Who Shall Attend the Mormon Temple Wedding Ceremony?

[Janice]

Recently the First Presidency issued a letter to priesthood leaders regarding the optimum time for members to receive a temple recommend. From it I quote:

"Single members in their late teens or early twenties who have not received a mission call or who are not engaged to be married in the temple should not be recommended to the temple for their own endowment. They can, however, receive a Limited-Use Recommend to perform baptisms for the dead. The desire to witness temple marriages of siblings or friends is not sufficient reason for a young adult to be endowed" (12 Nov. 2002).

Elder Russell M. Nelson, "Young Adults and the Temple," CES Fireside for Young Adults, 4 May 2003

[Conductor42]

and your point is?

[Janice]

I am providing information. People are free to offer comments.

[Jerubbaal]

I am providing information. People are free to offer comments.

Very well. I have not been able to attend any of my three older siblings' sealings because of this rule. And I think it is perfectly acceptable. Here are a few reasons why:

1) Generally speaking (this isn't a universal, no exceptions allowed rule), people are only endowed after meeting certain requirements:

-They are about to leave on a full time mission

-They are about to get married in the temple

- They have reached, oh, let's say their mid-30's, and have not met any of the above conditions

2) It would be rather unfair if, only on the basis that I happen to have older siblings who are getting married, that I should be allowed to bypass these general restrictions. How does that give me any more of a right to be endowed than an only child, who has no older siblings that would make that early opportunity possible for him?

I could think of a few more reasons, but these suffice for now.

[Janice]

Very well. I have not been able to attend any of my three older siblings' sealings because of this rule. And I think it is perfectly acceptable. Here are a few reasons why:

1) Generally speaking (this isn't a universal, no exceptions allowed rule), people are only endowed after meeting certain requirements:

-They are about to leave on a full time mission

-They are about to get married in the temple

- They have reached, oh, let's say their mid-30's, and have not met any of the above conditions

2) It would be rather unfair if, only on the basis that I happen to have older siblings who are getting married, that I should be allowed to bypass these general restrictions. How does that give me any more of a right to be endowed than an only child, who has no older siblings that would make that early opportunity possible for him?

I could think of a few more reasons, but these suffice for now.

My younger siblings attended my wedding. I think a wedding that includes family members is very special and with the emphasis that the LDS church tries to put on family life, it seems particularly sad that the "unworthy" or younger members are excluded from the special event. Imagine not having your parents and grandparents with you on your special day just because they aren't good enough.

[Jerubbaal]

My younger siblings attended my wedding. I think a wedding that includes family members is very special and with the emphasis that the LDS church tries to put on family life, it seems particularly sad that the "unworthy" or younger members are excluded from the special event. Imagine not having your parents and grandparents with you on your special day just because they aren't good enough.

You have it backwards. It isn't sad that they can't attend because they aren't worthy. It's sad that they aren't worthy enough to attend. And, depsite Mormonism's emphasis on family relations, the temple is not something to be treated lightly, and not something the unworthy should be permitted to experience. Also, we should keep in mind Christ's words that he came to, in a sense, tear apart families. Whosoever loveth father and mother more than they do Christ, is not worthy of Christ. And whosoever loveth brother or sister more than Christ, is not worthy of Christ.

It is sad when families are split apart by the gospel, but I will boldly say that I would rather be in a family ripped apart by Christianity than in a united, but Christless, family.

[Janice]

You have it backwards. It isn't sad that they can't attend because they aren't worthy. It's sad that they aren't worthy enough to attend.

And they aren't worthy because they are devout Christians in another church and pay their tithes to a church not appr9oved of by the LDS.


And, depsite Mormonism's emphasis on family relations, the temple is not something to be treated lightly, and not something the unworthy should be permitted to experience. Also, we should keep in mind Christ's words that he came to, in a sense, tear apart families. Whosoever loveth father and mother more than they do Christ, is not worthy of Christ. And whosoever loveth brother or sister more than Christ, is not worthy of Christ.

My marriage hasn't been treated lightly. And by not going through LDS temple rituals does not mean that someone loves their family more than Christ.

It is sad when families are split apart by the gospel, but I will boldly say that I would rather be in a family ripped apart by Christianity than in a united, but Christless, family.

:ahem: Don't assume that mine is a Christless family.

[Jerubbaal]

And they aren't worthy because they are devout Christians in another church and pay their tithes to a church not appr9oved of by the LDS.

And also because they do not accept the prophethood of Joseph Smith, nor the temple ceremonies revealed to him, among many other things making them unworthy to enter the temple.

My marriage hasn't been treated lightly.

I never said it had been.

And by not going through LDS temple rituals does not mean that someone loves their family more than Christ.

I never said it did.

:ahem: Don't assume that mine is a Christless family.

I never suggested this either.

