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

[canard78]

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

Those who would prefer to get married in a public place where all can attend followed by a sealing for eternity on the same day can not in America. They can in other countries. The gap is arbitrary. Same day in UK, next day for other countries. There's no doctrinal foundation only a cultural or functional one.

[Danzo]

There are at least two whom must attend.

True, but it doesn't have to be two specific people

I don't think I would delay my daughters baptism much if I couldn't attend.

 

The ordinance is too important to become primarily a social event.

[canard78]

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?

Did Rock quote the whole section? Apparently if you don't get married in a Mormon building you're also "weak in the faith."

"1 According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this Church of Christ of Latter day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be perform ed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bish op, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We be lieve that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

That was given in 1835. I would imagine the act of civil marrying and sealing in the same ceremony started in Utah and became tradition. It's very easy for people to believe that tradition is revealed doctrine when it really isn't.

[canard78]

True, but it doesn't have to be two specific people

I don't think I would delay my daughters baptism much if I couldn't attend.

The ordinance is too important to become primarily a social event.

Really? You'd rather a random member of the ward priesthood stepped forward to baptise your daughter if you'd got held up in traffic? Or if you had to go away for the weekend for work/family reasons?

Sorry, but I think that's probably hyperbole.

[rockpond]

True, but it doesn't have to be two specific people

I don't think I would delay my daughters baptism much if I couldn't attend.

 

The ordinance is too important to become primarily a social event.

 

There is a difference between someone not being able to attend vs. an arbitrary policy prohibiting people from attending who otherwise are willing & able to be there.

[Danzo]

Those who would prefer to get married in a public place where all can attend followed by a sealing for eternity on the same day can not in America. They can in other countries. The gap is arbitrary. Same day in UK, next day for other countries. There's no doctrinal foundation only a cultural or functional one.

I am aware that the gap is arbitrary, I don't really care what the gap is, if any.  

 

I am just wondering what the point of having a separate civil ceremony (as apposed to a ring ceremony or a reception) if you could do it all at the same time.

 

Having been to many civil and temple weddings, It is my personal opinion that a temple ceremony trumps a civil wedding by an order of magnitude.

After the sacred things that I have experienced at temple weddings, civil ceremonies ring hollow for me.

 

If the law says you have to have both, then you have to have both, I guess, but for me, I can't see why you would want to (other than to please other people)

[rockpond]

Did Rock quote the whole section? Apparently if you don't get married in a Mormon building you're also "weak in the faith."

That was given in 1835. I would imagine the act of civil marrying and sealing in the same ceremony started in Utah and became tradition. It's very easy for people to believe that tradition is revealed doctrine when it really isn't.

 

No, he did not quote the entire section, which is why I asked if anyone had a link to that version of the Doctrine & Covenants (which Calmoriah provided above).  I wanted that extra context.

 

I don't know enough about that section to make a conclusion but the language used does NOT strike me as suggesting that it is revealed doctrine.  It sounds more like a policy statement.  But I do think it is interesting having come from Joseph Smith (presumably) and, at the very least, published in the original Doctrine & Covenants.

 

I don't read that verse as saying that you should be married in a "Mormon building".  It read to me like it was saying that you should marry someone who is also a member of the church or be considered "weak in the faith".

[Danzo]

There is a difference between someone not being able to attend vs. an arbitrary policy prohibiting people from attending who otherwise are willing & able to be there.

 

That doesn't apply to the baptism policy, but to the temple ceremony.

 

Are you suggesting that we let non recommend holders into the temple? to witness the ceremony?

 

IF you have the option to have your marriage recognized by the state in the temple, and you chose to have that elsewhere, for me it would be just putting on a show for other people, thus cheapening the experience.

[thesometimesaint]

At the time the only family member that could have attend was my Father-in-Law to be. My fiance and I eloped to the Temple(with everyone knowing). 41 years later it was still the best decision that we could make.

Edited September 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[rockpond]

That doesn't apply to the baptism policy, but to the temple ceremony.

 

Are you suggesting that we let non recommend holders into the temple? to witness the ceremony?

