No, you just talk to everyone else as if they’re stupid.
Look, Monty, knock that chip off of your shoulder already.
Then why don’t you say it yourself, instead of beating around the bush in an attempt to force me to say it for you?
You were the one who said I first raised the subject of Mormons not being Christians. (That wasn’t true, incidentally.) Rather than saying where I first raised the subject, you played coy. (I’d say “RTF: you’re the one who brought it up. But perhaps you didn’t realize you did” qualifies as coy.) So I filled in the blanks for you, and showed exactly why it wasn’t true, by way of an analogous statement.
And then you throw at me this unparseable garbage:
My best translation of this is that you said to me, “you brought up the subject by comparing ‘Christians generally’ and ‘Mormons’, which I interpreted to mean ‘Mormons aren’t Christians.’ And since when I stated that Mormons are Christians, you disagreed, that means there was no misreading, on my part, of what you originally said.”
If you don’t mean this, don’t just say that that’s not what you mean, and ask me to try again.
Just say what you mean. Speak for yourself. Don’t ask me to do it for you, then bitch when I get it wrong.
Speaking of Mormon folks on the board, whatever happened to Snarkhunter / Hypersnark / Hypersnake? Does he still post here? Haven’t seen him around in seems like forever.
Criminy, RTF. What I’ve been referring to is your comment about “Christian POV vs. Mormon POV.”
Guin: I don’t believe I talk to others as though they’re stupid.
Make that Snarkhunter / Hypersnark / Hypersnake / **Snarkberry ** / Snark, actually. And he seems to have disappeared quite some time ago. Ancient history. Never mind.
I think I’d like to chime in here in regards to the OP.
When I was sealed in the Seattle Temple in 1987, my bride’s mom and my father were both absent because they were not recommend holders. Unfortunate, but hardly a spoiler of the day. That afternoon we held a typical Mormon reception for our extended families and friends. 350+ people came and shared our special day with us (which included a post-temple ring ceremony, reception line, the obligatory toasts, first waltze, garter toss and bocquet toss.) No one was put out that they couldn’t be at the Temple with us because our Reception was an EVENT.
In the end, the reception is the big event for everyone else’s benefit. The Sealing was a small private moment that only a handful of people saw… the reception was where all the money went. I’ve been to a dozen non-Mormon weddings (partly because my friend is a Wedding photographer) and to be honest… weddings suck… get me to the reception already!
From what I’ve seen… the guy paying for the Reception has the bigger bill than the guy paying for the wedding (although it’s usually the same guy). Isn’t the reception the real party? Why does everyone care about actually seeing the exchange of vows? It’s at the reception that the father stands up and tells his daughter she never looked more beautiful, where the groom stands up and talks about how happy he is and how much he loves her. Can someone explain the passion for the wedding part as a group event? It should be small imo.
djxiii, in a traditional American-style wedding reception, none of these speeches you describe happen. At the ceremony, there is a procession, the father gives away the bride, and the couple exchanges vows. At the reception, on the other hand, the best man makes a speech, and the rest is eating and drinking, and dancing if you’re lucky.
Y’see, many people LIKE to share the spiritual aspect of the ceremony itself; that’s the cultural background they come from, and to them, weddings don’t “suck.” The wedding is where the women cry and the men pretend not to, where the bride has all eyes on her, where solemnity and joy meet. It’s the only thing that’ll get me inside a church. The logic of the Mormon practice is obvious in one way; the sense of the majority practice is equally obvious in its way.
Sure they do. At my brother’s wedding reception I spoke, the best man spoke, my uncle spoke, my SIL’s father spoke, about 27 people made toasts. The wedding was non-denominational.
What am I saying? I’m saying that there’s no such thing as a “Traditional American-Style” wedding. Choose a faith and there are going to be different things. I’ve been to a Greek wedding and I’ve never seen so many dishes smashed. I’ve been to a Catholic wedding complete with a 35’ crucified Jesus - crown of thorns, blood, loin-cloth and all (no - THAT certainly didn’t distract from the ceremony :rolleyes: ) I’ve been to a wedding where the bride and groom arrived by horse-drawn carriage AFTER they privatly said their vows. I’ve been to a wedding done in a community centre with no religious aspect at all.
Everybody has their own way of doing things, and snitting because it’s not YOUR way just means you’re small and immature.
Get over it. It’s not your wedding. The OP was invited to the portion of the wedding she can attend. She should just go, eat some God-damn cake and everyone should shut the hell up about it.
“Traditional American-style” wedding indeed. ABSURD!!!
If it’s no big deal, why such a hijack? Why the attacks?
The OP expressed sorry and some bitterness that certain family members would be excluded from what they, personally, considered the most important part of the wedding.
In response, most posters accused the OP’s aunt of being a liar or nutcase or both, insisted that the OP wouldn’t really want to go, and kept trotting out the same old line about the wedding being for the “bride and groom” - even though the whole point of the OP was that this wedding was for the bride and groom and a select few family members.
