Temple Marriage

[Portia]

Cf here.

Wow, Genuine Article was very harsh without knowing the woman's side of things. She's not looking to film a four-hour special for the E! network: from what we can understand, she has every intention of staying married once married. So to call the hundreds of millions of people who get married legally (without just looking to cash in on community property laws and a rock), to call them opportunists and commitment-phobes just seems stupid.

This man's going to be in a lot worse straits if his girlfriend gets strong-armed into a temple wedding she's not ready for because she feared losing the man she loves than otherwise. My parents weren't sealed until they were 30, and trust me, there was no louder cheerleader for this happening than pint-size, eight-year-old Portia. It was probably the happiest day of my childhood. But as an adult, I totally understand that though they had been "worthy" since I was about 3 (my dad joined the church and my mother "reactivated" herself), they just might not have been "ready." Their civil marriage was far from a "starter marriage:" they take the "in sickness, in health, for richer, for poorer" stuff more seriously than anyone I know. My grandma's marriage, where she convinced a clearly uninterested guy to get baptized and get married in the temple: was that a starter marriage? You betcha! Implying causation from correlation is a dangerous game, my friend.

What if her parents' divorce is only the tip of the iceberg? What if the temple freaks her out? What if she wants her father and step-mother (for example) to be able to see her on one of the most important days of her life? What if she believes that marriages ought to ideologically be affairs of the state first and foremost? If this couple were European, they'd HAVE to be married civilly first, and no one would be crying "starter marriage!"

I think all of the above points could be legitimate ones for the guy dumping the girl eventually, but maligning her character and motives rather than encouraging him to stick to his guns while having some compassion seems ill-advised.

[D.A.R.E.]

I advise you to stick to your guns and hold out for a temple wedding. Offer her a long engagement if you think more time would help her become more committed.

That sounds to me like she's advising him to stick to his guns while having some compassion to me.

[wired]

Let me start with this: I disagree pretty often with Genuine Article, but I almost always disagree with Portia. That may be coloring my comments so try to adjust for my bias.

Cf here.

Wow, Genuine Article was very harsh without knowing the woman's side of things. She's not looking to film a four-hour special for the E! network: from what we can understand, she has every intention of staying married once married. So to call the hundreds of millions of people who get married legally (without just looking to cash in on community property laws and a rock), to call them opportunists and commitment-phobes just seems stupid.

I don't think GA called "the hundreds of millions of people who get married legally... opportunists and commitment-phobes" or anything close to that. You might be inferring it from, "Saying she wants a civil ceremony is tantamount to saying she's already looking for a way out for when your relationship goes south." But I think the context that the questioner is giving makes the inference absurd. The girl has an option between two types of marriage: a temple or a civil. She wants to take one that has less commitment associated with it for fear things won't work out. That makes her situation markedly different from the people I think you're asserting GA is attacking - those who get married civilly without a temple marriage. In the overwhelming number of those, people aren't contemplating a choice between types of marriages.

This man's going to be in a lot worse straits if his girlfriend gets strong-armed into a temple wedding she's not ready for because she feared losing the man she loves than otherwise. My parents weren't sealed until they were 30, and trust me, there was no louder cheerleader for this happening than pint-size, eight-year-old Portia. It was probably the happiest day of my childhood. But as an adult, I totally understand that though they had been "worthy" since I was about 3 (my dad joined the church and my mother "reactivated" herself), they just might not have been "ready." Their civil marriage was far from a "starter marriage:" they take the "in sickness, in health, for richer, for poorer" stuff more seriously than anyone I know. My grandma's marriage, where she convinced a clearly uninterested guy to get baptized and get married in the temple: was that a starter marriage? You betcha! Implying causation from correlation is a dangerous game, my friend.

You really are very condescending in your writing ("You betcha!" "my friend!"). That is my biggest complaint with your posts and when you were a writer. It does nothing for your argument, it only turns off people who might otherwise listen to your argument.

Is GA saying every temple marriage is not a started marriage? No. Is he saying every civil marriage is a start marriage? No. Is he saying the situation posed ("she wants to postpone a temple wedding because she wants to be sure we'll last.") is a starter marriage? Yes. And whether you think that is an accurate assessment, it is a far cry from what you're implying he is doing.

What if her parents' divorce is only the tip of the iceberg?

Fair. GA probably should have suggested that he figure out the underlying problems a little more.

What if the temple freaks her out?

Not part of the question and also irrelevant. She hasn't said no temple marriage, she's said we start with one and then move to antoher.

What if she wants her father and step-mother (for example) to be able to see her on one of the most important days of her life?

Not part of the question. That's a totally separate issue.

What if she believes that marriages ought to ideologically be affairs of the state first and foremost? If this couple were European, they'd HAVE to be married civilly first, and no one would be crying "starter marriage!"

Not part of the question. And in Europe and some South American countries, they get sealed a day later. Completely different than what is posed here. An ideological commitment to the state over commitment to marriage would be something I would be much more concerned about than what is here as well. A temple sealing is coterminous with a legal wedding as well. So this is just very, very absurd rhetoric on your part.

I think all of the above points could be legitimate ones for the guy dumping the girl eventually, but maligning her character and motives rather than encouraging him to stick to his guns while having some compassion seems ill-advised.

GA was given a question with a set of circumstances. He answered on those circumstances. Agreed, he could have said look at the underlying problems. But he isn't doing a fifth of what you say he is.

[Katya]

Is GA saying every temple marriage is not a started marriage? No. Is he saying every civil marriage is a start marriage? No.

Psst! I think you mean "she."

[Whistler]

GA can come across as kind of harsh online. But in person, she's funny and she has definite opinions on things, which is one of the things I like about her.