 

IF you have the option to have your marriage recognized by the state in the temple, and you chose to have that elsewhere, for me it would be just putting on a show for other people, thus cheapening the experience.

 

No, I wasn't suggesting that we let non-TR holders into the temple.  I was just responding to the baptism hypothetical that was put forward.

 

I chose to get married & sealed in the temple even though it meant that my non-member grandmother could not attend.  I didn't even question it.  Looking back, I think that was the wrong decision.  She never got to see any of her grandchildren get married.

 

For me, a separate civil wedding does not cheapen the temple sealing.  I think it actually highlights the importance of what is happening in the temple:  the eternal sealing and the associated promises/blessings.  It also highlights the importance of the wedding because you can have all of your family and close friends in attendance to witness and support the union (including younger siblings, cousins, nieces/nephews who typically are excluded from temple ceremonies).

 

Aside from church membership & temple worthiness, there is the matter of the small endowment rooms.  I know an LDS family with 9 kids.  The parents of those 9 kids each came from large LDS families.  When the kids got married in the temple, they had to pick & choose who could attend.

[Danzo]

Really? You'd rather a random member of the ward priesthood stepped forward to baptise your daughter if you'd got held up in traffic? Or if you had to go away for the weekend for work/family reasons?

Sorry, but I think that's probably hyperbole.

I said, "not delay much"

 

 

If, for some reason, I was out of town for a while, I would prefer that my daughter get baptized over waiting just for me, because it is not about me.

 

On my mission, I preferred someone local to baptize the converts, because its not about me.

 

I sometimes feel that for many people the wedding is more important than the marriage.   I have told my children that I would much rather them elope to the temple, than put on a big party for our sake.  Not that I mind the party, but that being sealed in the temple, trumps a large wedding party.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Danzo

[Danzo]

For me, a separate civil wedding does not cheapen the temple sealing.  I think it actually highlights the importance of what is happening in the temple:  the eternal sealing and the associated promises/blessings.  It also highlights the importance of the wedding because you can have all of your family and close friends in attendance to witness and support the union (including younger siblings, cousins, nieces/nephews who typically are excluded from temple ceremonies).

I guess you could use it to highlight what is going to happen in the temple, but in order to do that, you would have to mention (somewhere in the ceremony) that the civil event is not the complete event, thus reminding everyone that can't go into the temple that they are excluded from something. Thus going back to the original problem of why you are doing the civil ceremony in the first place. (which in this case is putting on a show for those who can't go the "real" thing.)

Just to be clear, I am only referring to the situation where a couple can be married both civilly and sealed in the temple at the same time.

[cinepro]

That doesn't apply to the baptism policy, but to the temple ceremony.

 

Are you suggesting that we let non recommend holders into the temple? to witness the ceremony?

 

IF you have the option to have your marriage recognized by the state in the temple, and you chose to have that elsewhere, for me it would be just putting on a show for other people, thus cheapening the experience.

 

For this, I look to Joseph Smith as my example.

 

In 1843, Joseph married Emily and Eliza Partridge as polygamous wives without Emma's knowledge. A few months later, Emma was convinced to allow Joseph to practice polygamy and was told she could pick the wives.  She picked Emily and Eliza.  In order to preserve Emma's feelings, Joseph decided to perform a redundant sealing to Emily and Eliza in front of Emma, instead of telling her the ceremony had been performed months earlier.

 

So if Joseph felt it was proper to "put on a show" with a redundant ceremony if only to preserve decorum in his family, I don't see any reason God would have a problem with other members of the Church doing the same with a civil marriage ceremony to preserve the feelings of their family members. 

 

The goose and the gander and all that.

Edited September 18, 2013 by cinepro

[canard78]

For this, I look to Joseph Smith as my example.

In 1843, Joseph married Emily and Eliza Partridge as polygamous wives without Emma's knowledge. A few months later, Emma was convinced to allow Joseph to practice polygamy and was told she could pick the wives. She picked Emily and Eliza. In order to preserve Emma's feelings, Joseph decided to perform a redundant sealing to Emily and Eliza in front of Emma, instead of telling her the ceremony had been performed months earlier.

