It’s April and we’re heading into wedding season. For families that are part LDS and part not, this can be very a difficult time. Faithful and worthy betrothed Mormons are married in LDS temples, which means their non-LDS (or LDS but unworthy or young) family members cannot attend.
The Arizona Republic recently ran a very sensitive and thoughtful article about one such family. “Non-Mormon family not being allowed to attend son’s wedding was wrenching,” by Jamie Rose, tells the story of Cheri Richardson and her struggle to come to terms with her son’s conversion to Mormonism, which ultimately resulted in a temple wedding that his family could not share.
From the time of Chase Richardson’s conversion to the LDS Church Cheri held out hope that, when the time came, her son would choose to marry outside the temple, maybe in a pre-temple civil ceremony, that the family could attend. Even when Chase became engaged to a wonderful Mormon girl (Annie), Cheri held on to that hope. For a while they all seemed to avoid talking about the location of the upcoming wedding. Then, one day,
“Cheri read about it on Annie’s Facebook page: Chase and Annie would be married on March 12, 2010, in the Mesa temple. Beneath Annie’s announcement, a few friends from church had already responded with excitement: ‘We’ll be there!’
“Cheri didn’t know them. They’d be at her son’s wedding. She wouldn’t.”
Cheri went on to explain,
“‘What is hurtful to me is that because of his beliefs, it feels like we’re being forced out,’ Cheri says, ‘and the reason we can’t be there is probably the most hurtful — that we’re deemed “unworthy” by the church to enter the temple.
“‘You’re there for 3 a.m. feedings. You’re there at every single game and headache and shot and broken bone and parent-teacher conference. You hug him when he’s got his heart broken for not making the basketball team, and to be told you’re not worthy to be there on his most important day?'”
The article quotes LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah, “It is easy to understand how feelings of exclusion can develop, but exclusion is never intended.” As a way to consider the feelings of family members who are not temple worthy, the article notes,
“The church allows a family gathering, often called a ‘ring ceremony,’ to be held before or after a temple wedding. Rings are not a part of a temple wedding and can be exchanged informally inside or outside a temple, Farah says, as long as vows are not exchanged, also.
“Cheri read enough about ring ceremonies to know the moment would feel forced and empty.”
Traditionally, one very important element of the Christian sacrament of marriage is the exchange of vows “before God and witnesses.” Therefore, the sort of “ring ceremony” allowed by the LDS Church has great potential to add insult to injury. That’s how Cheri saw it, anyway.
Though Chase and Annie wanted Chase’s mom, dad and sister to wait outside the temple during the wedding, and wanted to find them there immediately afterward, Cheri didn’t think she could do it. To her, conforming to the Church’s rules “would feel as if the church had won.” The day before the wedding Cheri and Chase spoke on the phone. He sounded lonely.
“My heart was breaking for him,” Cheri says. “Before he could even ask, I said, ‘Please. Please, Chase. Don’t ask me. Please. You know I can’t.'”
But in the end Cheri was there. Though she believed the Church was wrong both in policy and doctrine, though she felt humiliated and judged waiting outside the temple, though she continued to be frustrated with this religion that threatened to drive a wedge between mother and son, Cheri loved her son and decided to share in whatever part of that important day she was allowed.
Cheri’s heart broke on her son’s wedding day. Loving him unconditionally didn’t diminish the “wrenching” anguish his LDS temple wedding imposed on his “unworthy” family members. So many parents struggle with these issues when a child leaves his or her family’s faith for Mormonism. As wedding season approaches, parents, remember this. Cheri Richardson found a way to hold on to both of her loves: her love for her son, and her love for her God. With God’s help, you will find a way through the heartache, too.
Trust in the LORD forever,
for the LORD GOD is an everlasting rock.
Isaiah 26:4
I had some mixed feelings about this when I read Sharon’s article. Mormons can run their program anyway they want and those that are converts to Mormonism are having the depth of their commitment tested. I don’t think it’s a very good PR move to exclude people from the temple weddings because it fosters an “us versus them” mentality.
On a personal note, I was raise Catholic and like a lot of Baby Boomers, I left the church. I was twenty and a college sophomore. When I was twenty-two my girlfriend and I decided to get married on a sort of a spur of the moment impulse. Catholics, in those days, were prohibited from attending a wedding of a Catholic taking place in another church. In fact if I had in fact been a Catholic at the time, the church wouldn’t have recognized the marriage. I could have dumped my wife, married another honey in the Catholic church and all would have been cool with the Catholic church.
Anyway, I was a heathen and my girlfriend was a Lutheran so we split the difference and got married in an Episcopal church. It was a “draw a church out of the hat” kind of deal for me. I didn’t know until the day of the wedding if my mother would show up. She did however but not looking too happy. Wouldn’t you know it, a few years later the Catholic church changed their rule. It was kind of devastating for my mother (how they just up and changed their rule) and she told me years later how ashamed she was for making a big deal out of possibly not attending the service and then the church did a major flip-flop.
One of my older sisters couldn’t get married in the church building because she was marrying a nonCatholic. They ended-up getting married in the parsonage. When my brother got married to a nonCatholic the local priest was more enlightened. They could get married in the church building BUT they couldn’t have music. The bride walked up the aisle in a dead silent church.
Anyway, forty-one years later my girlfriend and I are still married, but I must admit there were some hard feelings caused by all of this for quite a few years.
That Mormons have used Matthew 7:6 (“do not throw your pearls before swine“) to explain why non-Mormons and non-worthy Mormons are not allowed to enter the temple adds a whole new angle on the issue.
