Diane:
I can recall the name of one woman who was married in the temple, divorced, and then had her second marriage in the temple: Marie Osmond. IIRC, the first marriage was dissolved due to the cruelty of the husband towards her and the child(ren).
Nichol, I thought your OP and subsequent responses were very even-toned in spite of the fact that these circumstances are obviously upsetting to you. You seem to be getting a lot of flak here from people who seem to be a little chippy around the shoulder area - for what it’s worth, you have every right to be upset at being excluded. Of course, your cousin has every right to exclude you, too. It is his wedding, after all. My suggestion to you would be to take a little while before you respond to the invitation, and see if you are planning not to go for the wrong reasons. If you’re doing it to spite your cousin, that would not be a great reason.
Eh, if they would just stop influencing our State legislators to pass weird liquor laws. 
I’m not sure it’s possible to really communicate effectively how important a temple marriage is to those who believe in it. I can’t think of a comparable circumstance in another religion. But you should know that this is not something that just happens to be their preference and you can go jump in a lake; it’s really, really, really important to them.
They are almost certainly not unsympathetic to your POV; this isn’t exactly an uncommon thing to happen in LDS weddings, and we’re always trying to find ways to make everybody happy and/or break the news gently. But they can’t just say “oh well, it will make everyone else happy, so let’s just do the civil ceremony.” They have to say instead, “I know this causes you pain, and I’m sorry, and I really wish you could be there, but this is how it has to be.” To us, the temple ceremony is important enough that couples consistently get married that way despite hurt feelings.
To recap the ring ceremony thing: it’s not a ‘real’ wedding, with vows and all. It is a way for the couple to exchange rings, talk about their vows, and include the rest of the family. Couples who get married civilly, outside the temple, are not able to be sealed in the temple for a year (at least in the US). But a temple sealing doesn’t have flowers, a walk down the aisle, readings, songs, or what-have-you, and a ring ceremony is OK for those types of things. (The temple sealing is near-Spartan in its simplicity. Even elaborate wedding gowns are not considered really quite the thing, despite the many brides who wish otherwise.) Anyway, ask about a ring ceremony.
As for the groom’s mother, her personal circumstances are none of my business, and Church disciplinary councils are private. But excommunication is not necessarily permanent; a person may be rebaptized after a year, if proper repentance happens. Temple priviliges can be given back. Your aunt has probably known for a long time now that her son would want to be married in the temple. She may not be thrilled about it, but it probably isn’t a surprise.
Not only that, but don’t you have to wait a year to get married in the temple if you convert? Or is that only if you get married civilly first?
I was so happy for that one year rule. I never had any intention of becoming temple worthy or getting married there, and because I had to wait an entire year, my family eventually forgot and let me be.
Can you do it the other way around? Have a Temple ceremony, and then go and do a civil one for the guests? Although that sounds silly.
Nichol, it’s been explained, and now you’ve been told, that there IS no big fancy vows, walk down the aisle, flowers, readings, etc. So honestly, what is the big deal?
I mean, I’m not LDS, and I can’t say I really understand everything about it. But you know, this is obviously very important to them. I’m sure if they COULD include you, they would. But they can’t.
So why are you taking this so personally?
Nope. That’s what the ring ceremony is for. To have a civil wedding after the temple sealing implies that the temple wedding isn’t ‘real’ or doesn’t really count. Not to mention the tendency for a lot of people to go overboard with fancy public wedding stuff and forget about the significance of the temple sealing, which is far more important. We try to keep the temple wedding simple and focused on the covenant made between husband, wife, and God.
Ah, okay, I see.
Guin & genie: For the temple wedding, the Temple President also signs the marriage certificate, thus precluding having a civil service later on.
Here’s an analogous situation. My parents have been divorced for over 15 years, and still they and their families have difficulties getting along with each other. Now, whenever I get married, what would obviously make the families happiest would be for me to have separate wedding receptions (I tried to have both families at my graduation, but that didn’t work well). But my wedding will be about me and my husband, and I say that they would have to put aside all of their issues and make an effort to get along, if only for that one day. Just as in your case, the bride and groom are wishing to have a ceremony that your family will not be able to attend. But you will have to put aside your issues and do what the couple wishes–that is, be involved in the part of the wedding (the reception) that they want you to be at, and that you CAN be at. Besides, a reception can be a lot more than just “eating all of their food.” Unlike the wedding ceremony, this is the time for the two families to meet, mingle, and have good times.
genie, you said:
Monty explained what I meant; I might just not have said it right:
Monty - regarding your comments on “until death do us part” in Christian marriages generally, and the notion of eternal marriage in the LDS faith, both regard the Gospels as Scripture. There’s this passage in Matthew 22:
This certainly supports the notion that “until death do us part” is “the long haul” for marriage, from the Christian POV. Since you’ve brought up the general subject, what is the Mormon treatment of this Scripture?