So if Joseph felt it was proper to "put on a show" with a redundant ceremony if only to preserve decorum in his family, I don't see any reason God would have a problem with other members of the Church doing the same with a civil marriage ceremony to preserve the feelings of their family members.

The goose and the gander and all that.

It's all in the way you tell 'em!

[rockpond]

I guess you could use it to highlight what is going to happen in the temple, but in order to do that, you would have to mention (somewhere in the ceremony) that the civil event is not the complete event, thus reminding everyone that can't go into the temple that they are excluded from something. Thus going back to the original problem of why you are doing the civil ceremony in the first place. (which in this case is putting on a show for those who can't go the "real" thing.)

Just to be clear, I am only referring to the situation where a couple can be married both civilly and sealed in the temple at the same time.

 

But it is the complete event.  The civil wedding is a complete civil wedding.  It unites the couple for this life through the laws of the state.

 

The sealing is a religious ordinance and covenant that unites the couple for eternity.  If non-members are present, you could say that "We are going to be sealed on *day/time* at our temple which means that we participate in a special sacred promise with God and each other."  (Or something to that effect to highlight its importance to you as a couple, provide a micro missionary moment, and not make anyone feel that they have missed out.)

[sdc999]

It's selfish?

 

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

You must have an amazing family relations.  Sorry Mom that you can't make you grandchild's baptism this Sunday.  I know you can be there next Sunday but we will not go remotely out of our way to accommodate your wishes or desires to be there.  I agree with canard78 - hyperbole.  And yes, they do take on a little 'social event' status.  You wouldn't have the talks/songs afterwards if the ordinance itself was the only thing that was done.  You could just walk in the font, get dunked, get out, dry off and go home. 

 

And one more thing.  I think that is a slap in the face of most young brides.  I can never recall seeing a couple come out of the temple after a ceremony and not take pictures with relatives, friends, etc.  This is a special day for them and yes, they do like for others to share in their joy whether they go the temple route or the civil route.  Do you think it's disrespectful for big families to gather, Socially, and take pictures on the temple grounds?  It's not only an ordinance, but a big special, social event for many LDS.

Edited September 18, 2013 by sdc999

[omni]

It is an either/or question.

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

Whoa, whoa, whoa, tmi...now where's that moderator report button on here?

[Brian 2.0]

But it is the complete event.  The civil wedding is a complete civil wedding.  It unites the couple for this life through the laws of the state.

 

The sealing is a religious ordinance and covenant that unites the couple for eternity.  If non-members are present, you could say that "We are going to be sealed on *day/time* at our temple which means that we participate in a special sacred promise with God and each other."  (Or something to that effect to highlight its importance to you as a couple, provide a micro missionary moment, and not make anyone feel that they have missed out.)

 

+1 on this.

 

Separating "marriage" from "sealing" would help this situation, as well as others (SSM laws for example).  And separating it out separates the "pomp and circumstance" with the "sacred".  Both have purpose and can exists equally without harming the other. 

[Danzo]

You must have an amazing family relations.  Sorry Mom that you can't make you grandchild's baptism this Sunday.  I know you can be there next Sunday but we will not go remotely out of our way to accommodate your wishes or desires to be there.  I agree with canard78 - hyperbole.  And yes, they do take on a little 'social event' status.  You wouldn't have the talks/songs afterwards if the ordinance itself was the only thing that was done.  You could just walk in the font, get dunked, get out, dry off and go home. 

 

And one more thing.  I think that is a slap in the face of most young brides.  I can never recall seeing a couple come out of the temple after a ceremony and not take pictures with relatives, friends, etc.  This is a special day for them and yes, they do like for others to share in their joy whether they go the temple route or the civil route.  Do you think it's disrespectful for big families to gather, Socially, and take pictures on the temple grounds?  It's not only an ordinance, but a big special, social event for many LDS.

Everything has a social element to it. There is nothing wrong with it. What I think can be dangerous is making the social element more important than the act itself. Making the wedding more important than the marriage. Making what people think more important than what the Lord thinks.

Like I said earlier, I have nothing against splitting the event in two. I just don't see any reason to do two, when you can do it at the same place in a much more sacred surroundings. I would never trade my experience in the temple for the show that civil ceremonies tend to be, no matter who gets offended.

