Temple Wedding Petition?

A new Web site went online a few days ago, TempleWeddingPetition.org. The purpose of the site is to petition the LDS church and request that it end its divisive temple wedding policy wherein it forces members to wait a year to be sealed in the temple should they choose to hold a wedding ceremony outside of the temple for non-LDS friends and relatives. Some of my online acquaintances such as Seth Payne1 and Kevin Graham have already signed the petition.
The site is generally respectful and well-spoken in its presentation of information. Note that it only calls for an end to the one-year penalty policy; it never requests or advocates that non-members be allowed into LDS temples.
I’ve spoken elsewhere about my strong feelings on this matter, so I’ll not spend much time re-hashing my position here. Suffice it to say that I completely agree with what the creators of the site wish to accomplish.
Still, I haven’t signed the petition. Three concerns:
  1. The “Related Links” section currently contains links to two Web pages which contain testimonials exposing what goes on inside LDS temples, especially the sealing ceremony. I understand why these would be of interest to visitors to the site. However, if the audience one seeks to convince is the top LDS leadership, I think it’s very bad form to point people to Web sites which will automatically be considered anti-Mormon because of the way they treat the LDS temple experience. UPDATE: They have removed the offending pages. I thank the site’s creators for listening to this feedback.
  2. I’m dubious of the value and effectiveness of online petitions and rarely ever sign them. SeeSlacktivism. UPDATE: The site’s owners have clarified that it is not an “online” petition; they ask people to print out the petition and mail it in with their signatures. I was mistaken.
  3. I’m similarly dubious of how effective an online petition will be on the LDS leadership specifically. The church hates giving the appearance that it has caved in to outside pressure. Applying public outside pressure is a probable way to make the leadership dig in their heels and not change a thing.
All that isn’t to say that I don’t think this petition is well-intentioned. I support its goals and I’m glad someone is attempting to do something about this problem. If nothing else, spreading the word on this policy might make potential investigators reticent to join the church in the first place. If the LDS leaders want to place that kind of a stumbling block in the pathway of new believers over a policy that is 100% theologically extraneous to the religion, so be it.
Related Bloggernacle Posts:
Temple Marriage Policy by Kevin Barney @ Times & Seasons (2-28-2005)
Dear fMh: Temple Marriage and the In-Laws by Guest @ Feminist Mormon Housewives (7-25-2007)
Non-Members at the Wedding and a Fair Deal by Seth R. @ Nine Moons (6-17-2009)
TempleWeddingPetition.org discussion @ Feminist Mormon Housewives (12-1-2009)
TempleWeddingPetition.org thoughts by Jack Mormon @ Mormonism-Unveiled (12-1-2009)
TempleWeddingPetition.org reaction by Seth Payne @ his blog (12-2-2009)
NOTES
[1] UPDATE: See Seth P.’s comment below or his post at his blog. Apparently he did not agree to add his name to the petition, although he does support a change in policy.

Comments

Temple Wedding Petition? — 50 Comments

  1. There is a higher chance of this happening in the United States if the various States call the household registration thing they do a “marriage”.
    You’re sure to know this, but for the sake of completeness it’s worth pointing out that the one-year policy is not without its exceptions: last I checked, couples who marry during a new convert’s first year of membership in the Church are eligible for a sealing at the convert’s year mark, not a year from the date of the civil marriage.
  3. I’m curious to know who’s behind this petition. To be blunt about it, I suspect there’s a hidden agenda. No matter how much I agreed with a purported cause, I wouldn’t sign a petition whose organizers won’t tell me who they are.
  4. I also distrust online petitions and I have little faith in the church changing pretty much anything.
    I would have loved to have a real wedding before my sealing. My only blood relative in the sealing room was my mother; my father, both sets of grandparents, and several other relatives flew in from around the country to stand outside the temple and wait.
    My cousin was married in a full Catholic mass this past summer. I found it far more beautiful and Christ-centered than the sealing ceremony. I wish I’d grown up Catholic.