We believe the Doctrine & Covenants are also scripture, RTF. It’s in that volume that we have the “time and eternity” concept.
My personal view of what you’ve quoted is that the Resurrection will not be just another version of living here, where you can then go meet someone, fall in love, and get married there. All that stuff’s supposed to have been done here.
p.s. RTF: Mormons are Christians.
Diane and Monty – What happened with my aunt is complicated, but here are the basics. She married Mr. Cheater and converted to LDS for him. Ten years down the line he suddenly decides he doesn’t want her or their three sons any more, so he runs off with Mrs. Hosebeast, a married woman whom he met in the temple.
Mr. Cheater and Mrs. Hosebeast divorce their respective spouses in order to marry each other. My aunt was then excommunicated by the church because her husband divorced her. Huh? Maybe I’m just dense, and that seems bizarre to me, but that’s what happened. I don’t know if Mr. Hosebeast was also excommunicated, but Mrs. Hosebeast wasn’t, even though she divorced her husband and broke up another marriage besides.
Then, several years down the line, my aunt becomes pregnant by another man, whom she does not marry (she was better off without him, he was as much of an asshole as her first husband). The church leaders had her convinced that they would take her other children away from her because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Fortunately, her lawyer explained to her that the church had no authority to take her children, but those church leaders had terrified my aunt into a hysterical panic with their threats.
So, no, the average Mormon has never done anything to my aunt, but she was treated very poorly by the church itself in my opinion.
.:Nichol:.
The Church does not excommunicate people because their spouses cheated on them. They do, OTOH, excommunicate someone who says, “Well, I’m out of this church then!”
The Church does not have the power to take someone’s children away from them.
The facts of the particular case are unknown to anyone other than your aunt (who, I believe, didn’t tell you everything) and the church courts which determined what should be done vis a vis excommunication (and they won’t tell anyone other than your aunt or their superiors in the church heirarchy).
Monty beat me to it but I will say it again.
They do not excommunicate members who get divorced.
They will not take your kids.
I don’t know what you have been told about the situation, but obviously there are things that have been left out of the story. I can assure that the story as you know it, is bullshit.
The church have programs for the divorced. They helped a neighbor, who had never worked before, get into school and even gave her assistance on food, house payment, utilities, and even employed her until she could get on her feet.
My aunt used to hold a position in the church that oversees this program. I know enough about her job to know that they help these women (and men) as opposed to excommunicating them.
The church also has a program for unmarried mothers that offers counseling, support (see above), or adoption services.
I disagree, as you know, but in my previous post, I didn’t say anything indicative of that disagreement.
I’m aware that you guys have some Scriptures besides the 66 books that are in the Protestant Bible, Monty. But those 66 books are also Scripture to Mormons, so I was wondering how Mormon beliefs deal with the apparent friction with that Scripture.
Fine as far as it goes, but Jesus isn’t talking about whether unmarried people get married in heaven. The Sadducees are talking about marriages that “have been done here”, and Jesus’ reply sure seems to say that marriage doesn’t continue into heaven.
This is in no way intended to show disrespect to the OP.
But I have great difficulty imagining B.B. King singing “Mormon Wedding Blues”.
Martin Mull, maybe.
"I woke up this afternoon
Both cars were gone
I woke up this afternoon (lawd)
Both cars were gone
I felt so lowdown deep inside
I threw my drink across the lawn"
RTFirefly I’ll start a thread in GD to discuss the marriages and Matthew 22.
Monty, the LDS church doesn’t excommunicate people for either reason.
“The church” is composed of people. While there are policies and guidelines about it, ultimately disciplinary courts are presided over by people, not “the church.” Furthermore, church policy is to never discuss the details of a disciplinary court outside of that court or the administrative body that held the court.
Now, I have never sat in a disciplinary court, but I have worked with people who have been excommunicated (in my role as Elders Quorum President). I can tell you that even though I knew who was excommuicated, I didn’t know why.
Hence, any story about excommunication is from the person who was excommunicated. I am inherently cautious about accepting just one side of a story, especially something as fraught with emotion as religion and relationships. Frankly, Nichol_storm I don’t believe your aunt’s story–at least I don’t believe that’s even close to the whole of the salient points. No one gets excommunicated for what another person does. Period. It doesn’t even pass a trivial sanity check. Are you sure she was excommunicated?