Fundie Mormons and Birth Control?

[mirele]

The thing I've heard is that officially, it's between the couple and God when it comes to using birth control. With abortion, the official teaching is that it's allowed in cases of rape or if the mother's life in danger. There are bishops such as Romney who have strongly discouraged women from getting an abortion in those cases, but my guess is that those incidents are rare.

I don't know how rare this is, given how some bishops like to butt into people's lives. However, the people I know who know Romney say that what happened between him and Judy Rasmussen (Eliza Dushku's mother and the woman who needed an abortion because of blood clots threatening her health) was more Romney being a pompous ass know-it-all bishop versus any church doctrine. And he had the temerity to try his "I am your file leader, you must obey me" drill on Rasmussen, who was one of the few openly feminist women in the Church. I would have liked to been a fly on the wall during THAT discussion!

[xDreamerx]

Well, after reading this thread it seems like they are fairly common sense on birth control and their abortion stance is expected for a religious group.

Mirele~I agree, the marriage thing is weird and sad. I don't see why one should have to exclude people their wedding day. After all a wedding in any religious group is viewed as a sacred and special event so wouldn't the couple naturally want all of their family and friends there? I don't know, especially when Mormons believe you're with your family for "time and all eternity", you'd think they would allow anyone to come and share in that. It doesn't really make sense to me.

As for Romney, he's just saying what he thinks he needs to say to be elected nationally. Taking extreme stances on abortion is the new thing with Republicans so he's just following suit.

[PokaDot]

Blargh. The Church's stand on weddings sucks rocks. This is why: Most Western countries require a registry office ceremony for a marriage to be recognized. The US is one of the few Western countries where a religious ceremony is recognized as legally valid. So, for example, in the UK, you have to get married at the registry office and then you can add on a temple sealing the same day. But you can't do that here in the USA. If you want to have a wedding that everyone can see, you have to wait a year for the temple sealing AFTERWARDS. And it's considered lesser faith by not getting that temple wedding first and exclusively.

I know why the Church leadership refuses to change the US to match the situation just about everywhere else--one of the ways the Church gains new members is via conversion. Making temple marriage the ideal (and everything else unacceptable), the Church binds converts more fully to it as they wait to get married in the temple. But in the process, it destroys family relationships as parents, siblings and other relatives don't understand why they can't see Suzie's wedding. It makes total bullshit of the "Faaaaaaamily" commercials the Church likes to run.

Having seen more than my share of hurt people as a result of this policy, which basically only is the case in the USA (and maybe Canada, dunno), this is one thing that I frankly hate the old guys in Salt Lake City for. Yes, let's wreck families in the name of temple marriage. PFFFFFFFFFFFTH.

I've seen quite a few LDS couples have a ring ceremony right before the reception, so people don't feel left out.

[Katiebug]

I don't know, especially when Mormons believe you're with your family for "time and all eternity", you'd think they would allow anyone to come and share in that. It doesn't really make sense to me.

The kicker is that in Mormon theology you're only with your family for time and all eternity if you're sealed to them - you can't be sealed to non-Mormon parents, siblings, etc.

I've had Mormon acquaintances brush off the exclusion of family members by pointing out that non-endowed LDS relatives and friends or those without a current temple recommend can't attend a temple sealing either, but it's different. I think the perspective of those living within the Mormon corridor is probably different from those of us living in places where the LDS are not the majority. If it's all you've ever known because you were born and raised Mormon with 80-90% of your friends also Mormon, and you weren't able to go to your older sister's wedding because you were 20 and not endowed yet then it's probably not a big deal to you if your non-LDS sister-in-law can't come to your wedding. However, for your convert spouse-to-be and especially for his family it could be devastating. Those of us in other religions and of no religion are accustomed to witnessing the wedding ceremonies of those we love and to be told that you're not worthy to see your own child or sibling getting married must be deeply hurtful.