  5. Online petitions will have little/no effect in my estimation. But I really believe that personal letters to church HQ will.
    What about having a civil ceremony AFTER the temple sealing? We had a ring ceremony a week after our visit to the temple – having a full civil ceremony shouldn’t be much of a stretch.
  6. CJD — In the U.S. (any many other places), the temple sealing includes the civil marriage ceremony. You don’t get sealed without also being civilly married.
    I once attended a full-blown ring ceremony that took place the day following the temple marriage (the groom was from a nonmember family). Anyone not paying attention would have thought it was a real wedding. According to what I was told, the nonmember family was happy with the way things were done. However, that’s not always the case, and I can understand why.
  7. Hi Jack,
    I think comments like “Kew’s” kind of prove the Church Leadership’s point. When there are those who refer to non-LDS marriages as “real marriages” it appears to be denigrating the temple marriage.
    While I certainly respect Kew’s right to believe that other people’s ceremonies are better, was anyone holding a gun to her head making her have a temple-wedding? I really don’t want to defend the policy that much, because there’s a lot I don’t understand/agree with in it, but comments implying that the temple ceremony is less important (as Kew’s seems to do, contrary to Kevin Barney’s post, “how could the temple ever have such a second class status in the minds of our people?”).
    CJ Douglas, I think having a civil service AFTER the temple ceremony would be much more deleterious than having it before. I often view the thing that happens last as the most important, so for me, I’d rather have a sort of ceremony before hand without vows or marriage, but which can be as elaborate as the couple withes.
    My suggestion would be to allow a couple to plan out whatever type of service they want, barring vows and the actual marriage. Allow them to walk down the aisle to the wedding march, allow children to walk in carrying candles, singers singing schmalzy love songs, an explanation of how that ceremony is merely a way to let the full community and people’s of other faiths celebrate in the coming marriage in a way that they can relate to, but still hold the actual importance of the temple wedding by not “being married”, not being pronounced man and wife, until the temple ceremony.
    I guess, it’s just trying to help people remember that the sealing powers of the priesthood are a gift from Jesus, and one of the highest gifts are more important than any ceremony our world has trumped up to cost a lot of money.
    0.02$ from PC.
  8. Eric – of course. I forgot that – yes – the civil ceremony is understood to be part of the temple ceremony. But I like your ring ceremony account. I think anyone getting sealed with non-mo family members should consider it.
  9. Let me introduce myself. I am a former member of the LDS church. I am the webmaster of the site being discussed here and wish to provide some clarification.
    The petition organizers are a retired husband and wife team from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The husband is a member. The wife is a former member. They have several children who are both members and non-members. Together they hope to accomplish a greater good for both members and those who will be affected by the church policy.
    The information presented online is information only. We are NOT collecting ONLINE signatures. We are actually inviting people to print a hardcopy, sign it, and mail it together with their stories and letters which will be presented next October to the leadership of the LDS Church.
    There is a link for people to submit their stories too, which we will be passing along. So that’s a great idea CJ Douglas. For your information, if you had access to the Church Handbook of Instructions, you would see that it is stated that no other wedding ceremony is to take place after a temple sealing.
    No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head to have a temple marriage. However, from the perspective I have as having been a member for over 35 years and as a now former member, there is clearly a great deal of guilt and shame felt as a result of years of indoctrination in the church if one does not choose a temple marriage. It’s called emotional blackmail. There is a strong position of loyalty to the church that is heard more and more often from the pulpit, even in General Conference. To choose anything other than what the Church leaders suggest, is akin to not following the prophet.
    In the temple, a marriage has two components. The legal, civil aspect that meets the requirements of the law of the land (in some countries like the USA and CANADA) and the sealing component meeting the requirements of the law of God as is claimed by the LDS Church.
