a couple of weeks ago a coworker mentioned the mtv, engaged and underage reality show. she talked of a mormon couple. today i found it on the mormon stories site, and everyone must watch it.
To watch the episode, click here and then click on the “Engaged and Underage: Episode 6" view all.
why don't we just let these kids get married civily and then later that day seal the deal in the temple?
33 comments:
i can't watch the video here at work, but i read about the couple on another website. not making a great name for those mormons getting married young huh?
I spent way too long watching this, Stevie.
My question is about the future of this couple. Lots of "growing up" to do... but I guess that is why they made the show, huh?
i think if you were to watch other episodes, you'd be as uncomfortable and awkward with any of the couple. plus MTV, the originators of reality TV, have mastered the art of artistic editing to give the worst slash more entertaining version of the story...
still it hurts to watch.
pt. i think it was probably a pretty accurate position that the family was actually offended that they were being left out of the marriage rite. and i don't think thats doctrinally backed up in mormonism. no?
While waiting to figure out I needed to enlarge my screen to see the clip you sent me to, the MTV trash came on as part of the site. The website is as trashy as the TV site. Like I did in your youth, I encourage you to stay away from MTV!
I watched only a small portion. The young bride was silly and immature. Self-centered. I turned it off. It is not even worth getting up a discussion on the problems because of the silly bride. Stephen, when do find time to look for these things? Love Dad.
i hadn't seen the clip before i made my comment.
here's my take. mtv maximized their editing. most weddings have some small amount of drama. there were genuinely warm moments between the mother in law and the girl.
sure the girl is young and hasn't had a lot of experience with interpersonal relationships and looking beyond herself. however, there were a lot of positives as she compromised, the boy was understanding of her and was good at expressing his feelings.
the boy's family was pretty reasonable (the aunt was the most inflammatory/least helpful).
sure she could have been older, but i see plenty of 30 somethings in the ER who aren't any less immature, selfish and self-centered than her...
dad: stevie found the clip from his mormon stories website. even though he is from the mtv generation i don't think he watches the channel more than the rest of us.
dad and ron:
maybe it doesn't call for any discussion; however, my friends from different faiths see this and have questions about mormonism. true the bride is immature and silly; but, are many of the mormons getting married in the temple and possible offending families and friends that much different?
and, why do we make people wait for a year after getting civily married before getting sealed? i've heard its different in other countries...
Stephen-
In other countries (like Spain)it's a matter of legality. But here in the U.S. the marriage in the temple is recognized. Therefore couples are able to get a marriage license and such.
I agree, I think those questions that arise from people not of our faith can be complex and hard to explain. But I think it just comes down to our understanding of the importance of those covenants, and the way we can portray that to others in a way that isn't offensive. But yes, that can be difficult. Is it easier to offend God or Man?
stevey.
i think my point was misunderstood. i wasn't referring to the kid's family's reaction. i was talking about taking the worst of all the conversations to tell a good story. the crying, the fighting etc. i agree with you that the family was truly offended and know editing was needed to emphasized that one particular element. otherwise, my point is still that the mormon episode or another, MTV has mastered the art of telling an even better story.
jill.
i'm wondering how far away are country is from having two separate ceremonies as well. a religious marriage and a civil somthing or other for the legality of the state/nation. how did it work in spain? could what stevey suggested happen? ceremony outside the temple and ordinance inside the temple on the same day? (without the year wait)
by "are" i meant "our country"
my understanding of the year wait is that it prevents new, uncommitted members from taking on more serious covenants before they're ready. preventing more serious condemnation as a result of breaking more serious covenants. giving a year to really delve into doctrine, practice living new standards of worthiness and testing out this new religion to see if it really what you want strikes me as a smart thing to do.
there are always misunderstandings when people disagree. what if my son chooses to marry a devout atheistic family. this hypothetical son converts to atheism and waits a year for this atheist clan to be assured of his commitment. my son and his fiance choose to proceed with a ceremony that is specifically void of any mention of god.
i would be hurt by this. it would sadden me. the reasons for the hurt would be many fold--not the least of which being that my son's decisions are in some way a referendum on my life and how he views the path i have chosen. his rejection of that path would be hurtful. however, it is ultimately michael and his wife's decision how conduct THEIR wedding.
incidentally, a ring ceremony can have all the pomp and circumstance you might desire as a mother (whose wedding it is NOT) to feel closure and hope for the union of the couple. interestingly, the mom's hurt feelings are more about herself than her son. if her son has found fulfillment in a religion that offers an eternal family and he is truly happier then she should be happy for him. her joining in the whine-fest seemed childish and counterproductive to supporting her son's decision and making the best of it.
not to belittle the mom's feelings...all measures should be taken by both families to accommodate both families desire to participate in the wonderful occasion. however, those measures should be taken in light of the wishes of the COUPLE.
