Civil Marriages And Temple Marriages And Waiting A Year Policy ?

[Calm]

And yet that exclusion is entirely of thier own making.

Not always. I couldn't attend my older siblings' weddings because I was not endowed yet, even though I was only one year younger than one of them.

I am not complaining, just saying it wasn't of my own making.

Ah...I see this was mentioned. I should note that I was worthy and ready for and old enough for the endowment at the time of my older sister (probably more so than most were on their wedding day due to a very insightful mother and an insatiable need to read everything in sight)...possibly even my older brother though the age would be considered too early (18) and probably would have enjoyed the experience more if I had gone through before my wedding day when I could have concentrated fully on the ceremony. OTOH, it was also important to experience it the first time with my husband, it added something very significant for me. Not sure what I would choose if I had been given the choice now.

Edited August 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

Maybe this is one area where it might not hurt the church to dial-back just a bit on the mild paternalism. As a doctrinal matter, the church has, for the most part since the beginning, recognized the legitimacy of government weddings. Who is to say that, in a particular circumstance, the Spirit might not guide a couple to be married civilly first, and then sealed a few days later. Eternally, the exact same result is achieved. A 1-year penalty designed to punish otherwise worthy couples for marrying civilly does not really have a doctrinal basis, and seems manipulative to outsiders, thus feeding the anti-Mormon crowd who gleefully looks for any reason to portray Mormonism as a cult.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Monster]

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

And are willing to pay (tithing) for the privilege.

[Calm]

That is part of humility.

[Sleeper Cell]

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

That option is already available. All one has to do is wait a year.

[Tacenda]

That option is already available. All one has to do is wait a year.

I guess for many people the stigma of waiting the year might be worse than excluding family members. The stigma meaning they couldn't wait until their wedding night. People would rather not have that be on the minds of some who might wonder, I'm guessing, since I've never been in that situation. It's something I wouldn't want people thinking I guess....

[Sleeper Cell]

Maybe this is one area where it might not hurt the church to dial-back just a bit on the mild paternalism. As a doctrinal matter, the church has, for the most part since the beginning, recognized the legitimacy of government weddings. Who is to say that, in a particular circumstance, the Spirit might not guide a couple to be married civilly first, and then sealed a few days later. Eternally, the exact same result is achieved.

.

Eternally, the same result is achieved if one waits a year to be sealed..

A 1-year penalty designed punish otherwise worthy couples for marrying civilly does not really have a doctrinal basis, and seems manipulative to outsiders, thus feeding the anti-Mormon crowd who gleefully looks for any reason to portray Mormonism as a cult.

Merely imposing any behavioral requirement may seem manipulative to outsiders.

As for the anti-Mormon crowd, if the policy is changed, they will simply find another reason to portray Mormonism as a cult.

If it were up to me, I would waive the one year waiting period to accommodate the desire of a parent (and possibly other close family members) to attend. I certainly would not change the policy to accommodate those who are looking to find fault with anything the church does.

[Stargazer]

And are willing to pay (tithing) for the privilege.

Of course, those who look at things primarily in terms of money are going to get their reward outside of the temple.

Paying in obedience isn't "paying"? Abstaining from alcoholic beverages? Church attendance? Time spent fulfilling callings?

My nephew elected to marry a Catholic girl outside the temple because, he said, he liked wine too much. That's what he said. And what will he pay? Oh, that's right, he will pay for this shortsightedness with his eternal life -- not to mention not having a wife after this life. Not saying he couldn't eventually bring her into the temple, but, if he likes wine so much, well...

Of course, if it isn't true, then you've missed nothing.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I will say that I do not actually understand requiring that couples in the USA (and anywhere else a public wedding is not required by law) marry and be simultaneously sealed. If an LDS couple in Britain can be married in public and the same day go to the temple to be sealed, then it seems very rule-bound to require it otherwise in other circumstanes. We have "all or nothing" in other respects, such as plural marriage, where it is forbidden by the Church in the USA where it is illegal, but where it is legal, like certain African countries, it is still forbidden by the Church, even requiring a man with multiple wives to pick one wife and dump the rest. Which is particular galling, given that back in the day, that is exactly what the US government required of church members who had multiple wives. Wrongly in my view, but there we are.

