommends to the youth for baptisms. Why not a limited use recommend for a wedding?

This next might not be the most popular idea, but how about putting a wedding chapel in the waiting area of the temple (yes, lots of remodeling) and hold the wedding there? The church could even get really insulting and have a glass wall with speakers. On one side, recommend holders; on the other side, all the unwashed. The unwashed can observe the ceremony and listen in over the speakers. Yes, it's insulting, but it's a step up. It includes and excludes all at the same time. The wording of the ceremony could be adapted so it more closely resembles a civil ceremony, then turn off the speaker and obscure the view for the sealing. There are already mirrors in the sealing room. Just make one of them two-way.

Other possibilities include, the church changing its policy and either allowing standard civil with no wait or the laws being changed so that the state doesn't recognize a religious ceremony as valid and every one in every religion needs to be married civilly first, then the marriage is solemnized. Another possibility is we NOMs add some part to the wedding celebration that is so spectacular, it actually rivals the temple ceremony. Exclude the recommend holder's, not to be mean, but in a turn about is fair play spirit.

There's more than one way to solve a problem.

Weddings should be events where the entire family should be able to attend, regardless of endowment status, for whatever reason.

I can discuss other aspects of making less enthusiastic members welcome, but want to tackle this big problem, first.
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

Thoughtful
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Thoughtful » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:40 pm

Re: weddings

The church hates ring ceremonies and wants nothing that implies the real wedding didn't happen inside the temple because they lose their power to guilt and coerce families if it looks like the wedding. However, we go along wth this by giving our authority in exchange for a free reception hall conducted by the bishop.

If we have a civil wedding after the sealing in say, a backyard, and maybe don't invite the bishop let alone not having him run the show, what exactly can they do? Nothing. They only have the authority we hand them.

They don't have to host the ring ceremony or wedding reception.

They don't have to host the funeral either for that matter. None of the "missionary work" guilt trips on families need to happen.
Last edited by Thoughtful on Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thoughtful
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Thoughtful » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:41 pm

I'm working on making my backyard absolutely gorgeous by the way.

Also, I am hoping for state requirements that all weddings must occur legally separate from church events.

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Red Ryder » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:36 am

Great point Thoughtful!

As a father without a temple recommend I'm really going to have to make sure my kids future weddings are 5% temple and 95% wedding party. It's crazy to think I might miss my own kids wedding but maybe I won't really have to.

Here's an idea...

What if I arrange for a marriage ceremony disguised as a family "ring" ceremony before the temple wedding and officiate myself? Would anyone know that I secretly became an ordained minister by way of the internet and actually performed the wedding ceremony myself? The WHOLE family can come. The little kids who can't go in the temple. The aunts and uncles that don't have recommends. The non member friends. The non tithe paying, porno watching, evil music listening, beard growing family members can all come!!

I'll sign the marriage license with a few other witnesses and it will be done. Then they can go through the temple and pretend to get married there. We'll let the temple people use their (non-existent) inspiration to stop the double marriage.

Seriously, what would the temple do if the kids showed up already married and nobody told the temple workers?
Elder Nelson seems to have somehow become the mouthpiece of the mouthpiece of God. ~ Hagoth

Thoughtful
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Thoughtful » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:06 am

Red Ryder wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:36 am
Great point Thoughtful!

As a father without a temple recommend I'm really going to have to make sure my kids future weddings are 5% temple and 95% wedding party. It's crazy to think I might miss my own kids wedding but maybe I won't really have to.

Here's an idea...

What if I arrange for a marriage ceremony disguised as a family "ring" ceremony before the temple wedding and officiate myself? Would anyone know that I secretly became an ordained minister by way of the internet and actually performed the wedding ceremony myself? The WHOLE family can come. The little kids who can't go in the temple. The aunts and uncles that don't have recommends. The non member friends. The non tithe paying, porno watching, evil music listening, beard growing family members can all come!!

I'll sign the marriage license with a few other witnesses and it will be done. Then they can go through the temple and pretend to get married there. We'll let the temple people use their (non-existent) inspiration to stop the double marriage.

Seriously, what would the temple do if the kids showed up already married and nobody told the temple workers?
Temple sealer and witnesses sign the paperwork that goes back to the state, so they would notice I think. You also have fiance and their TBM family may push back or report ya.

However I've heard of pushback from wards/ bishops when lds kids even have their reception the night before, like threats to rescind their recommend etc.

