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

[Danzo]

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?

I don't want to deny anyone any options, I am just giving my opinion on what I would want, and why.

I have never felt offended in the least, when I wasn't invited to a sealing (even though I have a temple recommend)

When I was married in the temple, Some of my family was there and some weren't (for various reasons, age, worthiness, membership) No one seemed offended (they all came to the reception and seemed fine), I get along well with those that didn't attend the sealing. I think that sometime people make things a bigger deal than they need to be.

[Brian 2.0]

I will say from my personal experience... that my father-in-law would have been VERY offended and bitter toward me and the church had we decided to get married in the temple.  My wife is a convert and a temple marriage would mean that her dad wouldn't be able to walk her (his only daughter) down the aisle -- something they had always talked about since she was a little girl.  

 

We had a civil wedding and he was there to walk her down the aisle. 

 

If we did choose to hold it in the Temple and he wasn't able to attend, there would have been some bad feelings, and I wouldn't categorize those feelings as him making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[bluebell]

I will say from my personal experience... that my father-in-law would have been VERY offended and bitter toward me and the church had we decided to get married in the temple.  My wife is a convert and a temple marriage would mean that her dad wouldn't be able to walk her (his only daughter) down the aisle -- something they had always talked about since she was a little girl.  

 

We had a civil wedding and he was there to walk her down the aisle. 

 

If we did choose to hold it in the Temple and he wasn't able to attend, there would have been some bad feelings, and I wouldn't categorize those feelings as him making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be.

 

Even if he had been able to attend the temple, it doesn't sound like he would have been happy, since there is no aisle to walk anyone down.

 

I think there are situations where a civil ceremony might be more appropriate though.  I think that God would be very capable of letting people know when that was.  Hopefully, those trying to make that decision would be concerned about what He thought and not solely focused on what their families thought, but I'm not going to pretend that that wouldn't be a very difficult decision.

[Paddy]

I am in favour of a change to the 1 year waiting policy. I think marriage is not just about the individuals being married. Marriage performs not just a familial function, it also provides a social function. Any potential exclusions to ceremonies or other parts of the wedding based on religious restrictions should be removed.

Sealings in temples should be brought back to the fact that it is a sealing of the marital covenant and is primarily a religious function rather than civil or public function. It probably should be separated.

The church will eventually have to get out of the marriage game at some stage anyway with lobby groups interested in redefining "traditional" marriage and the potential of influencing non traditional marriage in LDS temples.

Just my thoughts.

[Yirgacheffe]

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've never been to a wedding that was loud and pompous.

[Calm]

I've never been to a wedding that was loud and pompous.

I meant the reception for loud which usually goes along with a big wedding, with dancing and a band playing.  I don't like such things and thus they are loud to me.  And pompous I agree is my own POV, I am not into all that ceremonial stuff, matching dresses and suits, bride's friends and family on one side, etc. etc.....the "princess wedding" so to speak.

 

But surely there is recognized a significant difference between level of preparation needed and fuss going on during for what most civil weddings are like and the simplicity of the temple ceremony?

Edited September 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

I seriously doubt nonmenber family would get much out of a Temple Marriage ceremony. No elaborate ceremony(It is over in about 5 minutes), no flowers, no music. Just a few people(Sealing rooms are small. So they can't accommodate more than a few people) dressed in simple white. Add in that nonmembers, and even members not Endowed members are prohibited from the Temple.

 

From personal experience I know the heartache parents can have in not being able to attend their childs wedding. All I tell the young couple to do is include them in your lives as much as possible after the ceremony. It will work out eventually.

 

Sometimes you have to decide which is more important in your life. Pleasing God or pleasing your parents.

[rockpond]

Sometimes you have to decide which is more important in your life. Pleasing God or pleasing your parents.

What makes you think that such a dilemma even needs to exist?

[thesometimesaint]

What makes you think that such a dilemma even needs to exist?

 

 

Because that is what Christ said in the Bible.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Your surmise here makes a lot more sense than the folderol we have been exposed to on this thread.  I don't see any significant difference between the practice in the USA and in UK.  The temple recommend is probably normative and the question of waiting otiose.

[Robert F. Smith]

I will say from my personal experience... that my father-in-law would have been VERY offended and bitter toward me and the church had we decided to get married in the temple.  My wife is a convert and a temple marriage would mean that her dad wouldn't be able to walk her (his only daughter) down the aisle -- something they had always talked about since she was a little girl.  

 

We had a civil wedding and he was there to walk her down the aisle. 

 

If we did choose to hold it in the Temple and he wasn't able to attend, there would have been some bad feelings, and I wouldn't categorize those feelings as him making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be.

I don't see any problem with handling it the way you did, Brian -- and then going and doing the temple sealing quietly and privately.  A very sensitive solution.

[Robert F. Smith]

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)

As I understand it, the UK has no authority over the LDS Church.  The UK requires and recognizes only public weddings. They are not interested in a private sealing, which to them is not a wedding.  They do not require both.  Having a temple sealing is entirely optional.

[rockpond]

Because that is what Christ said in the Bible.

Christ said you'd have to wait a year to be sealed if you decided to have have a civil wedding?

[rockpond]

Your surmise here makes a lot more sense than the folderol we have been exposed to on this thread. I don't see any significant difference between the practice in the USA and in UK. The temple recommend is probably normative and the question of waiting otiose.

To clarify, the significant difference is that in the US you have to wait a year to be sealed if you choose to have a civil wedding. In the UK, you can be sealed on the same day as your civil wedding.

And the issue of waiting is not otiose if you have close loved ones who are not members of the church.

[thesometimesaint]

Christ said you'd have to wait a year to be sealed if you decided to have have a civil wedding?

 

Yes.

[rockpond]

Yes.

CFR

And my question still stands... What makes you think there is this dilemma between pleasing God and pleasing your parents when it comes to having both a civil wedding and a temple sealing?

Edited September 19, 2013 by rockpond

[Yirgacheffe]

I meant the reception for loud which usually goes along with a big wedding, with dancing and a band playing.  I don't like such things and thus they are loud to me.  And pompous I agree is my own POV, I am not into all that ceremonial stuff, matching dresses and suits, bride's friends and family on one side, etc. etc.....the "princess wedding" so to speak.

 

But surely there is recognized a significant difference between level of preparation needed and fuss going on during for what most civil weddings are like and the simplicity of the temple ceremony?

The only civil wedding I've ever attended was my own and it was extremely simple.  My husband and our witness arrived at the courthouse dressed as one would for work or church.  The ceremony took between five and ten minutes, afterwards we walked along Lake Michigan and had lunch at a local "greasy spoon".  My former room mates wedding was also a very simple ceremony that took at most a half an hour and the only planning and fuss she went to was to work out what day and time worked best.  All of the other weddings I have attended have been religious ceremonies and none of them were particularly pompous or showy though I would describe them as traditional.  Did the churches look nice, were the bridesmaids all wearing matching pretty dresses, were the groom and groomsmen dressed in suits, did the bride have her hair and make up looking their best and a lovely dress, yes to all, but aside from decorating the church don't most LDS brides do the same?  Receptions are just as varied, I've been to simple backyard affairs where the food and decorations were all made by family and friends to an elaborate reception at an historic hotel with strolling violinists and a stunning sweets table filled with what seemed like endlessly intriguing pastries and delicate chocolates, with both live, classical music and a DJ for livelier dancing.  I went to some trouble to sneak home a couple of swans and baskets made of chocolate.

 

The wedding that precede this elaborate reception was basically the same as any other religious wedding though the church it was held in is to date the largest and most ornate church I've ever been in.  Oh and the bridesmaids wore red, the dresses were modest enough that the cut looked appropriate even on the tiny girl, but the red did startle me.

 

All in all I think people outside the LDS church can have a wedding that rivals the simplicity of a temple wedding if that's what they want. 

[CV75]

What makes you think that such a dilemma even needs to exist?

The choice isn’t difficult in and of itself; neither choice is undesirable except a person creates the dilemma and this can still be resolved through prayer. A policy should not be changed simply because an indeterminate number of people create dilemmas for themselves.

