LDS Temple Weddings are Rude???

[GlindaBunny]

I was reading the latest Bridezilla stories and came across Bridezillas0504-07, which starts with "Here's one for the record books!   My cousin (we'll call her "Maria") and I have never been close. In fact, she was not very close to any of our family, other than the few with higher status in her church. She is a very devout Mormon, though not very many in our family are. This becomes important later."  Here's the link.... you'll need to scroll down a little http://www.etiquettehell.com/content/eh_wedding/bridezillas/ebridezilla.shtml

I agree that it was rude for the bride to call the decorations "too mexican," but what's with the poster's anger over a temple wedding?  In the LDS religion, getting married in the temple is VERY different from getting married in some "neutral" venue; only in the temple are husbands and wives able to be married and sealed for time and all eternity, versus "til death do you part."  A wedding day is simply a day; a marriage and eternal life are seen as much more important than a spectacle that friends and family can witness.  Temple ceremonies are sacred and simple, and large groups are discouraged from attending sealings even if they're all able to enter the temple because it takes away from the very sacred and personal nature of the event.

Furthermore, if Maria had gotten married outside the temple JUST in order to appease family members who could not attend that ceremony, she and her husband would have had to wait at least a year before returning to the temple to get sealed.  Some LDS couples feel this too important to put off for a year.  Suppose one of them had gotten into an accident and died during that time... if they weren't sealed, they wouldn't be guaranteed of being together forever.

As for the "rather long" ceremony... a sealing takes half an hour.  I don't see that as overly long.

I'm also not sure what the poster meant by "few with higher status in the church."  The LDS church doesn't have status of any type.  Positions like bishop, clerk, teacher, relief society president, program designer... are all temporary and can't be campaigned for.  A person is asked to do a job for some time and they either say yes or no.  Everybody has regular jobs, as none of these positions are paid.  Perhaps the bride really was judgmental of others who didn't share her beliefs, but I don't see how deciding on a temple wedding illustrate that.

Perhaps the poster should be more respectful of diverse belief systems.

[jimithing]

Glinda, as you know, both you and I are on the same page.  I just posted on the Wedding Etiquette thread about how crashing a Mormon sealing is completely different than crashing a traditional wedding that is held elsewhere, for the very reasons you described.  It's very special, sacred, and intimate.  Unfortunately, as you know, this is a very hot topic for family members that are not members of the church, and I'm not sure if you want to get into the specifics on this site. 

I grew up in the church and my mom decided to leave the church 10 years ago.  She is actually agnostic now.  She herself was married to my father in the temple and her family couldn't be there.  When I told her that I was going to get married in the temple it was very hurtful for her and she tried to talk me out of it.  She refused to show up until we were off temple grounds for pictures.  Again, I don't know if this is the forum to discuss this, but I do agree that part shouldn't have been included or eHellDame could have requested that it be edited in such a way as to not be offensive. 

[Ashe311]

I had similar thoughts when I was reading the post.  I just hoped that the poster was more focused on the bride's actions, as opposed to trying to make the LDS Church look negative.  I admit that the tone did seem to put the LDS church in a negative perspective.

However, after reading the post, there are a couple of things that the bride could have done that would have made her look less bridezilla, and I hope that was what the poster wanted to point out (the bride's lack of consideration for family members)

1.  Have a ring ceremony before or after the temple sealing.  This is so that non-member family members can have some sort of ceremony that they can attend to.

2.  This is actually what DH and I did.  We are both members, but only MIL was temple-worthy, and my parents weren't members at all.  Had I gone through with the temple ceremony, my parents would have been furious and would adversely affected our relationship.  So DH and I got married civilly, and sealed in a temple one year later.  So you could say that yes, we delayed an eternal marriage to appease our family members, but it was for the sake of family unity.  Our bishop agreed with our choice.

OT, after we got sealed a year later, several members came up to us and said that they were so relieved when we were finally sealed, as they were worried that one of us would die and the other would be alone forever.  DH and I were quite horrified with their rudeness.

[jimithing]

I had similar thoughts when I was reading the post.  I just hoped that the poster was more focused on the bride's actions, as opposed to trying to make the LDS Church look negative.  I admit that the tone did seem to put the LDS church in a negative perspective.

However, after reading the post, there are a couple of things that the bride could have done that would have made her look less bridezilla, and I hope that was what the poster wanted to point out (the bride's lack of consideration for family members)

1.  Have a ring ceremony before or after the temple sealing.  This is so that non-member family members can have some sort of ceremony that they can attend to.

