Temple wedding policies

[Jeanne]

On 6/10/2017 at 11:06 PM, jcake said:

I think that the big reason many prospective couples who want to be sealed, also want a civil wedding first, is to prevent heartbroken non-member parents from missing their child's wedding, and the subsequent relationship struggles that can bring.  I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat the idea that I think would be a good possibility.  If a very simple civil wedding could be held in a designated waiting room at the temple, followed by the bride and groom going to the sealing room with those who can attend and having the sealing performed.  The parents, and close relatives that couldn't attend would remain in the waiting room, where a temple worker could explain and teach them about the temple sealing and what it means, that would show such love and respect to those family members, and rather than causing hurt, the marriage could be be a wonderful opportunity to strengthen bonds with new family members and prevent much heartache.  I don't think it would in any way be disrespectful of the sealing ordinance.

Just my two cents.

jcake

 

It is this simple and reflects honor to parents unable to attend a sealing.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Jeanne

[Jeanne]

Question for everyone..I know this sounds kind of tacky..but..if the bride's parents are unable to participate in ANY ceremony...to what extent should they invest $$ to pay for a reception for both parties involved??

[ksfisher]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Question for everyone..I know this sounds kind of tacky..but..if the bride's parents are unable to participate in ANY ceremony...to what extent should they invest $$ to pay for a reception for both parties involved??

I would imagine individual circumstances would dictate how much each party could pay.

[Jeanne]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I would imagine individual circumstances would dictate how much each party could pay.

True.  I asked only because it was brought up on another board and I had never thought of that before.  Apparently, some fathers are rather ticked off because they aren't good enough for a ceremony ...but good enough to fork out the money.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

True.  I asked only because it was brought up on another board and I had never thought of that before.  Apparently, some fathers are rather ticked off because they aren't good enough for a ceremony ...but good enough to fork out the money.

I would not expect parents to pay anything for the wedding under any circumstances. If they did so, I would regard it as an expression of generosity, not the granting of an entitlement. And it would be understandable if a parent, believing he/she was being excluded, declined to pay for it.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My responses are what they are. If they don't satisfy you, well, I can only invoke the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts: Get used to disappointment.

As an active and vocal participant in this thread, I would think you would wish to be understood.  All I asked for was some clarification.  Nothing I said warranted your rude and dismissive response.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As an active and vocal participant in this thread, I would think you would wish to be understood.  All I asked for was some clarification.  Nothing I said warranted your rude and dismissive response.

ttribe, are you trying to pick a fight with me yet again?

I won't be baited. Have a nice day.

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

ttribe, are you trying to pick a fight with me yet again?

I won't be baited. Have a nice day.

Nope.  I am genuinely stunned at your dismissiveness and unwillingness to explain your position.

[rockpond]

On 6/10/2017 at 11:06 PM, jcake said:

I think that the big reason many prospective couples who want to be sealed, also want a civil wedding first, is to prevent heartbroken non-member parents from missing their child's wedding, and the subsequent relationship struggles that can bring.  I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat the idea that I think would be a good possibility.  If a very simple civil wedding could be held in a designated waiting room at the temple, followed by the bride and groom going to the sealing room with those who can attend and having the sealing performed.  The parents, and close relatives that couldn't attend would remain in the waiting room, where a temple worker could explain and teach them about the temple sealing and what it means, that would show such love and respect to those family members, and rather than causing hurt, the marriage could be be a wonderful opportunity to strengthen bonds with new family members and prevent much heartache.  I don't think it would in any way be disrespectful of the sealing ordinance.

Just my two cents.

jcake

 

That's a great idea and I love what it would do for the relationship between the members/church and non-members.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would not expect parents to pay anything for the wedding under any circumstances. If they did so, I would regard it as an expression of generosity, not the granting of an entitlement. And it would be understandable if a parent, believing he/she was being excluded, declined to pay for it.

That is kind of how I look at it too.  My husband and I paid for our reception and everything except my wedding dress.