[Genuine Article]

When it comes to the written word I like to be succinct. In a real conversation with the reader there'd be some give and take and a real discussion, but I don't have that luxury on a question and answer forum, and like wired said (when he wasn't mistaking me for a man) I can't be expected to know anything about the situation other than what I've been told by the reader. He asked for advice, so I told him what I hoped someone would tell me if I was contemplating compromising my standards.

[wired]

I guess I look at articles as male and adjectives as female. Sorry about that.

[Marduk]

That's the problem then, I guess. Getting married outside the temple is still a marriage in every way shape and form. It should in no way be construed as a "starter wedding" and although the goal is a temple marriage, marriage outside of the temple first should not be construed a failure of any kind.

Lastly and mostly relevant: the statistics on marriages that end in divorce are the same for weddings inside the temple and out. A temple marriage is no more likely to last during this life than any other.

[Whistler]

I'd like to see your source on that, Marduk.

[Katya]

Lastly and mostly relevant: the statistics on marriages that end in divorce are the same for weddings inside the temple and out. A temple marriage is no more likely to last during this life than any other.

This source suggests otherwise.

[wired]

That's the problem then, I guess. Getting married outside the temple is still a marriage in every way shape and form. It should in no way be construed as a "starter wedding" and although the goal is a temple marriage, marriage outside of the temple first should not be construed a failure of any kind.

Would be interested to know what you think of the proposed 2-year marriage license Mexico City considered: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/ ... TX20110929

Starter marriage or no? (Note: I am not saying this is the same, just want your insights.)

[Sky Bones]

Haha, I remember laughing so hard when they talked about that 2-year marriage license in Mexico City on Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me! I think that should adequately sum up my feelings on the matter...

[Marduk]

Katya, that statistic is specifically for cancellations of sealing, not divorce itself. Since it requires the permission of the first presidency, clearly those rates will be low.

[Katya]

Katya, that statistic is specifically for cancellations of sealing, not divorce itself. Since it requires the permission of the first presidency, clearly those rates will be low.

I don't see that in the article. Do you know that from another source?

[Marduk]

Here's a source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

The one thing that is interesting to note (and not entirely relevant, as I'm assuming that the couple in the original question share their religion) is that it points out that divorce rates where both parties are LDS are significantly lower than national averages.

[Marduk]

Wired: yes, that is clearly a "starter" marriage. But it is designed to be so. I don't consider any marriage that includes " 'till death do us part" to be a "starter" marriage.

[Hypatia]

Marduk is correct that the 6% refers to cancellation of sealings. The civil divorce rate is high for both civil and temple marriages. Often the sealing cancellation is such a lengthy process (and often isn't granted despite civil termination) and with both parties being exhausted from the civil divorce, neither seeks a sealing cancellation. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe men are required to have their sealing cancelled before being sealed again. I know women are encouraged to keep their sealing in tact right up until they are ready for their next sealing so the disparity between "temple divorce" and actual divorce is quite understandable.

[Hypatia]

Wired, being freaked out by the temple is hugely relevant. That's probably the biggest reason I'm not thrilled at the idea of a temple wedding myself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't understand this being a dude. As a girl, we all dream of the perfect day...kinda lame but it's ingrained in us. Part of that day is picking out the perfect dress, having a cute flower girl, having your friends wearing the same hideous dress, etc.

Now, I'm in the camp that a court-room wedding is the most efficient way of getting things done and pretty much despise everything about modern weddings but most women place a lot of value on that day. Imagine thinking this your whole life and then, after taking out your endowments and right before your wedding, you discover what you have to wear on top of your wedding dress, and the things you have to say, and the lack of individuality offered. Many people like this; I'm not attacking people who aspire for a temple wedding at all. But not everyone wants the same things in life.

My mother did her endowments and wedding in the same day. She was so freaked out she didn't return for four years and still goes quite rarely. I wonder if easing into the temple idea would have been better in the long run. Now when she thinks of her wedding, she thinks more of the confusion she felt over the ceremony and less of the love she felt for my father and their moment.

[wired]

Wired, being freaked out by the temple is hugely relevant. That's probably the biggest reason I'm not thrilled at the idea of a temple wedding myself. I'll give you the benefitof the doubt and assume you don't understand this being a dude. As a girl, we all dream of the perfect day...kinda lame but it's ingrained in us. Part of that day is picking out the perfect dress, having a cute flower girl, having your friends wearing the same hideous dress, etc.

Now, I'm in the camp that a court-room wedding is the most efficient way of getting things done and pretty much despise everything about modern weddings but most women place a lot of value on that day. Imagine thinking this your whole life and then, after taking out your endowments and right before your wedding, you discover what you have to wear on top of your wedding dress, and the things you have to say, and the lack of individuality offered. Many people like this; I'm not attacking people who aspire for a temple wedding at all. But not everyone wants the same things in life.

My mother did her endowments and wedding in the same day. She was so freaked out she didn't return for four years and still goes quite rarely. I wonder if easing into the temple idea would have been better in the long run. Now when she thinks of her wedding, she thinks more of the confusion she felt over the ceremony and less of the love she felt for my father and their moment.

EDITED.

Fair point. That's not something I thought of.

[Katya]

Here's a source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

OK, this source points out some of the flaws in the original study (and there are many), but it still implies that what's being counted is civil divorce, not "temple divorce," although relying on church membership records in some cases may have lead to an undercounting of civil divorces.

And this source offers some (informed) estimates of LDS divorce rates, although he specifically dodges the question of temple vs. non-temple marriages.

The one thing that is interesting to note (and not entirely relevant, as I'm assuming that the couple in the original question share their religion) is that it points out that divorce rates where both parties are LDS are significantly lower than national averages.

I've heard that, although I've also heard that's true for people marrying within their own faith, generally.