I do think if we treat the temple like a formality and then do whatever the hell we want otherwise, the church loses a lot of power.

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 1417
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Corsair » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:57 pm

Thoughtful wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:06 am
Temple sealer and witnesses sign the paperwork that goes back to the state, so they would notice I think. You also have fiance and their TBM family may push back or report ya.

However I've heard of pushback from wards/ bishops when lds kids even have their reception the night before, like threats to rescind their recommend etc.

I do think if we treat the temple like a formality and then do whatever the hell we want otherwise, the church loses a lot of power.
This is a challenge that LDS leaders probably comprehend and want to do everything possible to avoid the implicit loss of power without letting anyone else realize that is what they are doing.

I have a daughter headed away to college next month. It is conceivable that she will be getting married in the next couple of years and I have a couple of scenarios that I hope might play out. One might be to simply go ahead with a full on civil wedding and embrace the one year waiting penalty. Whenever they are asked about this decision they simply can say that they wanted family at the ceremony and it is only church policy that prevents getting sealed. Make the LDS church the bad guy who must defend the policy, not the family who must endure it.

This would be more likely to occur if my daughter married a convert. I will absolutely suggest a number of options that still include letting non-member parents view an actual wedding. This is hardly something that I can explicitly plan on. But I foresee that some young couple, somewhere in the LDS church is going to do something radical like embracing the one year civil marriage penalty.

User avatar
Just This Guy
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Almost Heaven

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Just This Guy » Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:53 pm

One way to eliminate all the BS would be to press for laws similar to Europe and a large part of the rest of the world where marriage must be publicly witnessed. In countries where that is the law, the church cannot do any temple weddings, only sealing.

I wonder how hard it would be to pass that in the US?
"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Give It Time » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:34 pm

Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:53 pm
One way to eliminate all the BS would be to press for laws similar to Europe and a large part of the rest of the world where marriage must be publicly witnessed. In countries where that is the law, the church cannot do any temple weddings, only sealing.

I wonder how hard it would be to pass that in the US?
I like all of these, but not all families think of these ideas and the church is allowed to mar what should be one of the most beautiful celebrations of life there is.

Changing the laws would make it fair for everyone and I've noticed the church will change when it's the law asking the brethren to petition the Lord.

If we want to change the church, it will be through the legal system. Wasn't it ordained by the Lord that this church be an American church?
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

User avatar
Just This Guy
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:30 pm
Location: Almost Heaven

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Just This Guy » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:29 pm

The question them becomes who would manage a campaign to change the law? This would mostly have to be a stave by state issue. However, if you could pass the law in Utah, that may make it the new church policy by default.

Anyone know a state representative who could slip the provision in to one of the budget bills?
"The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Give It Time » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:47 pm

Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:29 pm
The question them becomes who would manage a campaign to change the law? This would mostly have to be a stave by state issue. However, if you could pass the law in Utah, that may make it the new church policy by default.

Anyone know a state representative who could slip the provision in to one of the budget bills?
I don't know anyone, but this is a good plan. I see this as possibly revenue generating for the state. Slip this into the budget during an off year, passes in Utah and a policy change is forced.

Furthermore, all those people who want to get rid of us fence sitters? This would clear a lot of pews. There are a lot of people sticking around for the sole reason of family weddings.
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

Thoughtful
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:54 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Thoughtful » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:02 pm

Give It Time wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:34 pm
Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:53 pm
One way to eliminate all the BS would be to press for laws similar to Europe and a large part of the rest of the world where marriage must be publicly witnessed. In countries where that is the law, the church cannot do any temple weddings, only sealing.

I wonder how hard it would be to pass that in the US?
I like all of these, but not all families think of these ideas and the church is allowed to mar what should be one of the most beautiful celebrations of life there is.

Changing the laws would make it fair for everyone and I've noticed the church will change when it's the law asking the brethren to petition the Lord.

If we want to change the church, it will be through the legal system. Wasn't it ordained by the Lord that this church be an American church?
This reminds me of the anti slavery campaign, I thunk the movie was Amistad. You win moral issues in courtrooms over financial nuances.

Shame that this would apply to church, but we all see how it does.

My personal solution is to raise kids who are egalitarian and socially conscious, and pray that my spouseman gently disassembles his shelf.

User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Give It Time » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:36 am

Thoughtful wrote:
Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:02 pm
Give It Time wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:34 pm
Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:53 pm
One way to eliminate all the BS would be to press for laws similar to Europe and a large part of the rest of the world where marriage must be publicly witnessed. In countries where that is the law, the church cannot do any temple weddings, only sealing.

