bluebell Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 In the past, couples were able to be married for 'time' in the temple, but that is not offered anymore--a widowed friend of mine wanted to be married in the temple for time, but was told the church's policy had changed and this is not done anymore--that is, unless an exception was made for Marie.That is interesting. My grandmother was married 'for time only' in the temple about 3 years ago. I wonder when they changed it?
Garden Girl Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 It must be fairly recent because there was a couple from our ward that were married for "time" only not that long ago... a couple years maybe.GG
ERMD Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) Marriages in the temple for time only are performed, but certain conditions must be met. Each person must have been previously sealed to a spouse who is deceased, and each person may not have been divorced while a member of the church. Each person must have a valid temple recommend and a recommend for living ordinances. Edited May 28, 2011 by ERMD
ERayR Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) That is interesting. My grandmother was married 'for time only' in the temple about 3 years ago. I wonder when they changed it?Oops should have looked first ERMD already posted. Edited May 28, 2011 by ERayR
bluebell Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 Marriages in the temple for time only are performed, but certain conditions must be met. Each person must have been previously sealed to a spouse who is deceased, and each person may not have been divorced while a member of the church. Each person must have a valid temple recommend and a recommend for living ordinances.I was always under this assumption as well, but the man my grandmother was married for time to in the temple is divorced from his still living first wife and he was a member when they were divorced.I wonder how they got around the rules?
bluebell Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 Beats me. The handbook is pretty clear.There's probably something else that i'm not aware of.
One Clear Voice Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 Marie's original sealing to Steve Craig was canceled before she married Brian Blosil.I think we can assume she was sealed for time and eternity to Steve Craig, which means that her sealing to Blosil was canceled when she wanted to remarry Craig. In the past, couples were able to be married for 'time' in the temple, but that is not offered anymore--a widowed friend of mine wanted to be married in the temple for time, but was told the church's policy had changed and this is not done anymore--that is, unless an exception was made for Marie.couples were able to be married for 'time' in the temple, but that is not offered anymore, CFR?
One Clear Voice Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 Marriages in the temple for time only are performed, but certain conditions must be met. Each person must have been previously sealed to a spouse who is deceased, and each person may not have been divorced while a member of the church. Each person must have a valid temple recommend and a recommend for living ordinances.Yes, what he said!
alter idem Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 couples were able to be married for 'time' in the temple, but that is not offered anymore, CFR?CFR? Okayy... I'll state it again, I said that a friend told me she was not able to be married in the temple for time. She was told the policy had changed.I'm sorry that I was wrong. I was not aware they were still done in limited circumstances.ERMD's post clarifies that 'for time only' marriages are still done, but only under certain conditions so the policy has changed and couples who, in the past, could have been married for time only can no longer have this option.Marie and Steve would not fit the requirements needed--her spouse is still living and they've both been divorced, so if they were actually married for time, an exception was made to the rules stated in the Handbook. While that is a possibility, it is more likely that she got a cancellation of sealing and was able to be sealed to Steve Craig for time and eternity, clearly the better option in their minds, I'm sure.Thanks, ERMD for looking it up and clarifying the church's position.
Jeff K. Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 I am a temple worker on Saturday nights and decided to broach this question with one of the sealers. Apparently being married "for time" may occur, but the rules are limiting and its use is rare.
One Clear Voice Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 I am a temple worker on Saturday nights and decided to broach this question with one of the sealers. Apparently being married "for time" may occur, but the rules are limiting and its use is rare.Thank you for clearing this up. There are too many conflicting doctrines, both confusing and misleading that distract our efforts to do the Missionary work that we need to be doing in these lasts days. The best policy is the facts and the truth, not just what we want to believe or what someone else told us. Again, thank you Jeff and ERMD for getting the Facts out to us! It very refreshing!
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Thank you for clearing this up. There are too many conflicting doctrines, both confusing and misleading that distract our efforts to do the Missionary work that we need to be doing in these lasts days. The best policy is the facts and the truth, not just what we want to believe or what someone else told us. Again, thank you Jeff and ERMD for getting the Facts out to us! It very refreshing!Could I have a CFR on this statement I highlighted.
CARPE DIEM Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Could I have a CFR on this statement I highlighted.Probably being smarter than the average bear, I can see where One Clear voice was going with this, thus I personally wouldn't need to cfr this. I believe they left out a few words. By doctrine I'm seeing that People not Doctrine are being misleading. In reading a members post above, she eludes to the fact that "a friend" told her that Temple Marriages were no longer allowed. If I were a non-member this would be confusing to me after reading the other posts and replies. Being a member, we have the access to the actual doctrine that states the '"Facts" as they are, as JeffK and ERMD indicated. I believe the actual intent was to only write or post or reply to the "facts" of the subject. So instead of actual misleading or confusing Doctrine, the poster meant simply Misleading or confusing Doctrine spoken by people that don't have the facts or the truth. As I see it, no harm no foul. One Clear voice wasn't refering to actual Doctrine, he was refering to those who where offering misleading or confusing Doctrine.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Probably being smarter than the average bear, I can see where One Clear voice was going with this, thus I personally wouldn't need to cfr this. I believe they left out a few words. By doctrine I'm seeing that People not Doctrine are being misleading. In reading a members post above, she eludes to the fact that "a friend" told her that Temple Marriages were no longer allowed. If I were a non-member this would be confusing to me after reading the other posts and replies. Being a member, we have the access to the actual doctrine that states the '"Facts" as they are, as JeffK and ERMD indicated. I believe the actual intent was to only write or post or reply to the "facts" of the subject. So instead of actual misleading or confusing Doctrine, the poster meant simply Misleading or confusing Doctrine spoken by people that don't have the facts or the truth. As I see it, no harm no foul. One Clear voice wasn't refering to actual Doctrine, he was refering to those who where offering misleading or confusing Doctrine.OK, makes more sense now.
Recommended Posts