    If an LDS couple who is worthy in every way to be married and sealed in the temple chooses to have a civil marriage first outside of the temple so that all family members and friends can participate, then why does the church policy place a one year mandatory waiting period before the couple can enter the temple to be sealed?
    In no way does it diminish the importance that the leaders of the Church place on temple sealing. It may surprise you to know that in New Zealand, the temple has a chapel area where everyone, both those who have a temple recommend and those who do not can enter and participate in a full civil wedding. Then the couple together with invited guests proceeds into that portion of the temple to conduct the sealing ordinance.
    Ultimately, what we’d like to see is the leadership of the Church give back to ALL LDS couples throughtout the world what is a God given right, free agency to choose. A real freewill choice without the stigma of it all. Granting special permission on a case-by-case basis isn’t good enough. Couples shouldn’t have to seek for special permission in the first place. If they choose to have all their family members, friends, neices, nephews, etc surrounding them and celebrating their civil marriage, this is not a sin! The way I see it, the Church could strengthen families and encourage more growth.
    By imposing an arbitrary policy it creates hard feelings, division among families and friends, and is simply punitive for something that should be a time joy and celebration!
  10. Ring ceremonies are nothing more than a second class option to appease the members of family who cannot see their son or daughter wed. It’s sad really that couples should even have to contemplate leaving loved ones out of one of the the single most important events in their mortal life.
  11. #1 Rob ~ Another exception is that when a couple in the United States does not live within an easy day’s driving distance from a temple, they can get special permission to have a civil ceremony and reception in their hometown first and then drive to the temple to get married (I think within the week). However, with LDS temples spreading out all over the United States as they are, examples of that are becoming much rarer.
    #5 CJ ~ Good to see you again.
    I agree that, as things currently stand, “elaborate ring ceremony afterward” is the best option. My husband and I discussed what we would have done had I been LDS. We decided that we would have:
    (1) Gotten sealed at the temple as early in the morning as possible by ourselves. No wedding dress, no tuxedo, no family, no friends, maybe some simple photography of us by the temple. That part of the process would have been between us and God. I wouldn’t have even told my side of the family about this part.
    (2) Had an elaborate ring ceremony that was as much like a normal wedding as possible: vows, walk down the aisle, wedding dress & tuxedo, bridal party, etc. The entire family would have been welcome to come to that.
    The problem with that is that the CHI specifically states that the post-sealing ring ceremony shouldn’t look like a normal wedding and no vows should be exchanged. So pulling off #2 would have required a very hands-off bishop who would have allowed it to slide.
    I’ve heard of people doing it, but I’ve also heard of bishops who said “no way” and threatened to not let them get sealed in the temple first if they had an elaborate ring ceremony afterward. I’ve also heard of other invasive policies being applied like not allowing the father of the bride to give his daughter away at the ring ceremony because she’s already been “given” to the husband in the temple.
    While it’s a possible solution given the right bishop, it’s problematic.
    #7 psychochemiker ~ I don’t think that Kew meant to denigrate what the temple sealing is. I’m sure you’re aware, however, that temple sealings look and function almost nothing like traditional wedding ceremonies. The groom wears his temples clothes, the bride can technically wear her wedding dress but has to wear all of her temple clothes over it (and if the dress isn’t long-sleeved and high-necked, she has to wear a cloth dickie under it to give it long sleeves and a high neck). The wedding party has no role in the ceremony, ring-exchanging is not part of the ceremony, there’s no walk down an aisle and the vows are completely different.
    What’s perplexing to me isn’t that Mormons do that instead of a traditional wedding though. What’s perplexing to me is how so many Mormons work so hard to make it look like what goes on in temples resembles traditional weddings. They get dressed up in their wedding dress and tuxedo before entering the temple, they pose for pictures with the wedding party outside the temple, and when they come out of the temple, they’re in their wedding ensemble again. The average non-member has no idea that temple weddings look nothing like traditional weddings. All we ever see are the pictures of smiling, happy couples in their wedding ensemble outside of temples.
