Is It Time To Change The One-Year Waiting Policy For Temple Sealings?

[omni]

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2013/09/mormon_weddings_why_you_can_t_attend_your_friends_lds_wedding_but_should.single.html

 

If that pain is justified, if that’s what God wants, if there’s some doctrinal or theological reason that it has to be that way, then maybe that’s the price we have to pay, but it seems so pointless. What are we accomplishing except creating distance from us and the people we’re trying to influence and put on a good impression for?”

 

 

Interesting article on Salon about the one-year waiting period to be sealed in the temple for those who are intially married civilly.  I agree with the general sentiment of the article, this seems like an outdated policy that is hurting LDS families more than it is helping.  What say you?

[bluebell]

I say, it really doesn't matter what I feel, or what anyone else feels about the waiting period.

 

If it's the way God wants it, then it's appropriate. If it's not, then it can be changed by those He has put in authority to direct His church. 

[Senator]

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2013/09/mormon_weddings_why_you_can_t_attend_your_friends_lds_wedding_but_should.single.html

 

 

Interesting article on Salon about the one-year waiting period to be sealed in the temple for those who are intially married civilly.  I agree with the general sentiment of the article, this seems like an outdated policy that is hurting LDS families more than it is helping.  What say you?

 

What does it matter what anyone thinks or says?

 

When are you going to learn that the Church is not a Democracy or even a Republic

Edited September 17, 2013 by Senator

[LordUther]

Fortunately it's not an issue here in the UK. Temple marriages aren't recognised by law because a wedding has to be open to the public to allow anyone who wishes to object. Personally I think if it's that important that all your family attend (and I don't condemn or judge anyone who makes that decision) then you accept that a sealing will be a year away, and I don't see why that should cause you pain. It should just be a decision you make. It's not like it's a permanent bar, if the worst happens to one or both of you then you can always get the sealing done vicariously.

[TruthSeeker2013]

What does it matter what anyone thinks or says?

 

When are you going to learn that the Church is not a Democracy or even a Republic

It's a policy, not doctrine (In other countries no such waiting period exists, therefore it is not doctrine). Thus, it's appropriate for members to ask for change.

[canard78]

I say, it really doesn't matter what I feel, or what anyone else feels about the waiting period.

 

If it's the way God wants it, then it's appropriate. If it's not, then it can be changed by those He has put in authority to direct His church.

Can you show me where God said we must have a 12 month gap on the matter? Perhaps you've read some revelation on the matter that I have not.

Other countries don't uphold this draconian policy.

[Buzzard]

I suspect that the authority in the US and Canada for religious ceremonies to be legally binding will be going away in the next few years, so it may become a moot point soon anyway. 

[Danzo]

I personally don't care how long someone has to wait between a civil and a temple marriage, however, If I had the choice, I would prefer a temple marriage (even with excluding people) over a civil one any day.

 

These days, it would amost seem that the wedding is more important than the marriage

[Calm]

Outside the US and Canada they have other choices they are forced to make about the temple due to distance and cost...do we spend money that could make our new life easier on travel for a sealing or not?

IMO, we are given choices in this life to help us learn what is most important to us and sometimes that requires choices between two good things.

[Buzzard]

In France on my mission, a couple had 72 hours to make it to the temple after their sealing, or they also had to wait a year. A young couple from the branch I was working in did just that-got married at the Town Hall, then left on their honeymoon, holding a reception after their return. On the way to the temple, they stopped overnight and shared a room. The old ladies in the branch were scandalized.

[Danzo]

One more comment, 

It would seem that the author of the slate article is talking about a different church than the one I attend.  I couldn't tell you (nor do I care) whether any person in my ward was married civilly before being sealed (in most cases, unless they mention it in a talk I don't even know if they are sealed).  At least in my experience, this judgement of others based on whether they were married civilly or not seems to exist only in the head of the author.

[WmLaw]

Yes, the change to this policy is long overdue.

 

If it's acceptable/necessary in other countries, it should be acceptable churchwide.

[Danzo]

Can you show me where God said we must have a 12 month gap on the matter? Perhaps you've read some revelation on the matter that I have not.

Other countries don't uphold this draconian policy.

If you could get married civilly in the temple, what would be the point of having two separate ceremonies?

[omni]

Fortunately it's not an issue here in the UK. Temple marriages aren't recognised by law because a wedding has to be open to the public to allow anyone who wishes to object. Personally I think if it's that important that all your family attend (and I don't condemn or judge anyone who makes that decision) then you accept that a sealing will be a year away, and I don't see why that should cause you pain. It should just be a decision you make. It's not like it's a permanent bar, if the worst happens to one or both of you then you can always get the sealing done vicariously.

This is much easier said than done for those of us marrying in the US and Canada, especially for those in Utah. It is such an expectation to get married in the temple that the only members I have ever seen not chose this are those who were not worthy to enter the temple.

For a convert whose entire family are non-members or a BIC individual whose parents are inactive, this can be an incredibly decisive issue causing ill feelings towards the bride/groom and the church on what should be the happiest day of their lives.

