Sealings can be done right away now!

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Isn't there still a sealing performed?  Or has that changed?

I know my Grandfather was sealed for time only to his second wife and it took place in the Salt Lake temple.  

If it's not a sealing, what is the ceremony like (if you know)?

If I remember right it was done in a large waiting room and not in a sealing room but it has been a long time. I have only been to one for an extended family member and it was right after my mission and before the guidelines changed so it may have changed as well. There was also an admonition to return to the temple to be sealed later but I am guessing that is gone too as there would be no waiting for a sealing cancellation under the new guidelines and under those guidelines you would never seek a later sealing.

[alter idem]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a marriage without a sealing. The marriage ends at death.

It's a sealing for time only.  The words are the same, except it's for this life only.

[alter idem]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If I remember right it was done in a large waiting room and not in a sealing room but it has been a long time. I have only been to one for an extended family member and it was right after my mission and before the guidelines changed so it may have changed as well. There was also an admonition to return to the temple to be sealed later but I am guessing that is gone too as there would be no waiting for a sealing cancellation under the new guidelines and under those guidelines you would never seek a later sealing.

A time only sealing is performed in the sealing room, same as the sealing for eternity. 

[alter idem]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Isn't there still a sealing performed?  Or has that changed?

I know my Grandfather was sealed for time only to his second wife and it took place in the Salt Lake temple.  

If it's not a sealing, what is the ceremony like (if you know)?

It is a sealing, it is a sealing for time only.  If she was a widow or divorced and still sealed to her first husband, that's likely why they would have been sealed for this life only.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

It's a sealing for time only.  The words are the same, except it's for this life only.

I believe it is a marriage for time only. I have never heard it called a sealing. The words would not be the same since much of the wording of a sealing applies to the eternities.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

A time only sealing is performed in the sealing room, same as the sealing for eternity. 

Could have been but I do not remember them using the altar in their wedding. Then again this was almost 20 years ago and My memory could be faulty. Plus I was more preoccupied with going to the beach and surfing once the wedding was over so I was not paying a ton of attention.

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

We are happy as well. My daughter is of marriage age and has worried about in the future not having loved ones there.

The wording is interesting to me:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Monday that a civil marriage between a man and a woman will no longer necessitate waiting a year for that couple to be to married (or sealed) in a temple. "

Are we saying some couples will do civil marriages and then temple marriages, but not sealings?  I know temple marriages without sealings happen, but didn't know there was a wait after civil marriages nor did I ever hearing anyone wanting to do both without the sealing.

 

I'm going to guess that the words "married" or "sealed" in the temple are being used synonymously.

M.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting. I always learn something new

Earthly marriages are until death do you part. The idea of sealings is that what is sealed on earth can/will be sealed in heaven. It is the same type of key exercised in our proxy baptisms for our ancestors. They generally are not in heaven yet. They are in paradise or spirit prison/hell in an unresurrected state - like Yeshua told the "thief" with him up on the cross. If they died without accepting Christ or knowing of Him, a proxy baptism allows them to accept a baptism on their behalf through priesthood sealing power. It is the same kind of thing for a marriage sealing covenant - which allows the earthly covenant to continue after death. They can be done for the living as well as the dead. Those on the other side do not have to accept a sealing done on their behalf. LDS believe men will be resurrected as men, and women as women... that marital felicity can continue. The exception is that sealing powers no longer apply once one is resurrected; one cannot enter the marriage covenant in the resurrection, and without the sealing power any earthly marriages have been ended.

Edited May 6, 2019 by RevTestament

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

First thing I did when I saw it.

Hopefully they have time to add in the civil ceremony before the temple. My wife and I (38 years now) went to the temple and our parents weren't members. At least we had all met before, prior to our engagement. We were thousands of miles away which made it worse in some ways, better in others, and practical, convenient and affordable in others. Everyone seemed to have let bygones be bygones by the time we all got together again some 18 months later.

[rockpond]

Here is the Handbook 1 section on time only temple marriages ---

3.6.2

Marriage in a Temple for Time Only

Marriage in a temple for time only may be performed only when all of the following requirements are met:

1. The man and the woman are each already sealed to a spouse who is deceased.

2. Neither the man nor the woman has been involved in a divorce while a member of the Church.

3. The man and the woman each has a valid temple recommend and a recommend for living ordinances.

4. Temple marriages are legal marriages in the country where the temple is located.

5. The couple has a valid marriage license.

A marriage in the temple for time only will not be authorized for a woman who is in the process of seeking a cancellation of sealing.

For the policy on sealing a couple who were married in the temple for time only, see “Sealing after Temple Marriage for Time Only,” 3.7.1.6.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Isn't there still a sealing performed?  Or has that changed?

I know my Grandfather was sealed for time only to his second wife and it took place in the Salt Lake temple.  

If it's not a sealing, what is the ceremony like (if you know)?

I attended my grandmother's time only wedding in the temple.  I don't remember exactly what it was like though, it's been probably 15 years or so.  There was no sealing that I remember.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is really unfortunate.  This policy was always a fantastic way to keep young people focussed on what mattered.  

I predict a massive drop off in young LDS deciding to get sealed ** at all **.  I think @Scott Lloyd would agree.

Has this happened in countries where this is the policy?

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I believe it is a marriage for time only. I have never heard it called a sealing. The words would not be the same since much of the wording of a sealing applies to the eternities.

Marriage in a Temple for Time Only
Marriage in a temple for time only may be performed only when all of the following requirements are met:
The man and the woman are each already sealed to a spouse who is deceased.
Neither the man nor the woman has been involved in a divorce while a member of the Church.
The man and the woman each has a valid temple recommend and a recommend for living ordinances.
Temple marriages are legal marriages in the country where the temple is located.The couple has a valid marriage license.

