Civil Marriages And Temple Marriages And Waiting A Year Policy ?

[Duncan]

So, I couldn't sleep to save me life last night and so I got out the N. Eldon Tanner bio by Elder G. Homer Durham. If anyone has it the concern I bring up it is on page 126. It says that in 1942, "Harmonious with Church policies at the time" he performed the civil marriage of his daughter and then the next day the couple traveled to the Cardston Temple to be sealed. Nowadays you have to wait a year before being sealed in the Temple if you got married civilly. So, does anyone know specifically the policy at that time and why did it change to what it is now?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Duncan

[ksfisher]

This sounds as if it has more to do with Canadian law than church policy. There are still places in the world that require a civil marriage and do not recognize a temple marriage as such. It's in the back of my mind that England is that way. Does anyone know if this is true?

[Tacenda]

I'd read somewhere on some board, something about Mitt Romney marrying Ann in a civil marriage and then a day or two later they were able to immediately get sealed in the temple without the 1 yr. waiting period which had just been put in place but they were able to get permission to not wait the year. This happened in 1969. So I believe this is when church policy changed except for some countries that don't allow the temple ceremony to take the place of civil ceremony.

And to answer your question about England, yes in England you are first to be married in a civil ceremony before the temple. But not sure if the church requires the couple to have a waiting period before the temple ceremony. But I'm almost sure they wouldn't.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Tacenda

[Somebodyz]

This sounds as if it has more to do with Canadian law than church policy. There are still places in the world that require a civil marriage and do not recognize a temple marriage as such. It's in the back of my mind that England is that way. Does anyone know if this is true?

Yes, it's a pain in the butt. In the UK, you get married at Church first by your Bishop. Then on the same day, you travel to the Temple, often after a reception/dinner/dance (open to choice). It can make for a very hurried, busy day. Personally to have just been able to go to the Temple would of been bliss. Perhaps if SSA get to be married the way they choose, Mormons will have their Temple marriages accepted also (ok I know it's different, it irks)

[Buzzard]

When on my mission in Europe back in the 70's, you had 72 hours after your required civil marraige. It set toungues clucking when a young newlywed couple spent the night at a hotel during their drive to Switzerland. Probably a remnant of the Catholic doctrine that you were not really married unti the priest married you. With the proliferation of temples, I would imagine the time limit has been shortened.

[Tacenda]

So, I couldn't sleep to save me life last night and so I got out the N. Eldon Tanner bio by Elder G. Homer Durham. If anyone has it the concern I bring up it is on page 126. It says that in 1942, "Harmonious with Church policies at the time" he performed the civil marriage of his daughter and then the next day the couple traveled to the Cardston Temple to be sealed. Nowadays you have to wait a year before being sealed in the Temple if you got married civilly. So, does anyone know specifically the policy at that time and why did it change to what it is now?

Do you think the church has put it at a year so that couples won't rush into civil marriage first to appease their family who are unable to attend the temple ceremony?

[JAHS]

There was a policy that if a couple needs to travel a long distance together requiring an overnight stop in the trip on their way to the temple, they could get a civil marriage first before the temple sealing. Don't know if that still applies.

[rpn]

In the early days of the church people had to travel very far, and couldn't necessarily afford chaperones. They were married before they went to the temple for those reasons. I think that those who choose civil marriage rather than temple marriage (when the laws don't require it) demonstrate clearly that they cannot keep at least the new covenant they will make to give everything to the Church and the Lord. If by your actions you admit you are unable to do that, why would the Church and God set you up by sending you there immediately when your heart isn't prepared to do what you're going to agree to do.

[Maureen]

...So, does anyone know specifically the policy at that time and why did it change to what it is now?

Here's a blog that explains the history of the policy behind temple weddings.

M.

[Duncan]

Do you think the church has put it at a year so that couples won't rush into civil marriage first to appease their family who are unable to attend the temple ceremony?

could be but I don't know

[Alan]

In the UK a marriage must be conducted in a place accessible to anyone to witness and to publicly object to ("does anyone know of any lawful impediment as to why these should not marry") for it to be legal. The officer must also have legal authority to lawfully register the marriage. So here in England we have a civil ceremony first (at the church, or some other legally authorised place) and that is then followed by a Temple sealing either the same or next day depending upon distance to the temple.

Longer than that then you have to wait a year. Not sure why.

I think it works well, especially when there are family and friends who are non-members or who are unable to enter the temple for whatever reason.

[Deborah]

Here's a blog that explains the history of the policy behind temple weddings.

Just so everyone knows this is an apostate website.

[Hestia]

Here's a blog that explains the history of the policy behind temple weddings.

site deleted by mod

[Carborendum]

To answer a different aspect of the OP: Why do people with a civil marriage have to wait a year before being sealed?

It is not the civil marriage itself. It is because something else is going on.

