Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Why is there a 1 year waiting period to get a temple sealing after civil marriage?


Recommended Posts

If you get a civil ceremony marriage you have to wait 1 whole year to be temple sealed. Why is that? My dad's not a member so he couldn't attend my brother's temple sealing or mine if I get married in the future, and my brother would have had a civil ceremony first before the temple sealing so he and other non member relatives could attend, but they say he would then have to had waited a whole year to get the temple sealing done. My brother and his wife did not want to wait a year. Why do they do that? They should be allowed a civil ceremony right before the temple sealing like other countries do, otherwise many family members get hurt and feel excluded. My dad still hasn't forgiven the church for being excluded from seeing my brother's wedding and that was in 2006.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If you get a civil ceremony marriage you have to wait 1 whole year to be temple sealed. Why is that? My dad's not a member so he couldn't attend my brother's temple sealing or mine if I get married in the future, and my brother would have had a civil ceremony first before the temple sealing so he and other non member relatives could attend, but they say he would then have to had waited a whole year to get the temple sealing done. My brother and his wife did not want to wait a year. Why do they do that? They should be allowed a civil ceremony right before the temple sealing like other countries do, otherwise many family members get hurt and feel excluded. My dad still hasn't forgiven the church for being excluded from seeing my brother's wedding and that was in 2006.

I have some thoughts on this.  However, before I post them I would like you answer the following questions:

1. Do you think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?

2. Are you willing to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt as to having a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a resource written by John Walsh that may be useful: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/dating/temple_marriage.html

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

I believe the thinking is that by getting a civil marriage first to accommodate family that can't attend in the temple, it is like you are saying that a civil marriage is more important than a sealing in the temple. If you choose a civil marriage over a sealing it is seen as a demonstration of your lack of obedience and faith to do it the right way the first time regardless of what the extended family wants.
It might be seen as an indication of ones lack of worthiness to be sealed in the temple, and therefore the couple must wait a year to be sure they are ready and worthy. I think eventually this will change to the way it is done in other countries where it is required by law to be married civilly first and then a sealing can happen the next day.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If you get a civil ceremony marriage you have to wait 1 whole year to be temple sealed. Why is that? My dad's not a member so he couldn't attend my brother's temple sealing or mine if I get married in the future, and my brother would have had a civil ceremony first before the temple sealing so he and other non member relatives could attend, but they say he would then have to had waited a whole year to get the temple sealing done. My brother and his wife did not want to wait a year. Why do they do that? They should be allowed a civil ceremony right before the temple sealing like other countries do, otherwise many family members get hurt and feel excluded. My dad still hasn't forgiven the church for being excluded from seeing my brother's wedding and that was in 2006.

My parents did not see 5 of their kids including me get sealed in the Temple but they did not blame the Church for it.  The Church did not stand in the way of them getting to the Temple but they stood in their own way by their own decisions.  There are certain standards to go to the temple and we choose ourselves whether to comply to the standards.  I see the temple to be a reflection of the Celestial Kingdom.  God does not keep any of his children from the Celestial Kingdom.  His children keep themselves from it by the decisions they choose to make. 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have some thoughts on this.  However, before I post them I would like you answer the following questions:

1. Do you think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?

2. Are you willing to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt as to having a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a resource written by John Walsh that may be useful: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/dating/temple_marriage.html

Not when it hurts so many families including my own.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My parents did not see 5 of their kids including me get sealed in the Temple but they did not blame the Church for it.  The Church did not stand in the way of them getting to the Temple but they stood in their own way by their own decisions.  There are certain standards to go to the temple and we choose ourselves whether to comply to the standards.  I see the temple to be a reflection of the Celestial Kingdom.  God does not keep any of his children from the Celestial Kingdom.  His children keep themselves from it by the decisions they choose to make. 

That doesn't explain why they can't allow a civil ceremony beforehand so non endowed can see, and then have the sealing right after. I understand the importance of temple sealings, but family members' feelings are never considered.

Link to comment

As for me, the whole civil marriage part is around the same level as taking out a mortgage for a house.   It maybe in important but I personally don't get too excited about it.  If the law required a civil marriage before the temple sealing, I would not have anyone attend my civil marriage.  I would keep the entire emphasis on the temple.  Likewise if one my my kids did it, I would take time off work to attend the temple sealing.  Missing the civil marriage part would not be a big deal.  I would probably not take time off work if I was scheduled to work.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Not when it hurts so many families including my own.

To be clear, when I ask "Do you think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?" and "Are you willing to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt as to having a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?", your answer to both questions is "No"?

If that is the case, then there's not much point in providing a substantive response to your inquiry.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

To be clear, when I ask "Do you think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?" and "Are you willing to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt as to having a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?", your answer to both questions is "No"?

If that is the case, then there's not much point in providing a substantive response to your inquiry.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sure the leaders had a good reason, but they need to update it to accomedate for different situations. It's so black and white. And I have to give the leaders of the church benefit of the doubt if I want to keep my temple recommend. I'm kind of forced to obedience or suffer the consequences.

Link to comment

In my own case my wife's family were all non-members and it was a little hard for them to not be able to see their own daughter get married, but members of my side were allowed to attend. They were good sports about it though and enjoyed all the rest that came with the wedding. My father -in-law did insist on seeing the marriage certificate to convince him that we really were married. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I heard (not sure where) but that the church is thinking about making some concessions on this.  I hope they do.

There was some chatter in social media and some limited mainstream media to that effect. Church Public Affairs issued a one sentence response: "Church leaders are well aware of the issues involved and continue to examine them carefully."

That was nearly two years ago. There has been nothing said since then that I am aware of.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
12 hours ago, JAHS said:

I believe the thinking is that by getting a civil marriage first to accommodate family that can't attend in the temple, it is like you are saying that a civil marriage is more important than a sealing in the temple. If you choose a civil marriage over a sealing it is seen as a demonstration of your lack of obedience and faith to do it the right way the first time regardless of what the extended family wants.
It might be seen as an indication of ones lack of worthiness to be sealed in the temple, and therefore the couple must wait a year to be sure they are ready and worthy. I think eventually this will change to the way it is done in other countries where it is required by law to be married civilly first and then a sealing can happen the next day.

If I were pressed to make a prediction on whether it will eventually change, I would have to say probably not.

Joseph Smith said,

Quote

“Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”

There is an element of sacrifice in making oneself worthy to enter the house of the Lord. Couples who are not willing to place all other considerations aside -- including the risk of upsetting family members if it comes to that -- would seem to lack the essential attitude of sacrifice that temple worthiness requires.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I believe the thinking is that by getting a civil marriage first to accommodate family that can't attend in the temple, it is like you are saying that a civil marriage is more important than a sealing in the temple. If you choose a civil marriage over a sealing it is seen as a demonstration of your lack of obedience and faith to do it the right way the first time regardless of what the extended family wants.
 

I also think there is an implicit assumption that those not getting married in the temple do so because of unworthiness.

They must be unworthy or they would get married in the temple.

If they are unworthy, they need a minimum one-year probation period to sort things out and get worthy.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain the need?  It's existence is not self-evident to me.  Don't get me wrong, I understand the hurt feelings that can and do arise when family members cannot attend a temple sealing.  But is it possible that there are other factors which have been taken into account?

Personally, I think changing the policy would have some some upsides and some downsides.  The "upsides" could be things like

A) family members who cannot attend would appreciate participating in a civil ceremony (though an exchange-of-rings ceremony already fulfill this function for the most part), and

B) some LDS couples who want to appease family members by having a civil ceremony prior to the temple sealing will have the option to do so.

On the other had, some of the "downsides" could be things like 

A) family members who cannot attend may still feel affronted at not being able to attend the "real" ceremony (real to the couple being sealed, anyway),

B) family members who cannot attend may seek to aggrandize the civil ceremony at the expense of the temple ceremony (that is, characterize the former as the "real" one, and thus disparage the significance of the latter),

C) adding a civil ceremony to a wedding in the temple adds substantial logistical difficulties and time constraints to an already long and stressful wedding day, 

D) some LDS couples may prefer to marry in the temple only, but may feel compelled to have a civil ceremony to appease family members,

E) family members who attend a civil ceremony will still likely be asked to wait outside the temple during the sealing, so the fundamental problem at issue (feelings of exclusion) will probably not be resolved by including a civil ceremony as part of the day.

Personally, I would be happy with a change in the policy, but I will not speak out against the current policy or resort to untoward pressure tactics to make my feelings known.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm aware of none of those "downsides" materially coming into play in any of the countries where the one year waiting period policy is not in existence, are you?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm aware of none of those "downsides" materially coming into play in any of the countries where the one year waiting period policy is not in existence, are you?

I'm not aware one way or another.  I'm speculating, that's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I were pressed to make a prediction on whether it will eventually change, I would have to say probably not.

Joseph Smith said,

There is an element of sacrifice in making oneself worthy to enter the house of the Lord. Couples who are not willing to place all other considerations aside -- including the risk of upsetting family members if necessary -- would seem to lack the essential attitude of sacrifice that temple worthiness requires.

I agree but according to a news article   a couple years ago:

Quote

"Officials with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints addressed their rules regarding temple marriages as an organization is requesting change.

Under current rules, LDS couples in the U.S. and Canada who have their marriage ceremony outside of one of the church’s temples are required to wait one year before they can be sealed in a temple.

The group Family First Weddings is pushing for a change to those rules, and they are encouraging LDS Church leaders to reexamine the policy.

LDS Church officials said they are constantly examining such issues and that a change in the future is possible, but they said they want to be clear they are not announcing an immediate change in policy.

“Church leaders are well aware of the issues involved and continue to examine them carefully,” LDS Church spokesman Cody Craynor said in response to the issue.

This what makes me think there is a chance for a change, but it's not for certain.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not aware one way or another.  I'm speculating, that's all.

Thanks,

-Smac

My only experience with this relates to my wife's oldest brother who, ultimately, found the woman of his dreams while he was living in Paris, France.  Given that she was a returned missionary and her family was active (as was his), there was no issue whatsoever.  That being said, in all of my interactions with members both in the U.S. and overseas, the only ones I've heard mention "problems" regarding marrying in the temple and the impact of excluding family and friends who could not attend, are those living in the U.S.  Purely anecdotal, I know, but there you have it.

For the record, my father could not attend my wedding due to his long-standing inactivity.  At the time of my wedding (20+ years ago), I gave it very little thought.  14 years after his passing now, I regret my insensitivity to his desire to be there with me.

Link to comment

My wife is the only member in her family. When we were married, no one in her family could attend the sealing. Afterwards, we had a small-ish ring ceremony at the stake center where close friends and family were able to attend. The bishop explained that we were already married and so would not say the "I do" portion", but she still got to walk down an aisle and we did exchange rings at that time. People were grateful that we were able to do it that way, and I wouldn't change a thing. My wife still tears up a little when she thinks that here mother couldn't attend the sealing.

My brother and his wife eloped to Vegas. Had to wait a year (ended up being about 10 years) to finally make it to the temple to seal their marriage. Both told me it was a happier time at the sealing than eloping to Vegas.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...