[Meerkat]

On 5/14/2017 at 6:42 PM, bsjkki said:

When did the church institute the 'wait a year' temple wedding policy? Google has not provided a quick answer. Do you think this will ever change?  Is this policy a good thing or bad thing for missionary opportunities? 

I like the policy.  As new converts, my wife and I waited the year.  I felt, after six months, I was ready and secretly upset that we couldn't go.  By the time we hit the one year mark, humility and spiritual maturity were beginning to take hold.  My desire was strong.  My gratitude was deep.  I did not see Temple attendance as my "right," but rather a sacred invitation by the Owner of the House, according to conditions He set.  I would compare it to a period of testing.  We advance when proven capable.  Most college curriculums require four years of class time before a degree is awarded.  Temple Attendance, I believe, falls into that category.

The year requirement should not affect the missionary opportunity one way or the other.  If this is the Restored Gospel, the Elect will respond to it and order their lives accordingly.  The Church is true, isn't it?  Yes, it is!

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

I like the policy.  As new converts, my wife and I waited the year.  I felt, after six months, I was ready and secretly upset that we couldn't go.  By the time we hit the one year mark, humility and spiritual maturity were beginning to take hold.  My desire was strong.  My gratitude was deep.  I did not see Temple attendance as my "right," but rather a sacred invitation by the Owner of the House, according to conditions He set.  I would compare it to a period of testing.  We advance when proven capable.  Most college curriculums require four years of class time before a degree is awarded.  Temple Attendance, I believe, falls into that category.

The year requirement should not affect the missionary opportunity one way or the other.  If this is the Restored Gospel, the Elect will respond to it and order their lives accordingly.  The Church is true, isn't it?  Yes, it is!

Thank you for sharing your experience and testimony.

I agree that temple attendance is not a "right".  I also think that there is a difference between the 1-year waiting period for new converts vs the 1-year wait for those who are otherwise worthy temple recommend holders but choose to have a civil ceremony for non-member or non-endowed loved ones.

[Meerkat]

On 5/25/2017 at 11:08 AM, bluebell said:

In the BYU one that Kllindley linked to Kimball does address members (who grew up members) who chose not to marry in temple.  He mentions one couple who did so and then died 3 hours after their civil ceremony and how it is not a given that God will ever allow them to embrace those blessings in the afterlife when they rejected them while alive.  He goes over quite thoroughly that temple work for the dead is for those who did not have the opportunity to have it done while alive and not for those who had the opportunity but didn't take it.  I think he leaves the ultimate resolution in God's judgment, just stating what the scriptures say about it.

However, he does not address the specific example of someone choosing a civil ceremony for nonmember parents.  Not that I saw anyway (I read some parts and skimmed others).

If the scriptures are consistent, there is irony.  On the one hand, we hear "33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein can be no labor performed."  Alma 34:33

On the other hand:

31 "And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins (in the Spirit World,) and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

33 These (who died in transgression, having rejected the prophets,) were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, (all Temple ordinances.  Do we need those ordinances to enter the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms?)

34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."  Doctrine and Covenants 138:31-34

Then there is 2 Nephi 10:2 which says "2 For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be restored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer."

I choose to cling to hope that my loving Heavenly Father has more mercy than I do for the repentant soul, and that many who appear lost will yet turn around and come back.  I don't know how to reconcile these two concepts, so like you Bluebell, I leave it in God's hands and pray in faith, as did the the servant in Jacob 5.  

49 "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: Let us go to and hew down the trees of the vineyard and cast them into the fire, that they shall not cumber the ground of my vineyard, for I have done all. What could I have done more for my vineyard?

50 But, behold, the servant said unto the Lord of the vineyard: Spare it a little longer.

51 And the Lord said: Yea, I will spare it a little longer, for it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard."

My great hope is that there is a solution somewhere in there, with Jesus Christ advocating for the lost to "spare them a little longer," even into the Spirit World where they may be taught and receive the Celestial ordinances.

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Question for everyone..I know this sounds kind of tacky..but..if the bride's parents are unable to participate in ANY ceremony...to what extent should they invest $$ to pay for a reception for both parties involved??

 No bride's parent or groom's for that matter is obligated to invest anything, imo.  What is given should be a gift of love, not obligation to the social niceties or traditions.

[Meerkat]

On 6/10/2017 at 10:06 PM, jcake said:

I think that the big reason many prospective couples who want to be sealed, also want a civil wedding first, is to prevent heartbroken non-member parents from missing their child's wedding, and the subsequent relationship struggles that can bring.  I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat the idea that I think would be a good possibility.  If a very simple civil wedding could be held in a designated waiting room at the temple, followed by the bride and groom going to the sealing room with those who can attend and having the sealing performed.  The parents, and close relatives that couldn't attend would remain in the waiting room, where a temple worker could explain and teach them about the temple sealing and what it means, that would show such love and respect to those family members, and rather than causing hurt, the marriage could be be a wonderful opportunity to strengthen bonds with new family members and prevent much heartache.  I don't think it would in any way be disrespectful of the sealing ordinance.

Just my two cents.

jcake

 

 

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's a great idea and I love what it would do for the relationship between the members/church and non-members.

These are wonderful posts.  When my brothers joined the Church and were married in the Temple, my parents were good sports about it.  However, there was a sadness.  Their virtuous lives and examples pointed the three of us to the Restored Church.  If our parents aren't there, I would be surprised if I could make it.  One of the things that I love about the Restored Gospel is that it is a Gospel of changed behavior, repentance, rather than mere belief.  

 

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

 No bride's parent or groom's for that matter is obligated to invest anything, imo.  What is given should be a gift of love, not obligation to the social niceties or traditions.

That is kind of how i feel too.  Maybe it is a culture thing..that parents are "supposed" to pay for reception/wedding while the groom's family hosts a wedding breakfast or rehearsal dinner and flowers..

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

These are wonderful posts.  When my brothers joined the Church and were married in the Temple, my parents were good sports about it.  However, there was a sadness.  Their virtuous lives and examples pointed the three of us to the Restored Church.  If our parents aren't there, I would be surprised if I could make it.  One of the things that I love about the Restored Gospel is that it is a Gospel of changed behavior, repentance, rather than mere belief. 

Same thing here. Me and two brothers, joining and marrying years apart, married in the temple but parents not members. Our mother died, but some 15 years later our father joined in his 80s. We were there for his endowment, his sealing to our mother, and of course our sealing to them. It all works out. After the sealing, I suddenly felt as though we had all been sealed all along, and I think that is how the Lord and the rest see it too.

My wife and I "eloped" -- both sets of non-member parents were thousands of miles away. We gave up the attendant celebrations but we were all adults about it and adjusted just fine. And all the money saved was a collateral benefit (our gift to them)!

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Meerkat said:

If the scriptures are consistent, there is irony.  On the one hand, we hear "33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein can be no labor performed."  Alma 34:33

On the other hand:

31 "And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins (in the Spirit World,) and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

33 These (who died in transgression, having rejected the prophets,) were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, (all Temple ordinances.  Do we need those ordinances to enter the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms?)

34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."  Doctrine and Covenants 138:31-34

Then there is 2 Nephi 10:2 which says "2 For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be restored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer."

I choose to cling to hope that my loving Heavenly Father has more mercy than I do for the repentant soul, and that many who appear lost will yet turn around and come back.  I don't know how to reconcile these two concepts, so like you Bluebell, I leave it in God's hands and pray in faith, as did the the servant in Jacob 5.  

49 "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: Let us go to and hew down the trees of the vineyard and cast them into the fire, that they shall not cumber the ground of my vineyard, for I have done all. What could I have done more for my vineyard?

50 But, behold, the servant said unto the Lord of the vineyard: Spare it a little longer.

51 And the Lord said: Yea, I will spare it a little longer, for it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard."

My great hope is that there is a solution somewhere in there, with Jesus Christ advocating for the lost to "spare them a little longer," even into the Spirit World where they may be taught and receive the Celestial ordinances.