I find it interesting that people’s feelings now seem to be such an important factor to the critics here. Aren’t you the one’s who ususally blow off people’s feelings in the pursuit of truth and declaring the gospel?
You are perfectly willing to dessicrate and demean things that are sacred and holy to others, appealing to verses that suggest that the most important thing is personal adherence to truth, whatever that is and despite the fact that it may hurt or offended others.
A verse you often employ comes to mind: “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matt 10:35-36
Don’t get me wrong- this isn’t the way I view these situations with temple weddings involving familes that cannot enter the temple. My own wife didn’t have anybody from her family with her when we were married. I absolutely empathize with these folks.
It just seems somewhat of a double standard in what critics view as important.
OJ,
I think we’re going to have to work with you a little bit here. When we Christians talk about feelings we’re talking about “feelings” as a test of revelatory truth in Mormonism. We’re not talking about normal emotional responses to situations we encounter in life.
I don’t have a problem with people wanting to have a private religious ceremony in regards to their religious expression, but I would think that there could be a wedding service that everyone could attend. If Mormons want to go into the temple and look into a couple of mirrors signifying eternal marriage, get their secret passwords or whatever, that’s their deal. I wouldn’t be much interested in being involved.
Thanks for your deep conern falcon.
Maybe I should hold your hand through my point.
I will restate it: EVs who criticize LDS here often blow off the claim that they should be a little more sensitive about offending others while they mock and laugh at our religion. I now find a little hypocrisy- at least a double-standard in this article.
Sharon seems to be saying that Mormons are not sensitive enough to the hurt feelings caused by non-mormons not being able to attend temple weddings.
Is that clear enough for you?
OJ,
Not really. I think your Mormon persecution complex is showing which I think gets in the way of your understanding what’s being discussed here. What the article is about is a family wedding and parents getting left out in the cold while the ceremony is taking place. That’s bound to make a parent feel sad; a natural human emotional reaction to being left out of something as important as your child’s wedding.
Your attempting to make a link between feelings associated with this family event and feelings associated with Mormon doctrine. The “truth” of a matter, Mormons say, is confirmed by supposed spiritual feelings. They’re not even any where in the same ball park of issues. Comment on one or the other but don’t try to link them because they’re not the same.
BTW, you my friend give as good as you get so don’t whine about your religion being laughed at and mocked. Most of the Christian posters out here are quite measured in their posts. Sarcastic and pointed at times? Sure, but that’s the creative process while making the point. Put on your big boy pants. You can handle it.
Olsen Jim, I’m baffled by what you believe I am saying in my article. I’ve not said that Mormons are insensitive on this issue. This whole article is about one woman’s journey through this difficulty in her family’s life, and how she was able to come through it with her family, her love, and her faith intact. It’s puzzling to me that you believe what I’ve written is hypocritical. It’s certainly possible that I’ve been misunderstood (I’m not a perfect communicator), but I sure don’t see what you are accusing me of.
Matt 10:35-36
Loving/Following Jesus naturally separates people-who-do from people-who-do-not view Jesus the same way.
Mormonism forcibly and demeaningly separates people-who-do from people-who-do-not believe the current Mormon doctrine and follow the Mormon rules.
From:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon165.htm
Does anyone know if this is true that the Church Changes it’s doctrine to allow for the ‘law of the land’ in Brazil? I find this very heartbreaking and interesting that they would make the exception there, but let all the families in other places feel left out and angry.
falcon,
I don’t know how you are getting on the topic of personal revelation and feelings associated with the spirit.
It is important to discriminate the meaning of words from the context in which they occur. Oops, I said the word “discriminate” which is probably on your list of bad words. And you will therefore probably start discussing blacks and the priesthood……
Sharon,
Why do you discuss this topic if not to make the LDS temple wedding and the church appear in a negative light?
Is your point not that the church places strict adherence to ordinances above personal and family sensitivities and feelings?
Are you saying this was not your intent? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Consider your language:
“Non-Mormon family not being ALLOWED to attend son’s wedding was wrenching.”
“What is hurtful to me is that because of his beliefs, it feels like we’re being forced out.”
“The sort of “ring ceremony” allowed by the LDS Church has great potential to add insult to injury.”
“Conforming to the Church’s rules would feel as if the church had won.”
“She felt humiliated and judged waiting outside the temple.”
“The “wrenching” anguish his LDS temple wedding imposed on his “unworthy” family members.”
I am baffled that you are baffled.
My response seems clear, at least to me. You are suggesting and implying the church is insensitive to the feelings of non-member families who have sons or daughters marry inside the temple.
I am saying that this is a clear double standard from a group that is unabashed in telling LDS that their religion and beliefs are fraudulent, corrupt, or even from Satan. This comes from a group that ridicules and mocks our very idea of God and the most sacred feelings we have for Him.
When LDS act offended, the responses from critics here are cold and militaristic in standing behind a few verses that speak of “spiritual warfare” or “defending pure doctrine.”
You see no issue?
OJ
Look you’re the one who brought it up. I was just commenting on what you said. You did a riff on “feelings” yourself confusing the issue at hand. I merely pointed out that fact.
You said:
“Aren’t you the ones who usually blow off peoples’ feelings in the pursuit of truth and declaring the gospel?”
That’s a major confusing of the issue at hand here. What people’s feelings are in the context you suggest is the old “burning in the bosom” technique for determining whether or not Mormonism is “true”. Now if you’re suggesting that it’s all the same thing, then I think you need to do a serious reconsideration if the “burning in the bosom” feeling is the result of the power of suggestion and not some supernatural experience or sign.