There's also a double standard on this, because in other parts of the world where a wedding must take place in a publicly-accessible place LDS couples are allowed to marry civilly at the registry office and then go to the temple immediately for the religious ceremony of sealing. In the US, Canada, etc. if the couple chooses to have a wedding out of the temple they must wait a year to be sealed, like a punishment for not choosing what the church believes is best - even if marrying in the temple would destroy the couple's relationships with non-LDS/non-temple recommend holding family members. So couples are in a position of either going along with a temple wedding and hurting those people who can't attend, or going against the church's teachings and waiting a year only to be subjected to all kinds of dire stories about how couples who married civilly wound up dying in car accidents before they could ever go to the temple (or similar baloney), and how they're doing it "second best".

According to the Church Handbook of Instructions, ring ceremonies for non-LDS relatives and friends are supposed to be a simple exchange of rings with no vows and no trappings of a wedding that might make anyone feel like what they're seeing was the actual marriage rite. And the bishop is supposed to give a little speech about how awesome the couple was for following the church's rules and marrying in the temple without their unworthy Gentile relatives in attendance. Yeah, that has to suck for said relatives.

I think it's disgusting that the LDS church separates non-LDS/non-endowed relatives from a wedding ceremony. I can't imagine it wins them many converts to have a mother or father of the bride or groom essentially told, "You're not good enough for us and aren't part of our club, so you don't get to see your child get married. Instead at the reception you'll get a shitty little talk by the bishop about how magical the sealing was and how they'll be together for eternity - without you. Oh, and at said little 'ring ceremony' there won't be any vows, bridesmaids, processionals or anything else that might make people think there's any significance to the bit that you get to see. Enjoy your cake and punch out on the basketball court!"

I know and respect some Mormons, but I cannot respect their church's choice to require a yearlong waiting period to be sealed if a couple in the US is married outside of the temple.

[lilwriter85]

My uncle was married to an ex-Mormon. Her immediate family left the LDS church in the mid 90's and there were only 4 kids in her family. She said that some of her relatives didn't have big families and they had 2-4 kids. I also have a friend who lived in Utah when her husband was in the Air Force. She worked at a health clinic and she said she knew several Mormon women who had more than 5 kids.

[ZTwist]

I've mentioned before on here that my daughter became a Mormon after high school. When she was married last year at a temple, my husband, son and I were not allowed in, as non-Mormons. It was difficult, but the temple wedding was so important to them, that we kept our feelings (mostly) to ourselves. Because some of my son in law's relatives were not allowed in, including most of his siblings, that made it easier.

At their reception, they had a ring ceremony and repeated the traditional Quaker vows ( we are Quaker) so we did get to see them make promises to each other. His parents were completely on board with this, and I know they felt bad that we couldn't be at the actual ceremony.

People say to me, that's awful, how could you stand it? But in the end, I could tell it was more important to them than to us. She wrote a note for us to read while they were in the temple telling us how much our support and love had meant to her. I'm content with our decision not to push for a non temple wedding even though I've taken some crap for it from people who say it's disgusting. It is terrible, and I think wrong, but what do you do if it's your child?

[Katiebug]

I've mentioned before on here that my daughter became a Mormon after high school. When she was married last year at a temple, my husband, son and I were not allowed in, as non-Mormons. It was difficult, but the temple wedding was so important to them, that we kept our feelings (mostly) to ourselves. Because some of my son in law's relatives were not allowed in, including most of his siblings, that made it easier.

At their reception, they had a ring ceremony and repeated the traditional Quaker vows ( we are Quaker) so we did get to see them make promises to each other. His parents were completely on board with this, and I know they felt bad that we couldn't be at the actual ceremony.

People say to me, that's awful, how could you stand it? But in the end, I could tell it was more important to them than to us. She wrote a note for us to read while they were in the temple telling us how much our support and love had meant to her. I'm content with our decision not to push for a non temple wedding even though I've taken some crap for it from people who say it's disgusting. It is terrible, and I think wrong, but what do you do if it's your child?

I'd probably do the same. What's the alternative, not go at all? It's a choice of two lousy options and I'd go for the one that would hurt me more but would hurt my child less. Regardless of how deeply it would hurt there would be no need to ruin her happy day by reminding her that according to her church's teachings, the family that was good enough to raise her isn't "worthy" to see her get married. I'd put on a brave face, smile, and put on a good show for everyone - my daughter included.

