CV75 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 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?The policy isn't about disappointment and family discord.
rockpond Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 A good way to start maybe is by asking someone with the power to do something about it to do something about it. Glenn Yep. I've signed the petition.
rockpond Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 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. I'm not suggesting that people without recommends should be allowed in the temple. Not at all. Current church policy states that couples (in the US) cannot have a civil wedding prior to the sealing or they must wait one year to be sealed. And they are told not to do anything before or AFTER the sealing that even resembles a wedding ceremony. The church policy was cited/linked a bit earlier in the thread.
rockpond Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 The policy isn't about disappointment and family discord. Obviously it isn't *about* disappointment and family discord. But it is causing disappointment and family discord by forcing some couples to make the decision to either exclude loved ones from their wedding or wait a year to be sealed.
sdc999 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 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 familiesJust the opposite for me. When my family left the church, we were disowned by MIL because she though were ungodly. Wow, we are in church almost every Sunday and they still refuse to go because somebody offended somebody. We were still choosing God but according to my MIL, not her God. I really thought they were the same.
CV75 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Obviously it isn't *about* disappointment and family discord. But it is causing disappointment and family discord by forcing some couples to make the decision to either exclude loved ones from their wedding or wait a year to be sealed.A policy that "forces" people to make a choice... Really?
thesometimesaint Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 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. The law can not recognize contracts that extend beyond death. If they are members of the Church, have a TR, a valid marriage license. I know of nothing the law can do to stop them. Where did I even suggest that? See https://www.lds.org/new-era/2004/10/planning-your-temple-wedding?lang=eng
rockpond Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 A policy that "forces" people to make a choice... Really? Yes. In the U.S., a couple who wants to include non-members or no TR holding loved ones in their wedding ceremony must make the choice between a 1 year wait and not having a wedding ceremony outside of the temple. Feel free to tell me what is false about that statement given the current policy?
Glenn101 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Yes. In the U.S., a couple who wants to include non-members or no TR holding loved ones in their wedding ceremony must make the choice between a 1 year wait and not having a wedding ceremony outside of the temple. Feel free to tell me what is false about that statement given the current policy? But, what is wrong with Robert F. Smith's suggestion that a couple have a wedding ceremony after a temple sealing? That solves all of the problems. Glenn
rockpond Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 But, what is wrong with Robert F. Smith's suggestion that a couple have a wedding ceremony after a temple sealing? That solves all of the problems. Glenn Church policy prohibits a wedding ceremony even after the sealing (see the link provided in post #157). It is stated even more strongly in Handbook 1, section 3.5.1. It explains that while a meeting can be held to explain the temple ceremony to non-members and others not able to attend, there is to be no other wedding ceremony and no vows exchanged. Then it states: "No other marriage ceremony should be performed following a temple marriage." One could certainly choose to ignore church policy and face the consequences (whatever those may or may not be). But what I've stated here is the current church policy prohibiting any wedding ceremony outside of the temple (before or after) unless local law requires it. Or you must wait a year to be sealed.
Mark Beesley Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Church policy prohibits a wedding ceremony even after the sealing (see the link provided in post #157). The language from the webpage linked: Can we exchange vows outside the temple? It would be inappropriate to exchange vows after you have been married in the temple, where you have already entered into sacred covenants with one another and the Lord. But in some areas civil law may require you to be married outside the temple first. I would be hard-pressed to call this statement a "policy." Looks like unnecessary advice to me that one could freely ignore without fear of Church discipline . . . though I guess there are some bishops and state presidents that make mistakes <gasp> and some yahoo may try to start something. in any event, doesn't look like a policy to me. It certainly isn't a commandment. In fact, that webpage has other stuff that is just silly. Why do couples need to be counseled to keep a reception simple? Let 'em celebrate with whatever mom and dad can afford. It should be a family decision, not a Church decision. Whoever wrote that webpage is an old fuddy duddy! As an aside -- I love The Sound of Music. One of my favorite scenes is the wedding of Maria to the Captain. The brethren may object, but I doubt the Lord would take umbrage at a ceremony to celebrate marriage, like in the movie. It would be cool if the Church would move towards a practice where couples can have storybook weddings where the dad gives away the bride after walking her down the aisle, and let the sealing do what it is intended to do, seal that marriage in heaven. 1
rockpond Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 The language from the webpage linked: I would be hard-pressed to call this statement a "policy." Looks like unnecessary advice to me that one could freely ignore without fear of Church discipline . . . though I guess there are some bishops and state presidents that make mistakes <gasp> and some yahoo may try to start something. in any event, doesn't look like a policy to me. It certainly isn't a commandment. In fact, that webpage has other stuff that is just silly. Why do couples need to be counseled to keep a reception simple? Let 'em celebrate with whatever mom and dad can afford. It should be a family decision, not a Church decision. Whoever wrote that webpage is an old fuddy duddy! As an aside -- I love The Sound of Music. One of my favorite scenes is the wedding of Maria to the Captain. The brethren may object, but I doubt the Lord would take umbrage at a ceremony to celebrate marriage, like in the movie. It would be cool if the Church would move towards a practice where couples can have storybook weddings where the dad gives away the bride after walking her down the aisle, and let the sealing do what it is intended to do, seal that marriage in heaven. What you quoted is just from the church website. But you'll note that I provided the Church Handbook of Instructions policy that is more more explicit that no other wedding ceremony is to be performed and no vows are to be exchanged. I completely agree with your final paragraph... let the sealing do what it is intended to do.
Mark Beesley Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) What you quoted is just from the church website. But you'll note that I provided the Church Handbook of Instructions policy that is more more explicit that no other wedding ceremony is to be performed and no vows are to be exchanged. Sorry, must have missed that. It's a rather lengthy thread. What post number includes the CHI language? And is it the current CHI? Edited to add: OK, I skimmed the thread and found your post referencing CHI Book 1, which is not online. From what you quoted, the way I would interpret that is that the Church policy is that there is to be no other ceremony with the imprimatur of the Church on it. So, Bishops should not perform them, they shouldn't be performed in a Church meetinghouse, etc. Edited September 20, 2013 by Mark Beesley
Glenn101 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Sorry, must have missed that. It's a rather lengthy thread. What post number includes the CHI language? And is it the current CHI? Edited to add: OK, I skimmed the thread and found your post referencing CHI Book 1, which is not online. From what you quoted, the way I would interpret that is that the Church policy is that there is to be no other ceremony with the imprimatur of the Church on it. So, Bishops should not perform them, they shouldn't be performed in a Church meetinghouse, etc. That is my understanding also. Glenn
Brian 2.0 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 From what you quoted, the way I would interpret that is that the Church policy is that there is to be no other ceremony with the imprimatur of the Church on it. So, Bishops should not perform them, they shouldn't be performed in a Church meetinghouse, etc. And I would highly recommend that whatever the ceremony will be, and what it cannot be, be talked about at length before... lest you end up like my friend who got married a couple years ago and was having a ring ceremony because one side of the family was all non-members. The bishop literally stopped the little flower girl mid-step from walking down the aisle and said we can't have a "walking down the aisle" and also prohibited the bride and groom from saying vows (a few words they had prepared for each other). He also made sure to mention that he was happy they were married in the temple, because any marriage outside the temple was a "divorce upon death." Needless to say the event didn't go over so well. (some of the blame should be put upon the bride and groom as well as they obviously didn't talk specifcs to the bishop beforehand).
Robert F. Smith Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Sorry, must have missed that. It's a rather lengthy thread. What post number includes the CHI language? And is it the current CHI? Edited to add: OK, I skimmed the thread and found your post referencing CHI Book 1, which is not online. From what you quoted, the way I would interpret that is that the Church policy is that there is to be no other ceremony with the imprimatur of the Church on it. So, Bishops should not perform them, they shouldn't be performed in a Church meetinghouse, etc.You can have Elvis perform a wedding ceremony in Vegas for a fee . . . Just for fun. Hey, it could be your 25th wedding anniversary. Many couples like to renew their vows, and it doesn't have to be a solemn affair, but just to mark the occasion. So, why not have one after your sealing? Let the bishop do his thing back home, while everybody goes to Vegas to have a fun time! Dad can walk her down the aisle to the strains of Wagner's "Wedding March" from Lohengrin, and then everyone can have a glorious repaste. Kind of like an expanded reception and celebration of the nuptials. Instead of a full orchestra and choir, play this on that occasion:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqxmahLnwY .
Robert F. Smith Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 I'm not suggesting that people without recommends should be allowed in the temple. Not at all. Current church policy states that couples (in the US) cannot have a civil wedding prior to the sealing or they must wait one year to be sealed. And they are told not to do anything before or AFTER the sealing that even resembles a wedding ceremony. The church policy was cited/linked a bit earlier in the thread.So, are you saying that those sealed in the temple would be punished in some way for having an ersatz or even actual civil ceremony afterward? Just for the enjoyment of a crowd of pagans? Could a couple safely ignore the advice or directive not to have any other ceremony, escape to Wendover or Mesquite and have Elvis (or other fake parson) perform a ceremony for the delight of non-member friends and family?
Robert F. Smith Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 The law can not recognize contracts that extend beyond death. If they are members of the Church, have a TR, a valid marriage license. I know of nothing the law can do to stop them. Where did I even suggest that? See https://www.lds.org/new-era/2004/10/planning-your-temple-wedding?lang=engSorry, I was just trying to clarify what everyone failed to say.Thanks for the Shanna Butler article. Her recommendations make sense, but she fails to note the irony in the fact that most brides have wedding dresses which they put on immediately after the sealing for wedding photos outside, on the temple grounds. The same sort of accommodation to tradition is allowed in the sealing room with the exchange of rings -- after the sealing.Butler emphasizes that any other celebration might detract from the centrality of the sealing ceremony, but completely ignores the possible non-member family & friends being left out in the cold, as it were. Perhaps a special ceremony is in order. The Roman Catholics at least accommodate non-members of their faith by allowing a ceremony in which there is no mass (the non-member is not expected to take communion). Non-members are always welcome at these and any other Roman Catholic meetings and celebrations.Are other accommodations possible, just for the sake of non-LDS? Would it be so horrible? 2
Duncan Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Church policy prohibits a wedding ceremony even after the sealing (see the link provided in post #157). It is stated even more strongly in Handbook 1, section 3.5.1. It explains that while a meeting can be held to explain the temple ceremony to non-members and others not able to attend, there is to be no other wedding ceremony and no vows exchanged. Then it states: "No other marriage ceremony should be performed following a temple marriage." One could certainly choose to ignore church policy and face the consequences (whatever those may or may not be). But what I've stated here is the current church policy prohibiting any wedding ceremony outside of the temple (before or after) unless local law requires it. Or you must wait a year to be sealed. oh man! I know lots of couples who did that! it solves a lot of problems!! When I did that we were married by the Bishop in the chapel no less and I know others who were married by a stake pres. member, whoops on us I guess! I was always told just no wedding march music stuff or pictures taken in the chapel and yeah have at it it's called a "ring ceremony" but no vows as I recall are exchanged. I dunno maybe we are just crafty is all Edited September 21, 2013 by Duncan
rockpond Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Sorry, must have missed that. It's a rather lengthy thread. What post number includes the CHI language? And is it the current CHI? Edited to add: OK, I skimmed the thread and found your post referencing CHI Book 1, which is not online. From what you quoted, the way I would interpret that is that the Church policy is that there is to be no other ceremony with the imprimatur of the Church on it. So, Bishops should not perform them, they shouldn't be performed in a Church meetinghouse, etc. I happen to be in a calling right now that gives me access to Handbook 1. I can't speak to what it said prior to the latest revision (2010, I believe) but if you read the current version it is pretty clear that it's not a matter of whether a ceremony has the church's imprimatur. Throughout the section it makes multiple references that nothing resembling a wedding should be performed before or after a temple marriage. And my experience has been that that is also how bishops interpret it. That said, of course you could go somewhere else (Vegas, perhaps, as Robert suggested) and do whatever you want. I'm just stating what the official policy is.
rockpond Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 And I would highly recommend that whatever the ceremony will be, and what it cannot be, be talked about at length before... lest you end up like my friend who got married a couple years ago and was having a ring ceremony because one side of the family was all non-members. The bishop literally stopped the little flower girl mid-step from walking down the aisle and said we can't have a "walking down the aisle" and also prohibited the bride and groom from saying vows (a few words they had prepared for each other). He also made sure to mention that he was happy they were married in the temple, because any marriage outside the temple was a "divorce upon death." Needless to say the event didn't go over so well. (some of the blame should be put upon the bride and groom as well as they obviously didn't talk specifcs to the bishop beforehand). And of course, should you choose to "do your own thing" there's always this possibility. So I guess you'd better do it stealth: don't put it on your wedding announcement and don't invite anyone who is a policy following member.
Bikeemikey Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 If you could get married civilly in the temple, what would be the point of having two separate ceremonies? The inclusion of family and friends who can not attend the temple... And do have a massive party. Potlucks at the local ward building so not a festive memory make.
Bikeemikey Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 And I would highly recommend that whatever the ceremony will be, and what it cannot be, be talked about at length before... lest you end up like my friend who got married a couple years ago and was having a ring ceremony because one side of the family was all non-members. The bishop literally stopped the little flower girl mid-step from walking down the aisle and said we can't have a "walking down the aisle" and also prohibited the bride and groom from saying vows (a few words they had prepared for each other). He also made sure to mention that he was happy they were married in the temple, because any marriage outside the temple was a "divorce upon death." Needless to say the event didn't go over so well. (some of the blame should be put upon the bride and groom as well as they obviously didn't talk specifcs to the bishop beforehand). That bishop is a total tool - that said why do it at the meeting house anyway? And if it wasn't at the meeting house why was the bishop there? Doesn't sound like the kind of guy you want to incite to a celebration. 1
Tacenda Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) The language from the webpage linked:I would be hard-pressed to call this statement a "policy." Looks like unnecessary advice to me that one could freely ignore without fear of Church discipline . . . though I guess there are some bishops and state presidents that make mistakes <gasp> and some yahoo may try to start something. in any event, doesn't look like a policy to me. It certainly isn't a commandment.In fact, that webpage has other stuff that is just silly. Why do couples need to be counseled to keep a reception simple? Let 'em celebrate with whatever mom and dad can afford. It should be a family decision, not a Church decision. Whoever wrote that webpage is an old fuddy duddy!As an aside -- I love The Sound of Music. One of my favorite scenes is the wedding of Maria to the Captain. The brethren may object, but I doubt the Lord would take umbrage at a ceremony to celebrate marriage, like in the movie. It would be cool if the Church would move towards a practice where couples can have storybook weddings where the dad gives away the bride after walking her down the aisle, and let the sealing do what it is intended to do, seal that marriage in heaven.I agree Mark. Even though we're not suppose to be of the world. Even JS said it should be public. When a wedding is known to be a family centered event, why is the church coming in between with policy rather than God given or JS given. Seems to not be..."family it's about time", so much. Edited September 21, 2013 by Tacenda
bluebell Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 That bishop is a total tool - that said why do it at the meeting house anyway? And if it wasn't at the meeting house why was the bishop there? Doesn't sound like the kind of guy you want to incite to a celebration.It sounds like the bishop was there because he was invited to officiate at a ring ceremony following the sealing. If that's true, following the rules he has agreed to follow as a bishop doesn't necessarily make him a 'tool'.
Recommended Posts