Arthur Sido, who used to post here, talked about the fact that coming to the realization that his “burning in the bosom” occurred in many contexts, having nothing to do with spiritual matters, was a major turning point in his leaving Mormonism. So if you want to call it all the same thing then, you’re making a major concession.
Be careful OJ. You start heading in that direction and you’ll be moving right on out the LDS door. If this makes you feel “bad” you better run away.
I agree.
Jim, if you had a daughter or son being married into a non-Mormon religion, and that religion prevented you from seeing the wedding on the basis that you are not worthy, would you not have FEELINGS about that? Negative ones? Would you be sensitive in your remarks about such an event?
The point that you’re missing is that FEELINGS can not be trusted to TELL A PERSON THE TRUTH.
A person may feel discriminated against by the Mormon church because they are not permitted into the temple- but this does not make Mormonism or the “unworthy” person’s religion true or false.
Permit me to correct an error that the Mormon church perpetrates? http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/how-can-i-know-this-is-true
Galatians 5:22–23 is talking about “fruits of the Spirit”. Fruits of the spirit ARE new personality traits that can be seen in someone who has been born-again and is leading a Spirit-led life.
Fruits of the spirit ARE NOT feelings that tell you the truth of the church of Mormonism.
Olsen Jim,
” You are suggesting and implying the church is insensitive to the feelings of non-member…” I would ad members.
Reguarding LDS belief I have personally been guilty of being insensitive. It occurred at a Christmas party, and the topic of religion came up. I am sorry that it did. Someone who was jewish was very upset at jewish holocaust victims names being submitted for baptism for the dead. I didn’t see any problem, and tried to explain how it didn’t mean any harm. From a former LDS perspective, it didn’t seem like anything but a belief. It wasn’t until I saw the documentary ‘the mormons’ on PBS that I was able to see the hurt and offense many jewish people felt from this. It was like LDS members were trying to remove their Jewish identity.
For as much as is made of supernatural influences from works for the dead, and other temple rituals the actual effects might be to “wound” other faiths by performing these rituals. Its a subliminal message that its not “OK” or good enough to be a jew, nonLDS christian or anything else.
For what you consciously believe, your not responsible for what other people think or feel. However, I think it is pretty insensitive for not being able to see other points of view. As long as you are an active believing member you may not be able to see the subliminal messages you are sending to others by practising your religion.
This documentary really emphasized the authoritive nature of the LDS leadership, and how much power members turn over. It questioned the mental and emotional health of the LDS faith, and if it will continue in the future. The current clamp down on historians and dissidents seems to indicate that there is a serious problem.
Well before I do my nightly Bible reading and head off to bed I want to add that if the people sitting outside waiting for the bride and groom to emerge from their wedding ceremony in the Mormon temple, feel bad, what does that say about the type of spirit present in this situation? A bad feeling in Mormonism is a warning sign. The “spirit” in Mormonism has been liken to electricity generating through the cosmos. So if there are bad “feelings” that would tell us something right? Looking at it from a Mormon perspective……which I don’t incidentally……there is a negative force field present in this situation.
Anyway, there’s a certain amount of “na-na-na-na-na, we’re better than you. You suck!” going on here by Mormons.
Olsen Jim wrote,
Olsen Jim, the LDS Church may be insensitive to the feelings of non-members when it comes to temple marriage, and/or it may be doing its best to minimize offense as it encourages members to live out the dictates of their LDS faith. But that is not what this article is about. This article is about real people, real families, and one difficulty many families face when they are not united in their faith. As others have pointed out on this thread, families divided by faith often face challenges in their lives brought about by their different faiths.
No. My point in this article is that non-member parents and siblings are hurt when they cannot attend the wedding of a loved one. That’s the truth. That’s the way it is. But one can get through the day and past the hurt and find hope for the future. Though it may feel dark and bleak, all is not lost. I found Cheri Richardson’s story inspiring and hopeful, and I believe it will be an encouragement to others.
The quotes you’ve highlighted from my article are either direct quotes from the Arizona Republic or a summary statement of what the newspaper reported. I included them because they illustrate the deep feelings non-members in this situation experience, feelings to which many may relate.
You have misunderstood, Olsen Jim. This article is not so much about the LDS Church as it is about the strength of a mother’s love for her son.
I seem to recall a scripture in Matthew 8:21 about a scribe who wants to follow Christ but first asks to attend to his father’s burial. I did some study on a non-mormon site. Although the question of whether the father was already dead or if he was soon to die arises in the study notes ( http://bible.cc/matthew/8-21.htm ), it is interesting that a person who was probably asking for something that to us would be a basic filiel duty (don’t trust my spelling on that) was then told that, in order to follow Christ, he had to abandon that duty.
I doubt any one person in this post would say that Christ was wrong for what he asked. But what if someone believes what he/she is doing is simply following a commandment of Christ? I have had many discussions with my friend on this vary subject, to which he threatened to disown any child who would do this. I also have a sister-in-law who faced the same situation with her father when she married my brother.
I guess, when it comes right down to it, you can’t exactly give the “correct” answer to someone who has to face this situation from the outside looking in. But I wonder what answer the scribe would, or maybe did, give to his family if/when he had gone off to follow Christ. I certainly would have liked to have been a fly on that wall.
The fact is there are many things of all our faiths that outsiders may question as to its necessity if it may divide the family; the basic building block of our society.
I hope to have patience and understanding should that situation happen to me.
I might be able to summon the smallest sympathy for the LDS rite of Temple-Marriage if it were not for the overwhelming sense I get from reading early Mormon history that the reason this secret ceremony was introduced by Smith and Co. was to avoid the inevitable confrontations that would have arisen from trying to legitimize their polygamous (and adulterous) relationships in public.