[master_mormon]

The people who complain are the people who simply don't understand the temple. The basic reason kids are not allowed is to keep the place reverent. Having little kids run around, like they naturally will, can be distracting.

In terms of adults, I say simply that the LDS Church does not keep people out of the temple. Rather people keep themselves out by not qualifying for a recommend. My parents missed not only my sealing but 3 others in my family because they did not prepare themselves. And you know what. They did not complain. They acted like mature adults. They understood the rules. The problem is we live in a society where people don't want to take responsiblity for the decisions they make. Well the Lord offers us a teaching lession by the temple rules that decisions do have consequence. And the consequences about being allowed in the temple are nothing compared ot the eternal issues that will come when people do not comply with the Lord's commands.

Since those days, my dad goes to the temple often. My mom, well we are hoping she gets off her behind and get some perspective in life. We still pray for her. As much as we wanted them to attend our sealing, we understood the rules the Lord has set and nobody complained. The temple is a very serious place and needs to remain that way. It should never be compromised to satisfy the views of people who think they are above the rules and exceptions should be made for them.

[Janice]

In terms of adults, I say simply that the LDS Church does not keep people out of the temple.

That isn't true. The LDS church discriminates against non-LDS in this matter.

Rather people keep themselves out by not qualifying for a recommend.

How does a moral, tithe-paying Presbyterian keep himself out of an LDS temple? By not joing the LDS church or by having a cup of coffee at breakfast.

"... my brethren, if you drink coffee or tea, or take tobacco, are you letting a cup of tea or a little tobacco stand in the road and bar you from the celestial kingdom of God, where you might otherwise have received a fulness of glory?" - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 16


My parents missed not only my sealing but 3 others in my family because they did not prepare themselves. And you know what. They did not complain. They acted like mature adults. They understood the rules.

And because the groom's parents don't want to become Mormons they are not permitted to attend the wedding? No one says they will complain. What about the bride's parents? Who pays for her reception?

The problem is we live in a society where people don't want to take responsiblity for the decisions they make. Well the Lord offers us a teaching lession by the temple rules that decisions do have consequence. And the consequences about being allowed in the temple are nothing compared ot the eternal issues that will come when people do not comply with the Lord's commands.

Whose problem are you saying that is? We weren't discussing responsibilty for sins.

My mom, well we are hoping she gets off her behind and get some perspective in life.

:(

The temple is a very serious place and needs to remain that way. It should never be compromised to satisfy the views of people who think they are above the rules and exceptions should be made for them.

[Jerubbaal]

That isn't true. The LDS church discriminates against non-LDS in this matter.

Let's rewind your statement 2000 years, and make you a random Roman citizen visiting Jerusalem: "The Jews discriminate against Gentiles by not allowing them into the temple."


How does a moral, tithe-paying Presbyterian keep himself out of an LDS temple? By not joing the LDS church or by having a cup of coffee at breakfast.

"... my brethren, if you drink coffee or tea, or take tobacco, are you letting a cup of tea or a little tobacco stand in the road and bar you from the celestial kingdom of God, where you might otherwise have received a fulness of glory?" - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 16

You are correct on these points. A member who drinks coffee would be barred from going to the temple just as the protestant coffee drinker. And anyone who does not join the church clearly does not even believe in the validity of the temple ceremonies, so why should they want to be part of something they believe to be false?

[Janice]

Let's rewind your statement 2000 years, and make you a random Roman citizen visiting Jerusalem: "The Jews discriminate against Gentiles by not allowing them into the temple."

Let's not rewind 2000 years. Mormons are permitted to attend Catholic and Protestant weddings. I also imagine that you can attend a Jewish wedding.


You are correct on these points. A member who drinks coffee would be barred from going to the temple just as the protestant coffee drinker. And anyone who does not join the church clearly does not even believe in the validity of the temple ceremonies, so why should they want to be part of something they believe to be false?

You have that backwards. If I were LDS, why would I want my parents, siblings and grandparents left out and forbidden to attend my wedding?

[Jerubbaal]

Let's not rewind 2000 years. Mormons are permitted to attend Catholic and Protestant weddings. I also imagine that you can attend a Jewish wedding.

And you are free to attend Mormon weddings that are not performed in the temple.

You have that backwards. If I were LDS, why would I want my parents, siblings and grandparents left out and forbidden to attend my wedding?

Because if you understood the nature and importance of the ceremony, you would not want anyone who would not understand or would not be worthy to take part in it.

[Janice]

Please don't jump to conclusions about what another person understands. People have been worthy, gone to the temple and left the LDS church as soon as they got out of the temple.

In 1990 the Mormon church radically changed its secret temple ceremony by removing objectionable parts and again in January 2005 other objectional parts were removed.

As I stated earlier, the temple ordinances are essential to eternal life in Mormonism.

