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

[rockpond]

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.

 

No reason to choose "which one is the valid one".  They are both valid.  A civil wedding is valid for this life and in the eyes of the state.  A temple sealing is valid eternally and binding in heaven and on earth.

 

Like Joseph Smith taught (Section 109 of 1844 version of D&C)... have both... a great public ceremony & feast and a temple sealing.

[rockpond]

 

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

 

I too know people who were disowned by their families when they joined the church.  Very sad.

 

But with respect to the civil wedding & temple sealing dilemma I don't see evidence that God has asked us to choose between Him and family.  Only a church policy for certain countries creates that dilemma.

[CV75]

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.

I certainly did: people do create the kind of dillema you're presenting. It is all a matter of attitude, and the Church has no policy for or against anyone's attitude.

 

Your other comments have already been countered numerous times throughout this thread.

[thesometimesaint]

No reason to choose "which one is the valid one".  They are both valid.  A civil wedding is valid for this life and in the eyes of the state.  A temple sealing is valid eternally and binding in heaven and on earth.

 

Like Joseph Smith taught (Section 109 of 1844 version of D&C)... have both... a great public ceremony & feast and a temple sealing.

 

They are not both valid. The law only recognizes the first one to take place. The other is merely for show. A Temple Marriage is valid for both this life and binding in the next. A Sealing OTOH is only valid in the next.

 

See http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/the-story-of-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

 

I have nothing against having a feast(big party) after the Temple marriage if that is what you want. My wife and I celebrated alone in our apartment with bacon, scrambled eggs, and ginger ale. For our sons two had open houses(In our home), and one had a big reception in the Cultural Hall at Church. They all worked out fine.

[CV75]

I too know people who were disowned by their families when they joined the church.  Very sad.

 

But with respect to the civil wedding & temple sealing dilemma I don't see evidence that God has asked us to choose between Him and family.  Only a church policy for certain countries creates that dilemma.

I was disowned upon joining the Church, but they eventually got over it and reconciled. And even though they could not attend my sealing, some even joined!

[Buzzard]

I'm guessing-but it is a pretty safe guess, that the concern is that allowing a civil ceremony/reception/luncheon/feast/whatever followed later by a temple sealing would diminish the importance of the sealing. It is also a possibility that when the policy was enacted, the church had a lot fewer converts, and the only one not allowed to watch the ceremony was the Jack Mormon uncle with the WofW problem, and someone needed to watch the kids, anyway. 

Some of the things proposed on this board will never happen (gay sealings), some would raise eyebrows (Sisters being called into current priesthood positions), and some, like this policy, would be met with a shrug of the shoulders. If they keep it, great, if they drop it, no problem, either.

Perhaps, and I am speculating, people will be encouraged not to have civil ceremonies first, but if there are family issues, then the bishop or SP could issue a sealing only TR upon request. Time will tell.

[rockpond]

They are not both valid. The law only recognizes the first one to take place. The other is merely for show. A Temple Marriage is valid for both this life and binding in the next. A Sealing OTOH is only valid in the next.

 

See http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/the-story-of-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

 

I have nothing against having a feast(big party) after the Temple marriage if that is what you want. My wife and I celebrated alone in our apartment with bacon, scrambled eggs, and ginger ale. For our sons two had open houses(In our home), and one had a big reception in the Cultural Hall at Church. They all worked out fine.

 

The law only recognizes the civil marriage (whether it takes place in the temple or before in a separate ceremony).  And in many countries the law doesn't recognize a marriage performed only in the temple.

 

I'm glad that you and your wife and your sons had their choice of how to have their weddings.  The choice is not available to all.

[rockpond]

I certainly did: people do create the kind of dillema you're presenting. It is all a matter of attitude, and the Church has no policy for or against anyone's attitude.

 

Your other comments have already been countered numerous times throughout this thread.

 

Got it.  Fix your attitude, not the policy.  And tell your non-member Grandmother to get over it.

[rockpond]

I was disowned upon joining the Church, but they eventually got over it and reconciled. And even though they could not attend my sealing, some even joined!

 

That's awesome!

[thesometimesaint]

The law only recognizes the civil marriage (whether it takes place in the temple or before in a separate ceremony).  And in many countries the law doesn't recognize a marriage performed only in the temple.

 

I'm glad that you and your wife and your sons had their choice of how to have their weddings.  The choice is not available to all.

 

Here in the US only the civil marriage portion of the Temple marriage is recognized by the law. In some other countries Temple marriages must be proceeded by a civil ceremony.

 

PS. We're working hard to alleviate that problem.

Edited September 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[rockpond]

Here in the US only the civil marriage portion of the Temple marriage is recognized by the law. In some other countries Temple marriages must be proceeded by a civil ceremony.

 

PS. We're working hard to alleviate that problem.

 

Correct.  Unless (in the US) a civil marriage is performed prior to the temple sealing.  Then the temple sealing becomes irrelevant in the eyes of the law.  But it remains of eternal significance to the couple being sealed.

[thesometimesaint]

As it should be until the return of Jesus.

[Damien the Leper]

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. 

 

I'm curious...where is the revelation that was given so as to institute this rule?

[bluebell]

I'm curious...where is the revelation that was given so as to institute this rule?

 

I don't believe the prophet or any of the Apostles have said, but I haven't studied the issue so I'm not the best person to ask. 

 

Do you believe they didn't seek any inspiration in the matter when this policy was put in place? 

[The Nehor]

I'm curious...where is the revelation that was given so as to institute this rule?

Most revelations are not written down.

[CV75]

Got it.  Fix your attitude, not the policy.  And tell your non-member Grandmother to get over it.

Now, now...you know there are better ways to show love and compassion than that. And if it were as easy as altering a policy, there would be no dissppointment for anyone, ever, for anything, it ain't about the policy!

 

Edit: Now that you mention it, my Grandmother was one of them! We come from a long line of non-members.

 

Also, she and my parents taught us to think and act for ourselves, and we did; and once they realized what was going on, they eventually understood and supported my decisions.

Edited September 19, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

That's awesome!

Yes, but nowhere near extraordinary. Most people walk a higher road than many are willing to give them credit for, even though they may take the low road for a bit. But policies aren't about that, either.

[rockpond]

Now, now...you know there are better ways to show love and compassion than that. And if it were as easy as altering a policy, there would be no dissppointment for anyone, ever, for anything, it ain't about the policy!

 

Edit: Now that you mention it, my Grandmother was one of them! We come from a long line of non-members.

 

Also, she and my parents taught us to think and act for ourselves, and we did; and once they realized what was going on, they eventually understood and supported my decisions.

 

Yes, there are better ways and I employed them when I was married and my grandmother could not attend.

 

I'm not suggesting that we eliminate disappointment entirely but removing this policy we could certainly reduce some disappointment and family discord.

[CV75]

Yes, there are better ways and I employed them when I was married and my grandmother could not attend.

 

I'm not suggesting that we eliminate disappointment entirely but removing this policy we could certainly reduce some disappointment and family discord.

A propensity for disappointment and family discord will always find room for expression, no matter what excuse is given to catalyze it!

[rockpond]

A propensity for disappointment and family discord will always find room for expression, no matter what excuse is given to catalyze it!

 

So, because we can't remove all disappointment and family discord we shouldn't try to fix this one issue and remove some of it?

[Tacenda]

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

Tough love.

[Stargazer]

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

 

 

Actually, you CAN get married civilly in the temple, without a sealing taking place.

 

It's called being married in the temple For Time Only.  The requirements are (1) both members of the couple are sealed to deceased spourses; (2) neither have ever been divorced while members of the church; (3) both have current recommends for Living Ordinances; (4) Temple marriages are legal in their jurisdiction and they have a valid marriage license.

[Glenn101]

So, because we can't remove all disappointment and family discord we shouldn't try to fix this one issue and remove some of it?

 

 

A good way to start maybe is by asking someone with the power to do something about it to do something about it.

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

Here in the US only the civil marriage portion of the Temple marriage is recognized by the law. In some other countries Temple marriages must be proceeded by a civil ceremony.

 

PS. We're working hard to alleviate that problem.

Wrong.  The temple sealing (marriage) itself is considered a valid marriage ceremony in the USA.  It is not a civil ceremony.  A civil ceremony is not necessary to get married in the USA.  Many people get married in religious ceremonies in churches, synagogues, Buddhist temples, etc..

 

In the UK, when a temple recommend holding couple wants to get married, they must have a public wedding ceremony before they go to the temple only because English law requires that a wedding ceremony be public.

 

For a non-temple recommend holding couple, they must always wait one year (in USA or UK) before they are allowed to have a temple sealing ceremony.  That is a standard policy in place for a long time, and is not based on a revelation.

 

I don't see what problem you think that you are trying to alleviate.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

So you don't think that a temple recommend has anything to do with it?  Someone having a civil ceremony in the UK should automatically be entitled by law to have a temple sealing the same day?  And you also believe that people without temple recommends should be allowed to attend a temple sealing?

 

Why would anyone in the USA object to having a wedding ceremony immediately after the sealing so that beloved family members could attend?  Why would they care about a sealing ceremony in which they don't believe anyhow?  I just don't see the problem.