I don’t think we’ve discussed the fact that lapsed Mormons can’t get into the temple weddings either. I can’t remember if it was on this blog or another where there was a post regarding a couple who went to the Bishop to get their ticket for the wedding and lied through their teeth in order to qualify. They thought the whole process was a joke and really didn’t care. I can’t remember if there was family pressure on them to get their temple passports or not, but I’m guessing that was the case. Bad on them of course, but I wonder how often this happens just to keep peace in the Mormon family.
I don’t know if I’d be real hip to attending the temple wedding service anyway even if I had the choice. My question is, would God want me to? I take my commitment to God seriously and see Him as the focal point of my life. Would I be giving tacit approval to a religion that denies God and His Christ for a pagan deity that Mormonism attempts to pass-off as God. I guess it’s the old “eating meat sacrificed to idols” question that the apostle Paul dealt with.
According to the Mormon time line, when did Jesus initiate secret sacred temple weddings? There is a wedding recorded in Scripture with Jesus attending and it seems to be a celebration enjoyed by all – with Jesus turning water into wine. This wedding description does not seem to fit the Mormon template and would have been the perfect time for Jesus to step in and tell everyone how marriages should be conducted in the temple, and to rebuke everyone for drinking wine. Mormons must think this was removed from Scripture (with no evidence of any such change). The public celebration of marriage is as old as Scripture. Secret/sacred temple marriages ceremonies are foreign to the Bible.
Sharon,
I suppose I must take you at your word. But can you see that the article is very consistent in its bias against the LDS church.
You share one side of a story. It does work both ways. Many people who have joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been disowned by family and friends. I also recognize that there are people who leave the church and experience similar things.
If your article is intended to provide comfort to those experiencing such things, might I suggest a more balanced approach?
This article is anything but equitable, and that is distracting, at least from an LDS perspective. It does not read like a generic discussion of families “divided by faith.”
The combination of marriage/religion sure seems to bring out a side of people that you don’t normally see. My parents are Lutherans, and quite loyal ones too:) When my eldest sister ended up being engaged to a Catholic and converted (gasp!:) things were tense around the house for a long time, and still are in certain regards. The same thing happened when my wife and I decided to attend the local Alliance church.
I don’t think any of the posters here, Mormon or Christian, would disagree on whether it is more important to follow God or to please your family. That being said, the divisions that I’ve seen pop up in my own extended family are not the result of a specific biblical or even church teaching. If my parents did not attend their eldest daughters wedding (they did if any of you are wondering:) it would not be because the Catholic church told them they couldn’t come. In essence, the only thing preventing them from taking part in that special day would be themselves.
It’s definately not that way in the Mormon church, where it is church doctrine which prevents the ‘unworthy’ non-mormons from being there for their children. Even if both the child and the parents wish to be there for each other. An earlier poster mentioned the option of getting married somewhere else and then going to get ‘sealed’ afterwards. I’ve heard tales of Mormon’s passing along stories of ‘Oh, did you hear about couple XY? They chose not to get married in the temple and on their way to the temple to get sealed they were killed in a car accident! Now they won’t be a forever family!’ Have any of you Mormons or former Mormons heard similar things?
Regardless, I think it’s sad that the LDS church has made it a policy to worsen the relationships between Mormon members and their non-Mormon families on an occassion that is supposed to be bringing everyone together.
Neil and others,
Not everybody who is not allowed in the temple is “unworthy.” Everybody is allowed in the temple who has a certain body of knowledge and is willing to live by certain standards. Some people who are not members really do live the same standards required for temple entrance. Some do not. “The church” actually wants all people to go to the temple.
But we are simply doing what we believe God wants us to do. Would you have us cave into pressure from folks like you and go against what we feel God wants?
It is not the church policy to “worsen the relationships between Mormon members and their non-Mormon families.” That is pure rhetoric.
I could just as easily criticize folks here because Evangelical “church doctrine” claims non-believers or those who are “unworthy” will be eternally cast away from their families after they die.
As far as the folklore stories about couples dying on the way to the temple- I would say such tales have no baring on LDS or the motivation to be married in the temple. They are lore. Not sure why that is brought up.
Wouldn’t drinking wine exclude one from entering the temple? So when Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding party, those who drank that wine would have a problem getting into a Mormon temple marriage? Interesting.
Oh come-on Mobaby, you know that wasn’t “real” wine, it was unfermented grape juice. Everybody knows that! Same with when Paul wrote to Timothy that he should drink a little wine for his stomach problems. It’s common knowledge that “wine” in the Greek means “grape juice”, “kool aid” or “fruit punch”.
OJ wants a “balanced” article. OK, how does Sharon do that? A woman feels bad because she can’t attend the wedding ceremony of her son. The Mormon balanced point-of-view is what? The article makes Mormons look bad? They do a good enough job of that themselves and this wedding issue is a perfect example. We can go on down through history and fill a large volume of how the Mormon church has and continues to make itself look bad. Mormons have a tough time owning it! Look at all of the articles and media stories about pedophile Catholic priests. That’s just Catholic bashing, right? Let’s see, a balanced article on pedophile priests. Anyone want to volunteer to write it?
Jim,
I had read over your last comment a couple of
times as I could’nt believe what you said about
there are even non-LDS who are living the “same
standards” for Temple admittance that LDS are.
Is that what you are saying? It seems there might
be more to this. I’m “living” the same lifestyle
as you I’ll wager, so therefore I’m worthy?
Could you further explain this?