    I guess my point is two-fold. I imagine that’s what Kew had in mind when she said the temple sealing isn’t a “real wedding.” It’s not what most people think of as a wedding ceremony.
    And if the LDS church is going to let couples put on a dog-and-pony show and make their temple weddings look like normal weddings to outsiders, why not just finish the deal and let couples have an actual ceremony where all of those things have a real function?
    By the way, if the most important part of the wedding festivities comes last, then the reception is the most important part.
    #9 David ~ Thank you for stopping by and clarifying what the site is about.
  12. Jack, regarding your might have been plans related to a Temple wedding with non-member family in the mix…
    What you suppose for item 1 is precisely what the Church has tried to teach as a matter of policy for years now. It’s supposed to be simple, without great expense or a huge public party, involving only a very small number of close family members. Simple, in the Restorationist tradition, in fact.
    Regarding item 2, I don’t suppose that a public performance piece (such as an exchange of confessions of love and commitment) would be all that objectionable. Or a party which features a march or a father’s give-away.
    I do suppose that the Church would object to anything which appears to imitate or supplant the actual Temple covenant making. There’s lots and lots of room to be creative, though. Instead of vows, you say words like, “This morning, I promised that I would keep myself close to you and God in the Covenant” instead of making new or similar vows.
    Not really a problem, y’know? Yes, I know there are bishops out there who take a more literal reading of the CHI, but I don’t know if I’d have been one of them.
  13. I want to apologize for any content that gets posted on the Facebook group that is disrespectful; as soon as we find it we delete it. On our websitehttp://www.templeweddingpetition.org we have links to articles related to the topic of the one year wait for North American couples. It is that one year wait that stigmatizes anyone who desires to begin their marriage with peace and harmony between all members of the family.
    Please do not dismiss our petition because some people’s opinions may show disrespect.
    On Sunday we are going to be on the podcast Mormon Expressions and hopefully many of your questions regarding this petition will be answered. As David said, my husband is with me in opinion regarding the one year wait, but the work on the petition is being done by Michelle and I. Husband is very supportive of our efforts to bring peace and harmony to families over this issue and believes we are correct about the one year wait being wrong. Couples should go to the temple when they are ready for that huge commitment and if that happens to be right away, then that is their option; still open to them. We are not into taking away individual’s rights but ensuring them.
    Thank you, if you have signed or will go to the website and consider it.
    Respectfully, Jean
  14. David ~ We are NOT collecting ONLINE signatures. We are actually inviting people to print a hardcopy, sign it, and mail it together with their stories and letters which will be presented next October to the leadership of the LDS Church.
    Has this changed in the last few days?
    I saw the site a few days ago and I could have sworn there were online fields for entering your name, including an option asking if you wanted your name displayed publicly.
    I do think that real-life signatures is a better idea than online ones.
  17. I would never say that there’s no bishop who would misuse the disciplinary process, but my answer in general would be no.
    I think the most likely thing to happen (if anything) is that a person might be contacted by his/her bishop and be told that concerns of that sort should be handled in a more appropriate manner.
  18. Bridget, the contact form online is used to gather information on who is participating and to provide a way to pass along contact information for where to mail a hard copy of the petition. For those who wish to mail a hard copy, we also ask permission if they want to have their name shown online, although that is not necessary to participate. We also use the contact form for people who wish to send us a comment, feeback or suggestions.
    As to the question of retribution, I have no doubt that some members who while they may privately support the petition are afraid to publically declare it on a petition or otherwise for fear of discipline. I think that speaks volumes about the control factor and manipulation of free agency.
  19. Looking back, I wish we’d had a ring ceremony. Perhaps there are no vows exchanged, but typically a bishop- or whoever is presiding- can encourage the couple to do everything in the vows (honor, cherish, etc.) and that’s pretty darn close even if there are no “I do”s.
    It’s a good solution for couples who have non-members in their families. Also, Alianne wasn’t allowed in the sealing ceremony, as well as other friends (like you) and that was something that really saddened me (not because I was upset over the policy, but because I missed their presence.)