Sealing after Temple Marriage for Time Only
"Couples who are married in a temple for time only are not usually sealed at a later time. For such a sealing to occur, the woman must first receive from the First Presidency a cancellation of her previous sealing. Such requests are considered only in exceptional circumstances. If a bishop and stake president feel that a cancellation may be justified, they may submit an application to the First Presidency using the Leader and Clerk Resources system." (CHI)

So the "time only" thing is called a marriage and then they can be sealed later if they get permission. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by JAHS

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

was talking to my Father about this just a few minutes ago (he's an old timer Mormon  ), and he shook his head and said,   "They're just making it easier and easier on these kids to keep them happy and hopefully keep them in the church."  He may be right, but I fully support this change.

Life has enough hardship built in.  One doesn't need to create more unnecessarily.

I think making rules consistent across the Church where possible is essential to create a sense of global community.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Life has enough hardship built in.  One doesn't need to create more unnecessarily.

I think making rules consistent across the Church where possible is essential to create a sense of global community.

I agree.  It's too bad this change didn't take place years ago (or it was just always consistent throughout the church so there was no need for this change).

I just read of a Father who was kept out of his daughter's wedding just a few weeks ago.  He's trying not to be bitter about it, but it's painful and he realizes he missed seeing her married by just a few weeks (if this had been announced sooner, she would have opted for a civil wedding first followed by a sealing).  His daughter is heart broken about it as well.

Edited May 6, 2019 by ALarson

[alter idem]

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Could have been but I do not remember them using the altar in their wedding. Then again this was almost 20 years ago and My memory could be faulty. Plus I was more preoccupied with going to the beach and surfing once the wedding was over so I was not paying a ton of attention.

I had a sealing for time only before I was sealed for eternity to my husband, this was 34 years ago, so I'm going from what I experienced.  We were sealed for time only in the sealing room and the temple president explained it to us.  I've always remembered it as a sealing for time only, the only thing different was the wording--it was not for time and all eternity but for time only.

It seems like it is a moot point since they are no longer done, but for me, it was a memorable occasion and very special in my life.

[Joshua Valentine]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Welp, that is it. The Church is now apostate. Time to pack it in. I am off to Vegas to hire a hooker.

Now, The Nehor, God taking away the true church from the face of the earth is no reason to go lax on hygiene.

[Joshua Valentine]

2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is really unfortunate.  This policy was always a fantastic way to keep young people focussed on what mattered.  

I predict a massive drop off in young LDS deciding to get sealed ** at all **.  I think @Scott Lloyd would agree.

If a policy is required for some youth to stay focused on ¨what mattered¨ then perhaps those individuals should drop off rather than be propped up artificially.

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That would be a good thing. If you are willing to give up a temple sealing because you consider it unimportant compared to the relative tinsel of a big social wedding then you probably should not be entering into those covenants anyway.

My only concern is that couples will focus on the big social wedding and do the sealing as an afterthought. That is their choice though and I am noticing that church policies lately have been giving us more rope to hang ourselves with if we choose.

That´s agency for you!

agency - noun: the ability to choose for oneself
                synonym: rope to hang yourself

[USU78]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

What are time only temple marriages?

Already addressed by others.  Sorry.  I was interrupted.

Edited May 6, 2019 by USU78

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I wasn’t complaining. I think those who follow the prophet’s counsel and seek the Spirit and revelation will rise to greater spiritual heights while those who were relying endlessly on training wheels to keep them spiritually alive will fall.

If the risk of a girlfriend/boyfriend/fiancé not waiting for their missionary to return can be thought of as ¨if they are the one then they´ll wait¨, then the removal of structures surrounding the sealing leading to less young couples sealed can be thought of as ¨if they are sincere then they´ll do it faithfully¨.

If particular sealings are so easily compromised, then were they true sealings after all? Will God seal a less than sincere (enough to get sealed on one´s own initiative) sealee? 

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Has this happened in countries where this is the policy?

No, there was no drop off. That´s where the more mature spirit children went - to the UK and other countries with less training wheels 😉

[cinepro]

This is an unfortunate change.

Until now, the one-year waiting period has served as useful "trial" period for those couples who weren't sure they wanted to be sealed, and they could blame the Church for the wait (with the added benefit of a less-complicated separation process that didn't require the undoing of covenants).  This change will have the undesirable effect of more couples being pressured into a sealing when a time-only marriage would have been more appropriate.

I suspect the real motivation behind this was the Utah Wedding industry.  Big-wedding has become immensely powerful, and there are no doubt many LDS who can only see the dollar signs from the coming flood of Utah couples booking Frozen or Star Wars-themed weddings.  Some may attribute the change to revelation or common sense, but I say follow the money.

Edited May 6, 2019 by cinepro

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

It has no effect either way.

It certainly does. The Government controls marriages (dictates who can and can not be married), they cannot dictate a religious ceremony (a sealing)

[Joshua Valentine]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  It's too bad this change didn't take place years ago (or it was just always consistent throughout the church so there was no need for this change).

I just read of a Father who was kept out of his daughter's wedding just a few weeks ago.  He's trying not to be bitter about it, but it's painful and he realizes he missed seeing her married by just a few weeks (if this had been announced sooner, she would have opted for a civil wedding first followed by a sealing).  His daughter is heart broken about it as well.

Unfortunately, this most likely would have happened to someone no matter when they changed it (although announcing in the dead of winter would probably given a better shot of effecting the least number of people - as opposed to May, right in the thick of wedding season/final planning). And if they prioritized the feelings of members and their families lower than whatever principle justified the rule, then they were just being consistent by not worrying too much about who might be affected by the particular time of the change.