MikeR,
Many people here used the word “unworthy” to describe everybody who cannot enter the temple. The implication is that we think we are better than everybody else. And that really isn’t accurate at all. Are the LDS who are not old enough to go to the temple “unworthy?” No.
And yes- I venture to say that there are a lot of people who live their lives in a manner that they would qualify, if members of the church, to go to the temple.
For these reasons, I make the point that it is not accurate to us the word “worthy” or “unworthy” to describe everybody who cannot enter the temple.
Can a person accept Christ who knows absolutely nothing about Him, not even His name? There has to be a certain basic knowledge for the acceptance and understanding to occur. Same thing with the temple- a person must understand and accept certain things before receiving the higher ordinances of the Priesthood.
Mobaby- abstaining from alcohol,etc. is something specific for the latter days according to our beliefs. I see no doctrinal problem for us resulting from Jesus using wine in administering the sacrament.
I don’t think the article makes Mormons look bad at all. I was touched by the sacrifice Amy’s parents were willing to make in an effort to show love and compassion to Chase’s parents. When we talk about Mormonism, we really need to differentiate between the doctrine and the people. As I read OJ’s comments, I have to say that I understand where he’s coming from. Temple recommends are given to those who not only live their lives a certain way, but who believe in what Mormonism considers to be true–JS being a prophet, and the current leaders being living apostles and prophets. It’s because non-LDS don’t believe in JS as a prophet is why they aren’t allowed into the temple. I think an organization, which we call a church, has the right to conduct their business the way they want. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with what they do or not.
Yes, the story was very sad and heart-wrenching–but it was that way for everyone involved. And, this is why I saw some beauty in this story: despite the differences in belief systems, the expression of love and care were real and sincere between the parties involved. And, I can’t begrudge someone for doing what they think they should do to put the LORD first according to their understanding of who the LORD is and their beliefs about His will. It doesn’t matter what I think about that. The sad part is that “religion” forces us to adhere to “religion” over “relationships,” which is what ultimately happened.
Regarding eternal marriage, the only such thing the Bible ever refers to is the marriage between Christ and the Church. That’s the marriage celebration I don’t want to miss–I’ll actually be a part of it!
Peace…
Jim,
Thanks for responding. I am still somewhat
perplexed by your comments though.
You said, ” Many people here use the word ‘un-
worthy’ to describe everyone who cannot enter
the temple.” Is’nt that the word your leaders
use? You mentioned that the wrong conotation
is being applied to this word by some , so you
feel it is’nt accurate to use this word to
describe everyone who cannot enter the Temple.
Is that what you’re saying? I’ll take your word
on it that you do’nt feel you’re “better” than
me.
That leads to another question.You also said that
there are many people ( non-LDS ) who qualify
to enter the Temple, but the reason they’re
denied entrance is because they’re not members
of your church. Yet, is’nt there a little more
to it than that? What I mean is, to me you imply
that I could be just as moral as you , pay a tithe
as you etc but just because I’m not a Mormon
therefore I can’t get in. Is there a question in
the Temple recommend interview that asks if you
are “sympathetic” to any apostate groups? If so,
how does that fit in with your reply?
Could you elaborate on this? Thanks.
I think it’s great that the church of joseph smith excludes non-mormons and non-worthy mormons from its temple weddings. Why? Because it exposes the church of joseph smith for what it really is.
What should be a time of joy and happiness for all friends and family members is now a time of division and frustration.
If there was one brain, just one ounce of common sense at church headquarters ALL would be welcome to the temple – just for weddings. It would be an excellent chance during a time of great joy and happiness to show non-members what mormonism is all about, and for unworthy members to “feel the mormon spirit” again.
But see…the brain dead leadership in SLC are so caught up with their elite little club rules, there’s no room for creative growth…to which I say a jolly and hearty “GOOD!”
Those excluded don’t feel any more compelled to become a mormon. If anything, they just feel sorry for the brainwashed newlyweds for getting mixed up in a non-sensical non-Christian religion.
As I have stated before, the mormon temple is nothing but a means for headquarters of the mormon corporation to keep the tithing money coming in. No tithe…no temple. No temple…no eternal family. No eternal family…no happiness…blah blah blah. It’s a sham.
OlsenJim,
I was referring to Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding celebration, not at institution of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. But now that you mention it, use of wine in the Lord’s Supper would also exclude one from the Mormon temples – and when Jesus instituted the sacrament of the bread and the wine being his body and blood, it was wine. So, participating in the Lord’s Supper as instituted by Christ would keep one from being temple worthy. Following Jesus keeps one from being temple worthy Mormon!
I read the following the other day from the blog of an LDS member:
“The temple wedding presents a rather cruel dilemma to those who are first generation converts or those who come from mixed-faith families. On one hand, you have the promise of the sealing. Which is what everyone—LDS or otherwise—wants: to be with the people they love always. But in order to secure those blessings, some have to leave the very people they want that promise to apply to at the temple door. ”
Not surprisingly the young lady chose to honor her father by asking him to walk her down the aisle in a civil wedding first. The consequence? A one year waiting penalty enforced by the Mormon Church before she can be sealed in the temple to her husband.
If only the son of Cheri had chosen the same route. But because of the stigma, guilt and fear associated with marriage outside of the temple and the one year penalty, mormon couples rarely if ever choose to marry civil first.
In the Arizona Republic article, Cheir makes mention of the Temple Wedding Petition. I encourage people of all faiths to support it by signing it.
http://www.templeweddingpetition.org
olsen jim wrote
By this standard, Joseph Smith wouldn’t get in, given that he smoked, drank alcohol and coffee. He also lied (first vision, translating the Book of Abraham), committed serial adultery (8 or 9 of his 34 wives were simultaneously married to other living husbands) and attempted to swindle people out of their money(the Kirtland Bank).