I wonder how hard it would be to pass that in the US?
I like all of these, but not all families think of these ideas and the church is allowed to mar what should be one of the most beautiful celebrations of life there is.

Changing the laws would make it fair for everyone and I've noticed the church will change when it's the law asking the brethren to petition the Lord.

If we want to change the church, it will be through the legal system. Wasn't it ordained by the Lord that this church be an American church?
This reminds me of the anti slavery campaign, I thunk the movie was Amistad. You win moral issues in courtrooms over financial nuances.

Shame that this would apply to church, but we all see how it does.

My personal solution is to raise kids who are egalitarian and socially conscious, and pray that my spouseman gently disassembles his shelf.
It is a shameful. They should do the right thing for the sole purpose of doing the right thing. Hope things work out with spouseman.
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

User avatar
Random
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Random » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:23 pm

Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:29 pm
The question them becomes who would manage a campaign to change the law? This would mostly have to be a stave by state issue. However, if you could pass the law in Utah, that may make it the new church policy by default.

Anyone know a state representative who could slip the provision in to one of the budget bills?
Maybe post these questions on reddit because it has a very large readership, thus more likely to have people with connections. Also in other places that might have an interest in pursuing this. I think posting it on NOM was a good thing to do, too. Never know who here might have knowledge or connections.
[They] which knew me from the beginning . . . would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 26:5

User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Give It Time » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:56 am

Random wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:23 pm
Just This Guy wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:29 pm
The question them becomes who would manage a campaign to change the law? This would mostly have to be a stave by state issue. However, if you could pass the law in Utah, that may make it the new church policy by default.

Anyone know a state representative who could slip the provision in to one of the budget bills?
Maybe post these questions on reddit because it has a very large readership, thus more likely to have people with connections. Also in other places that might have an interest in pursuing this. I think posting it on NOM was a good thing to do, too. Never know who here might have knowledge or connections.
Wonderful idea. Hate to come off as a jerk. I really do mean this. I don't have an account at Reddit. I am already involved in the DAMU more than I'd like to be. If either of you would like to try this, please feel free. I think the idea and making this happen is more important than who accomplishes it. If either of you feel so inclined to post this idea over there, I am perfectly fine with that. I pass the baton.
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

User avatar
Random
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Random » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:15 pm

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _weddings/

Anyone here with a reddit account, feel free to chime in.
[They] which knew me from the beginning . . . would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 26:5

User avatar
Random
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Random » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:53 pm

Thus far, the consensus seems to be, "No, it isn't going to happen."
[They] which knew me from the beginning . . . would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 26:5

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by wtfluff » Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:32 pm

Random wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:53 pm
Thus far, the consensus seems to be, "No, it isn't going to happen."
Well... I hadn't thought of this angle before, but they've got a point.

If such laws had to be taken care of state by state, a law like this would NEVER pass in Utah. For all intents and purposes, Utah is a theocracy, and LDS-Inc. can almost do whatever they like. :cry:
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

Who Cares If One More Light Goes Out?

User avatar
Random
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Random » Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:43 pm

Sheesh! I'm regretting starting the thread. People think I'm saying I want the law to allow stalkers, abusive ex's, and protestors to go to weddings! I'm lost. I must have said it totally wrong. (One person pointed out that the use of the word "public" meant that for them.) I mean, I don't see stalkers, protestors, and abusive ex's commonly going to civil weddings in Europe or to ordinary weddings in the U.S. Makes me wonder if people think the main reason for a temple recommend is to keep out the stalkers and such. I should have let Just This Guy pick up the baton instead.
[They] which knew me from the beginning . . . would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 26:5

User avatar
Random
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:44 pm

Re: They're Stuck With Us

Post by Random » Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:44 pm

wtfluff wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:32 pm
Random wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:53 pm
Thus far, the consensus seems to be, "No, it isn't going to happen."
Well... I hadn't thought of this angle before, but they've got a point.

If such laws had to be taken care of state by state, a law like this would NEVER pass in Utah. For all intents and purposes, Utah is a theocracy, and LDS-Inc. can almost do whatever they like. :cry:
You're right. I guess the only hope is for a grass roots movement. That might be happening right now, beginning amongst us. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years, it will be more common to marry civilly first.
[They] which knew me from the beginning . . . would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 26:5

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest