Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

Sealings can be done right away now!

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

Why did God wait until Nelson was president to make all these changes? 

Nelson is married to a proactive woman who is best friends with a proactive woman.  

Every president has their "thing".  Unless of course you're just asking to be snarky.? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

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.

 

It seems to me that from a believing perspective this could be a good thing. There is so much going on for the bride and groom on their wedding day. Hard to focus on something as sacred as the sealing. By doing it a week later, when all the focus can be put on the religious importance of the act, perhaps it will be even more meaningful to the couples. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Oh I agree the parents would have had a few moments of happiness if they could have seen the actual marriage event and I am glad it has changed. 
It's just that people seem to put the greatest importance on an event that lasts 15 minutes, rather than on the reason for the event that lasts for decades.


 

Edited by JAHS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Please do not post sections of the copyrighted and confidential handbook on a public message board.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

That´s agency for you!

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

Wanting power without any responsibility for what you do with it is a sign of immaturity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

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? 

No, but they also get to answer for the covenants at the Judgement Bar. There is a reason we do not let anyone into the temple. I know of a case where a guy got in to a temple and went through the endowment ceremony without being a member through nefarious and underhanded methods. He then went and bragged about it to the local Mission President and was told that he was responsible for all those covenants now and the President just closed by wishing him good luck. :diablo: 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours 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.

Well done.

In other news the flat earth theory is being suppressed by Big Globe!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

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.

Ah, but we are a global church and if we waited for our winter it would be summer in the Southern hemisphere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour 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?

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.

I'm not sure why you don't think this might happen.  The church has a broad range of members.

 

The possibilities I inferred when I posted:

If a couple have the elaborate wedding, they will have a reception afterwards --and if there are a lot of family and friends who are non-member and used to a certain kind of wedding and reception, some may likely feel pressured to serve champagne to their guests who drink.

Some Brides already choose dresses they can't wear for the sealing.  Some LDS brides don't wear their wedding dress for the sealing, but only at the reception, and their bridesmaid dresses are not always modest.

'Frugality' of LDS weddings is not something I've seen to be common.  In my experience, the reception, dinners, parties can be very expensive.  A civil wedding ceremony just adds to that expense, if they are trying to put on a ceremony for those who can't attend the Temple sealing.

I didn't say it wasn't good news, I like them putting more responsibility on us to exercise agency.    Yes, I am concerned that a small percentage will choose to follow the world's trend, which I feel would be a mistake,  but each can choose--which is better than trying to protect members from poor choices they might make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

Why did God wait until Nelson was president to make all these changes? 

Why are you a nebbish little git who asks insinuating questions like this?

The Universe is a mysterious place.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Please do not post sections of the copyrighted and confidential handbook on a public message board.

Where in the handbook does it say that the contents are confidential and cannot be shared.  I've never seen such an admonition.

As for its copyright, we frequently quote copyrighted material on these boards.  That's appropriate as long as you cite the source, which I did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

Agreed, unless you come to the Bishop a few months later in tears because you can't pay your rent or your mortgage. I just hate going to huge weddings so I would prefer fewer people have them. Also the larger the wedding the longer the guest list and I am more likely to get invited to something I do not want to go to so I promote small weddings and sealings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where in the handbook does it say that the contents are confidential and cannot be shared.  I've never seen such an admonition.

As for its copyright, we frequently quote copyrighted material on these boards.  That's appropriate as long as you cite the source, which I did.

Ah, nice try. If I quoted the part about not duplicating it or distributing it I would be a hypocrite or, more likely, more of a hypocrite.

There is nothing legally wrong with copying such an excerpt but I was not speaking of legalities. I was speaking of the admonition in the Introduction not to duplicate it or give it to someone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, nice try. If I quoted the part about not duplicating it or distributing it I would be a hypocrite or, more likely, more of a hypocrite.

There is nothing legally wrong with copying such an excerpt but I was not speaking of legalities. I was speaking of the admonition in the Introduction not to duplicate it or give it to someone else.

I'm comfortable with sharing relevant sections with members discussing a topic.  There is nothing secret in the book.  I believe the issue is that they don't want outdated copies floating around and being used (that was actually a recent Official Communication to please stop using hard copies since it has changed so much since the last printed publication).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, nice try. If I quoted the part about not duplicating it or distributing it I would be a hypocrite or, more likely, more of a hypocrite.

There is nothing legally wrong with copying such an excerpt but I was not speaking of legalities. I was speaking of the admonition in the Introduction not to duplicate it or give it to someone else.

The book from 2006 that I keep illegally on my phone says the whole thing shouldn’t be duplicated, but that individual portions may be. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The book from 2006 that I keep illegally on my phone says the whole thing shouldn’t be duplicated, but that individual portions may be. 

Yeah, but I am pretty sure they did not mean for public message board consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And completely stopping a marriage happening in the temple, will make it so the dreaded (in their eyes) gay marriage will never occur. 

 

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

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

Bingo.  

They've just positioned their policies so that the minute a judge orders them to comply with current marriage equality laws they can pull the trigger.

Then it's a simple "bring your legal marriage certificate and if you are otherwise worthy we will seal you".  They may not need to for years but now we're prepared for that eventual lawsuit.

It's almost certainly the same as with scouting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

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

The government doesn't interfere in religious marriage ceremonies except in cases of polygamy, incestuous marriage, underage marriage, etc. Zero relevance to the LDS Church as we don't do any of that kind of thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours 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.

If a policy forced your hand, should you even get any celestial credit for making the right choice? The policy made the choice for you. No righteousness should be imputed to you for your choice, right? Because it wasn't really your choice.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why are you a nebbish little git who asks insinuating questions like this?

The Universe is a mysterious place.

Ok?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems to me that from a believing perspective this could be a good thing. There is so much going on for the bride and groom on their wedding day. Hard to focus on something as sacred as the sealing. By doing it a week later, when all the focus can be put on the religious importance of the act, perhaps it will be even more meaningful to the couples. 

Rock Waterman makes a decent comparison that 8 year olds don’t typically get baptized on the day of their birthday party.  The celebration and the ordinance are not the same.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

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? 

The sealing and the endowment are not really separate.  The sealing is the culmination of the endowment.  Yes, there are aspects of it that only endowed members are to see, know, or understand (arguably I suppose).  They will see things they have not been properly ministered to and received.  They will receive things without covenant, whereas for those endowed, those things were received by covenant.

 

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Nelson is married to a proactive woman who is best friends with a proactive woman. 

Ahhhhh . . . so this is how revelation works! ha ha ha 😜😄

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Gray said:

The government doesn't interfere in religious marriage ceremonies except in cases of polygamy, incestuous marriage, underage marriage, etc. Zero relevance to the LDS Church as we don't do any of that kind of thing.

There are other governments out there besides the US.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are other governments out there besides the US.

Does this change apply anywhere but in the US? Where outside the US was this policy in effect - do you happen to know?

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...