Let me guess; does this “body of knowledge” comprise “…and the LDS church is the true church and Joseph Smith is a true prophet”? Because that’s the only way Joe would qualify.
Or, what about the decent upright people who don’t subscribe to the LDS agenda; would they get in? No, they would not.
So, what’s more important; living a good life, or subscribing to Joseph Smith and Co?
…and
…no, you’re simply doing what Joseph Smith wants you to do. The God of the Bible hates secret ceremonies (see Rev 2:24).
…and
…maybe that’s because the Biblical definition of someone who is “unworthy” is someone WHO CANNOT ENTER THE TEMPLE (see Psalm 24:3 etc.)
It turns out that we are all “unworthy” (see Rev 5:2-4, and a stack of other scriptures). No-one is good enough to enter in – that’s why the Jerusalem Temple was SO DIFFICULT to get into (Heb 9:7 etc).
But Jesus has become the righteousness we so badly need, and He has entered in (Heb 4:14 etc). His righteousness gives us the right to enter into the True Temple, when we live in Him.
We don’t need LDS Temple Recommends. Furthermore we don’t need LDS Temples. In fact, we don’t need LDS ANYTHING, because Christ is all, in all (Col 3:11).
Martin,
Thanks for sharing those scriptures.
It’s really sad that a person who claims
to worship the Lord Jesus Christ can’t get
into his/her’s own Father’s house without
a permission slip signed by a sinful man
(Bishop) who himself may be guilty of the
failing the same “recommend ” test.
Thank you Jesus for being our Temple recommend!
The LDS temple is a “closed shop”. There is a specific criteria for getting in and if someone does not meet that criteria they are not allowed to enter. It is an exclusive religious club. In order to enter, a person has to accept Joseph Smith, the LDS church (Salt Lake City version),the Bom, and the Mormon current prophet. I, for one, would not care to enter, take part in, or even observe the rituals that take place there.
The god of Mormonism is not God. Why would I go into a pagan temple that is adored with pagan occult symbols and rejects the cross of Christ, the symbol of Christian salvation? Mormons need to reject the Mormon false god, cleanse those temples and turn to God who is the only hope for their salvation.
While the mother in the story may feel sad that she can’t observe the wedding ceremony of her son, I’d say she should be sad about his eternal destiny rather than being excluded from a wedding ceremony in a Mormon temple.
MikeR,
In answer to your question- a person must embrace truth to receive more truth. “Line upon line, precept upon precept.” If a person rejects basic truths, they are not in a position to accept “higher” truths. “Milk before meat.” You get the idea.
I think you would agree with this principle if the context were not the LDS temple.
And by the way- God commissioning earthly servants to whom His people must account is nothing new.
Mobaby- I understand what you are referring to and the answer and logic is the same as I explained before.
Martin- the list of claims about Joseph Smith is largely a list of your opinions to which there is an equivalent list of opposite opinions and convictions.
“God hates secret ceremonies?” That is interesting. Why is it then that God directed his prophets in times past into the wilderness or onto mountain tops to reveal Himself to them? Why did Jesus withdraw from the crowds to teach the Apostles, and ultimately to suffer in the Garden of Gethsemane. And nobody was around when Christ experienced the process of resurrection.
The most sacred events in history have taken place away from the world in rather secluded places.
The great thing is that you don’t have to accept LDS temples or enter them. You are free to dismiss all of it. And I am free to accept all of it. I am perfectly comfortable with that.
I’ve hesitated to comment on this thread because it is such a narrow issue, and while I agree Sharon’s intent was to show the struggle and love of mother to her son, it can’t be ignored that the story was shared in a site that is critical of LDS, and the group excluding is LDS. It is natural, then, to take it that the LDS are being criticized for their exclusions. That’s true whether or not that is the intent.
But I feel I have to comment on something Jim said. In his last post to this point, he said: “The great thing is that you don’t have to accept LDS temples or enter them. You are free to dismiss all of it. And I am free to accept all of it. I am perfectly comfortable with that.”
Yes, we are all free to believe as we want, but accordign to Jim, we are not able to criticize people for that. Now, he’s never said this expressly, but his constant stating we are free to believe what we want indicates that he is hesitant to openly criticize others. That’s a good and a noble proposition, but it is also wrong. Allowing someone to pervert the truth without seeking to correct their beliefs, even if they have a right to believe, is irresponsible.
And I really think that the position is taken by LDS to get to the emotional higher ground, because if they don’t critique, it is harder for them to be critiqued. And when they are critiqued, they can act as victims.
I am sure they rely on ideas like turning the other cheek, confidence in their faith, and the wood in your own eye sorts of things to justify.
But the truth is the truth, and we should all diligently fight for that truth. Taking criticisms off the table, as LDS apparently want is problematic. All beliefs are open to criticism, even ours, and it is always fair to question them, as long as the criticisms are in good faith. Our criticisms of the LDS are fair, and while we all can accept or dismiss as appropritate, we should discuss in an effort to determine the truth.
MJP,
My first point in this thread was that any intent to criticize the LDS for their doctrine on temple weddings and not allowing everybody in the temple is hypocritical when it comes from a group who also insist on “exposing” the mormon religion, no matter how badly it offends people.
By the way, I spend relatively little time “critiquing” Evangelical doctrine here. That is not because theirs is a water-tight theology. I could certainly expose plenty to make people think about your doctrinal structure.
When I have gone down that road in the slightest, the reactions from the EVs here are exactly the reactions they criticize from Mormons who face cricitism of their faith.
