Temple marriages take place in a temple, which is restricted to Mormons in good standing (i.e. who tithe, don’t drink, attend church). Obviously, this policy creates a lot of ill will when there are non-Mormon family members. But sadly, the Mormon church has shown zero inclination to change this policy. They argue that temples are super holy places so you can’t have any outsiders.
You have to tithe (10% before tax) to get any financial assistance. They want you to give automatically 10% for your whole life. If they start saying “Okay, you don’t have to give this month because you’re broke” you’re less likely to start up when your financial situation marginally improves.
Probably an extremely basic question, but what are “wards” and “stakes”?
I live in a community where there are many Mormons. As such, I know many of them, professionally and personally. They often speak about participating in “ward” and “stake” activities. What are “wards” and “stakes”?
Ward is the term for the local congregation. They vary greatly by size; maybe from 50 individuals on the low end to 300 or so in larger ones. A stake consists of maybe 5-10 wards. This all varies greatly by geographical location and depends on how many Mormons are in the area and so forth. So a ward activity is just with people from the congregation and much smaller than a stake activity.
Where I grew up in Utah, there were so many Mormons that our ward was only maybe 2 or 3 blocks long.
It should also be noted that generally, Mormons don’t get to choose which ward they attend. You’re assigned a ward based on your geographical location and that’s it. You could theoretically attend a different congregation, but it’s seriously discouraged. One of the few exceptions is a “Singles Ward” which is a specialized congregation consisting entirely of unmarried people, which helps facilitate Mormons meeting other available Mormons. Many Mormons refer to these wards as meat markets.
I should also note for the record that I am a former Mormon, so assume that a believing Mormon would probably have a more charitable interpretation of the Mormon church’s motives for various policies.
The thing about not allowing family to see the wedding is compounded by the policy on officially discouraging if not outright forbidding second ceremonies outside the temple for couples, so they can’t have one ceremony where their families can attend and then another in the temple.
Also note that for congregations, both wards and stakes are led by lay clergy; the ward by a bishop and the stake by a stake president. So when Mormons talk about needing to talk to their bishop, they are referring to the level which other churches would call a priest or pastor.
It occurs to me that my answer was a little flip. If a believing Mormon was answering, s/he would tell you that God requires 10% of your income. If you pay, He will bless you both spiritually and financially. If you don’t pay, He can’t bless you. It’s kind of a low-octane version of the prosperity gospel. So to make sure you get your blessings, you pay no matter what and the church can help you out a bit if things are bad. Also, the tithing you pay goes to the central church and the financial assistance you get comes from local funds, so it isn’t actually a case of money coming in and going straight back out. From a more cynical viewpoint I’d say that they don’t want you to start regarding the 10% as optional. That’s a huge chunk of change that would look tempting to cut out even in prosperous times. A popular Mormon saying is, “It’s not a question of whether you can afford to pay tithing, but whether you can afford NOT to.”
I forgot about the discouragemet of ring exchange ceremonies outside of the temple. That is pretty deliberately mean. Does anyone know if Wikileaks still has a copy of the Church Hamdbook of Instructions online? A lot of these policies are only spelled out in this handbook which is unavailable even for church members to read.
Erdosain, thanks for the kind words; they’re very much appreciated. I also have to say that I feel like you’re really trying to see things from all angles, even the ones which you might disagree with, which I really appreciate. (And although I suspect Clueless isn’t around anymore – if you are, I applaud your decision; it sounds like this guy has other issues besides being Mormon – I totally agree that he has to at least man up and discuss why he feels the way he does, and the more we learn about this guy the more I think Erdosain was right about him and I was wrong.)
I don’t have much to add for the questions that have come up, except that in countries where it’s mandatory to have a public wedding, e.g., the UK, they go along with the law. When I was briefly living in the UK, my Mormon friends said that it would be really weird to live in the US and not be able to have a public wedding.
FWIW I don’t see anything here that makes this guy sound like a bad person, but rather one who’s issue is precisely that of being Mormon. He’s trying to work through the contradictions of what he thinks is right with the beliefs that he was indoctrinated with. If Clueless really cares about him, maybe she should attempt to “free his mind” so to speak.
