on weddings, shotgun

[Coach McGuirk]

Also check to see if the women are generally attractive and allowed to wear form-fitting cleavage-bearing dresses

Your church is different because of the top-down structure.

I would like to combine these two churches that babs mentions.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Your church is different because of the top-down structure. There are established rules involved. What would happen if the family decided to be honest with the church before the wedding took place. The couple couldn't have the temple wedding, right?

I am not saying everyone lies. Yes, they wouldn't get married in the temple. They would be married by the bishop somewhere (church, home, rented wedding center, etc.). But they would go ahead with the reception, gifts, celebration, etc. It's just not that big of a deal. It seems like half of my relatives lately were married this way (a bun in the oven).

[Babs]

I am not saying everyone lies. Yes, they wouldn't get married in the temple. They would be married by the bishop somewhere (church, home, rented wedding center, etc.). But they would go ahead with the reception, gifts, celebration, etc. It's just not that big of a deal. It seems like half of my relatives lately were married this way (a bun in the oven).

So correct me if I'm wrong. If, say, All-American were to get married and invite me to his temple wedding, I couldn't go because I'm not temple-worthy, right? What do you guys do about your non-LDS friends?

[TripletDaddy]

If, say, All-American were to get married

lol!

What do you guys do about your non-LDS friends?

You do what I did...."mom, everyone......wait outside until we come out. then we can all take pictures."

[TripletDaddy]

Also check to see if the women are generally attractive and allowed to wear form-fitting cleavage-bearing dresses. Especially common in churches that attract the college crowd.

Generally I only follow this approach when interviewing summer interns or new admins.

Are you saying it works in religious circumstances, as well?

[Donuthole]

Alright. I'm curious y'all's opinion on this one.

My mom's invited to a huge formal wedding, right? It's a family from her church, and their daughter is getting married in four weeks. Everything's set, the invitations sent, the whole deal.

Except not.

The parents, last week, find out the bride is with child. She's four weeks along.

After recovering from their initial dismay, they cancel the church wedding, saying they no longer think a Christian ceremony is appropriate. They uninvite everyone, send back all the gifts, and have the couple married in an impromptu civil ceremony.

Maybe it's just me but this seems to be a little, shall we say, harsh. Setting aside for now the ramifications of the couple's fornication (I come from an upbringing where we like to use words like fornication to make these matters sound even more reprehensible and appalling), I find this decision very hard to justify.

The whole thing seems to me excessively neo-puritanical. Perhaps in addition to revoking the couple's wedding ceremony, we could brand the girl's wedding dress with a crimson A. Or better yet, we can go old-school and schedule a public stoning.

It just seems to me the couple must be suffering enough guilt and shame as it is. And here she's in the midst of her first pregnancy. She and the baby don't need anyone exacerbating her emotional upheaval. The girl would have only been eight weeks along at the time of the ceremony. They could have pulled off the original wedding with no one the wiser, and let the mathematically competent among the congregation figure things out on their own.

But no. They feel moved to go through all the trouble of canceling the whole shebang. How can this in any way contribute to anyone's physical, emotional, or spiritual well being?

What say you?

Very strange. Any parent from a normal religion would just kidnap the bride against her will and haul her to the next state. Or is that only to prevent a marriage? I can't remember.

[Goatnapper'96]

Alright. I'm curious y'all's opinion on this one.

My mom's invited to a huge formal wedding, right? It's a family from her church, and their daughter is getting married in four weeks. Everything's set, the invitations sent, the whole deal.

Except not.

The parents, last week, find out the bride is with child. She's four weeks along.

After recovering from their initial dismay, they cancel the church wedding, saying they no longer think a Christian ceremony is appropriate. They uninvite everyone, send back all the gifts, and have the couple married in an impromptu civil ceremony.

Maybe it's just me but this seems to be a little, shall we say, harsh. Setting aside for now the ramifications of the couple's fornication (I come from an upbringing where we like to use words like fornication to make these matters sound even more reprehensible and appalling), I find this decision very hard to justify.

The whole thing seems to me excessively neo-puritanical. Perhaps in addition to revoking the couple's wedding ceremony, we could brand the girl's wedding dress with a crimson A. Or better yet, we can go old-school and schedule a public stoning.

It just seems to me the couple must be suffering enough guilt and shame as it is. And here she's in the midst of her first pregnancy. She and the baby don't need anyone exacerbating her emotional upheaval. The girl would have only been eight weeks along at the time of the ceremony. They could have pulled off the original wedding with no one the wiser, and let the mathematically competent among the congregation figure things out on their own.

But no. They feel moved to go through all the trouble of canceling the whole shebang. How can this in any way contribute to anyone's physical, emotional, or spiritual well being?

What say you?

My great grandfather was an LDS Stake President in Twin Falls, Idaho a long time ago. He faced a similar situation and his response to the couple was to get them on the first bus to Salt Lake City to be sealed. His response to questioning members was "they made one huge mistake with their lives and I was not about to encourage them to make another."

I doubt a current Stake President would do similarly, but that is the stock from whence I sprang.

[Babs]

Generally I only follow this approach when interviewing summer interns or new admins.

Well then, there you go. Church doubles as a convenient recruiting ground.

[Babs]

Very strange. Any parent from a normal religion would just kidnap the bride against her will and haul her to the next state. Or is that only to prevent a marriage? I can't remember.

I thought you were supposed to schedule a national press conference with the bride and groom crying on stage and then force the kids to marry against their will before going on the family's annual moose hunt.

[cougarobgon]

My great grandfather was an LDS Stake President in Twin Falls, Idaho a long time ago. He faced a similar situation and his response to the couple was to get them on the first bus to Salt Lake City to be sealed. His response to questioning members was "they made one huge mistake with their lives and I was not about to encourage them to make another."

I doubt a current Stake President would do similarly, but that is the stock from whence I sprang.

I assume the couple had temple recommends and were already scheduled to go to the temple. Interesting position taken by your grandfather. However, he was the presiding HP and had the Priesthood authority to determine if the couple was still "temple worthy". Whether or not the decision made by your grandfather was right or wrong, it is not for me others to determine. He made the decision and not being a part of the private conversations, we have no right to judge others. Why would we want be the stumbling block in someone else's path to exhalation?

Would your grandfather have signed their recommend if the couple was for the first time divulging their transgression during their initial visit with him and wanting to make things right by being sealed in the temple? I would assume he would have, given his "they made one huge mistake with their lives and I was not about to encourage them to make another" logic.

I agree with you, I highly doubt any current SP would allow the couple to proceed with a temple sealing. And I would have no problem with this type of decision even it affected one my kids.

Have the standards changed from years ago? I don't think so. It is just a matter of how the standards are applied by Church leadership that varies.