Just a thought.
I have noticed plenty or threads initiated by articles written by posters who are invited to present something. I wonder if MRM would ever go so far as to invite somebody on the other side of the fence to that.
Is the goal balance? If not, I understand- it’s their site. But it shouldn’t claim objectivity or real balance.
Jim,
On your first point, I think you are mistaken to ignore the intent, but understand why you did, which is why I suggested I was hesitant to even talk about it. Reactions and context is important to how people react, and your reacted in a way that I think is very reasonable.
But I have found that not just here, LDS are not quick to criticize other faiths. They seem to think that each faith has very positive qualities and can be a part of Jesus message. As I said, this is not a bad idea on its face, but is fundamentally dishonest.
I really see LDS as wary of criticism against them, which is also in a sense a natural reaction. But looking to the past and interpreting what was said and comparing that to now is a fair thing to do, and adherants of that faith do not have a monopoly in interpreting these things.
In other words, people outside of the faith can be authoritative of it. And it is then fair to have an open and frank discussion without the accusations of misprepresentation and false motives.
From my belief, I am happy to open my faith to scrutiny. I’d expect everyone else here is, too.
You say you could critique our faith, but generally don’t here. Fine, but I for one would welcome it, because it would be easier to compare our faiths.
Would MRM allow another? I don’t know. Is the goal balance? I’d agree– the group is designed to witness to and explain Mormonism from a Christian view point.
MJP,
You do a marvelous job of presenting your points and I appreciate your spirit, but the fact of the matter is in the many months that I’ve been out here we have had Mormon posters who have ripped Christianity pretty good. I won’t take a stroll down memory lane, but some of the Mormon folks have been down right nasty. They usually toss their fire bombs and move on thankfully. Some were asked to leave because they wouldn’t moderate their behavior.
But you’re right, the point of this blog, as I understand it, is to critique Mormonism, which we do vigorously and with passion. I really can’t figure out why a Mormon would come here and then get all offended. Maybe it’s to reinforce their stereotype of Christians and Christianity.
Anyway, the point of Sharon’s article, was to present the emotional turmoil that is experienced by family members who are prohibited from attending their child’s wedding ceremony. As a little further research, I went out and read some testimonials from others who were in this situation.
I’ve also listened to the audios (available on the internet) of John Dehlin’s “Mormon Stories”. He’s all about reconciliation. In his interview with Grant Palmer it was obvious that Palmer, for example, was in favor of some sort of reformation in the modern SLC LDS church. I could see where one such reform would be to have people get married at the wards that everyone could attend and then do the super secret ceremony in the temple. What’s the big deal with that? Easily done and keeps the family waters smooth. I don’t know, maybe it’s to penalize folks who have left the LDS religion.
Jim,
Concerning my reference to the LDS procedure of
having a LDS bishop ok your eligibility to enter
the Temple, you said, “….God commissioning
earthly servants to whom His people must account
is nothing new.” I agree.But the Mormon Church’s
arrangement on this goes way past what the N.T.
reveals about Jesus’ church. Because passing a
interview in order to be get into your own Father’s house is such a man made procedure, it
will be rife with examples of human reasoning
substituting for God’s truth. Let’s look at some
examples of what was once LDS worthiness dispensed
from God thru LDS prophets/apostles:
” This is His work. He established it. He has
revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its
PRACTICES.” [Ensign 5-2003]
– in 1902 = a deceased female who has attained,
in this life, the age of 10 or 12 years may be
sealed to a male as a wife.The same rule app-
lies in the case of a male having a wife seal-
ed to him.
– males under 21, wh do not hold the Mel priest.
and females under 18 , who are unendowed can
be baptized for their health, for the dead or
sealed to their parents.
– a female who has a husband or marries a man
not in the church cannot be admitted to the
temple to receive her endowments,the same rule
applies to a man who marries a wife not in the
church.
– a recommend for the dead is required for some
cases
– 1916 temple garment must be of approved
pattern, no alterations.
– 1923 the former “approved” pattern was altered
by instruction of the F.P.
– law of adoption [sealing men to general author-
ities] practiced under Brigham Young , stopped
by rev.from prophet Wilford Woodruff , 1894
– the second annointing, not intended for every
male member, and goodness alone is enough to
be recommended for this.extreme care must be
taken in granting recommends for this.Stake
Pres. must make sure that deceased men and
women are worthy also.
Falcon, I remember a couple of them– arguing about green multi-eyed monsters as god etc. See, I think they were not arguing in good faith. That’s a key aspect of my position– arguing in good faith. My experience is they either avoid discussion, or go to extremes in the discussion. Any serious discussion is rare.
As to this article, I agree fully.
cont.
– under prophet Woodruff’s rule a woman was not
permitted to be annointed to a man unless she
had lived with him as his wife.
years later(1900) the F.P. decided to restore
the practice as to be that any woman who has
been sealed to a man in life or by proxy
whether she has lived with him or nor, shall
have the privilege of being annointed to him
inasmuch as he shall have had his second bless-
ings.
– LDS leaders from Joseph Smith to Wilford
Woodruff had trouble keeping the Word of
Wisdom.It was once warned that priesthood
leaders who were taught the WoW and then
failed to live it could not hold Church
office.This did’nt work out to well, but they
still got into the Temple.
Jim, I did’nt mean to go this long.I hope you
see that sincere religious men, your prophets,
do not have the ‘divine direction” that is
claimed by them. Vascillating on important
issues is a tell-tale sign of prophets who
run ahead of God and don’t have His approval.
