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

[Biz]

Yes!

[strappinglad]

In some countries it is not allowed to have a building into which the government cannot enter. The Church in those countries has made an "annex" where any high ranking government official can enter and technically be " in " the temple. Why not have a place on the temple lot where everyone can go ( visitor's center ?) with sufficient room for family and friends wherein a civil marriage can take place ? Then the couple can excuse themselves for a half hour and go through the temple marriage procedure and later return to the reception. Or visa versa.

[Duncan]

In some countries it is not allowed to have a building into which the government cannot enter. The Church in those countries has made an "annex" where any high ranking government official can enter and technically be " in " the temple. Why not have a place on the temple lot where everyone can go ( visitor's center ?) with sufficient room for family and friends wherein a civil marriage can take place ? Then the couple can excuse themselves for a half hour and go through the temple marriage procedure and later return to the reception. Or visa versa.

 

 

it's funny, my now ex and I were sealed first in the Temple and then later civilly married, no one made a scene about it as far as I know. When we went to get our marriage license they had us sign it and two witnesses also sign it. Later it was found out that the person giving us the license didn't sign it and we were out of province and no chance to come back. So technically we weren't legally married until that flubdubbery was somehow resolved by the bureau of vital statistics a few months later and a Temple sealing isn't recognized! we were legally or illegally living in sin

[strappinglad]

 Duncan, have you ever looked back on that episode as some sort of ' sign ' ?

[Duncan]

 Duncan, have you ever looked back on that episode as some sort of ' sign ' ?

 

 

looking back yes! haha! never get married in Saskatchewan!!!! tell all your friends. Next time we are going to the local Temple which will be built here, mind you when they actually get it approved and built will be probably around the same time a single woman around my age shows up here, alass...!

[BCSpace]

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?

 

I'm all for the waiting period. The early Christians waited a year just for membership and baptism.  I'd say keep the year for the temple and wait more on baptism for adults until sustained Church going and tithe paying is seen.  Perhaps 6 months to a year.

 

The key word here is sustained.  We don't want members who "repent" quickly just to attend the temple and then fall back into old habits.

[Brian 2.0]

Can someone explain how a big wedding ceremony celebrating with friends and family your commitment to each other detracts from the temple sealing ceremony?

I'm mean, it's not like someone is taking a trombone into sacrament meeting and playing Mozart or anything. I can see how that detracts obviously.

[Calm]

It is hard for most people to shift gears for loud and pompous to quiet and spiritual. Also there is the worry...what ifs..if it happens before and exhaustion if it happens afterwards (personally I think receptions should be held a month after the honeymoon so the couple enjoys the honeymoon more (from my observations the beginning of the honeymoon is with two exhausted people, not the best way to get a positive start).

I see too often a hurry to get out of the temple for pictures or to get back to setting up for the reception or months of planning going into the reception so that the sealing becomes a footnote. I can just imagine how much more likely that would be with a grand wedding outside the temple before or after.

[Glenn101]

There is no problem with the year waiting period. But for those who want it changed, live your lives totally for God in the Church until you be called as president, prophet, seer, and revelator, then change it.

 

Glenn

[omni]

There is no problem with the year waiting period. But for those who want it changed, live your lives totally for God in the Church until you be called as president, prophet, seer, and revelator, then change it.

 

Glenn

Wait, he can do that? I thought God had to do it.....

[Brian 2.0]

It is hard for most people to shift gears for loud and pompous to quiet and spiritual. Also there is the worry...what ifs..if it happens before and exhaustion if it happens afterwards (personally I think receptions should be held a month after the honeymoon so the couple enjoys the honeymoon more (from my observations the beginning of the honeymoon is with two exhausted people, not the best way to get a positive start).

I see too often a hurry to get out of the temple for pictures or to get back to setting up for the reception or months of planning going into the reception so that the sealing becomes a footnote. I can just imagine how much more likely that would be with a grand wedding outside the temple before or after.

I agree that the juxtaposition between can be hard to accommodate on the same day, but I don't see how that makes one bad necessarily. I think its nice when they are separated, but both can be very enjoyable and positive experiences.

My wife and I were married civily because she was a convert under a year and then we were sealed later. The separation made the focus on the sealing very powerful as it was the only event of the day. For me, I know we enjoyed it more than if we had to deal with the reception details and all that.

The option to get married in a ceremony where ALL family and friends regardless of religious affiliation can be there to support, witness, and celebrate in that union followed by a more intimate sealing ceremony, maybe after you are back from the honeymoon, sounds like a fantastic way to go, but it's not possible under the current policy. And I don't see the drawbacks of it.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[cinepro]

Wait, he can do that? I thought God had to do it.....

 

Only if God instituted it in the first place...

Edited September 18, 2013 by cinepro

[MormonMason]

I'm all for the waiting period. The early Christians waited a year just for membership and baptism.  I'd say keep the year for the temple and wait more on baptism for adults until sustained Church going and tithe paying is seen.  Perhaps 6 months to a year.

