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

[Stargazer]

You certainly can sign such a petition. But, for the record, the church doesn't have a policy instructing them on which temple they may or may not choose. I'm more interested in removing a policy that restricts the choices of the bride and groom unnecessarily.

 

You know, I actually AGREE with you that if couples in most countries can get civilly married just prior to being sealed in the temple, then no doctrinal reason exists why this couldn't be done in the US and Canada. 

 

My wife and I could not get married for time and eternity in the temple because she was still sealed to her excommunicated husband.  So we had a civil marriage, in Aiken, South Carolina.  Very shortly afterwards she got a letter from Spencer W. Kimball indicating that her sealing had been cancelled, and that she would take that letter to the temple where we could be immediately sealed.  The letter was signed the day of our civil marriage.  We were subsequently sealed six months after our civil wedding, in the Swiss Temple.  This tells me that there is no vital reason why the policy as it stands now could be changed.

 

All that being said, I do not believe that it is my place to try to influence the Church to change policy, and I am not going to be signing any petition.  I sustain the FP and the Q12 as prophets, seers and revelators, and I believe when it is due time to change the policy then they will change it. 

 

I trust in the Lord, and I suggest to all and sundry that they do so as well.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

They don't do these any more. They used to, but not any more.

 

I happen to have a copy of Handbook 1 that came out just prior to the current edition.  On page 82 it very clearly lays out the conditions for Time Only marriages in the temple.  Do you have a current version, and is this policy no longer found in it?

Edited September 22, 2013 by Stargazer

[Sleeper Cell]

 

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.

 

The church may counsel couples to keep a reception simple, but it still lets them “celebrate with whatever mom and dad can afford” (or even with more than they can afford). Ultimately, it is a family decision, not a Church decision.

 

What is a church decision is whether to provide church facilities and a minister -- both free of charge (IIRC) -- for an elaborate (and expensive) wedding and reception.

 

There is nothing wrong with a “storybook wedding.” I enjoy attending storybook weddings. I enjoy attending storybook receptions. But, if a couple wants a storybook wedding, they should have it performed by someone who performs storybook weddings and at a venue suitable for storybook weddings.

 

If the purpose of a sealing is to seal the marriage in heaven, what is wrong with having to wait a year after the storybook wedding? Even if a spouse dies during that first year, the sealing can be done posthumously. After all, what’s one year compared to the eternities?

[rongo]

I happen to have a copy of Handbook 1 that came out just prior to the current edition.  On page 82 it very clearly lays out the conditions for Time Only marriages in the temple.  Do you have a current version, and is this policy no longer found in it?

I no longer have my handbooks, and I don't recall it being in the most recent one. I do know some couples who have recently sought a marriage for time only in the temple, and they were told that these no longer take place. Whether it was the temple or the stake president, and whether it reflected Church policy or was just the Stimmung of local leaders (rightly or wrongly), I don't know.

 

Does anyone know anyone who had a marriage for time only in the temple in 2013? That could help establish whether I'm mistaken or not.

[Bikeemikey]

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'.

If the ring ceremony was not at a LDS chapel or building it does.

[thesometimesaint]

How about this? All marriages should be civil marriages first and the marriage contract  must be renewed at one year and five years. Temple marriage should be performed only after the one year renewal has been completed. Personally, I am considering giving wedding gifts only after the couple reach the 5 year mark. Too many 6 month wonders !

 

A trial marriage? Might work except that by the five year mark most couples have an addition or two.

[bluebell]

If the ring ceremony was not at a LDS chapel or building it does.

That would be like someone asking a catholic priest to officiate at a ceremony away from a Catholic Church and then calling him a tool because he still acted like a priest anyway.

A bishop is asked to follow the handbook whether he's at the church or not. Most members would realize that. It's no more his fault that expectations weren't met than it was the couples fault, regardless of the location of the ceremony.

Or, more accurately, the are both equally at fault for not communicating better.

Edited September 22, 2013 by bluebell

[Bikeemikey]

That would be like someone asking a catholic priest to officiate at a ceremony away from a Catholic Church and then calling him a tool because he still acted like a priest anyway.

A bishop is asked to follow the handbook whether he's at the church or not. Most members would realize that. It's no more his fault that expectations weren't met than it was the couples fault, regardless of the location of the ceremony.

Or, more accurately, the are both equally at fault for not communicating better.

 

I disagree.

 

But this is a country by country distinction and those used to the US relationship between temple sealing and civil marriage most likely wont understand.

 

I most other Western nations the marriage is an event that occurs outside the temple. This is a requirement of State. It is normally a ring exchange with some kind of short statement from the bride, groom and officiator.

 

Likewise, in these same countries a Bishop is a member of the community civilly appointed to conduct marriages on behalf of the State. While my father was a Bishop he conducted many marriages for non-Mormons outside the chapel. In such situations he was a representative of the State first and the Mormon church second (or first equally if you want it that way). In such circumstances my father talked with the couple getting married to determine what they were wanting etc. This process of pre-consultation is actually very common for most religious officiators conducting a wedding.

[bluebell]

I disagree.

But this is a country by country distinction and those used to the US relationship between temple sealing and civil marriage most likely wont understand.

I most other Western nations the marriage is an event that occurs outside the temple. This is a requirement of State. It is normally a ring exchange with some kind of short statement from the bride, groom and officiator.

Likewise, in these same countries a Bishop is a member of the community civilly appointed to conduct marriages on behalf of the State. While my father was a Bishop he conducted many marriages for non-Mormons outside the chapel. In such situations he was a representative of the State first and the Mormon church second (or first equally if you want it that way). In such circumstances my father talked with the couple getting married to determine what they were wanting etc. This process of pre-consultation is actually very common for most religious officiators conducting a wedding.

In the US no one would request an LDS bishop perform a wedding unless they had some connection to the LDS church. This is because in the US a bishop serves the church first and the state second. Every US citizen would understand this.

It's the same for religious leaders in other denominations as well. Everyone understands that the person who you choose to marry you gets to set the perimeters under which he will agree to perform the marriage. If you want a specific religion to do it, you have to jump thru the hoops that religion sets.

I will concede that in other countries such a bishop might be behaving in a bad manner, but in the US, he would be behaving appropriately to put his religious obligations ahead of the desires of the couple.

His (and the couples) worst mistake would be to not communicate what was expected so that either party could do something different if the expectations were different.

[Stargazer]

In the US no one would request an LDS bishop perform a wedding unless they had some connection to the LDS church. This is because in the US a bishop serves the church first and the state second. Every US citizen would understand this.

It's the same for religious leaders in other denominations as well. Everyone understands that the person who you choose to marry you gets to set the perimeters under which he will agree to perform the marriage. If you want a specific religion to do it, you have to jump thru the hoops that religion sets.

I will concede that in other countries such a bishop might be behaving in a bad manner, but in the US, he would be behaving appropriately to put his religious obligations ahead of the desires of the couple.

His (and the couples) worst mistake would be to not communicate what was expected so that either party could do something different if the expectations were different.

 

LDS Chaplains in the US military services are authorized, as chaplains, to perform legal weddings.  When I was in the Army in my first post-training assignment, our battalion chaplain was LDS, and quite popular with the troops, and he performed a number of weddings for members of the battalion.  They did not approach him because they were LDS, they approached him because of his ministerial status.  In fact, most of them were unaware he was LDS. 

 

One of my platoon mates who used to pester me, mostly good-naturedly, because I was a Mormon, stopped doing it after our chaplain married him and his wife.  I found out that he was going to be married by our chaplain, and I asked him "Who's marrying you?"  He got this crooked smile on his face and said "Some Mormon."  I got a big laugh out of this, and he did, too.

[bluebell]

LDS Chaplains in the US military services are authorized, as chaplains, to perform legal weddings. When I was in the Army in my first post-training assignment, our battalion chaplain was LDS, and quite popular with the troops, and he performed a number of weddings for members of the battalion. They did not approach him because they were LDS, they approached him because of his ministerial status. In fact, most of them were unaware he was LDS.

One of my platoon mates who used to pester me, mostly good-naturedly, because I was a Mormon, stopped doing it after our chaplain married him and his wife. I found out that he was going to be married by our chaplain, and I asked him "Who's marrying you?" He got this crooked smile on his face and said "Some Mormon." I got a big laugh out of this, and he did, too.

It makes sense that military chaplains would work more like clergy do in other countries, serving the state first.

[Stargazer]

It makes sense that military chaplains would work more like clergy do in other countries, serving the state first.

 

No more so than do doctors and dentists within the military.  They are considered "professional corps", and they have no ecclesiastical authority, as such, unless called to a position by local leadership.  The requirements and duties are interesting; the church's webpage about Military Chaplains is worth a look, perhaps. 

[bluebell]

No more so than do doctors and dentists within the military. They are considered "professional corps", and they have no ecclesiastical authority, as such, unless called to a position by local leadership. The requirements and duties are interesting; the church's webpage about Military Chaplains is worth a look, perhaps.

I don't doubt it.

It makes sense that working for the military would be unique and not exactly correspond to how the same job works in civilian life.

[MorningStar]

As a married couples, you have to make many decisions in life that no everyone will agree with - where you will live, how many children you will have, choice of occupations, the way you raise your children, etc.  I wouldn't start my marriage with a ceremony meant to cater to everyone else.  I wouldn't ask anyone of another religion to have a ceremony in a way that suits me.  I wanted to marry my husband for eternity and it would be painful for me to go through a civil ceremony first and say "I do" to "As long as you both shall live" or "until death do you part".  Those phrases are sad to me and I wouldn't agree to them unless I absolutely had to. 

 

I had a friend ask if we were going to serve our non-LDS guests coffee an alcohol.  I said, "No, would you ask a Jewish person to serve bacon?"

[Stargazer]

As a married couples, you have to make many decisions in life that no everyone will agree with - where you will live, how many children you will have, choice of occupations, the way you raise your children, etc.  I wouldn't start my marriage with a ceremony meant to cater to everyone else.  I wouldn't ask anyone of another religion to have a ceremony in a way that suits me.  I wanted to marry my husband for eternity and it would be painful for me to go through a civil ceremony first and say "I do" to "As long as you both shall live" or "until death do you part".  Those phrases are sad to me and I wouldn't agree to them unless I absolutely had to. 

 

I had a friend ask if we were going to serve our non-LDS guests coffee an alcohol.  I said, "No, would you ask a Jewish person to serve bacon?"

 

Morning Star, you are the Best!  Thanks for that!  I can't wait for the opportunity to use it.

[Bikeemikey]

As a married couples, you have to make many decisions in life that no everyone will agree with - where you will live, how many children you will have, choice of occupations, the way you raise your children, etc. I wouldn't start my marriage with a ceremony meant to cater to everyone else. I wouldn't ask anyone of another religion to have a ceremony in a way that suits me. I wanted to marry my husband for eternity and it would be painful for me to go through a civil ceremony first and say "I do" to "As long as you both shall live" or "until death do you part". Those phrases are sad to me and I wouldn't agree to them unless I absolutely had to.

I had a friend ask if we were going to serve our non-LDS guests coffee an alcohol. I said, "No, would you ask a Jewish person to serve bacon?"

You don't have to say any septic phrase to get married. There doesn't need to be "as long as you both shall live". You don't even need to say I now pronounce you husband and wife.

The bishop is this story refused the couple the opportunity to say any public vows. This is just silly. Just because we are married in the temple does not mean we should be restricted from saying in public before our families and friends how we intend to commit to our spouse.

As for not having someone carry flowers etc... This also seems a little heavy handed.

But then again, I am not coming to this from a US context.

[bluebell]

You don't have to say any septic phrase to get married. There doesn't need to be "as long as you both shall live". You don't even need to say I now pronounce you husband and wife.The bishop is this story refused the couple the opportunity to say any public vows. This is just silly. Just because we are married in the temple does not mean we should be restricted from saying in public before our families and friends how we intend to commit to our spouse.As for not having someone carry flowers etc... This also seems a little heavy handed. But then again, I am not coming to this from a US context.

Just wanted to add that the reason the bishop stopped the couple from saying vows and such is because the bishop's handbook specifically says that a ring ceremony after a sealing cannot look like a wedding. There are to be no vows and such.

A civil wedding officiated by a bishop would be different I believe, where such things would very much be allowed.

[Bikeemikey]

Just wanted to add that the reason the bishop stopped the couple from saying vows and such is because the bishop's handbook specifically says that a ring ceremony after a sealing cannot look like a wedding. There are to be no vows and such.

A civil wedding officiated by a bishop would be different I believe, where such things would very much be allowed.

So what is the difference between offering vows and talking to one another about how you hope your marriage will be in a public forum?

Seems to me vows is a specific wedding concept that culminates in I do.

Seems to me the bishop may have exceeded his mandate by misunderstanding the more narrow idea of a wedding vow.

[bluebell]

So what is the difference between offering vows and talking to one another about how you hope your marriage will be in a public forum? Seems to me vows is a specific wedding concept that culminates in I do. Seems to me the bishop may have exceeded his mandate by misunderstanding the more narrow idea of a wedding vow.

 

Seems to me that only the bishop really knows that though. 

 

I don't know the bishop-maybe he's a real jerk-but sometimes it's nice to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when we don't know them, or even really know much about the circumstances which brought them into the discussion.

 

Being a bishop seems like a pretty tough job and maybe is deserving of a tiny bit of mercy.

Edited September 23, 2013 by bluebell

[Damien the Leper]

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?

I have no reason to believe either way.

[Damien the Leper]

Most revelations are not written down.

That's fine. But an out of the blue "this is what we are doing" doesn't necessarily constitute a revelation either.

[rockpond]

Seems to me that only the bishop really knows that though. 

 

I don't know the bishop-maybe he's a real jerk-but sometimes it's nice to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when we don't know them, or even really know much about the circumstances which brought them into the discussion.

 

Being a bishop seems like a pretty tough job and maybe is deserving of a tiny bit of mercy.

 

 

I agree.

 

While I disagree with this specific Bishop's actions, I think that he was most likely trying to follow the policy as it is written in the Handbook.  And the Handbook makes it fairly clear to bishops that nothing approximating a wedding ceremony is to take place before or after a temple sealing.  It doesn't go into details about flower girls and what is or is not a "vow".  He has to make judgement calls.

 

This is, of course, just another reason why I feel that the policy should be discontinued.

[bluebell]

I have no reason to believe either way.

 

Awesome, and makes sense, especially since you aren't an active member anymore, right? 

 

But I think a lot of members find a lot of value and logic in believing that the leadership of the church does seek inspiration before they create policies which will cause hurt feelings for some people, which is valid, in my opinion.  It would be odd for an active church member with a testimony NOT to believe that about the apostles and prophets.

[rockpond]

Awesome, and makes sense, especially since you aren't an active member anymore, right? 

 

But I think a lot of members find a lot of value and logic in believing that the leadership of the church does seek inspiration before they create policies which will cause hurt feelings for some people, which is valid, in my opinion.  It would be odd for an active church member with a testimony NOT to believe that about the apostles and prophets.

 

I have two relatively thick handbooks on my shelf (the latest editions of Handbook 1 & 2).  They are chock full of policies.  Some policies that we reference frequently in administering our ward.  Other policies that we are not even aware of until some circumstance calls on us to search for them.  They are very, very useful handbooks and I am grateful to have them for my calling.

 

That said, I do not believe that every policy in those handbooks is the result of inspiration.

Edited September 23, 2013 by rockpond

[Sleeper Cell]

You don't have to say any septic phrase to get married. There doesn't need to be "as long as you both shall live". You don't even need to say I now pronounce you husband and wife. The bishop is this story refused the couple the opportunity to say any public vows. This is just silly. Just because we are married in the temple does not mean we should be restricted from saying in public before our families and friends how we intend to commit to our spouse. As for not having someone carry flowers etc... This also seems a little heavy handed. But then again, I am not coming to this from a US context.

They had the opportunity to say public vows. If they wanted to say public vows, they should have chosen a non-Mormon venue and someone other than a Mormon clergyman to conduct the ceremony. For that matter, they are still free to say before their family and friends how they intend to commit to theirs spouses. Any time they want, and as often as they want.

 

What is a tad silly is to ask a clergyman to conduct a ceremony in his official capacity as a clergyman, but expect him to do so in a manner that violates his church’s rules.

 

I agree with you about the flower girl. It is one thing to tell the couple that a flower girl walking down the aisle is not permitted; quite another to stop the little girl from doing so.

 

Under the circumstances, her error should have been overlooked.