All three of my kids were married in a Mormon solemn ceremony. The most recent was 3 years ago when my eldest son married in the American Fork Temple. The wedding caused a bit of a local sensation. Both the bride and groom are identical twins. For the honeymoon, the pair were headed to Seattle where my future daughter-in-law was to undergo brain surgery.
At the wedding, like the 2 previous, I was excluded from the actual temple sealing ceremony. So were my two brothers and my sister-in-law. My brother Lars, his wife, and son had flown in from Chicago. Lars had been close to our twin sons while he and I were both attending USU. He and his wife had helped support my son during his mission to the southern Philippines. My other brother had flown in from St. Louis. As it turned out, the four excluded adults provided babysitting service in the temple lobby.
All this seems eerily incongruous for a church that emphasizes family values. Missing from the wedding ceremony were the groom’s father, 2 of his uncles, and one of his aunts.
This bizarre situation is repeated too frequently. In the Winter 2006 issue of Dialogue, L. Jackson Newell recounts his personal saga: “Eric (son) and Allison Jones were engaged and planning to get married. They wished to wed in the Salt Lake Temple and assumed that Linda (spouse) and I, along with Allie’s parents would be there with them. As a condition of temple participation, members must pledge unflinching loyalty to all Church leaders and affirm their belief that the Mormon Church is the only true religion. I had not gone to the temple for years, but I knew I could not in good conscience make the statement of loyalty. Eric and Allie were crestfallen when Linda and I told them we would not be with them in the temple for the sealing ceremony. . . “
Explaining his reasoning: “. . . I did not want to play into a system that I believed more firmly than ever uses familial bonds unfairly as levers to encourage outward professions of loyalty to the Church. I was in a crucible that pitted principles against one another that I had forged and sought to honor over my entire life: loyalty to my conscience, loyalty to my family, and noncooperation with institutional misuses of power.”
One of the woman I work with struggles. She has extreme health problems, yet she works two jobs to pay the bills. She is a unique and wonderful woman; she takes first-class care of my needs, even though it isn’t her job. I love the woman dearly. She considers herself a good and active member of the Church, yet she didn’t get to attend her daughter’s temple wedding because she isn’t a full tithe payer. Is this really the wedding ceremony that Christ would have envisioned?
Another colleague’s children are gravitating toward marrying age. So are her nephews and nieces, with whom she is close. While her husband is in the Bishopric, she is uncomfortable with some Church teachings. Her brother died of AIDs, and this has caused her to ask questions. She currently doesn’t have a temple recommend and worries about her possible exclusion from the future wedding ceremonies.
Keeping close relatives out of weddings seems a travesty. I’m sure some diehard Mormons have a quick retort, but exclusionary practice is just plain wrong on so many levels, particularly given the Church’s strong emphasis on family. I guess family only has meaning to “active” Mormons.
The following paragraph from a letter to the editor appeared in the Spring 2009 Dialogue:
“My niece will be married in the Provo Temple later this week; and, again, I will be on the outside, not only for the ceremony but for a part of her that doesn’t quite know how to include me in her life. In Utah Valley, having a gay uncle, no matter how distant, becomes her cross to bear.”
Craig Watts
Beijing, China