    As far as a member of the church being disciplined for signing that petition… Well, if your bishop or another leader even found out about it, I don’t think it would be that big of a deal. I understand there are all kinds of people in church leadership, but speaking from my experience, my bishop wouldn’t even care.
  21. Alisha wrote: “It’s a good solution for couples who have non-members in their families. ”
    How is it a good solution? How does the non-member family feel about being second class? A good solution is to conduct the civil marriage first, just as was first practiced and encouraged by Joseph Smith and followed by the temple sealing ordinance. That way families on both sides, member and non-member get to participate in real meaningful ways and bring harmony to family relationships and harmony within the new marriage.
  22. I would elope to Mexico, where we would have to have a civil ceremony first.
    Then again, I get my own steamy, forbidden, non-LDS lovin’, so it might not apply to me. And I may be jaded, but I loved my civil ceremony and was a little let-down by the temple ceremony. I mean, the promises are cool, but the ceremony itself was, like, 5 minutes long and really boring and seemed kinda strange.
  23. Of course, you have to remember that we believe that the temple ceremony seals you and your spouse for eternity, versus a lifelong-only union promised in traditional vows. So maybe the temple ceremony is short and not fancy… It’s pretty important. Definitely more special for those who believe in Mormonism.
  24. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the sealing ceremony in itself, Alisha. In fact when I hear it described as a ritual, I think it sounds quite lovely. The sealing rooms are very pretty (I would really love to catch a temple open house sometime).
    I just don’t think I ever would have wanted one instead of a wedding celebration. Y’know?
  25. There is a difference between a wedding and a marriage. My marriage is very real and I am grateful for it, but I would have preferred a different ceremony- the wedding part.
    Jack, I think you’re right about couples trying to make a sealing look like a traditional church wedding. I love the pictures of families that are sealed later in the marriage dressed in white sitting outside the temple. To me, those pictures represent what a sealing is really about.
    Of course, if I didn’t have to worry about the temple, I may not have had the moral strength to be a virgin on my wedding day. That may be another factor.
  26. kew ~ Of course, if I didn’t have to worry about the temple, I may not have had the moral strength to be a virgin on my wedding day. That may be another factor.
    LOL!
    Paul and I got married in November, but we started renting our apartment together in late August, so we had an apartment at our disposal if we’d been the worldly type. With all of the time I was spending over there before the wedding, I always wondered if my roommates thought we were fornicating.
    But we weren’t! Honest.
    I fell asleep at the apartment the night before our wedding. Woke up at like, 2 AM, startled that I’d fallen asleep. I had Paul drop me off at the hotel in Provo where my parents were staying and snuck into their room.
    They started making “Tsk tsk, fooling around with your fiance” conversation and I was like, “No! I didn’t do anything, I swear! I’m a virgin!”
    And my dad just snorted and said, “Thanks for the info” in a tone that made it perfectly clear that he thought I was the biggest dumbass for thinking he gave a damn.
    Good times.
  27. Wow. I was really surprised to see my name on this list! I initially contacted them for information on the petition and when they contacted me and asked permission for my name to be listed I told them I was uncomfortable in signing my name to the petition when the website had links to sites which I, in absolutely no way, support. Needless to say, I’m a bit frustrated that they listed my name. I’ll be contacting them shortly to have it removed.
    Although I think the current policy is absurd I share your concerns about this position.
  28. Alisha, I am a believing Mormon and don’t think there is anything wrong with the sealing ceremony. I have had both a sealing and a traditional marriage. I just think that traditional marriage ceremonies also have their own beautiful characteristics, and it’s a shame that by having a wedding (in the US), you are forced to arbitrarily wait a year before getting sealed.
    Which is why I said I would elope to Mexico – have a wedding that all family (including nonmembers) could attend, then get sealed the next day in the temple. It doesn’t make sense for it to be different here in the US.