2.  This is actually what DH and I did.  We are both members, but only MIL was temple-worthy, and my parents weren't members at all.  Had I gone through with the temple ceremony, my parents would have been furious and would adversely affected our relationship.  So DH and I got married civilly, and sealed in a temple one year later.  So you could say that yes, we delayed an eternal marriage to appease our family members, but it was for the sake of family unity.  Our bishop agreed with our choice.

OT, after we got sealed a year later, several members came up to us and said that they were so relieved when we were finally sealed, as they were worried that one of us would die and the other would be alone forever.  DH and I were quite horrified with their rudeness.

Wow!  What a horrible thing to say.  I will add that DH and I did do a ring ceremony at the luncheon and I think that everyone was very satisfied with that.  Although, it was a bit awkward as I have never seen it done, so we didn't know quite what to do. 

[GlindaBunny]

Ashe, that really was horrible of them to say.  It's only the business of the COUPLE whether they decide to get married in the temple.


My husband went to primary but wasn't really raised in the church and wasn't ready to go through the temple when we were dating and about to get married.  He wasn't a bad guy or anything; just didn't have the priesthood, needed and wanted more instruction time first.  We had a civil ceremony for that reason.  We prayed about it and felt comfortable with our decision.  We started attending our new ward shortly before we got married, and because there are so many people moving in and out (our ward comprises a few apartment buildings, so people move a lot), we met with some other couples in the bishop's office our first sunday to introduce ourselves.  There were probably 6 other couples there too.  We said that we were about to get married, and one guy said loudly, "which temple?"

My husband and I were a little shocked and didn't answer (what could we say?).  That particular couple gave us funny looks after that until they eventually moved out of the ward.  Oh, well.  My husband and I are from different states and are still getting used to the "everyone does everything the same way" mentality we see here from time to time.

Husband and I are getting sealed tomorrow.    I have four weeks left of pregnancy... but I wouldn't mind if the baby was born day after tomorrow.  Everything will be ready by then.

[Just Lori]

Help me out here.  As someone with very little experience with the Mormon faith, I don't understand why people are invited to a wedding ceremony they cannot attend.  Why not direct them to the reception and only invite people to the wedding who are allowed to witness the ceremony?  Am I misunderstanding something?

If it's routine to invite family members who aren't allowed inside the temple, then I'd advise a heads up well before the ceremony, so people know what to expect.  If someone isn't familiar with the concept of the closed ceremony, it very well could be misconstrued as a snub.  A few words of communication can go a long way in understanding each other.

[GlindaBunny]

Usually people are invited to the reception, not the actual ceremony.


Most of the invitations I've seen say something to the effect of "Parents of Bride are pleased to announce the marriage of their daughter, Bride, to Groom for time and all eternity at the LDS temple in City.  You are invited to their reception to be held in Nearby City at Some Date."


I've never heard of people being invited to the ceremony if they can't attend.  There are rude and thoughtless people in all religions, though...


Here's another unique thing about many Mormon weddings (at least the ones I've seen):  sometimes entire wards (congregations) are informally invited... a reception is held at a church building, and people show up whether or not they receive an invitation.  Food is usually luncheon type stuff and not catered, so extra guests aren't a problem.  Guests also aren't expected to bring gifts, especially if they didn't receive an invitation.  I know all weddings are different, but I've seen this happen quite often when people I knew from church got married (at least in Wisconsin, where I grew up).  It seems these were more about getting together to celebrate in general, rather than turning a couple into "celebrities" for their "one big day."

[jimithing]

I agree with Glinda.  When I got married, I basically just did announcements.  I then had inserts for people that were invited to attend the reception, and then a larger insert for those invited to the ceremony and reception/luncheon.  I have heard of some people "inviting" people to the ceremony, even though they can't attend, as a thoughtful gesture.  Kind of like inviting out-of-state guests to a shower.  I don't like that approach though.  All of the family for both me and DH that were not able to attend the temple are all very familiar with the LDS faith and completely understood the situation and were not offended, with the exception of my mom.

[hobish]

Usually people are invited to the reception, not the actual ceremony.


Most of the invitations I've seen say something to the effect of "Parents of Bride are pleased to announce the marriage of their daughter, Bride, to Groom for time and all eternity at the LDS temple in City.  You are invited to their reception to be held in Nearby City at Some Date."


