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

[LordUther]

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?

 

As far as I am aware yes. I believe there are exceptions ie in the case of adultery, but as a broad understanding yes.

[Brian 2.0]

has anyone ever heard of someone getting sealed in the temple first and NOT having that be a civil recognized wedding? Then later they have a civil marriage ceremony?

[Calm]

 Public petitions are also appropriate when done in the proper spirit.

 

I don't think I have yet to see a public petition for change that I would feel appropriate to sign.

 

Collecting signatures for a private petition makes more sense to me and I could very well sign that if I knew it was going directly to the leaders and would not be released to the media.

[Buckeye]

I don't think I have yet to see a public petition for change that I would feel appropriate to sign.

 

Collecting signatures for a private petition makes more sense to me and I could very well sign that if I knew it was going directly to the leaders and would not be released to the media.

 

What exactly is a "private petition"?  Someone walking around the chapel foyer gathering signatures?  A mass email to friends/family?  Where do you draw the line between private and public?

[Calm]

Public I would describe as an online one open to anyone to see or one sent to the media to draw attention to it.  A private one would not be publicized but passed around among a closed group of those who were involved, even if sent out in emails to family and friends and other known members of the Church.  

[Buckeye]

Public I would describe as an online one open to anyone to see or one sent to the media to draw attention to it.  A private one would not be publicized but passed around among a closed group of those who were involved, even if sent out in emails to family and friends and other known members of the Church.  

 

So if a member of this forum created a post with a poll asking if the policy should be changed, that would cross the line for you?  I'm not trying to play semantics.  It's a tough line to draw. 

 

If I may, I think your real concern, regardless of the method, is where members use the media/web/polls in an attempt to speak directly to general authorities rather than going through local chains of command.  Is that fair?  I assume you did not approve of the "Let women pray" petition.  If so, would you have approved if the movement asked people to write letters to their local leaders rather than people in the COB?

[Calm]

So if a member of this forum created a post with a poll asking if the policy should be changed, that would cross the line for you?  I'm not trying to play semantics.  It's a tough line to draw. 

 

If I may, I think your real concern, regardless of the method, is where members use the media/web/polls in an attempt to speak directly to general authorities rather than going through local chains of command.  Is that fair?  I assume you did not approve of the "Let women pray" petition.  If so, would you have approved if the movement asked people to write letters to their local leaders rather than people in the COB?

Not if they were just curious about people's opinion.  If they were to then use the results to attempt to put pressure on leaders...I would have a problem with that.

 

No, it is about manipulation...using public venues to put pressure on leadership.

[Buckeye]

Not if they were just curious about people's opinion.  If they were to then use the results to attempt to put pressure on leaders...I would have a problem with that.

 

No, it is about manipulation...using public venues to put pressure on leadership.

Thanks.  I understand you now.  I'll let the discussion return to the OP topic about the merits of the waiting period policy.

[Buzzard]

has anyone ever heard of someone getting sealed in the temple first and NOT having that be a civil recognized wedding? Then later they have a civil marriage ceremony?

I could see this getting problematic. Some young frisky couple somewhere will decide on the ride between the temple and the chapel that since they are now sealed for all time, what's the harm in a little detour? So are they guilty of fornication after their temple marriage? If the policy is ever changed, it will certainly be legal marriage first, sealing second. 

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

Which do you want more a party(wedding) or a marriage?

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

has anyone ever heard of someone getting sealed in the temple first and NOT having that be a civil recognized wedding? Then later they have a civil marriage ceremony?

 

They are done at the same time.

Edited September 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

Sealings first and civil marriage second?  When?

 

I've always heard of it as the reverse since it is always easier to find someone to civilly marry you than it is to be sealed.

 

One has to bring a valid marriage license to the temple in order to be married in the US and I assume Canada though it may be that different provinces have different rules, I would be surprised in countries where civil marriage is required first if couples weren't required to bring marriage certificates in order to be sealed (at the very least this would avoid potential unauthorized plural marriages being performed).

 

add-on:  I see you have changed your comment from 'happens all the time' to pointing out that one can where allowed be married and sealed in the same ceremony as temple sealers in these countries have the legal authority to marry someone as well as the religious authority.

 

However, that was not the question.  He was wondering if it was possible to be sealed first without being married and than be married later on...and that is what my comment was in regard to.

Edited September 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

Sealings first and civil marriage second?  When?

 

I've always heard of it as the reverse since it is always easier to find someone to civilly marry you than it is to be sealed.

 

One has to bring a valid marriage license to the temple in order to be married in the US and I assume Canada though it may be that different provinces have different rules, I would be surprised in countries where civil marriage is required first if couples weren't required to bring marriage certificates in order to be sealed (at the very least this would avoid potential unauthorized plural marriages being performed).

 

add-on:  I see you have changed your comment from 'happens all the time' to pointing out that one can where allowed be married and sealed in the same ceremony as temple sealers in these countries have the legal authority to marry someone as well as the religious authority.

 

However, that was not the question.  He was wondering if it was possible to be sealed first without being married and than be married later on...and that is what my comment was in regard to.

 

 

yep, in Canada all you need is that marriage license to be sealed in the Temple, they sign it in addition to two witnesses and the person giving you the marriage license. A lot if not most couples get sealed and that's it, but if you wanted a 'ring ceremony' or a civil wedding thing then after the Temple you could get married underwater by Elvis if you so desired, you are now legal so do whatever wherever

[Calm]

yep, in Canada all you need is that marriage license to be sealed in the Temple, they sign it in addition to two witnesses and the person giving you the marriage license. A lot if not most couples get sealed and that's it, but if you wanted a 'ring ceremony' or a civil wedding thing then after the Temple you could get married underwater by Elvis if you so desired, you are now legal so do whatever wherever

But a civil wedding wouldn't be valid, it would just be for show, right?  Since they are already legally married?

 

It would be like going to one judge and getting married and then going next door to another one and doing the same thing over. Only the first one would go into the legal books.

[omni]

Which do you want more a party(wedding) or a marriage?

Both! I guess we could have gotten sealed and then prayed and read our scriptures the rest of the day. However, I'm glad that we got sealed on the morning and had a party/reception that evening like is traditionally done.

[thesometimesaint]

It is an either/or question.

 

We didn't read our Scriptures the rest of the day. If you get my drift.

[Duncan]

But a civil wedding wouldn't be valid, it would just be for show, right?  Since they are already legally married?

 

It would be like going to one judge and getting married and then going next door to another one and doing the same thing over. Only the first one would go into the legal books.

 

that's right, after the Temple sealing, the civil wedding is for pure show purposes only-that eases the burden or pain or whatever for a lot of non member parents

[rockpond]

In this blog entry on Pure Mormonism, Rock Waterman argues that Joseph Smith taught "All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..."  And so the sealing ceremony should be separate.

 

He says that is from an earlier version of the Doctrine & Covenants.  But I am not sure where to access earlier versions to verify when it was spoken.  Anyone know of a source for that?

[Calm]

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary?target=XD6FBA1B4-5B9A-4A09-A62C-288A4EFEDB52

[SeekingUnderstanding]

FAIR write up here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy

[rockpond]

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary?target=XD6FBA1B4-5B9A-4A09-A62C-288A4EFEDB52

 

Thanks, I should have thought of the JS papers website!  So cool that we have that now.

[Brian 2.0]

that's right, after the Temple sealing, the civil wedding is for pure show purposes only-that eases the burden or pain or whatever for a lot of non member parents

But I'm saying the civil wedding doesn't need to be just for show.

The sealing can be just that, a religious sealing before God. It's doesn't need to have the civil marriage portion attached to it (it doesn't for all sealings done after civil marriages).

And the civil wedding is the official government marriage ceremony.

[Duncan]

But I'm saying the civil wedding doesn't need to be just for show.

The sealing can be just that, a religious sealing before God. It's doesn't need to have the civil marriage portion attached to it (it doesn't for all sealings done after civil marriages).

And the civil wedding is the official government marriage ceremony.

 

that might be true for the US but here in Canada as far as I am aware as long as you have that marriage certificate signed by all the appropriate parties then it's totally up to you where you want to do the wedding ceremony if you want one at all, like if you don't want one you can just get it signed by a JOP if you don't want all the pomp and circumstance of a full on wedding. So you would get sealed in the Temple have the sealer sign it (and that signature is the key to the whole thing, who is legally recognized to marry you or at least legally bind you together, so it's who and not where it's all done)  and then do whatever wherever afterwards if you want that done

Edited September 18, 2013 by Duncan

[Danzo]

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.

It's selfish?

 

These are ordinances, not social events.   The baptism of my 8 year old would never be conditioned on who could attend.

[thesometimesaint]

It's selfish?

 

These are ordinances, not social events.   The baptism of my 8 year old would never be conditioned on who could attend.

 

There are at least two whom must attend.