1) People have been living together. Thus they cannot go to the temple immediately. They must have a civil marriage so they can obey the law of Chastity. Then they have their 1 year waiting period for the living together, not for the civil marriage.

2) People who have had a temple marriage before, and gotten divorced. Because statistics show that a person once divorced is more likely to divorce again, they want to make sure that the civil marriage gets a good start before diving into another temple marriage that may result in another divorce.

3) People who have been inactive for a while got a civil marriage during their inactivity. Thus they need that testing period before they can go to the temple again.

That last one I'm not so certain about. But I've heard some people say it, with minor circumstantial evidence to that effect. But it is something to think about.

[Monster]

Do you think the church has put it at a year so that couples won't rush into civil marriage first to appease their family who are unable to attend the temple ceremony?

Some people would say apease. Others may think more along the lines of consideration. If the shoe were on the other foot and you had a daughter getting married by someone in a secret building you were prohibited from entering would you not be upset. On top of that she is not even allowed to get married by the bishop first. It is easy to think we are all righteous and such when we are on the inside. It is quite another when we are prohibited.

I see nothing wrong with having to wait a year. In fact I think every couple should get married have a big party if they want and go to be sealed a year latter if they desire. The issue is all the waging tongues at church that wonder why they did not get married in the temple. May be the bride just wanted her mother to be there. And rightly so. So contrary to popular belief it may not be sin keeping someone from the temple but common sense and family considerations.

[selek1]

Some people would say apease. Others may think more along the lines of consideration. If the shoe were on the other foot and you had a daughter getting married by someone in a secret building you were prohibited from entering would you not be upset. On top of that she is not even allowed to get married by the bishop first. It is easy to think we are all righteous and such when we are on the inside. It is quite another when we are prohibited.

I see nothing wrong with having to wait a year. In fact I think every couple should get married have a big party if they want and go to be sealed a year latter if they desire. The issue is all the waging tongues at church that wonder why they did not get married in the temple. May be the bride just wanted her mother to be there. And rightly so. So contrary to popular belief it may not be sin keeping someone from the temple but common sense and family considerations.

In either case (sin or appeasing the parents), it's an exercise in misplaced priorities. Thank you for illustrating the matter so clearly.

[Stargazer]

There's some slop in the rules, and apparently exceptions are made sometimes.

Case in point is my own experience. My wife was previously sealed to her then ex-communicated ex-husband, and without a sealing cancellation we could only be married for Time Only in the temple. She applied for the cancellation, but because of my impending military transfer, we married civilly so she could get military spouse status and a family move from the Army. We couldn't wait for the cancellation. I guess her bishop included all this information in the cancellation request.

Well, the cancellation letter was actually signed by Pres. Kimball on the day we were married, and we got it after we came back from the honeymoon. The wording in the cancellation letter said that we could take the letter to the temple to be sealed without being required to wait for a year to go by. So we were sealed in the Swiss temple six months after our civil marriage.

[Tacenda]

In either case (sin or appeasing the parents), it's an exercise in misplaced priorities. Thank you for illustrating the matter so clearly.

If the church is all about family, and I can get a quote that was recently posted by someone on here, and came from Boyd K. Packer, to verify this. Then I feel the church could go back to the time when the prophet Joseph Smith, said a marriage should be public, with family and make it a festive celebration. Unlike the sometimes herding way that so many sweet brides and grooms go through in the temple. And for the many that have so many family left out...it can hurt, alot....

Edited August 6, 2012 by Tacenda

[rpn]

Well, you probably aren't going to have to wait very long. It looks like fewer and fewer courts are going to preserve the will of the people about same sex marriage, and it won't be long before even the will of the people will be corrupted on the point. And at the point, churches will no longer be able to marry. Which will make us like the nations that now exist requiring civil marriage first. I'm guessing in the next twenty years.

[Tacenda]

Well, you probably aren't going to have to wait very long. It looks like fewer and fewer courts are going to preserve the will of the people about same sex marriage, and it won't be long before even the will of the people will be corrupted on the point. And at the point, churches will no longer be able to marry. Which will make us like the nations that now exist requiring civil marriage first. I'm guessing in the next twenty years.

I'm thinking that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, to be sealed in the temple only.

[selek1]

If the church is all about family, and I can get a quote that was recently posted by someone on here, and came from Boyd K. Packer, to verify this. Then I feel the church could go back to the time when the prophet Joseph Smith, said a marriage should be public, with family and make it a festive celebration.

You are- as have so many others- offering us a false dichotomy.

Nothing in the Church's current practice precludes marriage being a public, festive, or family event. Only the Temple covenants are shielded from prying eyes.

Nothing in Joseph Smith's statement requires us to profane the Temple rites and covenants for the delectation of the prurient, the irreverent, and the profane.

Being "all about family" does not require us to place appeasing the in-laws ahead of the sacred covenants being made, nor to does it justify polluting the temple in order to satisfy the pomp of Babylon.

Unlike the sometimes herding way that so many sweet brides and grooms go through in the temple.