Selek1, I hear your conviction of rightness in what you are saying about this, but at the same time, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it, other than "that's the right way to do it." Why? In fact, I've never heard a reason that seems supportable other than "because the church says so." There's no scripture on it, no revelation, and no real explanation. At least, I haven't heard any.

Any time this comes up in my hearing, I, who usually leap to defend the right, find that I cannot speak. "Because" is not a reason, I always told my kids. I want to know why. And everything I have heard so far sounds contrived and unconvincing.

[KevinG]

The Church is not just about family. It is about getting our family back to the presence of Heavenly Father eternally.

Sacred ordinances and associated covenants are part of that.

I just renewed my Temple Recommend after a couple years of inactivity. I allowed myself to be offended to the point of not keeping my own covenants. Had I messed a sealing session for a child during that time I would not have been saddened but I would not have blamed it on someone else or a church policy.

I understand quite clearly that he blessings of Heaven are intimately tied to obedience to the covenants I have made. Missing an earthly ordinance will not be nearly as painful as being separated eternally from loved ones because we could not keep the simplest of covenants like purity (law of Chastity), cleanliness (Word of Wisdom) and sacrifice (tithing). Placing conditions on us in this life is not a cruelty it is a mercy so that we repent and are capable of fully accepting the atonement and exaltation.

[Sleeper Cell]

I guess for many people the stigma of waiting the year might be worse than excluding family members. The stigma meaning they couldn't wait until their wedding night. People would rather not have that be on the minds of some who might wonder, I'm guessing, since I've never been in that situation. It's something I wouldn't want people thinking I guess....

I would rather these busybodies wonder why I was not married in the Temple, than wonder why I was. (apologies to Mark Twain)

It seems to me that just having a close family member who was not “temple-ready” would greatly mitigate this sort of speculation. After all, wanting one’s parents to attend you wedding should certainly be understandable, even by those who believe that the couple should opt for temple marriage, rather than sealing after marriage.

I don’t know whether 90% of the active couples in my ward were first married in the temple, or first married civilly. Ironically, one of the few exceptions -- my stake president -- was first married civilly. Somehow, I doubt that very many people wonder why

That said, your concerns are not unreasonable and I will have to give the matter some more thought.

[thesometimesaint]

Stargazer:

When my son was a missionary in Zimbabwe he was taught to that we don't accept polygamists into the Church, but that they were to just be the best person they could be outside of the church.

[Cobalt-70]

Stargazer:

When my son was a missionary in Zimbabwe he was taught to that we don't accept polygamists into the Church, but that they were to just be the best person they could be outside of the church.

As a condition of baptism, you are supposed to repent of your sins. But if a man became a polygamist in Zimbabwe, under the prevailing culture of his country, and it was legal, then it doesn't seem to me like that man has sinned, and I don't see how he needs to repent of anything he did wrong. If he has faith and has repented of his sins, then what is the doctrinal basis to withhold baptism from that man? After the 1890 and 1904 manifestos, the LDS Church did not require people who were already polygamists to dump their least-favored wives, and the church was okay, for a generation, with having "grandfathered-in" polygamists. Why can't we do the same in Zimbabwe? Why is the church in the business of breaking up families?

Edited August 6, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Stargazer]

Stargazer:

When my son was a missionary in Zimbabwe he was taught to that we don't accept polygamists into the Church, but that they were to just be the best person they could be outside of the church.

K, thanks for the clarification. That is more acceptable than my interpretation.

But it raises the ancillary question: what about the wives? If one wanted to join the church, she's not a polygamist, after all. She only has one husband! Was there a policy about that?