It’s not fair to compare this situation to eloping to Vegas or getting married alone on a Fijian island, or to a surgical suite. The heartache was not caused by the bride and groom choosing to marry without family in attendance, it was caused by them choosing to marry with only certain family members in attendance.
It may be that the bride and groom have deeply felt religious beliefs that led to that decision so here’s an analogy for you: if one of your children decided to retreat to a religious space (ashram, hut in the Andes, monastery, whatever) and would be completely cut off from all contact for X amount of time, wouldn’t that sting a little? Sure, logically, you’d know it wasn’t a rejection of you, but…
People leave the Mormon Church every day - why would the aunt claim she was excommunicated if she could just explain she left?
The Monty types among you are not doing a very good job of selling your religion.
j.c.: WTF?
I think some bitterness stems not from being allow to participate, but because the LDS Church will not disclose to the public the specifics of the ceremony inside. If people are encouraged to talk about the OT levels of Scientology, and any thread on Freemasonry on the SDMB leads inevitably to a link or discussion on its confidential ceremonies, why is trying to find out what goes on in the Temple forbidden and taboo?
And thank God Monty isn’t a mod in this present time.
UnuMondo
Scientology is a confidence scheme posing as a religion, and nothing about it needs to be respected. Freemasonry isn’t a religion either, but a social club like the Elk or the Water Buffalo.
When it comes to discussion of sacred matters, there is a fine line between honest disagreement and disrespect. For example, it is acceptable to discuss with a Catholic whether the Host is indeed the transubstantiated Body of Christ, but it is not acceptable to test that hypothesis by throwing the Host onto the ground and stamping on it. In the same way, one can discuss the historical controversies of the Mormon church’s founding without revealing secret liturgy and rituals that would offend a Mormon’s deepest feelings.
Frankly, I think the LDS church teaches myths as history (Jews did not settle the New World, there is no such place as Zarahemla or Bountiful, Helaman and Alma did not exist), but at the same time I don’t go about telling what little I know of their rituals out of respect for their feelings.
I hate to break it to you, but a Temple marriage IS a ceremony based on the bride and groom’s cultural background. Why should they deny themselves that just to cater to the guest who have different backgrounds and cultures?
Yeah, that’s a good analogy. :rolleyes:
UnuMondo - Read what gobear wrote. You are comparing apples to oranges. You (and a few others) seem bound and determined to find anything to justify your bigotry. Anything Monty, myself, gobear, or anyone else in this thread has said in favor of the LDS church is basically just wasted breath. You don’t want to understand. You don’t want correction to your misunderstood beliefs. You don’t want facts to ruin your mythical beliefs.
You just need a reason to mock and dislike 11 mil people and nothing anyone says will change that. It’s sad, really.
I guess because its private.
I suppose an analogy would be asking a married couple to get up in a room full of people and tell them in detail what they did in bed the other night.
Its only Their business.
I did read secret ceremonies in a book by a former Mormon.
People are only curious becasue its secret. Its not shocking or scandalous like the Skull and Bones thing.
(except for the swinging the chickens over your head and painting yourself blue)
(kidding)
Unu: And when did I ask to be a moderator?
Diane & vanilla: Exactly.
Then I’m afraid the ‘vs.’ is in your head. Because it’s absent from the text; I was careful about that at the time.
Nope, no exclusion of Mormons, I’m afraid.
Nope, but your overzealousness in defense of your faith quite often prompts you to talk to others as if you’re stupid.
And Monty, did you toss in that previous coy remark referring to my comment about Mormon marriage and Christian marriage as a red herring? If you want to be deliberately obtuse, that’s fine. But don’t expect anyone but you to make sense of what you’re saying.
Like I said, say what you mean.
Or don’t say anything at all. But don’t be Mr. Gamesmaster.
RTF: I said what I meant. I was clear. I used the words just like they’re defined in the dictionaries available to me. I have absolutely no idea how to make it any more clear to you.
p.s. You’ve only been making an issue out of me, Monty, indicating that your posting above made a distinction between Christian and between Mormon marriage. That is what you said. Others read it that way, just like I did.
I am not being a gamesmaster here. It appears to me, given your last few postings, you’re in the thread to do just that.
Well, you could start by not saying:
when you apparently meant:
How stupid of me to realize you were talking about the latter, when you quite clearly and specifically referred to the former. There’s egg all over my face, I tell ya.
Now that you’ve finally made it clear just which post of mine you’ve been attempting to talk about for about a page now, you might say exactly how you construe it as a “Mormon vs. Christian” dichotomy. You never have done this. Because your most comprehensive attempt that I can locate is:
And that just doesn’t qualify.
If you claim you have done this already, please feel free to quote yourself, so we can all laugh at your idea of dictionary-level clarity. But put up or shut up, Mr. Gamesmaster.