Is their actual doctrine explaining why a sealing immediately after a civil marriage is somehow lessened or invalidated? Or is this another one of those "we don't know why" issues?

[LordUther]

This is much easier said than done for those of us marrying in the US and Canada, especially for those in Utah. It is such an expectation to get married in the temple that the only members I have ever seen not chose this are those who were not worthy to enter the temple.

For a convert whose entire family are non-members or a BIC individual whose parents are inactive, this can be an incredibly decisive issue causing ill feelings towards the bride/groom and the church on what should be the happiest day of their lives.

Is their actual doctrine explaining why a sealing immediately after a civil marriage is somehow lessened or invalidated? Or is this another one of those "we don't know why" issues?

 

As others have said this is policy not doctrine. My understanding is that it was implemented because the church felt that couples were too focused on the big wedding with frills than what the ceremony was about. As this came in during the 60's I'm going to hazard a guess here that as Temples weren't that common outside of Utah at this point it was more of a problem in Utah than anywhere else, where most of the family would be members and attending the sealing anyway.

[sdc999]

I personally don't care how long someone has to wait between a civil and a temple marriage, however, If I had the choice, I would prefer a temple marriage (even with excluding people) over a civil one any day.

 

These days, it would amost seem that the wedding is more important than the marriage

I think your statement seems selfish. Maybe next, you can start telling the 8 year olds, "you don't need your friends and family at your baptism."

I just got an invitation to a wedding of a long time friend of the family. She is having a civil ceremony and is at big odds with her parents. She said she wants HER friends at HER wedding.

[cinepro]

No, it's not time to do away with the one year waiting period.

 

The time was years ago.

[CV75]

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2013/09/mormon_weddings_why_you_can_t_attend_your_friends_lds_wedding_but_should.single.html

 

 

Interesting article on Salon about the one-year waiting period to be sealed in the temple for those who are intially married civilly.  I agree with the general sentiment of the article, this seems like an outdated policy that is hurting LDS families more than it is helping.  What say you?

I think where the laws of the land permit it, and where couples have the option and a choice to be married by the laws of the land and their church simultaneously, it is a fine policy that teaches a fine principle.

 

In addition, it seems to offer a healthy boundary between Church and state and suggests a degree of religious freedom.

[jcake]

I posted on this in the news forum before I noticed this.  I think this policy is long overdue for a change, too much heartbreak at weddings.  How much better to include and show regard for non-member parents, etc.

[MormonMason]

I found the article fairly annoying, and rather foolish the claim that the waiting period is a punishment.

 

I was married civilly first, and then later sealed in the temple.  We had a lot of family who could not go (all of whom on my side were non-members; I was a convert and my wife a lifelong member), some of whom would have been quite bitter.  So, we took it to the Lord and decided on a civil marriage performed by our Bishop.  We made sure that there would be no pomp and ceremony there and actually kept the cost of the entire proceeding to about $300.  We wanted to make sure that we did nothing to detract from the sacredness of the temple and a temple sealing.

 

After the ceremonies were over, the Bishop had been visibly shaken by what had happened.  The reason was that the Spirit of the Lord was present for that wedding like he was used to feeling it in the temple when he performed sealings.  It was completely unlike all other civil weddings he had performed where the Spirit was most often just barely there or was very apparently absent.

 

We accepted the waiting period, and then some, and we did not have a problem with any of it.  I just do not see the issue.  If you work with the Lord and he is fine with it, then that is the way to go. All others should go straight to the temple without delay, come what may.

 

I do know that I asked our Bishop why the waiting period was put in place.  His father was a General Authority.  He stated to me that it was because too many people were putting so much pomp and circumstance into their civil weddings that they were denigrating the temple sealing that they were to receive afterward by spending vast amounts of money and partying before the sealing so that they were not truly in an air of solemnity for the receipt of the ordinance.  The policy was put into place to put a stop to that sort of nonsense.  The countries where this policy does not apply are places where civil marriage is required by law in order to be legally married, and for those who have to travel outside of their country of origin just to go to a temple.

 

In my opinion, that is the way that it should be. But, who knows what will come, if anything, of anything that people try to do using a website to try to embarrass the Church into changing a policy that was put into place for good reasons?

 

In the interim, if you really feel that strongly about marrying in front of your non-member and unworthy-member family members, then get the civil marriage and wait the year for the sealing.  What is the real problem? In our case, we get two anniversaries and an additional one in between, which is kind of fun.  But, always, always, always, take up your decision with the Lord before you act.  If you are not in a state wherein you can get that revelation, then get that way.  If you truly love the Lord, it is worth it and you will do it without complaining.

 

One other thing: A religion that does not require some degree of sacrifice on the part of its adherents is a religion not worth having, in my (and in the Prophet Joseph's) opinion.  Think on that for a bit.