[Stargazer]

As a condition of baptism, you are supposed to repent of your sins. But if a man became a polygamist in Zimbabwe, under the prevailing culture of his country, and it was legal, then it doesn't seem to me like that man has sinned, and I don't see how he needs to repent of anything he did wrong. If he has faith and has repented of his sins, then what is the doctrinal basis to withhold baptism from that man? After the 1890 and 1904 manifestos, the LDS Church did not require people who were already polygamists to dump their least-favored wives, and the church was okay, for a generation, with having "grandfathered-in" polygamists. Why can't we do the same in Zimbabwe? Why is the church in the business of breaking up families?

Well, of course you'd complain about it.

And after he explicitly said that the Church tells the ploygamist to be the best non-member he can be and keep his wives, which you quoted, you still imply the church is "breaking up families". That's what I suggested the policy might be, out of ignorance, but you saw TSS's reply and still said what you said? Having your cake and trying to eat it, too, I see. Perhaps you didn't read all of what TSS wrote.

I suppose you would also have a problem with the policy that called for the excommunication of a member who had a sex change operation; yet, for a non-member who had had a sex-change operation prior to baptism, they could be a member?

Exception conditions require exceptional policies. As to not requiring men already in a plural marriage to dump their "least-favored" wives, the stuation is not the same as for those who are in a polygamy but not yet a member. To do what you suggest would leave open the barn door for back-door polygamy, since by your policy, a member could theoretically have his name removed from the records of the church, move to Zimbabwe with the wives he wanted to add, marry them according to the local culture, and then come back into the church with his new wives. Nice loophole you've created there,Tex!

Edited August 6, 2012 by Stargazer

[Closet Doubter]

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

The one year waiting period after a civil marriage is not doctrine. It is only policy. When my wife and I got married, my wife's grandfather and uncle whom she was very close to but were not members of the church could not attend the wedding. Her uncle also declined to drive the two hours to attend the reception. Most of her cousins could not attend the wedding because they were either non-members or too young. This policy is a slap in the face to non-member family members. We claim to be a family oriented church but that only applies to family members that are also active members of our church. If we were truely a family oriented church, the church would encourage worthy couples that have family members that cannot enter the temple to have a civil wedding first and then within the next couple of weeks, go with the family that are temple worthy and have the marriage sealed for eternity. When you claim this is an exercise in misplaced priorities, I totally agree however placing a bad church policy over family is the misplacement. Family is eternal, the gospel is eternal, but the church is an organization to help us in this life that is not eternal and is not infalible.

[tyler90az]

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.

The thing is nobody knows a mans heart. That is why this and disciplinary policies are so faith killing. Then it gets even better, yout put disciplinary waiting periods in the hands of men(talking bishops or whomever). That then adds another dimension of BS. I see nothing gained by the church disciplining strictly and all to lose. It is easier to get somebody to do what you want by loving them then disciplining them.

I do not think I would have survived in the church when discipline was even stricter. It was like I was put in timeout.

[KevinG]

God knows mens hearts. I was involved in a disciplinary counsel one time where were inclined to think the sister should be reinstated with no further waiting period. The spirit resisted that decision and all three of us obeyed by adding some positive conditions to her repentance like dutiful prayer and scripture study. When the counsel was over she thanked us and told us she was relieved to find we didn't just "pass her on" and that she would have felt like she hadn't repented if we did.

You have to experience the love, prayer and deliberation that goes on in a Bishops or Stake disciplinary counsel. It is very guided by God and not arbitrary at all. Not that men cannot err but if you have not experienced it you are ill equipped to justify your own lack of humility or repentance by complaining about the process being arbitrary.

[tyler90az]

With the Temple there has to be waiting periods just because of the nature of the beast.

It just seems like Sacrament should be worked out pesonally.

[Carborendum]

And are willing to pay (tithing) for the privilege.