hah! while sitting waiting for a clinical skills session last week a friend turned to me out of the blue and was like, ummm so I'm just curious, umm I was watching MTV, umm what's the deal? Good conversation starter--but I went home that night and watched it online. That led to reading some mormon blogs discussing the issue online. I'm not entirely clear on the issue but people mentioned that you don't always have to wait a year if there's no worthiness problem (not sure if this is true) and that it isn't encouraged to have a huge ring ceremony (also not sure if this is true). I'd love to hear what someone in authority has to say about this. I know it has always been a source of sadness for my Mom that her dad wasn't able to be present at her wedding. . .
d_b_rock,
i'm not a person of authority, but i can second what you said about ring ceremonies. it's been a while since i've read the church handbook of instructions, but i do seem to remember that it states that ring ceremonies should not be big and fancy as to focus on the temple covenants made my the couple.
russia doesn't have a temple, so the members have to get married before they go to the temple in a different country. i never heard any church authorities talk about whether or not members should have fancy civil marriages before they go to the temple, but i was always under the impression that members weren't supposed to have fancy civil weddings.
mel just informed me that her coworker from scotland told her that the members have to be married civilly there too. the stipulation with their civil marriages is that if they live within five hours of the temple, then they must be sealed within five hours of their civil marriage, or they must wait a year. So normally members are married civilly and sealed the same day.
members in mexico must be sealed in the temple the day after their civil marriage or they too must wait a year. however, according to dan roberts (my freshmen roommate) it's not clear as to whether or not the members consummate the marriage the night of the civil marriage or after their sealing the next day. :)
paul.
valid point. off topic. why must two supposedly worthy elopers who get married in say vegas have to wait one year before being sealed in the temple. barring any worthiness issues, what's the hold up?
jonny.
legal and lawfully wed. nothing about sealing in the law of chastity. and that within 5 hours nonsense sounds just like that. like the sealer is going to check the time stamp on the wedding certificate/papers and if its 5 hours 37 mins is going to say, see you two lovers in a year. a tad bit pharisaical.
pt
the rule was set by the temple president for all those living in scotland. it's basically put in place for saints to register as man and wife legally that morning, and then sealed that afternoon.
and i was just kidding about consummating the marriage.
Peter-
If a couple goes and elopes in Vegas just to get married, they obviously don't really understand the importance of getting sealed in the temple. I think they should wait a year to be sealed if they think that's the way to go.
good point jill. i agree.
you weren't kidding jonny. that had to be a topic of conversation amongst the missionaries of mexico and their missionary friends who served in russia :)
so this policy is punishment? i don't think that the way it is intended. there's got to be a better reason.
take this scenario then. this is actually from our ward out here. mormon girl meets boy. boy comes to church with the girl and eventually gets baptized. several months later they get married, planned not eloped. should they have to wait until his one year new member anniversary or their one year wedding anniversary? like posed in the original question, barring any worthiness problems, why do you have to wait a year? i still don't get it.
petey: as mentioned above...
my understanding of the year wait is that it prevents new, uncommitted members from taking on more serious covenants before they're ready. preventing more serious condemnation as a result of breaking more serious covenants. giving a year to really delve into doctrine, practice living new standards of worthiness and testing out this new religion to see if it really what you want strikes me as a smart thing to do.
not a penalty, but a blessing. what if said boy goes inactive? he hasn't broken more serious covenenants and lost greater light. where much is given...
brooke's point about the daughter feeling bad her mom missed her wedding is the most compelling concern raised so far.
paul.
the one year for new convert date will come BEFORE his one year marriage date. so that logic still doesn't address the question. so according to your repeated response, he should be able to be sealed at a year after baptism yet before the year of marriage...
i guess i'm not making sense in my inquiry. putting the new convert reasoning aside.
why is there a one year stipulation between civil marriage and temple sealing, barring any worthiness issues? that's my real question.
Peter: Temple ordinances and covenants are so sacred. A year seems like a logical amount of time to prepare and understand the solemn responsibilities a couple will assume as they participate in making temple covenants. Wouldn't it be better for worthy, new couples who have just had a civil marriage and/or new converts to be over-prepared than under-prepared so they fully understand the eternal significance of temples?
Shauna... agreed. It seems that, in matters such as these, the rules are made for general protection of the people/ordinances/blessings for wise purposes. I think it is a rule that stands to address the "usual" circumstances involved...
...I do know that special requests can be made in special cases. Perhaps Peter's friend's case warrants a special consideration??
There are about 5 exceptions regarding the one-year waiting period and only the First Presidency may grant these after the stake president seeks the exceptions. The exceptions are too long to write on the blog. Peter, I'll call you.
thanks mom.
i don't doubt there is wisdom built into the policy. i'm just not clear on what it is...
but erring on the side of over preparedness is obviously a good thing
Shauna... you've piqued my interest!
I know I'm a little late, as the thread has died down a little, but I wanted to comment on ring ceremonies. About two years ago, DJ and I attended a wedding of a couple who got married in the temple in the morning, then drove up to park city where they had a beautiful ring ceremony (very upscale) and Elder Boyd K. Packer officiated. He is good friends with the parents of the bride who happened to be mission presidents at the time. However, much of the groom's extended family couldn't attend the temple (hence the ring ceremony. If ring ceremonies are discouraged, why would an apostle of the Lord take part?
libby: the same reason why some of those guys probably drink coca cola
Post a Comment