I'm sorry your family had to deal with that. I think the LDS church is completely wrong on the matter; not that they can't have a private religious rite for the sealing because they certainly can, but that there's a double standard depending on the country. In the US and Canada it is wrong to hold the 1-year waiting period over couples' heads and to essentially use it as a weapon by making a convert choose between his/her family of origin and a religious rite. It should be the same everywhere, either the 1 year waiting period for all or allowing for immediate sealing after a civil wedding.

[ZTwist]

I'd probably do the same. What's the alternative, not go at all? It's a choice of two lousy options and I'd go for the one that would hurt me more but would hurt my child less. Regardless of how deeply it would hurt there would be no need to ruin her happy day by reminding her that according to her church's teachings, the family that was good enough to raise her isn't "worthy" to see her get married. I'd put on a brave face, smile, and put on a good show for everyone - my daughter included.

You put it very well, it's a choice between two lousy options, and as parents, we wanted our daughter's day to be as wonderful as possible, so we chose her feelings over ours.

I will say that he is a lovely young man, and his parents are too, and that my daughter is very happy.

(and mainstream Mormons do use BC)

[moreorlessnu]

I'd probably do the same. What's the alternative, not go at all? It's a choice of two lousy options and I'd go for the one that would hurt me more but would hurt my child less. Regardless of how deeply it would hurt there would be no need to ruin her happy day by reminding her that according to her church's teachings, the family that was good enough to raise her isn't "worthy" to see her get married. I'd put on a brave face, smile, and put on a good show for everyone - my daughter included.

I'm sorry your family had to deal with that. I think the LDS church is completely wrong on the matter; not that they can't have a private religious rite for the sealing because they certainly can, but that there's a double standard depending on the country. In the US and Canada it is wrong to hold the 1-year waiting period over couples' heads and to essentially use it as a weapon by making a convert choose between his/her family of origin and a religious rite. It should be the same everywhere, either the 1 year waiting period for all or allowing for immediate sealing after a civil wedding.

Wasn't there an MTV "True Life" episode about a situation like this? The bride was Mormon and the groom wasn't. His mother was heartbroken that she couldn't attend the ceremony. The bride was very young (maybe 18? 20?), and had a spoiled brat, "Too bad, it's my wedding" attitude toward his mother. Maybe the bride wanted the temple wedding (and her marriage 'sealed') because of the fact that the groom wasn't Mormon?? (Or, maybe it was just the groom's mother who wasn't Mormon?)

[ZTwist]

It's not just non-Mormons who can't go in the temple, it's even Mormons who are inactive or don't have a temple "recommendation" from their bishop (IIRC)

[Katiebug]

Wasn't there an MTV "True Life" episode about a situation like this? The bride was Mormon and the groom wasn't. His mother was heartbroken that she couldn't attend the ceremony. The bride was very young (maybe 18? 20?), and had a spoiled brat, "Too bad, it's my wedding" attitude toward his mother. Maybe the bride wanted the temple wedding (and her marriage 'sealed') because of the fact that the groom wasn't Mormon?? (Or, maybe it was just the groom's mother who wasn't Mormon?)

No, if there was a temple ceremony the groom would have had to be LDS and to be endowed and have a current temple recommend.

I think that many LDS folks, especially those who have spent their entire lives in the "Mormon corridor" where they're the religious majority, just don't understand that the policy can be offensive and hurtful to converts' non-LDS relatives. Like I said before - if you've grown up not being able to go to your older cousins' and siblings' weddings in the temple by virtue of being too young to be endowed and have a temple recommend yourself, then you might have a hard time understanding why your fiance's non-LDS mother is crushed that she won't be able to see him get married.

LDS brides tend to marry young, especially in the Intermountain West, and it's likely that immaturity played a role in the "True Life" bride's insensitivity towards the groom's mother. Combine immaturity with the cultural factors and I can see an LDS bridezilla being a jerk to her future MIL rather than trying to find ways to help ease a hurtful situation.

I've read of LDS brides inviting their non-LDS future MIL to go dress shopping or having their in-laws plan the reception. It can help ease hurt feelings to make sure that they're involved in the wedding in special ways and that they'll be involved in the couple's life after the wedding too.