[Jerubbaal]

[QUOTE=Janice;1904098]Please don't jump to conclusions about what another person understands. People have been worthy, gone to the temple and left the LDS church as soon as they got out of the temple.

In 1990 the Mormon church radically changed its secret temple ceremony by removing objectionable parts and again in January 2005 other objectional parts were removed.

As I stated earlier, the temple ordinances are essential to eternal life in Mormonism.

Uh, did you post this in the wrong thread? This isn't a discussion about the requirements for eternal life, nor the 1990 changes to the temple ceremony.

[Janice]

As I stated earlier, the temple ordinances are essential to eternal life in Mormonism.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1893933&postcount=11


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1893980&postcount=19

[Jerubbaal]

As I stated earlier, the temple ordinances are essential to eternal life in Mormonism.

Indeed you did, on a completely different thread. This is about family members attending temple weddings.

[Jerubbaal]

Well, I thought a good way to get my point here across would be to ask a non-member about the subject. I had a IM chat with a friend of mine, and asked if he minded if I posted it on a forum. He said it was ok (slightly edited due to the small fact that my friend and I don't care about spelling and punctuation in instant messages).

Me: A question I'd like to hear your opinion on: A Mormon couple is getting married, in the temple, and the parents of one of the couple is not Mormon. Therefore, they are not allowed to attend. Is this fair to the parents?

My Friend: That kind of sucks. I know that if I was one of the parents I'd feel that it was very unfair

Me: Ok, now let me rephrase it: If the Mormons, and their temple ceremonies, are what they claim to be, is it fair?

My Friend: What do they claim to be exactly?

Me: Well, the most revelant thing they claim to be relating to this is that those who are not worthy/ready for them are not to participate in them.

My Friend: Makes sense.

Me: So you think it would be fair?

My Friend: Yeah.

My hope is that this conversation illustrated why it is not unfair to non-members when they cannot attend a temple wedding.

[Janice]

Indeed you did, on a completely different thread. This is about family members attending temple weddings.

What causes you to forget the things you bring up n this thread and try to suggest that I am the one who is getting off-topic? I was responding to your post.

"Because if you understood the nature and importance of the ceremony, you would not want anyone who would not understand or would not be worthy to take part in it. "
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1903755&postcount=13

The importance has to do with the fact that one must be married for time and eternity to have eternal life.

I'm not sure we are allowed to discuss changes in the endowment ceremony or specifics relating to washings and nudity. Of course, we would not have wanted our little siblings to witness that. But the actual sealing of husband to wife is not inappropriate for children. Is an eight-year-old not reverant during his baptism?

[Janice]

Well, I thought a good way to get my point here across would be to ask a non-member about the subject. I had a IM chat with a friend of mine, and asked if he minded if I posted it on a forum. He said it was ok (slightly edited due to the small fact that my friend and I don't care about spelling and punctuation in instant messages).

Me: A question I'd like to hear your opinion on: A Mormon couple is getting married, in the temple, and the parents of one of the couple is not Mormon. Therefore, they are not allowed to attend. Is this fair to the parents?

I said, "Imagine not having your parents and grandparents with you on your special day just because they aren't good enough." it is sad that our parents and grandparents and other family members can't attend our wedding. It is at least as sad for the bride and groom as it is for the relatives. Hello. I would be disappointed if my family could not be there. Do you remember that?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1901654&postcount=5

[Jerubbaal]

I said, "Imagine not having your parents and grandparents with you on your special day just because they aren't good enough." it is sad that our parents and grandparents and other family members can't attend our wedding. It is at least as sad for the bride and groom as it is for the relatives. Hello. I would be disappointed if my family could not be there. Do you remember that?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1901654&postcount=5

Yes, I remember that. And I said the saddest part would not be that they weren't able to attend, but that they weren't worthy to attend.

[Jerubbaal]

What causes you to forget the things you bring up n this thread and try to suggest that I am the one who is getting off-topic? I was responding to your post.

"Because if you understood the nature and importance of the ceremony, you would not want anyone who would not understand or would not be worthy to take part in it. "
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1903755&postcount=13

The importance has to do with the fact that one must be married for time and eternity to have eternal life.

I'm not sure we are allowed to discuss changes in the endowment ceremony or specifics relating to washings and nudity. Of course, we would not have wanted our little siblings to witness that. But the actual sealing of husband to wife is not inappropriate for children. Is an eight-year-old not reverant during his baptism?

Discussing the endowment beyond the most general of details is prohibited in this particular subforum. And the changes in the ceremony still have nothing to do with the importance of it, as far as this particular discussion is concerned.

[Janice]

Yes, I remember that. And I said the saddest part would not be that they weren't able to attend, but that they weren't worthy to attend.