While looking into whether Clueless’s boyfriend would face formal church discipline for fornication, I found this gem:
(Bolding is mine.) Just wow. If I ever needed to sum up the superficiality of Mormonism, that second sentence is a good place to start. Anyway, there is nothing in the section that speaks specifically about sex acts so it would be up to the discretion of the boyfriend’s priesthood leaders.
As for wedding ring exchanges, I found this:
So you CAN have a later exchange of rings, but only if it’s made painfully obvious to all that THIS IS NOT THE REAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY. Pretty annoying.
Cool. Thanks. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (the Tanners) used to have one but they were threatened with a lawsuit and took it down. I hadn’t been aware that wikileaks had it.
Lots of stuff like that. Babies are to be blessed in their home ward, with no exceptions, except if the baby is born ahem “out of wedlock.”
It answers other pet peeves I’ve had about the church. It stresses the fact that funerals are church meetings, but points out that family members may be allowed to say something. My mother had wanted a Mormon funeral when my son died, and I’m really happy I had said absolutely not.
Another WTF. In the second talking about who is ineligible for missions, it includes those who have been convicted (my emphasis) of sexual abuse. Not ones who have committed the act; ones who have been found guilty in a criminal court of law. Wow. Why would they make that same restriction on anyone who committed the sexual abuse regardless of how the courts rules?
After my sister finally complained and father was disciplined by the church for sexually abusing my sisters, (which he told me about, in detail, at the time and I’d be 12 or 13. Fun) he only got a minor punishment. Now had he been convicted, and thus more people would have been aware of it, then it would have been a more serious ecclesiastic affair.
This also explains why my brother was able to go, despite his raping me, my younger brother and several other boys. Yikes.
I will echo our friend Qadgop: peace to you and yours. Rico.
FWIW, I am learning from this thread. I live in an area where many are LDS; I am not. But as stated, I am an area where many are LDS, and I am learning about why my friends and neighbours feel as they do, from this thread.
I hope the thread stays open, so I can learn more.
That’s what I did. My parents and my wife’s parents weren’t able to attend my wedding. Right before the reception (in an LDS Cultural Hall, which is a euphemism for the carpeted basketball court adjoining the chapel room), my grandfather-in-law officiated a ring ceremony. He was very careful to point out that the rings and the ceremony were meaningless, and all that really mattered was the sealing that had been performed that morning.
It’s also interesting that this policy really only applies in the US, where the temples have authority to perform legal weddings. If the couple insists on having their family attend the actual wedding, their punishment is to wait a whole year before they can perform the temple sealing. But outside the US, the policy is to be legally married and then be sealed in the temple immediately after.
This one isn’t enforced very well. My wife chose the venue for all of my kids’ blessings. I blessed my first kid in my backyard. #2 was supposed to be in my backyard, but there was a blizzard so we did it the following week in a ward that my wife had previously attended. #3 was born in TX, and was blessed in a city park near my wife’s grandparents’ house in UT.
Not every person who is accused of sexual abuse, or any other wrongdoing, is actually guilty of that wrongdoing.
In this case, I wouldn’t presume to speak for the church, but this seems to me like it reflects some basic common sense.
Any incident that would truly count as “sexual abuse” would be a criminal act, and ought to be handled most appropriately by the justice system. The person accused of that abuse should stand trial, in accordance with our principles of due process of law, and if convicted, it’s up to the court to impose an appropriate sentence.
Once this has happened, anyone acting on behalf of the church, or really anyone having any reason to be involved in any way, would have a solid basis on which to assume that the person accused of the abusive act is truly guilty thereof, and to act accordingly.
If someone has not been tried and convicted of a crime involving sexual abuse, then on what basis do you think a church representative should assume that person to be guilty? This isn’t to say that a church representative shouldn’t or wouldn’t make such a judgement, but clearly, the basis for such a judgement would be much weaker in the absence of a criminal conviction than it would be where such a conviction has occurred.