[Rachel333]

I saw that True Life episode. The groom was a convert and the bride really wasn't very likeable. I also remember that she took her wedding photos with a big coat over her dress (and not like a nice coat that matched the dress, just a random winter coat). It was pretty odd, but then they were both very young.

[silverspoons]

I think the new push for temple marriage is bad for situations mentioned above. I believe only about 15% of mormons have a recommend and that is why bishops want young couples to choose the temple wedding so that they keep up their recommend. My husband's best friend and business partner being bishop's say most people don't have a temple reccomend because of the 10%(and they check your tax records) or coffee(his friend sometimes overlooks the coffee & still gives the recommend). The young kids getting married are usually students or broke so the 10% is so minimal , it is easy to get a recommend. Once they are 30 with a house payment, car payment, 2-3 kids they can't afford the 10%.

My MIL passed away recently and I was walking through the cemetary which is mostly lds and reading the headstones the majority would say a wedding date and then a sealing date 2-3 years later. Like married in 1966 sealed for all time & eternity in 1968. This was how it was for a long time. In fact my husband's oldest brother got married straight off the mission and had a normal wedding. After ten years of marriage they decided to be sealed. My brother in law said he felt very strongly that you should wait because temple marriage is so important and forever. Ironically a year after the temple marriage his wife took off for Vegas to be a stripper and never came back (even for the kids!).

[mirele]

My MIL passed away recently and I was walking through the cemetary which is mostly lds and reading the headstones the majority would say a wedding date and then a sealing date 2-3 years later. Like married in 1966 sealed for all time & eternity in 1968. This was how it was for a long time. In fact my husband's oldest brother got married straight off the mission and had a normal wedding. After ten years of marriage they decided to be sealed. My brother in law said he felt very strongly that you should wait because temple marriage is so important and forever. Ironically a year after the temple marriage his wife took off for Vegas to be a stripper and never came back (even for the kids!).

Also, until the 1980s, there weren't a whole lot of temples out there. Until the Dallas temple was built, the nearest temples to Texas were Mesa and Washington, DC. Even in Utah, where there are more temples, it was only Salt Lake, St. George and Manti until the middle 1960s, when the Provo and Ogden temples were built.

Now there are temples everywhere. Oklahoma City, for example. Or a formerly wooded area on the north side of Houston that, back in the 1970s, was used by couples for parking and necking.

[treemom]

Mormons are fundamentalist to me...but I have a very broad defintition of that.

[MrsKay]

It's not just non-Mormons who can't go in the temple, it's even Mormons who are inactive or don't have a temple "recommendation" from their bishop (IIRC)

Yup - when my cousins had temple weddings, the majority of the (baptized Mormon) family was not allowed to attend. This included my grandmother, who is still heartsick, several years later. Also, all of my Mormon relatives use birth control. I deviated from the Mormon culture, and am now Pagan, but I have the biggest quiver of our generation with three kids. The Church approved my use of BCP starting at age 13, because I had awful endometriosis, but also because I was sexually active and out of control, and the elders agreed that it would be tragic if I were to get pregnant. However, they also celebrated the birth of my first child when I was 16, and supported me when I had to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons. I don't buy into their beliefs, but honestly have to say that my Mormon relatives are the least obnoxious out of all of my religious relatives.

Okay, the side-hug thing drives me a bit nuts, I'll admit that. My siblings and I always ignore those and defraud them by attacking with full-frontal hugs. One of my brothers also made it his mission to defraud the older boys with his copies of Easy Rider magazine when we were teenagers. :dance:

[QAF_Rocks]

Wasn't there an MTV "True Life" episode about a situation like this? The bride was Mormon and the groom wasn't. His mother was heartbroken that she couldn't attend the ceremony. The bride was very young (maybe 18? 20?), and had a spoiled brat, "Too bad, it's my wedding" attitude toward his mother. Maybe the bride wanted the temple wedding (and her marriage 'sealed') because of the fact that the groom wasn't Mormon?? (Or, maybe it was just the groom's mother who wasn't Mormon?)

That was an episode of Engaged and Underage: http://mormonstories.org/?p=237