posted
This came up in the LDS/gay marriage thread:
quote:We do have ring ceremonies after sealings sometimes to include family members (temple sealings do not include rings), but they aren't allowed to look like weddings, partly because people can get so worked up about them and forget the important part, which takes place in the temple.
and I realized that even though I've been to a lot of LDS weddings, I've never been to a ring ceremony. What are they like? What does it mean "they aren't allowed to look like weddings?"
And now my curiosity is piqued...
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Those are the two things that come to my mind first.
My brother got married to a convert last year and they had a ring ceremony. Their bishop spoke for a few minutes, they swapped rings, they kissed, and then we all went to the reception.
That was pretty much it. Mostly I rememeber the bishop talking for way to long. I think that's just my experience though.
Posts: 995 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're not allowed to look like weddings meaning that you shouldn't have a procession of your bridesmaids, groomsmen and then the bride walking up the aisle. No vows should be said. No "mock weddings".
Often ring ceremonies are performed for people who have many family members who are not members of the church. The ones I have seen usually go something like this:
The Bishop directs. The couple stands in front. The Bishop explains that the couple was previously married (earlier that day, or whenever) in the temple and that this was a special marriage in that they are now married for eternity. Since exchanging rings is not part of the temple ceremony, the couple has decided to share this with their family. They exchange rings. They kiss. No wedding vows (those were already done)
That's it. Very simple. I think it is nice for families who are not members and could not participate in the actual marriage ceremony.
edit: oh well...already said...I need to type faster
posted
Exchanging rings is not part of the temple marriage. Though at my marriage after the ceremony but in the same room we traded rings and had another kiss as I recall.
My friend had a ring exchange at the wedding breakfast. None of the parents were at the temple. That's probably the most different one I've seen. Of course, their wedding breakfast was at a really nice place Victorian mansion. It seems like at the ring exchange they did proclaim their love for each other, but it doesn't seem it was vows. They were sealed by an apostle, so I am inclined to think their way of doing it was not too bad. They didn't have a Bishop say anything, either. It was just the Groom and Bride.
P.S. To me, I think saying "This ring is a symbol of my love for you." is simply a factual statement.
I also remember someone dropped my ring when I was married. I don't remember if it was me or the Man.
My wife and I also said a few words to each other -- basically talking about our love for each other and what the rings symbolized for us.
Ours was beautiful and touching, and I'm glad we did it. I would suggest that if couples do a ring ceremony that they keep it semi-intimate -- confined to close relatives (siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts/uncles) and friends. We did ours before our reception.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rings are not part of the vows in a non-LDS Christian service either. They are a separate part of the ceremony.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slacker and I had a very informal ring-exchange (no one officiated or anything) - we just basically thanked everyone for coming to support us, exchanged our rings, and kissed. And then we all ate cake and drank punch and talked.
posted
Do you know, in Brazil, they have a real civil wedding, they're married for a day, and then the next day they usually go to the temple and get sealed. In Brazil, you can't do the legal stuff with the church stuff in the temple, you have to do the legal stuff first, so most couples just have a normal civil wedding shindig the day before and get simply sealed the next day.
I remember being confused by this and then realizing that area authority's daughters were doing this, so it was just the way it was down there.
I did see an LDS ring ceremony where the bride walked down the aisle of the chapel alone, met her husband at the front and they did the normal ring exchange thing. I don't know if there's a law in the handbooks anywhere that says what they're supposed to look like...
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there's any sort of "rule" about it, Narnia. I just think that the leaders of the Church want it to be very clear that we consider the temple ceremony to be the important part, not the rings. A ring ceremony is not a wedding, so they don't want people to treat it like a wedding, I think.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I gathered that. I'm glad people do them though, it's important for everyone that wants to participate in the events but can't be inside the temple.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't even realize they were that common. When Ruth and I were engaged, we didn't even think about doing a ring ceremony. All of her non-member relatives were fine with waiting outside the temple for us.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they are usually done only if some of the parents cannot attend.
I've never seen one before, but I'll be going to one next month for a friend who got baptized last year. Her parents are hosting the reception, and it will be there.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops. I'm getting my events mixed up. Only Ruth's grandparents came to Utah for the wedding and open house, and they were fine with waiting outside the temple. The rest of her non-member relatives were at the reception in Colorado a week later.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Jon, I can see how that is. My sister in law's mother was fine with that too and they didn't do a ring ceremony.
But some people are hurt and upset by the fact that they can't be a part of 'the' wedding. I know a lot of people with parents and relatives like that.
I might have something a little like that (when I eventually do get married...) because my very best friend in the world isn't a member and she was rather confused when she found out she wouldn't be able to be at my ceremony. She seemed hurt and at that moment, I understood, in part, why people have ring ceremonies.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In Brazil, they have a real civil wedding, they're married for a day, and then the next day they usually go to the temple and get sealed.
They also do this in Switzerland. They go to city hall- get married civilly and then within the week they go to the Temple.
My mission companions and I would often comment that this was the best of both worlds--it would please the parents who were not members in being part of the civil wedding, but you were able to be sealed without waiting a year after a civil wedding.
Edit: Growing up in a family where my immediate family members are the only members of the curch and where all my childhood friends are nonmembers, I can see how a ring ceremony would appease many potentially hurt feelings. I know that's why many of my friends have had one. However, all my friends from college who were raised in a mostly LDS family with many friends who were members didn't have one.
posted
Frankly, as you're describing the "ring ceremony" here -- an informal and largely pointless formality that, by "law," doesn't involve any exchange of vows or any kind of pomp at all -- I'd be kind of ticked.