Edited September 18, 2013 by MormonMason

[CV75]

I posted on this in the news forum before I noticed this.  I think this policy is long overdue for a change, too much heartbreak at weddings.  How much better to include and show regard for non-member parents, etc.

It would be quite a policy that can both honor someone’s emotional needs without condoning conflicting religious or moral values. At least in countries where the waiting period is not implemented, it is due to something as impersonal as a state regulation, and nothing as personal as a validating (or not) anyone’s values and feelings. And in countries where the waiting period is carried out, it is more about honoring a covenant that ensures the long-term interests of the couple than about sustaining their loved ones’ feelings connected to whatever outward ceremony their values and traditions allow. Their love and support for the couple’s long-term success is a given. Plus, God has feelings for everyone involved, including Himself.

[CV75]

I was married civilly first, and then later sealed in the temple.  We had a lot of family who could not go (all of whom on my side were non-members; I was a convert and my wife a lifelong member), some of whom would have been quite bitter.  So, we took it to the Lord and decided on a civil marriage performed by our Bishop.  We made sure that there would be no pomp and ceremony there and actually kept the cost of the entire proceeding to about $300.  We wanted to make sure that we did nothing to detract from the sacredness of the temple and a temple sealing.

 

After the ceremonies were over, the Bishop had been visibly shaken by what had happened.  The reason was that the Spirit of the Lord was present for that wedding like he was used to feeling it in the temple when he performed sealings.  It was completely unlike all other civil weddings he had performed where the Spirit was most often just barely there or was very apparently absent.

 

We accepted the waiting period, and then some, and we did not have a problem with any of it.  I just do not see the issue.  If you work with the Lord and he is fine with it, then that is the way to go. All others should go straight to the temple without delay, come what may.

 

I do know that I asked our Bishop why the waiting period was put in place.  His father was a General Authority.  He stated to me that it was because too many people were putting so much pomp and circumstance into their civil weddings that they were denigrating the temple sealing that they were to receive afterward by spending vast amounts of money and partying before the sealing so that they were not truly in an air of solemnity for the receipt of the ordinance.  The policy was put into place to put a stop to that sort of nonsense.  The countries where this policy does not apply are places where civil marriage is required by law in order to be legally married, and for those who have to travel outside of their country of origin just to go to a temple.

 

In my opinion, that is the way that it should be. But, who knows what will come, if anything, of anything that people try to do using a website to try to embarrass the Church into changing a policy that was put into place for good reasons?

 

In the interim, if you really feel that strongly about marrying in front of your non-member and unworthy-member family members, then get the civil marriage and wait the year for the sealing.  What is the real problem? In our case, we get two anniversaries and an additional one in between, which is kind of fun.  But, always, always, always, take up your decision with the Lord before you act.  If you are not in a state wherein you can get that revelation, then get that way.  If you truly love the Lord, it is worth it and you will do it without complaining.

 

One other thing: A religion that does not require some degree of sacrifice on the part of its adherents is a religion not worth having, in my (and in the Prophet Joseph's) opinion.  Think on that for a bit.

i think this is excellent advice!

 

We were married in the temple, zero family present since we were the only members. Yes, it was a dissappointement for our parents, but you know, they were 35 years older than we were and they dealt with it as adults do (at least, as adults should). They really, truly, got over it (within days if not sooner) and it didn't affect their overall happiness in life, opinion about the Church, or our loving relationships one iota. In fact, my father joined the Church some 20+ years later, and was happliy sealed post-humously to my mother. So at worst, the circumstances of our ceremony meant nothing, and at best, it meant everyone took the high road. I think this is the more common experience as we are by no means extraordinary families.

Edited September 18, 2013 by CV75

[bluebell]

Can you show me where God said we must have a 12 month gap on the matter? Perhaps you've read some revelation on the matter that I have not.

Other countries don't uphold this draconian policy.

 

I said that if it was doctrine or condoned of God, then our opinion on it doesn't matter, and that if it's not, He'll let those who are in charge of such things know.  I'm not sure why such a statement would bother you. 

 

Are you suggesting that this is an arbitrary policy which the brethren have implemented only because they think people are in favor of it, and that if they really knew our opinions on it, they would change it?

[The Nehor]

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest we increase the waiting period to five years.

[bluebell]

My husband is a convert to the church and no one in his family could come to the temple.  In order to make that as easy on his family as possible, we only had about 7 people total with us in the sealing room.  No friends at all other than my best friend and his best friend who served as a witness for us. 

 

It was a sacrifice for both of us, him more than me, but we truly believed that we were where we were supposed to be when we were supposed to be there, so the sacrifice was acceptable to us.

 

Like MormonMason said, take it to the Lord and whatever He tells you to do will be right, regardless of what it is.  When you do that, there is no reason to worry about whether or not to have a civil ceremony first.  If God's o.k. with it, then there is no guilt or shame in it.  If He's not, then, well, any guilt and shame you feel would be appropriate. 

 

As to the article, there are a TON of people in our ward who were married civil before being married in the temple.  No. One. Cares.

Edited September 18, 2013 by bluebell