  31. Thanks Bridget. Again, I do support a change in policy and I express that without any reservation.
    Jean — thank you for removing my name.
  32. The site’s owners have removed the offending pages which went over the sealing ceremony in detail, so I’ve updated my post to explain this, so my major concerns are alleviated. They seem to have also added some of the Bloggernacle links I listed here.
    If Jean and David are still reading this, I also recommend this link for their site:
    It’s written from a pro-LDS perspective and I thought it was really moving, but it also gives a pretty good level of detail on what happens at sealings.
  33. BTW, Alisha is my former roommate (her husband Adam is practically my former roommate, too), and she did come to my own wedding, and she’s full of win. So I totally respect her thoughts on this matter.
  34. Jack,
    Your previous comment just reminded me of the following:
    —
    “I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.”
    “What does that make us?”
    —
    Now we know how my mind works.
    Best,
    TRD
  36. Hey Seth, my apologies for misunderstanding your intention about the petition. When you indicated your displeasure with the content of the related links, we reviewed it and decided to remove it. It was my understanding that by removing the links you found objectionable, and indicating that you supported the petition, that you were in favor of having your name attached to it. It was removed earlier today from the site.
    If people want to get the details of temple ordinances, they only have to google it to find it. Thanks Bridget for the link suggestion though.
  38. This is the one area in which I really feel sorry for US LDS. In most of the rest of the world a marriage ceremony must be public and that means we get married civilly and then in the Temple as fast as is possible. Normally that means on the same day. My ward though is almost 4 hours boat ride from the mainland. My wife and I had our civil ceremony on the 1 November and our Temple Wedding on the 5 November. By civil ceremony I mean that we had had our church wedding, (similar to any other church’s wedding ceremonies) on that day with my and my wife’s non-member family members there to celebrate with us. We then had the reception afterwards.
    Two of my sons are now married but only one is active. He had a similar experience when he got married, as the Temple was closed for Christmas. For he and his wife there were 11 days between the two ceremonies.
    I find it hard to understand how the benefits of insisting on a temple marriage only outweigh the hurt that that can cause. I know it is not a big issue for many on the Wasatch Front where both families are active but as the church continues to grow in the US this will continue to be a major concern for converts. One of the best doctrines of the church, the binding together of families, can in the US become for non-members one of the most divisive. To my wife and I, our Temple marriage is really important but then it was not a divisive family issue. Mind you we do celebrate our wedding anniversary on the anniversary of our civil and not our Temple marriage, but that is when we physically became one. Good memories!
  39. #39 Martin ~ I’m perversely curious. When Mormons in other countries have the civil ceremony first and can’t get to the temple until another day, do they consummate their marriages after the civil ceremony? Or do they wait for the temple?
    I imagine it’s the former, but I could see some people waiting for the latter…
  40. My husband and I were discussing that when he brought up the petition last night. We thought a lot of people probably wait because they feel like they’re “not really married yet”.
  41. The last time I saw the policy, they didn’t have to wait, but I know that at least one couple I met in Switzerland waited anyway; the Temple was less than a day’s travel from their civil ceremony.
  42. My husband served his mission in Brazil, and most of the couples waited to consummate until they could get to the temple. This was not an easy thing to do there at the time. It took 4-5 days by bus and was really expensive. Many times just the couple would go because trying to get all of the family to the temple just cost too much, so the only wedding they would see was the civil one.
  43. For couples outside of North America who decide to wait to consumate the marriage until they can get to the temple to be sealed, it is THEIR CHOICE and not by Church policy. Can you imagine the reaction if it was policy? It’s the same thing when it comes to the one year wait policy to be sealed. GIVE COUPLES THE CHOICE! Doesn’t the Church teach adherents correct principles and let them govern themselves? Seems those couples who choose to wait to consumate their marriage are governing themselves. When they feel ready, they do.