I agree that this should be avoided at all costs.

And for the many that have so many family left out...it can hurt, alot....

And yet that exclusion is entirely of thier own making.

The Temple is open to anyone who will humble themselves and prepare themselves to enter the House of the Lord.

That they refuse to sanctify themselves is THEIR burden, not ours.

Edited August 6, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

You are- as have so many others- offering us a false dichotomy.

Nothing in the Church's current practice precludes marriage being a public, festive, or family event. Only the Temple covenants are shielded from prying eyes.

Nothing in Joseph Smith's statement requires us to profane the Temple rites and covenants for the delectation of the prurient, the irreverent, and the profane.

Being "all about family" does not require us to place appeasing the in-laws ahead of the sacred covenants being made, nor to does it justify polluting the temple in order to satisfy the pomp of Babylon.

I agree that this should be avoided at all costs.

And yet that exclusion is entirely of thier own making.

The Temple is open to anyone who will humble themselves and prepare themselves to enter the House of the Lord.

That they refuse to sanctify themselves is THEIR burden, not ours.

Younger brothers and sisters do not fall under the description of needing to humble or prepare to enter the House of the Lord.

But bring it on Selek1. I really don't think there is a big difference, in getting married or sealed in the temple. Like one of the posters mentioned, some or our parents were probably sealed vs. married, including my in-laws and my parents. I think the church is becoming a little too legalistic in some ways.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

Younger brothers and sisters do not fall under the description of needing to humble or prepare to enter the House of the Lord.

Call For References, please.

If they are above the age of accountability, you are simply wrong. Anyone preparing to enter the Temple absolutely must humble and prepare themselves to enter the Temple.

If they are under the age of accountability, they are unlikely to understand or appreciate what they are seeing, nor will their presence add anything of value to the proceedings.

I really don't think there is a big difference, in getting married or sealed in the temple.

Your opinion is irrelevant, as the Lord quite obviously disagrees with you about the alleged parity.

Unless a couple makes and keeps the sealing covenants (currently available only in the Temple), then their marriage ends at their death. For that reason more than any other. the Temple covenants and a Celestial marriage should be their first, last, and only priority.

Like one of the posters mentioned, some or our parents were probably sealed vs. married, including my in-laws and my parents.

So what?

The fact that some people have their priorities screwed up or do things in the wrong order does not justify us in doing so.

Our priority must be making and keeping the sacred covenants. Those are our "first fruits". Anything less is unworthy of the Lord.

I think the church is becoming a little too legalistic in some ways.

And I think too many of our members are more concerned about winning the approval of Babylon than with being acceptable to Babylon than to the Lord.

Again- so what?

Edited August 6, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

Call For References, please.

If they are above the age of accountability, you are simply wrong. Anyone preparing to enter the Temple absolutely must humble and prepare themselves to enter the Temple.

Y

If they are under the age of accountability, they are unlikely to understand or appreciate what they are seeing, nor will their presence add anything of value to the proceedings.

Your opinion is irrelevant, as the Lord quite obviously disagrees with you about the alleged parity.

Unless a couple makes and keeps the sealing covenants (currently available only in the Temple), then their marriage ends at their death. For that reason more than any other. the Temple covenants and a Celestial marriage should be their first, last, and only priority.

So what?

The fact that some people have their priorities screwed up or do things in the wrong order does not justify us in doing so.

Our priority must be making and keeping the sacred covenants. Those are our "first fruits". Anything less is unworthy of the Lord.

And I think too many of our members are more concerned about winning the approval of Babylon than with being acceptable to Babylon than to the Lord.

Again- so what?

Wow it must be late because I really did not respond very well, excuses excuses. I meant to say that getting sealed is just as revelant as getting married in the temple. Also, I mentioned younger sibilings not being allowed to witness a temple marriage no matter what.

[selek1]

Wow it must be late because I really did not respond very well, excuses excuses

No worries. Even I misspeak myself on occasion (like every third sentence, on a good day).

I meant to say that getting sealed is just as revelant as getting married in the temple.

I will agree that the end result is essentially the same- but that doesn't mean there isn't a proper and ideal order for doing things.

I have a special cheescake recipe that I'm rather fond of.

It calls for adding the eggs to the batter as the last step before pouring into the pan and baking.

One might assume that so long as all the ingredients get added to the batter, the exact moment or order that this takes place is irrelevant.

One would be wrong.

If the eggs are added too early, they are over-mixed, changing the texture and flavor of the final cake.

Also, I mentioned younger sibilings not being allowed to witness a temple marriage no matter what.

That's because the Endowment is a necessary step in preparing to receiving and understand the Sealing Ordinances.

Witnessing a Sealing without receiving the Endowment is kinda like attending a lecture on Advanced Calculus before taking Basic Algebra- most of it will make little sense and the hearer will be confused, rather than edified.

Edited August 6, 2012 by selek1