” The great mistake made down through the ages
by teachers of Christianity, is that they have
supposed they could place their own private
interpretation upon scriptures,allow their own
personal convience to become a controlling
factor, and change the basis of Christian law
and practice to suit themselves. This is
apostacy.” [The Prophet’s message, Church
News, 5-1965 ].
note: ( most of the info above is from , “The.
Mysteries of Godliness” by LDS author
David John Buerger.
I think the answer to all this is found in the
great liberating truth of Jesus. It is He who
is our eligiblity to enter the true temple:
Jn.14:6; Matt.12:6; Heb 8:2, 9:11
God bless you Jim as you seek Him.
Mormonism is a religion that puts a burden of man-made rules on those who have been taken in by the cult. It’s all about control. Thus all of the rules and procedures necessary to get into their faux temples where they perform rituals that have no basis in scripture but have their beginning and development in the creative mind of Joseph Smith. Actually his “gift” was his ability to take ideas from various sources and mold them into something that suited his own twisted mind. Hence we have temple marriage ceremonies that are suppose to launch a couple on their journey to the Celestial kingdom and godhood. This is a concept that has nothing to do with traditional Christianity going back to the first century. In order to make it work in their little program, Mormon leaders had to develop all sorts of conspiracy theories that have no place in God’s plan for man in order to rationalize this nonsense.
Thankfully most people who sign on to Mormonism leave in one way, shape or another. There is hope for those caught in the maze of Mormonism.
I am curious, why can’t the LDS wedding ceremony be open for all to attend? I know there is the idea of celestial marriage, but why does this have this level of privacy and seclusion? I thought the whole point of a wedding was so that the whole community would know that these people involved where now ‘taken’ and no longer available for dating other people. Also to celebrate their committment. That is a perspective from the western world, however some peoples in the world had traditions of spouse trading. What marriage means in these cultures, I am not sure.
Question to mormons, I didn’t know that rings were not part of the LDS temple ceremony. Does anyone know the reason for this? What about the origin of rings? this apparently does not conflict with LDS rituals as a ring ceremony can be done outside of the temple. But it is totally possible that an lds couple don’t really need to wear rings?
Another comment in all this. In my own spiritual quest, I found it the greatest blessing ever to know that I myself do not have to answer to any earthy person for anything spiritual. In fact the thought of answering to anyone else on spiritual questions just makes me feel neurotic. Looking back on my experience in Mormonism, the bishop didn’t know my heart, or my experience or what i thought was true or not. But he certainly thought he did.
Hi Enki,
You shared the reason why having a imperfect
man(Bishop) stand between you and God’s House
(His prsence – the Holy of Holies ect), is such
a man made arrangement.This is latter-day Saint
revelation, not the Church of the Lord Jesus
Christ. A sinful man is not qualified to be
in this position as the who decides whether
you get in to your very own Heavenly Father’s
house or not.
Enki, don’t let this experience rob you of
seeing your need to come to Jesus asking Him
to be your mediator.That is how you get into
God’s House. John.14:1-3. He will “recommend”
you.
OJ responded to me
…and how do we know about these things?
Because, God’s people have been busy PUBLICIZING THEM through the Bible.
They may have happened “away from the world” (as you put it), but the whole point of writing down the accounts, then promulgating them, was to bring these events into the world, or into the public square.
If you look at the early church, you’ll find they could not stop themselves telling all and sundry everything they knew. The only thing stopping them was when they ran out of time and space (see John 21:25). They were simply following Christ’s command to
Mark 16:15.
A recent poster here, messianic, got it right by contending that God has no secrets. For example, the goings-on in the Temple might have been inaccessible to the “lay” Israelites, but everyone knew exactly what was going on.
And, why would God appear amongst us in the flesh, if it were not for the fact that He wanted us to see Him (John 1:14).
And, what is the “light of the world” if its not something that brings to light the things that are hidden in darkness (John 1:5).
It seems that Mormonism struggles with this whole “light” and “darkness” thing. Where does that put it in the context of John 3:19?
enki wrote
Amen to that, though I might put it a little differently. The wedding is something that gives the whole community the opportunity to acknowledge and bless the couple’s union. It also gives the couple the opportunity to publicly acknowledge and affirm their commitment to each other.
There’s the “hands-off” side of it, too, which works because the optimum arrangement for families has consistently been demonstrated to comprise one dad and one mom in an exclusive, loving partnership. (Why fight the evidence?).
The thing that makes it different from the current trend towards informal living-together arrangements, is the public involvement of the whole community, particularly the immediate families.
Doing it behind closed doors makes no sense whatsoever, unless the motives behind the introduction of such a practice were dubious.
Oj also wrote
…but not from the extant accounts of Joseph’s life.
The question is, what changed between then and now that gave the the SLC crew the right to re-write his history?
Enki,
Actually, the purpose of a wedding is for a bride and groom to make vows with God and each other. The whole community involvement thing is peripheral compared to those vows.
If Christ does not intend for the members of His church to be accountable to earthly servants with His authority, why did He give instructions to the leaders of His ancient church on the process of removing members who demonstrated certain behaviors? See Matt 18 among other scriptures.
“Actually, the purpose of a wedding is for a bride and groom to make vows with God and each other. The whole community involvement thing is peripheral compared to those vows.”
And yet, LDS temple-married couples get divorces, at the same rate as the rest of the nation.
What’s worse, in LDS-ism, is that they’ve gone in and SWORN TO GOD that they would never divorce. That puts them in a bind, then, doesn’t it.
How about the scriptures about not making an oath, OJ?
“But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” James 5:12
JESUS SPEAKING: (Matt 5:33-37)
“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all… But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. “