Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

Sealings can be done right away now!

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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.

I think there may be some truth in the suggestion that our leaders are 'giving us more rope to hang ourselves with if we choose'.  And, I'm certain that some members will take it as license to spend a small fortune to throw the huge social wedding, with the dresses that won't 'work' with garments and champagne for their non-member guests etc, but that is their choice.  Personally, I think this is just another example of how short the time is.  I really like the direction that we are going as a church, with more responsibility on ourselves and more opportunity to exercise agency and choose for ourselves.  We know that eventually the 'wheat' and 'tares' need to separate, and it will be by their own choices.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

This would seem to be the case only if all members had to wait a year. Why would some need this trial period while others do not, and why would that be correlated to geography? (outside of your Utah Wedding industry hypothesis on that last question)

Also, what would this imply about the Law of Chastity?

While in a practical sense these may be incidental benefits of the policy, from an institutional sense, they are only incidental and probably undesirable options.

Lastly, couples already get plenty of pressure from their LDS Church and culture to get married AND sealed early in their adulthood (¨when [not marrying at all] would be more appropriate¨). Compared to the pressures already in place, what you point out here is insignificant, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I disagree. :) 

We'll see, I guess.

But before this unwise change, aLDS parents and leaders in the US had one more tool to use as motivation for not making poor choices -- like getting married before being sealed.  The punitive 1 year waiting period was appropriate to show how important sealings are.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

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.

It worked for me. Now that I'm many years on with kids and grandkids, I'm glad that the importance of LDS sealings was reinforced by policy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Has this happened in countries where this is the policy?

How should I know?

All I know is that this policy is the reason I waited to get married in the temple.  Without it, I would have simply gotten a civil marriage and then gone off to do what I thought was important at the time. By forcing me to make a choice, the previously policy helped me make the right decision.  Without it, I think I may not have ended up doing the right thing.  Certainly not in a timely manner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, alter idem said:

I think there may be some truth in the suggestion that our leaders are 'giving us more rope to hang ourselves with if we choose'.  And, I'm certain that some members will take it as license to spend a small fortune to throw the huge social wedding, with the dresses that won't 'work' with garments and champagne for their non-member guests etc, but that is their choice.  Personally, I think this is just another example of how short the time is.  I really like the direction that we are going as a church, with more responsibility on ourselves and more opportunity to exercise agency and choose for ourselves.  We know that eventually the 'wheat' and 'tares' need to separate, and it will be by their own choices.

I’m having trouble understanding your logic here.  

Why would the couple serve champagne at their wedding?  Isn’t that usually done at the reception, which are already being performed?

Why would the bride choose a dress she couldn’t wear a couple of hours later during the sealing?

Why would money be an issue, given the frugality of most LDS weddings, wouldn’t most of them be at the local church or another inexpensive venue?

I’m really struggling to see how this isn’t anything but great news.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

We'll see, I guess.

But before this unwise change, aLDS parents and leaders in the US had one more tool to use as motivation for not making poor choices -- like getting married before being sealed.  The punitive 1 year waiting period was appropriate to show how important sealings are.

 

29 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

It worked for me. Now that I'm many years on with kids and grandkids, I'm glad that the importance of LDS sealings was reinforced by policy.

 

27 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

How should I know?

All I know is that this policy is the reason I waited to get married in the temple.  Without it, I would have simply gotten a civil marriage and then gone off to do what I thought was important at the time. By forcing me to make a choice, the previously policy helped me make the right decision.  Without it, I think I may not have ended up doing the right thing.  Certainly not in a timely manner.

You are a sample size of 1.  It's unclear why you believe you are representative of the entire population of people seeking to get married within the LDS community.

Edited by ttribe

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, omni said:

Why would money be an issue, given the frugality of most LDS weddings, wouldn’t most of them be at the local church or another inexpensive venue?

My experience is more and more Saints are opting for the professional reception services rather than going with the do it yourself version, though still not a majority.  This is in Utah, middle and upper class, so that may be different than elsewhere.

Some of our youth are turning even opening mission letters into a big production; I can so see ramping up weddings happening in similar circumstances.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

This could negatively impact me. If I ever get married I'd still want to marry in the temple and NOT get married civilly first. The problem is that I have siblings that are inactive. Now they could potentially accuse me of purposely excluding them instead of it just being a policy of the Church. Not that I would want them to not be there for my hypothetical marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

My experience is more and more Saints are opting for the professional reception services rather than going with the do it yourself version, though still not a majority.  This is in Utah, middle and upper class, so that may be different than elsewhere.

Some of our youth are turning even opening mission letters into a big production; I can so see ramping up weddings happening in similar circumstances.

I see things moving in this direction as well.  I don't believe that's a negative though (unless a family goes into a lot of debt to accomplish it).  I see nothing wrong with having a beautiful wedding and celebration.  But I'm seeing even big productions for even the engagement (it's staged, there's pictures, and then a lot of posts on social media).  Even finding out the sex of your unborn baby is a big party and production now 😄

I guess I need to get with the times....but I'm more on the simple, private side of doing things.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pe said:

Now they could potentially accuse me of purposely excluding them

Wouldn't you be, though? You have the clear option to include and you chose not to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, omni said:

I’m having trouble understanding your logic here.  

Why would the couple serve champagne at their wedding?  Isn’t that usually done at the reception, which are already being performed?

Why would the bride choose a dress she couldn’t wear a couple of hours later during the sealing?

Yeah, that's a pretty negative post.  I would hope all that's mentioned doesn't take place and that most of this will be the same as it was before when there was only a reception.  I guess time will tell....

Share this post


Link to post

I hope that this change will allow for more discussions about the doctrine of sealing. For long, we have viewed the sealing as something between a man and a woman so they can be married forever and be with their kids forever.

