But you are asking a question about what Mormons should do and what is better for them. That is something that they have to choose. What is better for me would not be better for Mormons. Of course I think that Mormons should leave the cult and not worry about the temple or civil then temple.
Interesting question to a group of non-believers.
I would say that the only question is: do you have a large family of TBMs that you want to impress, not-alarm, not-upset, or you do not want to talk to your SP, GA, Bishop etc?
If it is pure Mormon then what the heck (hell outside of Utah).
If you have any people who cannot attend because they are not "special" then NO!
If your mother or father can not attend - being unworthy - gay, black, non-tithe-payers, think, etc then you would be a jerk to do the temple bit.
But is it being selfish of the family(parents, siblings, grandparents) to want to be included in the marriage of a son, daughter, etc but cannot because they do not meet the acceptable mormon standards?
In the early days of the church Joseph wanted people to go to the temple. There was no "worthy". It was good for them and it bound them to the church.
Being, as I believe, that the Mormon church is really an "Old Testament" religion more than a "New Testament" religion, then I think that the doctrine of LOVE is the only doctrine and that anything that does not fit in it is BS. A marriage is a joining of love.
In the Mormon church is more important to be a "good member" than to follow Christ. TBMs follow the GAs where they should, in my opinion, be following Christ.
So no I do not think that it is being selfish to want to be included if you are someone not indoctrinated enough to follow the rules. A religion of exclusion is not very Christian.
Family comes first, they are the bond of love and people who will be there if you pay your tithing or not.
A religion of exclusion is very Christian according to these verses in the Bible.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance (a conflict.) against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 12:51 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division
The kind of Jesus that brings warfare and division? Yes he is. Even in the same family, difference in opinions towards Jesus can also divide up close relationships.
I agree that family should come first....but all too often loyalty to the Mormon Church comes first. I think this is why the dilemma for members who struggle with idea to include family in their wedding when not all parties can attend the temple.
Very interesting comment, but I fail to see how this applies to the question. That there would be division among the followers of Christ is not surprising and there is a lot of that in the history of Christianity. I am currently reading a history of the first 300 years.
Here we are NOT talking about the family being at odds about Jesus but about the church setting the family at odds for no reason. This is artificial division and not about Christ. The Mormon church could easily build a room that was open to all people and allow everyone in. They could perform two short services and no one would be hurt. They just will not. They seemingly cannot admit to being wrong, on the Blacks, the Gays, Polygamy, anyone who does not tow the line or questions any word.
Sorry but they are wrong to divide families and hurt the feelings of some members that are not LDS enough for their liking. As I remember, Jesus welcomed and invited everyone in even sinners.
Is the desire to honor and support, both materially and immaterially, the union of family and friends selfish? I would argue the effect is dependent on the expectations of the "unionized". I think an act of true selfishness lies in the dissonant space between expecting unconditional support of their union while extending conditional acceptance to those who might lend that aid. It seems to me that is a reversed role for the prodigal son or daughter. This begs the question of what is the role of the prodigal parent, family member, or friend? Which party is more "christian"?
In South Africa a temple marriage only, is not recognized - you have to have the civil one. So families can attend the civil one which is conducted in the church building and the reception is also mostly at the church and then later you attend the temple. Guess there are some things we have got right!! lol
Are you absolutely certain that this is the case DEEPESA? I thought that the government of SA recognized the authority of LDS clergy to perform the civil legal aspect of the marriage within the temple. Would you please confirm that what you've said is accurate with regard to SA marriage laws.
According to this site, marriage officers are recognized in all of the major religions.
A "marriage officer" in the religion is recognized as having authority to issue and register civil marriages. Now having said that, I also have read that according to SA marriage laws, the ceremony must be peformed in a building with open doors.
I guess that requirement is to allow the marriage to be open to the public so everyone can attend. Is this the aspect of the law that restricts the Mormon church from performing the civil marriage aspect in the temple?