And that is totally ridiculous! The relatives are considered less worthy because they attend a Catholic or Protestant church. Even if they tithe, are honest and faithful to their spouses, devote time to church and charity, don't drink coffee, tea, or alcohol, the LDS person considers them less worthy than a devout Mormon. Perhaps you should let God do the judging.

[Janice]

Discussing the endowment beyond the most general of details is prohibited in this particular subforum. And the changes in the ceremony still have nothing to do with the importance of it, as far as this particular discussion is concerned.

You are the one who brought up the nature of the ordinances.

[Jerubbaal]

And that is totally ridiculous! The relatives are considered less worthy because they attend a Catholic or Protestant church.

Correction: They are considered unworthy because they do not believe in the temple ceremonies.

Even if they tithe, are honest and faithful to their spouses, devote time to church and charity, don't drink coffee, tea, or alcohol, the LDS person considers them less worthy than a devout Mormon.

Less worthy because they do not believe in the temple ordinances. A recommend requires far more than merely good behavior.

Perhaps you should let God do the judging.

God has appointed judges for this matter: Bishops. Bishops are considered "common judges of Israel."

[Jerubbaal]

You are the one who brought up the nature of the ordinances.

Yes, but only as it relates to the exclusion of family/friends from the ceremonies. You are the one trying to turn this into a discussion about the efficacy/truthfulness of the ceremonies themselves (unless I'm horribly misreading the intent behind the following quote):

In 1990 the Mormon church radically changed its secret temple ceremony by removing objectionable parts and again in January 2005 other objectional parts were removed.

As I stated earlier, the temple ordinances are essential to eternal life in Mormonism.

[Conductor42]

Another thing that one might consider is that Mormon weddings - i.e. in the temple - are very different than normal weddings. Basically all that happens is that you go into the sealing room, the witnesses sit on chairs along the sides of the room, the couple kneel over an altar while the sealer peforms the ceremony, and it's over. It's supposed to be a spiritual, as opposed to a social, experience.

Our normal weddings, on the other hand, are more social than spiritual. That's why most Mormons have "receptions" after the weddings.

[Janice]

Another thing that one might consider is that Mormon weddings - i.e. in the temple - are very different than normal weddings. Basically all that happens is that you go into the sealing room, the witnesses sit on chairs along the sides of the room, the couple kneel over an altar while the sealer peforms the ceremony, and it's over. It's supposed to be a spiritual, as opposed to a social, experience.

Our normal weddings, on the other hand, are more social than spiritual. That's why most Mormons have "receptions" after the weddings.

I wonder where you got this peculiar idea. A Christian wedding is extremely spiritual. Christians also have receptions after the wedding. That is when people socialize.

[Conductor42]

Maybe I should reword that.

Christian weddings, in my experience, have been a good blend of the social & the spiritual. They compliment each other, IMO.

Mormon weddings do not have any social aspect of them (though the receptions and parts considered seperate from the actual wedding may be)

[Janice]

Maybe I should reword that.

Christian weddings, in my experience, have been a good blend of the social & the spiritual. They compliment each other, IMO.

Mormon weddings do not have any social aspect of them (though the receptions and parts considered seperate from the actual wedding may be)


Could you give an example from the Bible of parents being banned from their childrens' weddings? I have never heard of this.

[Conductor42]

Could you give an example from the Bible of parents being banned from their childrens' weddings? I have never heard of this.

Biblically wedding ceremonies aren't even required.

[Jerubbaal]

Biblically wedding ceremonies aren't even required.

And when they do happen and are even recorded, you don't see much detail one way or the other about the parents being present.

[Conductor42]

And when they do happen and are even recorded, you don't see much detail one way or the other about the parents being present.

There were no "weddings", period, in the early portions of the Tanach. It seems to have developed in Israeli(te) culture a few hundred years before the time of the prophet Isaiah.

[Jerubbaal]

There were no "weddings", period, in the early portions of the Tanach. It seems to have developed in Israeli(te) culture a few hundred years before the time of the prophet Isaiah.

Yes, I know. I'm not arguing that (Though I do believe that the early patriarch's practiced eternal marriage). But we never hear whether the parents of Solomonn's wives showed up for their daughters' weddings, or anything like that. I'm answer a specific question from Janice.

[Conductor42]

Discussing the endowment beyond the most general of details is prohibited in this particular subforum. And the changes in the ceremony still have nothing to do with the importance of it, as far as this particular discussion is concerned.

They are prohibited to you, not to us.

[Conductor42]

Yes, I know. I'm not arguing that (Though I do believe that the early patriarch's practiced eternal marriage). But we never hear whether the parents of Solomonn's wives showed up for their daughters' weddings, or anything like that. I'm answer a specific question from Janice.

I don't think Solomon would be a great example to point to. He had no control over his lusts.