I'd rather not have the opportunity to attend one at all -- and simply be told that I wasn't welcome at the wedding -- than get a consolation photo opportunity.
posted
It's not being passed off as something bigger, though.
quote:and simply be told that I wasn't welcome at the wedding
And you know that's not what not being able to attend the temple ceremony means. I HAVE been told I wasn't welcome at several family members' weddings, and I'm telling you, there's a difference.
posted
It's usually just attached to the reception. A lot of people don't feel the way you do Tom and feel better by taking part in some sort of "serious" part of the wedding.
Or maybe they DON'T feel better and it's just our imaginations. That's also a possibility. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The rings are not part of the vows in a non-LDS Christian service either. They are a separate part of the ceremony.
Really? What happened to "with this ring I thee wed?" Is that in the movies only?
My BIL and SIL had a ring ceremony, it was very nice. There were a few songs, and the bishop talked about what had happened in the temple, and they each said some very nice things and exchanged the rings.
I can see being ticked off at the ring ceremony, too. But there isn't really any way around the fact that a temple sealing is not open to everyone. People don't want any hurt feelings, and they do wish everyone could be there, and they do their best. But being sealed in the temple is more important than making everyone happy (which often won't happen in any case).
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The language “with this ring I thee wed,” is in the older form of the UMC service, and the services of some other denominations, but it’s not a part of the vows. The basic order of service is:
Greeting Declaration of Intent . . . (this is the “I do” or “I will” part) Proclamation . . . (Scripture and sermon) Exchange of Vows . . . (“I <name> take you <name> to be my wife/husband . . .” etc.) Blessing and Exchange of Rings Declaration of the Marriage Blessing of the Marriage Communion (in some denominations) Benediction
I think the movie and TV versions tend to condense the service, or only show part of it, or make stuff up.
posted
Heather and I did a really informal ring-ceremony-ish-type-thing at the wedding luncheon. Basically, we told funny stories about each other, showed off the rings (particularly the fact that Heather had engraved our anniversary on the inside of my band), and then exchanged them.
For us, it wasn't in any way a substitute wedding. It had no trappings of ceremony or anything. But the temple ceremony itself doesn't really involve a lot of personality on the part of the couple. Within the sealing room, we were mostly just there to say yes to things. We were there to listen and ponder and accept promises, not really to say that much.
So later, ALL of our parents (including Heather's father, who isn't a member) got to participate, together, in the part of the wedding that really reflected US, and who we were.
It was different from being there for the actual wedding, and we knew that, but I think it was still pretty cool. I mean, the gesture does mean something, even if it falls short of changing the rules.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the UK its the law that a wedding ceremony has to take place in a venue where anyone can attend. Therefore, all couples in the UK have to be married civilly first and then go to the temple and are sealed the same day.
They have to get a special dispensation if they can't attend the Temple on the same day. Otherwise, they have to wait a year before being sealed in the Temple.
Its not too bad now we have two Temples in the UK. People living in the North used to have to schedule their civil ceremony really early in the morning in order to be able to get to the London Temple in time to be sealed the same day. 2-6 hr drive depending on how far North you live.
Now I only live 20 minutes from the Preston Temple. It used to take us around 3 hours to London.
Our civil wedding ceremonies include the walking down the aisle, exchanging vows, rings etc. The church did bring in guidelines in the 90's about the number of bridesmaids, decorations etc. that you could have. We usually have someone speak at the wedding and explain about Eternal Marriage and emphasize that the sealing is the most important part of the day for the benefit of any non-members attending. Its quite a good missionary tool actually.
I used to think it really weird when Utah missionaries serving in my home ward said they'd never been to a wedding ceremony.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So a sealing remains a simple, sacred occasion, and the participants don't try to upstage it by throwing a Princess coronation and a worldly display of wealth on that day.
No selling out to worldly standards of what the day means, not even accidently.
--
It does mean temple sealings are remarkably easy to coordinate. Call the temple, make an appointment, give both your names, and you're done. Woohoo! That's the important part. The rest is just gravy, and the guidelines keep the gravy from drowning every else.
Having said that, I'm suprised if it was the whole church. I've never heard of guidelines for it, except for the ones mentioned for the ring ceremonies. Maybe it was your area authorities?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I marry I will have to have a ring ceremony, as my family is not LDS and is prone to interpret LDS things in an unsympathetic way. But for sure I would want to keep things very simple, no matter what. Immediate family and one or two of my very closest friends. No attendants. I always love weddings like that.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband and I didn't get married in the temple; our bishop had been in the office for a couple of weeks and we had to have a wedding strictly by the handbook (or large binder, as the case may be ) which meant a small, informal ceremony NOT in the chapel, with opening prayer and hymn and closing prayer and hymn.
(They didn't tell me about the opening hymn, so there I was, in the front of the Primary room, eight months pregnant,nineteen, everyone obvoiusly uncomfortable,leafing through the hymnbook in search of a short hymn easy enough for the impromptu piano player. I have been in seminary devotionals far better planned.)
At least in the US, the church really stresses that getting married in the temple is the way to go. Technically, civil LDS marriages aren't supposed to be in reception centers and should be very small.
In my experience, the kind of people most likely to make a stink about not getting to go into the temple would be satisfied with a ring ceremony, however superficial a ceremony it may seem.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think that's just my experience though.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't know if there's a law in the handbooks anywhere that says what they're supposed to look like...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