 

Christ said you'd have to wait a year to be sealed if you decided to have have a civil wedding?

He could have; His sustained representatives have definitely said it.

[Brian 2.0]

Sometimes you have to decide which is more important in your life. Pleasing God or pleasing your parents.

I understand what you're saying here, but I feel that the church is much less "the word is a sword deviding father and son" and much more concerned with fostering loving and healthy family relationships.

Some take pride in the "if you're not with us you're against us" sentiment and almost enjoy the policy simply because its "separating the wheat from the chaff." But that's just not the church I'm seeing these days. When I was called to a calling that would require a lot time, the Stake Pres said "Family, Work, then Church. Don't take this calling if its going to harm or make too difficult family duties or work duties." That seemed a big of a sea change from how I was taught you acted when giving a calling. That and then the Mormons and Gays website.

It just seems that the church is a lot more concerned with building bridges of inclusion than dividing by the sword. And as such I wouldn't be surprised in a change of policy on this. I don't know what it is, but I would assume that the brethren are saddened by the hurt the policy can cause and has discussed everything here and then some in trying to figure how to minimize that hurt.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR And my question still stands... What makes you think there is this dilemma between pleasing God and pleasing your parents when it comes to having both a civil wedding and a temple sealing?

 

The default position of the Church is that we are to be married in the Temple. The lone exemption is that where by law the couple must be civilly married first.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2004/10/planning-your-temple-wedding?lang=eng

[omni]

I seriously doubt nonmenber family would get much out of a Temple Marriage ceremony. No elaborate ceremony(It is over in about 5 minutes), no flowers, no music. Just a few people(Sealing rooms are small. So they can't accommodate more than a few people) dressed in simple white. Add in that nonmembers, and even members not Endowed members are prohibited from the Temple.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not asking that nonmembers be allowed in the temple to witness the sealing.  What I would like to see is the option for couples to choose whether they want just the sealing or a simple civil ceremony afterwards.  I don't see how this would cheapen or lessen the temple experience and would eleviate any negative feelings and emotions that may exist if immediate family members were not able to participate.

[thesometimesaint]

As long as the right to perform a legally binding ceremony is maintained. I don't see any reason for two ceremonies. Your suggestion quickly becomes; Which one is the valid one?

 

Believe me I do feel sympathy for the nonmember parents. However that sympathy can not override the fact that their childs' marriage isn't about them, but about the marriage of their child.

 

My suggestion is for the couple long before their marriage ceremony is to be involved and involve their nonmember parents, family, and friends in understanding the requirements of the Church. To involve them as much as posssible in events, and functions long before, during, and after the ceremony. To keep their parents as part of their lives for the rest of their lives.

 

BTW Grandkids overcome a lot of problems.

[rockpond]

The choice isn’t difficult in and of itself; neither choice is undesirable except a person creates the dilemma and this can still be resolved through prayer. A policy should not be changed simply because an indeterminate number of people create dilemmas for themselves.

 

He could have; His sustained representatives have definitely said it.

 

You still haven't answered the question of why you think the dilemma between pleasing God or pleasing family even exists.  Why should members have to choose between having a civil wedding and a temple sealing.  His sustained representatives have only instituted the policy in certain countries.  It doesn't apply in the rest of the world which.  I see no evidence that a civil wedding would be displeasing to God.

 

And people are not creating dilemmas for themselves.  The policy is hurting families.

Edited September 19, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

The default position of the Church is that we are to be married in the Temple. The lone exemption is that where by law the couple must be civilly married first.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2004/10/planning-your-temple-wedding?lang=eng

 

The CFR was for where Christ said that there must be a 1 year waiting period.  Policy statements published by the Church are not Christ's words.

 

And my understanding is that the "lone exemption" covers more of the world than the 1 year waiting policy.  Which would make the waiting policy appear to be the exemption.

[bluebell]

You still haven't answered the question of why you think the dilemma between pleasing God or pleasing family even exists.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but in general, I believe that dilemmas between pleasing God and pleasing family exist because of real world experience.

 

I served a mission and met many people who's families disowned them when they joined the church.  Those people most definitely had to choose between God and their families