In my experience every wedding, civil or not, leaves someone offended for some reason or other.

[Danzo]

But it is the complete event.  The civil wedding is a complete civil wedding.  It unites the couple for this life through the laws of the state.

 

The sealing is a religious ordinance and covenant that unites the couple for eternity.  If non-members are present, you could say that "We are going to be sealed on *day/time* at our temple which means that we participate in a special sacred promise with God and each other."  (Or something to that effect to highlight its importance to you as a couple, provide a micro missionary moment, and not make anyone feel that they have missed out.)

I would never see it as the complete event.

Even if forced to do it by law, I would see it as only part (and an inferior part).

When it comes to my marriage, the certificate given by the state, plays an insignificant part. My temple covenants, however are an integral part of my marriage. The temple as contributed much more than to my marriage than any guest that did or could have attended. There is no guest that could have come but didn't that could have contributed more to my marriage and there was no one attending that, if they hadn't, would have taken away from my marriage.

[Calm]

. 

 

And one more thing.  I think that is a slap in the face of most young brides.  I can never recall seeing a couple come out of the temple after a ceremony and not take pictures with relatives, friends, etc.  This is a special day for them and yes, they do like for others to share in their joy whether they go the temple route or the civil route.

that would be me...or would have been if I had a choice in the matter, but I was too considerate of others to tell them to get lost. It was agony instead.

[bluebell]

For this, I look to Joseph Smith as my example.

 

In 1843, Joseph married Emily and Eliza Partridge as polygamous wives without Emma's knowledge. A few months later, Emma was convinced to allow Joseph to practice polygamy and was told she could pick the wives.  She picked Emily and Eliza.  In order to preserve Emma's feelings, Joseph decided to perform a redundant sealing to Emily and Eliza in front of Emma, instead of telling her the ceremony had been performed months earlier.

 

So if Joseph felt it was proper to "put on a show" with a redundant ceremony if only to preserve decorum in his family, I don't see any reason God would have a problem with other members of the Church doing the same with a civil marriage ceremony to preserve the feelings of their family members. 

 

The goose and the gander and all that.

If it was acceptable to God that JS take the easy way out instead of telling Emma the truth, then I think you would have a point.

 

Do we have any evidence that such was the case?  (I honestly don't know)

[rockpond]

Making what people think more important than what the Lord thinks.

I would never trade my experience in the temple for the show that civil ceremonies tend to be, no matter who gets offended.

 

But we don't really know what the Lord thinks on this subject, do we?  And since, I believe, there are only three countries with the "1 year wait" policy, it would probably be more accurate to guess that the Lord doesn't care.

 

And, nobody is asking anything to be "traded".  You still get your experience in the temple.  And, if we dropped the "1 year wait" policy you would still have your choice of skipping the civil wedding.

[rockpond]

When it comes to my marriage, the certificate given by the state, plays an insignificant part. My temple covenants, however are an integral part of my marriage. The temple as contributed much more than to my marriage than any guest that did or could have attended. There is no guest that could have come but didn't that could have contributed more to my marriage and there was no one attending that, if they hadn't, would have taken away from my marriage.

 

I agree with this statement.  Completely.  But nobody is asking you (or anyone) to give that up.

[omni]

Everything has a social element to it. There is nothing wrong with it. What I think can be dangerous is making the social element more important than the act itself. Making the wedding more important than the marriage. Making what people think more important than what the Lord thinks.

Like I said earlier, I have nothing against splitting the event in two. I just don't see any reason to do two, when you can do it at the same place in a much more sacred surroundings. I would never trade my experience in the temple for the show that civil ceremonies tend to be, no matter who gets offended.

In my experience every wedding, civil or not, leaves someone offended for some reason or other.

I'm now sure if you're completely understanding us. No one is saying they want to make it mandatory for couples to have both a sealing and a civil ceremony, just that they are given the option. I understand that for you there would be no value on doing both ceremonies, but for many, many other couples it would.

I can't think of a more important event in a child's life that a parent would want to witness,. Why cause that unnecessary pain and division on what should be the happiest day of their life?