 

I have no doubt that God's mercy will be perfectly applied to us all.  And thank goodness for that.

[Garden Girl]

On 6/12/2017 at 10:38 AM, Jeanne said:

Question for everyone..I know this sounds kind of tacky..but..if the bride's parents are unable to participate in ANY ceremony...to what extent should they invest $$ to pay for a reception for both parties involved??

You're right... tacky... 

No, seriously, there is no reason all parents, family, and friends cannot share in the joys of the day in some way... if... if done right.  I've attended two "ring ceremonies" that were wonderful and inclusive...i.e., they were held in the cultural hall, which was literally transformed into a lovely venue by draping the walls with curtains, subdued lighting, flowers, buffet table with area for the wedding cake, etc., and tables/chairs for the guests.

The procession of flower girls, bridesmaids and groomsmen entered... followed by the bride's father with the bride on his arm... the bride and groom joining under a lovely arbor, a brief talk by the bishop, and an exchange of rings... a reception line then formed with bride, groom, and parents... pictures taken while buffet dinner was served, followed by cutting of cake, and throwing of bouquet... all followed by numerous "toasts" and dancing... IMO any parents who felt left out or that they missed their child's wedding were being unreasonable...

GG

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

You're right... tacky... 

No, seriously, there is no reason all parents, family, and friends cannot share in the joys of the day in some way... if... if done right.  I've attended two "ring ceremonies" that were wonderful and inclusive...i.e., they were held in the cultural hall, which was literally transformed into a lovely venue by draping the walls with curtains, subdued lighting, flowers, buffet table with area for the wedding cake, etc., and tables/chairs for the guests.

The procession of flower girls, bridesmaids and groomsmen entered... followed by the bride's father with the bride on his arm... the bride and groom joining under a lovely arbor, a brief talk by the bishop, and an exchange of rings... a reception line then formed with bride, groom, and parents... pictures taken while buffet dinner was served, followed by cutting of cake, and throwing of bouquet... all followed by numerous "toasts" and dancing... IMO any parents who felt left out or that they missed their child's wedding were being unreasonable...

GG

yeah..it is kind of tacky...to some point I understand fathers paying for weddings that they might not get to attend...but then..even as a non member...I would feel bad if I didn't give or help my daughter get a wonderful reception or anything she desired for her wedding day..temple or otherwise.  Love you GG!  Actually...my own wedding was wonderful. But the reception was to die for..what bride can through a bouguet and have it land on a beam in the ceiling..yeah..right..the pedals..flowers..baby breathes belonged to everybody when we finally got the darn thing down..

 

P.S.  Would somebody please marry my independent daughter???

Edited June 14, 2017 by Jeanne

[Calm]

"fathers paying for weddings that they might not get to attend"

There is no fee for a temple wedding, the wedding dress is usually more for the reception than the wedding (I know many brides who simply buy a Temple dress for the wedding and the fancy dress is used only for pictures and the reception).

Iow, there is nothing the father (and why just fathers? Given how many 2 income or single mother families there are, it usually isn't just paid for by a father these days, I bet) pays for in the ceremony he misses.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Calm

[bsjkki]

Update: I attended the wedding with the non member parents. It went very well. They had a lovely ring ceremony that was very well done. The couple even exchanged vows. The non member parents were happy and had a good day. The east coast, catholic, father spent a whole day after the wedding in the family history library. Overall, things worked out well and the religious rift in the family has lessened. Much prayer and concern was shown by the member family to include and accommodate the non member parents.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Update: I attended the wedding with the non member parents. It went very well. They had a lovely ring ceremony that was very well done. The couple even exchanged vows. The non member parents were happy and had a good day. The east coast, catholic, father spent a whole day after the wedding in the family history library. Overall, things worked out well and the religious rift in the family has lessened. Much prayer and concern was shown by the member family to include and accommodate the non member parents.

This works...it sounds like a wonderful beginning for both families and the happy couple!!