 

The key word here is sustained.  We don't want members who "repent" quickly just to attend the temple and then fall back into old habits.

It was three years probation before a person was considered a full member of the Yahad at Qumran and participate at the sacred meal.

[Robert F. Smith]

TruthSeeker2013 said:

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.

 

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.

Are you speaking of LDS Church or governmental rules?

In what other countries does this LDS policy not hold?

Also, what is "draconian" about it?

[LordUther]

 

 

Are you speaking of LDS Church or governmental rules?

In what other countries does this LDS policy not hold?

Also, what is "draconian" about it?

 

 

The UK doesn't have this one year wait because Temple sealings aren't recognised by law. So members here have to have a church wedding, which is usually followed by a breakfast/reception in the cultural hall then off to the temle for the sealing.

[sheilauk]

Actually, I think the UK does have the 12 month wait.  Temple marriages are not recognised and so there has to be a civil wedding.  You can, as Lord Uther said, then go up to the Temple to be sealed, the same day.  If you do not go the same day, (and most people can reach a Temple the same day - especially if you marry in the morning), I think that you do then have to wait 12 months before you can go.  I'm not positive - its what I've been told by those who have married in the Church - you either rush to the Temple or wait.  There may be exceptions I'm not aware of or it could be wrong!  If anyone knows for sure, it would be nice to know for sure.  I may ask around a bit and see if anyone will confirm the policy to someone asking out of a matter of interest and not need!

[Robert F. Smith]

The UK doesn't have this one year wait because Temple sealings aren't recognised by law. So members here have to have a church wedding, which is usually followed by a breakfast/reception in the cultural hall then off to the temle for the sealing.

I'm not talking about civil law of the UK.  Waiting to be married a year after a civil wedding in the USA has nothing to do with that, but is based on having a temple recommend.  People in the USA will have a civil wedding without a temple recommend, and later have a temple sealing if they wish, which could be many years later if at all.  Being married in an LDS meeting house by a bishop or in a private home by a judge, etc., is spoken of (as you know) as being "for time."

 

So my question still is, what has one to do with the other?  Answer:  Having no temple recommend means that a couple in the UK cannot go from the meeting house to the temple to be sealed.

 

Does the Handbook of Instructions for bishops in the UK require a wait of one year for a temple sealing if a couple was married civilly and without a temple recommend -- just as it does in the USA?  If so, the debate on this thread is taking place under false pretenses..

[sheilauk]

I'm not talking about civil law of the UK.  Waiting to be married a year after a civil wedding in the USA has nothing to do with that, but is based on having a temple recommend.  People in the USA will have a civil wedding without a temple recommend, and later have a temple sealing if they wish, which could be many years later if at all.  Being married in an LDS meeting house by a bishop or in a private home by a judge, etc., is spoken of (as you know) as being "for time."

 

So my question still is, what has one to do with the other?  Answer:  Having no temple recommend means that a couple in the UK cannot go from the meeting house to the temple to be sealed.

 

Does the Handbook of Instructions for bishops in the UK require a wait of one year for a temple sealing if a couple was married civilly and without a temple recommend -- just as it does in the USA?  If so, the debate on this thread is taking place under false pretenses..

 

My belief is that, in the UK, when you marry, you must either get sealed in the Temple on the same day as your civil wedding or wait at least a year.  If you don't have a recommend on your wedding day, then you would have to wait at least a year, regardless of whether or not you obtained your recommend before then.  This seems to be what has happened with those I've spoken to/am aware of in my ward.  However, I do not know what the Handbook says and will try to find out unless someone else can answer.

[LordUther]

My belief is that, in the UK, when you marry, you must either get sealed in the Temple on the same day as your civil wedding or wait at least a year.  If you don't have a recommend on your wedding day, then you would have to wait at least a year, regardless of whether or not you obtained your recommend before then.  This seems to be what has happened with those I've spoken to/am aware of in my ward.  However, I do not know what the Handbook says and will try to find out unless someone else can answer.

 

 

My understanding is if you decide to go on your honeymoon first you wait a year. If one or both of the parties don't have a TR because one/both is a new member then as soon as they can get a TR they can be sealed, so if they've been members 6 months when they get married they only have to wait 6 months to be sealed, and I believe it's the same for worthiness issues aswell.

[Calm]

The UK doesn't have this one year wait because Temple sealings aren't recognised by law. So members here have to have a church wedding, which is usually followed by a breakfast/reception in the cultural hall then off to the temle for the sealing.

Are large and expensive receptions common in the UK?

[Calm]

I agree that the juxtaposition between can be hard to accommodate on the same day, but I don't see how that makes one bad necessarily.

Doing genealogy is a good thing, but if it interferes with you giving your kids or spouse enough attention, that can be bad.