While I’m not smart enough to explain it all, I do know that the sealing power and principle goes far beyond that simplification.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Wouldn't you be, though? You have the clear option to include and you chose not to.

There is a difference in choosing an activity to have that activity that does not permit all to join and to purposely choose to exclude people.

For example, if someone dreamed of having a wedding on the beaches of Hawaii, are they intentionally excluding all those who can't afford to travel there or is it just an unfortunate byproduct?

It does mean it is more important to someone to have the wedding in Hawaii than it is to have the people who can't travel there, that is not necessarily a comment on the relationships though.

I wish I had just focused on what I wanted out of my wedding day.  I did the expected and practical thing rather than what made it special for me.  My feelings looking back on that day are not joyous, it is rather meaningless in fact because I was too focused on worrying about others and not what myself and my husband were doing.  Looking back, I would have asked my husband to limit it to the minimum and not even invite our parents if they could have handled it.  I feel more emotional and connected with my husband in memories of doing sealing proxies for others. I am grateful for having those experiences I can 'lay over' my own wedding experience to create the spiritual significance of the sealing for myself.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, pe said:

This could negatively impact me. If I ever get married I'd still want to marry in the temple and NOT get married civilly first. The problem is that I have siblings that are inactive. Now they could potentially accuse me of purposely excluding them instead of it just being a policy of the Church. Not that I would want them to not be there for my hypothetical marriage.

I actually thought about couples in your situation.

There's no way around this being a choice for you to make now (when it was pretty much made for you previously).  No one can tell you what is right or wrong here either.  It's really difficult to choose something that will cause pain or hurt those you love.  

Maybe a compromise where you just do a very simple civil service with your siblings with you and then head right to the temple from there?  Then celebrate together with a reception afterwards?   I'm sorry you're in this position....

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a difference in choosing an activity to have that activity that does not permit all to join and to purposely choose to exclude people.

For example, if someone dreamed of having a wedding on the beaches of Hawaii, are they intentionally excluding all those who can't afford to travel there or is it just an unfortunate byproduct?

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

It worked for me. Now that I'm many years on with kids and grandkids, I'm glad that the importance of LDS sealings was reinforced by policy.

That´s fair.

Did it work for you in the sense that you didn´t have any family members who could not attend?

Why are marriage sealings done in the LDS temple only? I understand it regarding the endowment because there is special/sacred&secret/exclusive😉 teachings and promises made, but are there for sealings? Why could sealings not be just the LDS wedding done in public? Could this not be a great way to include non-members and expose them to the LDS church in a positive way rather than exclude and negatively affect non-members, let alone ¨mixed¨ families´ interrelations? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, pe said:

This could negatively impact me. If I ever get married I'd still want to marry in the temple and NOT get married civilly first.

Why is that? 

I believe that this could be a problem with the new policy.  People will be judged by self-righteous individuals as being less than if they choose a civil wedding over a temple wedding even though the church has officially said it is perfectly acceptable.  Because of this it will probably take time before civil weddings become the norm because of the stigma they have had.

     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

None of our parents were able to attend the temple sealing for me and my wife. Her parents were not members and mine understood why they couldn't attend.
They all knew upfront they would not be able to attend and were not happy with it but accepted the situation. My wife's father did insist on seeing the marriage certificate just to make sure we were legally married.
I understand that the wedding ceremony is an important milestone in life that the parents would want to witness, but it seems to me the marriage itself, that continues on for years later, is what is really important.
And that the parents will gain the most happiness from it as they watch the new family continue to grow and hopefully endure their entire lives. Her parents were able to see that happen for the next 40 years.
Their other children got married and divorced several times each.

Edited by JAHS
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see things moving in this direction as well.  I don't believe that's a negative though (unless a family goes into a lot of debt to accomplish it).  I see nothing wrong with having a beautiful wedding and celebration.  But I'm seeing even big productions for even the engagement (it's staged, there's pictures, and then a lot of posts on social media).  Even finding out the sex of your unborn baby is a big party and production now 😄

I guess I need to get with the times....but I'm more on the simple, private side of doing things.

I can't believe that anybody has the time and money to do all this...I like my sister's wedding the best...in the home...with family...we had cake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I can't believe that anybody has the time and money to do all this...I like my sister's wedding the best...in the home...with family...we had cake.

Sounds good to me, and save the money for a down payment for a home!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

None of our parents were able to attend the temple sealing for me and my wife. Her parents were not members and mine understood why they couldn't attend.
They all knew upfront they would not be able to attend and were not happy with it but accepted the situation. My wife's father did insist on seeing the marriage certificate just to make sure we were legally married.
I understand that the wedding ceremony is an important milestone in life that the parents would want to witness, but it seems to me the marriage itself, that continues on for years later, is what is really important.
And that the parents will gain the most happiness from it as they watch the new family continue to grow and hopefully endure their entire lives. Her parents were able to see that happen for the next 40 years.
Their other children got married and divorced several times each.

This is a really nice post, JAHS and I'm happy for you...I really am.

But what would be different today if you'd been able to have a civil service first with your wife's parents present before your temple sealing?

It's great that now you can have both....and no potential pain or hurt feelings or excluding anyone from a very important event in your life.  The leaders are wise to make this change.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

If people decide to spend a lot of time and money on weddings, what's it to anyone in the church?  It's not a sin, for goodness sake.

Live and let live.  

The beauty of this allowance far outweighs any anxiety I'm reading here. IMO. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It will be interesting to see the length of time that some couples choose to wait after the civil marriage. I think some that have parents who can't attend the temple may choose to marry in the temple on another day.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...