Even if we take the spiritual part of tithing out of it, there is a very practical reason tithing is required to go to the temple. The temples are freaking expensive to build and maintain. If you're going to have the priviledge of having your marriage there (and often, the church building for a reception) then you've got to pay something for it.

To me, this seems much more fair than other faiths that will "rent out" their facilities for parallel services at their places of worship. With all things taken into account, it is actually a cheap price to pay for a dazzling facilitiy for a marriage.

[blackstrap]

Families are forever....IF they have been sealed together for eternity

Marry civily ,wait a year,then marry in the temple,or marry in the temple and hold a fake civil marriage later,or don't get married at all.

Do what you want,let the consequence follow... oh wait,that's not quite how it goes.

[Cobalt-70]

And after he explicitly said that the Church tells the ploygamist to be the best non-member he can be and keep his wives, which you quoted, you still imply the church is "breaking up families". That's what I suggested the policy might be, out of ignorance, but you saw TSS's reply and still said what you said? Having your cake and trying to eat it, too, I see. Perhaps you didn't read all of what TSS wrote.

How would you respond if the church said, "Don't worry about going to the Celestial kingdom. The Terrestial is good enough for you." Whatever the church tells him, that doesn't change the nature of his choice. The polygamist has to choose between exaltation and his family. This is quite ironic in light of D&C 132, which has not yet been rescinded.

I suppose you would also have a problem with the policy that called for the excommunication of a member who had a sex change operation; yet, for a non-member who had had a sex-change operation prior to baptism, they could be a member?

That's a subject for a different thread, but yes, I personally don't see a problem with having surgery to conform the sex of your body to the eternal gender of your spirit, and I would not judge anybody for so doing. It will presumably happen in the resurrection, anyway. But from a church policy perspective, there is a difference between doing something effectively irreversible that is legal, before baptism, that was not sinful by the standards of the law under which a person lives, but violates current church rules--and then intentionally violating church rules after baptism. We're only talking about the former.

Exception conditions require exceptional policies. As to not requiring men already in a plural marriage to dump their "least-favored" wives, the stuation is not the same as for those who are in a polygamy but not yet a member. To do what you suggest would leave open the barn door for back-door polygamy, since by your policy, a member could theoretically have his name removed from the records of the church, move to Zimbabwe with the wives he wanted to add, marry them according to the local culture, and then come back into the church with his new wives. Nice loophole you've created there,Tex!

If a person already knows church policy and has accepted it in the past, and then violates that policy whether in or out of the church, it's fair to hold them accountable for breaking the rules.

[Calm]

How would you respond if the church said, "Don't worry about going to the Celestial kingdom. The Terrestial is good enough for you."

That is not what the Church is saying. The man prior to learning the gospel made some choices he must live with just as a person having a child out of wedlock or other such situations must do the same. He has a responsibility towards others, both his wives and his children who would suffer tremendously if he divorced them in the society that they currently live in. Therefore he is to live the best life he can, take care of those he has chosen to be responsible for and if sincere in his belief he will receive all the blessings of the CK.

[Cobalt-70]

That is not what the Church is saying. The man prior to learning the gospel made some choices he must live with just as a person having a child out of wedlock or other such situations must do the same. He has a responsibility towards others, both his wives and his children who would suffer tremendously if he divorced them in the society that they currently live in. Therefore he is to live the best life he can, take care of those he has chosen to be responsible for and if sincere in his belief he will receive all the blessings of the CK.

Then by implication, this person is worthy of the Celestial kingdom, despite his polygamy. It also assumes that he will be a polygamist both in this life and in the Celestial kingdom. What difference does it make whether we baptize him now or a few years after he dies, other than the fact that it avoids potential embarrassment to the church, the fact that it is unjust to the individual, and denies the church the benefit of his membership?

[Deborah]

This is quite ironic in light of D&C 132, which has not yet been rescinded.

D&C 132 is about the New and Everlasting Covenant and that is still in practice. Only the Law of Moses or plural marriage is not practiced at this time, but rescinded? There are still men sealed to more than one woman.