I've never heard of people being invited to the ceremony if they can't attend.  There are rude and thoughtless people in all religions, though...

I don't see how someone should be considered rude and thoughtless if they got an invitation as ambiguously worded as that, and then only later realized they weren't invited to the ceremony. In most cases it is rude to go to the reception and not the ceremony, so i think most people would take that to mean that they were being invited to both. Showing up at the temple only to find out that you are not good enough to actually go inside (which i think is how a lot of people unfamiliar with LDS would take it if they didn't know better) would only fan the flames, so to speak.

Misunderstanding an invitation does not make one rude and thoughtless no matter what religion, either. IMO, it is more rude and thoughtless to not make things clear to your guests, especially since a good bit of people are not familiar with LDS.

[jimithing]

Usually people are invited to the reception, not the actual ceremony.


Most of the invitations I've seen say something to the effect of "Parents of Bride are pleased to announce the marriage of their daughter, Bride, to Groom for time and all eternity at the LDS temple in City.  You are invited to their reception to be held in Nearby City at Some Date."


I've never heard of people being invited to the ceremony if they can't attend.  There are rude and thoughtless people in all religions, though...

I don't see how someone should be considered rude and thoughtless if they got an invitation as ambiguously worded as that, and then only later realized they weren't invited to the ceremony. In most cases it is rude to go to the reception and not the ceremony, so i think most people would take that to mean that they were being invited to both. Showing up at the temple only to find out that you are not good enough to actually go inside (which i think is how a lot of people unfamiliar with LDS would take it if they didn't know better) would only fan the flames, so to speak.

Misunderstanding an invitation does not make one rude and thoughtless no matter what religion, either. IMO, it is more rude and thoughtless to not make things clear to your guests, especially since a good bit of people are not familiar with LDS.

The problem is that the announcment does not list the time.  I wouldn't arrive some place that I didn't have specific information on.  I don't think that this is ambiguously worded, as it specifically states that you are invited to the reception, and if you are confused as to what you are invited to then you need to ask. 

[Brentwood]

  I have heard of some people "inviting" people to the ceremony, even though they can't attend, as a thoughtful gesture.  Kind of like inviting out-of-state guests to a shower.  I don't like that approach though. 

I don't like that approach either. It is not at all thoughtful to invite someone to a ceremony you know they cannot attend.

[littleoats]

Any wedding is bound to upset someone.  I think it would be rude to not to invite people to the ceremony (whether because the venue prohibits it or for other reasons) but invite them to the shower and other gift grab functions but otherwise it's the couples call.

I know our wedding offended some people because we're wiccan and they were christian but that's their problem.  One of my aunts stormed off after the ceremony and hasn't spoken to me since.  A supposed friend wouldn't stand with everyone else but stood off to one side with a group of tourists  and watched.  Another guest stood up at the reception and announced that he was going to say grace before the meal and asked everyone to bow their heads.  I haven't spoken to him since.

[Clara Bow]

I didn't believe the part about the bride smashing fruit bowls or forcing her relatives to stay in the kitchen. I think that the OP was so incensed by the Temple aspect of the wedding and the Mormon faith in general that she bungled a few facts to make the bride look worse.
BTW, I thought that it was always okay to do "reception only" invitations, that it was only rude to do "ceremony only" invitations. So Mormon or no, the bride was covered.

[jimithing]

BTW, I thought that it was always okay to do "reception only" invitations, that it was only rude to do "ceremony only" invitations. So Mormon or no, the bride was covered.

I agree with this.  I think that if you invite people to the ceremony and not the reception then it is rude and a faux pas. 

[LissaR1]

I don't see how someone should be considered rude and thoughtless if they got an invitation as ambiguously worded as that, and then only later realized they weren't invited to the ceremony.

Really?  I'm not remotely Mormon, and I thought it was crystal clear.  The concept of a private marriage ceremony isn't exclusive to the LDS faith- a lot of people have small, intimate weddings with large receptions.  It's really about what's right for the couple.

I think that most people who would be married in a Temple ceremony would be fairly open about their faith.  In other words, I don't think it would come as a shock to anyone that they invited that they are Mormon, and I'm guessing that they'd make sure that non-Mormons understood their faith in a tactful way.  Sure, there are rude people that wouldn't, but I think your average person probably would.

I also questioned the veracity of the bride's behavior afterwards, given that the writer was so obviously incensed about the Temple wedding.  However, who knows?  Could very well be true.