If instead one approaches that good work...or any other...while keeping one's eye firmly focused on the more meaningful/important/essential work so that the latter does not suffer, then one can take joy in the first. But this keeping focused can be difficult to do in something that involves multiple people's visions on how it should be done, especially if some of those visions are rather grand and one wants to please everyone involved...or at least make them happy and avoid conflict.

[LordUther]

It's been awhile since I've been to a church wedding but not that I remember. It would be a buffet/meal in the cultural hall after the service. Maybe a DJ playing background music that would also allow the first dance & a bit of a boogie for the guests then the couple would head off to the temple for the sealing. Food usually supplied by RS.

[sheilauk]

Are large and expensive receptions common in the UK?

It doesn't have to be that large a reception in the UK to be expensive.  There's still a lot of variety though and a large, expensive event is not an expectation, yet but it seems to be getting there.  I have been to all sorts - large & small, simple & fancy.  However, the regular church goers that I know (both LDS and non LDS) still seem to favour fairly small affairs, with the reception often in the church/cultural hall (as outlined by Lord Uther!)

Edited September 18, 2013 by sheilauk

[sheilauk]

My understanding is if you decide to go on your honeymoon first you wait a year. If one or both of the parties don't have a TR because one/both is a new member then as soon as they can get a TR they can be sealed, so if they've been members 6 months when they get married they only have to wait 6 months to be sealed, and I believe it's the same for worthiness issues aswell.

So, if there is a valid issue why you couldn't go to the Temple on the same day, you can go when that issue is resolved, but if you choose not to go that day, you wait a year?

[Buckeye]

My imperfect analysis of the issue:

1. Policies necessitate a weighing of interests.  There will always be "losers."  For instance, the decision as to what time to begin church services is a policy decision.  Whatever time is selected, some members will legitimately prefer a different time.  These preferences are not "wrong," but not every legitimate desire can be accomodated immediately. 
2. Policies can be inspired (perhaps another thread could be opened on this topic), but they are not eternal in nature.  They are simply a reflection of what works best at the time.  We should therefore expect policies to change from time to time.
3. In my experience, church leaders almost always try to accomplish the greatest good in the policies they select.  But again, any policy will be less than ideal for some percentage of members.
4. In order for church leaders to make the best policy decision they need members to speak out concerning their interests - i.e., what works best for them.  Traditional lines of authority are a great way for this communication to happen.  Public petitions are also appropriate when done in the proper spirit.
5. Many policies require a sacrifice.  But sacrifice must have a purpose.  Fasting without a purpose is just going hungry.  Beginning sacrament meeting at 3:30 AM would be a sacrifice too, but a pointless one.

Applying these principles to the policy of a one-year waiting period:

1. The waiting period is policy, not doctine. There is nothing in scripture that requires the waiting period. The policy exists only in the few countries that recognize temple sealings as civil weddings. The policy has never been presented to the church body for a sustaining vote.
2. The primary policy justification for the waiting period goes something like this: "without a waiting period, the civil ceremony would become the preeminent event; we want the temple sealing - the eternally binding ordinance - to become the focus of attention."  That is a very valid argument.  I trust the church leaders that implemented this policy did so in good faith based on their own experiences. 
3. Legitimate policy arguments exist for removing the waiting period.  A few examples:
   1. If the civil and temple ceremonies are separated (in time and place), then a more reverant and proper attention can be placed on the sealing because it is not competing with the civil ceremony.  Pomp and circumstance will be removed from the temple grounds to the wedding chapels.
   2. Public civil ceremonies allow participation by family members who cannot enter the temple.  Policies should support participation by all family members in important life events that help us form family bonds for the eternities.
4. The waiting period very often requires a huge sacrifice in that some family members cannot enter the temple.  This sacrifice is not the intended purpose of the policy.  Church leaders do not want to separate family members from this important event; that's just the natural outcome of requiring TRs to enter the temple.  Because exclusion of family is not a reasonable ground for the policy, simply saying "sacrifice" is not a good justification for the policy.
5. According to Slate article, church spokesman Otterson responded to a request for comment by saying "Church leaders are aware of, and sensitive to, this issue." 

With this background, I can give my own person opinion of the policy.  (I speak only for myself, not my wife).  For my marriage, the policy was a detriment.  My wife and I are both life-long members from strong church families.  We never wanted anything other than an eternal marriage.  And the focus of our marriage was on the sealing.  That reality would have existed regardless of the policy.  The sealing would be the central event in our marriage.  We did not need a waiting period to focus our attention on the sealing.

 

My wife and I are both the oldest in our families.  Some of our extended family are not members of the church.  Because of this, the policy prevented many important people in our lives from being present for our wedding.  For me (again, not speaking for my wife), that was a sacrifice without a purpose.  My bonds with my aunt/uncles/grandparents, and especially with my younger siblings, would have been stronger if they could attend the wedding.  So for me, the policy was a detriment.  It was a sacrifice without a purpose.  That's just me.  I am only one member in 14+million.