    The sealing is the religious ceremony. It’s what makes the marriage eternal, not the fact that the legal aspect of the civil marriage is performed in the temple. But what the LDS Church has done over the years is to condition members into believing that “Temple Marriage” is the only choice, when it fact it is not. It is one component of the marriage. Two parts..civil and sealing.
    A couple marrying civil first, in the temple, is no different than being married civil outside the temple, say in the chapel. What adds to the significance of the marriage from the LDS doctrine is the sealing component. Everything else in the eyes of the Church is irrelevant. But because it is required by the law of the land, that civil component is performed. Otherwise, I believe the Church would simply do away with it. A couple cannot have a civil marriage in the temple without the license..issued by the government. One could be sealed in the temple without a license, but then the laws of the land and the government wouldn’t recognize the relationship as legal.
    So I see no fair and reasonable or logical rationalization to forcing a couple to wait one year to be sealed after a civil marriage. The decision or choice belongs to the couple and between them and the Lord. Anything else is simply interference in their free agency and interference in family relationships that result in disharmony and ill feelings one toward another.
    That reminds me of something I heard many times over and over, “If any of you have unkind feelings toward any member ************, you are invited to withdraw so that the Spirit of the Lord may be unrestrained.”
    This divisive policy, as I see it, results in contention. Isn’t the home and the family where the Spirit of the Lord should be in a relationship and place where it is unrestrained? How can the Spirit of the Lord be unstrained when families are excluded and the choice is taken away from couples? How does that couple feel who has to make the choice that the Church wants them to make, because to do so would be seen as not following the prophet? It’s so sad that the Church does not practice what it preaches.
  44. This is where the difficulty comes in doesn’t it. LDS people in North America are used to having the ceremony all in one, but other countries are not used to it and they enjoy their weddings so much. We have received a lovely post; watch for it maybe tomorrow on the website about how it works in Holland. This is a faithful Mormon man who is sharing how he wishes it could be in ‘Deseret.’ Most of the Church membership today did not cross the plains; it is essentially a new church with new teachings; many have been dropped and you probably know what they are without me going into it. Converts are converted to the doctrines but should their customs be honored? I served a mission in South Africa and the church there is advising the people to do away with their customs; their solidarity handshake, their lobola (bride price) which is very helpful to their society. It is important to separate church and state for the sake of individuals and the church. Let them have their sacred rituals but they cannot run our lives and our decisions that are not sinful but just our way.
    Just a thought to throw into the discussion.
  45. To all of you who have doubted that doing a petition will bring any of the desired results, I’d like to point out the following: The most important result of this petition drive will be getting the issue in front of people. After having given 3 informational talks about Mormonism to a very ethical and very intelligent group of people (talks in which I bent over backwards to tell the positive as well as the negative about the Mormon church) I can tell you that this issue about the weddings was the thing that floored them the most. They honestly just kept asking about it over and over — to be sure I had it right. Mormons are so used to this situation that they honestly do not know how very offensive and hurtful it is for a lot of people. So, I consider this petition only the first step in educating the U.S. population about this totally unnecessary and divisive policy of the church.
  47. The temple wedding petition website has received and has posted an official correspondence with Elder L. Tom Perry regarding the one year waiting penalty. Prior to the petition, a letter was sent to Perry requesting the policy be changed. His response is very interesting. A followup letter was sent to Perry without any further contact from his office concerning the matter.
    Please see the three letters on the petition site in the Media Content section.
    Would love to hear your feedback.
  48. An article in the Arizona Republic today demonstrates the reason behind the Temple Wedding Petition.
    Thanks to Cheri for going public with her very personal family story. It clearly demonstrates the need for the LDS Church to revise its policy of penalizing couples who choose a civil ceremony prior to temple sealing with a one year wait. Eliminating the penalty would help to remove the fear and stigma that church members attach to marrying outside of the temple in favor of all family members. Such a move would clearly mark the difference between a civil wedding/marriage and the religious requirement to be “sealed” in the temple for eternity.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity