ALarson Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I've heard that this was posted by John Dehlin on his Facebook page: "Possibly wonderful news! I just heard 2nd-hand that '...some major changes were coming concerning temple marriages and allowing people to have a civil ceremony and then later go to the temple to be sealed.' Can anyone confirm?" Does anyone know anything about this?
Buzzard Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Considering the source, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually were tightening the policy.
Duncan Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 no clue, but I don't think they would ever allow non members in the Temple to witness it as some on his thread are saying-I think it's just about having the civil stuff then the Temple sealing shortly after
David T Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I've heard that this was posted by John Dehlin on his Facebook page: "Possibly wonderful news! I just heard 2nd-hand that '...some major changes were coming concerning temple marriages and allowing people to have a civil ceremony and then later go to the temple to be sealed.' Can anyone confirm?" Does anyone know anything about this? It would be about time. It's nice to have the convenience of both together at once, (even with nonmember family members, I still would have chosen to do them both together) but I don't like the necessary conflation of a government contract with a Sacred Church Ordinance. Edited February 6, 2014 by David T 4
Freedom Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 It has always been the case that, if you are married civily, you can go to the temple a year later. the issue is, marriage is a sacred ceremony and it is diminished or made irrelevant if you can go have a big public wedding and then go to the temple just to have an ordinance performed. This would be a bad news thing in my opinion. Lets going the church and have a calling and worry about the baptism thing later. Lets move in together and have all the benefits but none of the commitments of marriage and worry about the legality later. 4
Nofear Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 We've always done this in the UK. And anywhere where the country does not recognize a temple sealing as a civil marriage (no waiting period).
Buckeye Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 This would be great. I wish it were an option when I was married/sealed. If the policy does change, I hope its from a desire to increase family participation rather than worry over recent and future changes to civil marriage.
Brian 2.0 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 marriage is a sacred ceremony and it is diminished or made irrelevant if you can go have a big public wedding and then go to the temple just to have an ordinance performed. It sounds to me like it's the people involved that are dimishing it they consdier it "just" an ordinace. I was married civilly to my wife and then we were sealed later. She was a convert and we were married within the first year of her baptism and we could go through the temple just a month after our civil ceremony (which was a year after her baptism). Was our sealing dimisihed or made irrelevant because we went to the temple just to have an ordinace performed? There is nothing about having those two things close to each other that inherently dimishes the other. In fact, in my case it was quite the opposite. Having the sealing on its own made us focus MORE on the sealing ordinace and what it meant. Having it separate made us see it as separate, an ordinance and covenant between us and God that went well beyond basic "marraige." So I have to disagree with your statement whole-heartedly. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) And anywhere where the country does not recognize a temple sealing as a civil marriage (no waiting period).Thinking about this, should gay marriage become legal federally here, this may be a strategy for the church- make sealings purely ecclesiastical and give up on making them legal marriages. Maybe that is what is happening here. The church therefore would never have to deal wit being forced to perform gay marriages Edited February 6, 2014 by mfbukowski
Gohan Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) It has always been the case that, if you are married civily, you can go to the temple a year later. the issue is, marriage is a sacred ceremony and it is diminished or made irrelevant if you can go have a big public wedding and then go to the temple just to have an ordinance performed. It hasn't always been the case. My grandparents were married on the East Coast - in 1964 - and then made the long trek to Salt Lake City to be sealed about two weeks later. And I certainly don't think it diminished the ordinance for them at all. Edited February 6, 2014 by Gohan
ALarson Posted February 6, 2014 Author Posted February 6, 2014 We've always done this in the UK.I know and I think that's great. This would be a very positive change and it would help ease a lot of hurt feelings within families (who have nonmember parents, siblings, etc.).
Duncan Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I know and I think that's great. This would be a very positive change and it would help ease a lot of hurt feelings within families (who have nonmember parents, siblings, etc.). that's the thing this policy only seems to apply to us in North America, like does diminishing the ordinance not apply elsewhere, if you are from Germany you're good to go and don't worry about it?
Brian 2.0 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Thinking about this, should gay marriage become legal federally here, this may be a strategy for the church- make sealings purely ecclesiastical and give up on making them legal marriages. Maybe that is what is happening here. The church therefore would never have to deal wit being forced to perform gay marriages This has long been my stance as to what the church should do with marriage/sealings. 1
The Nehor Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Thinking about this, should gay marriage become legal federally here, this may be a strategy for the church- make sealings purely ecclesiastical and give up on making them legal marriages. Maybe that is what is happening here. The church therefore would never have to deal wit being forced to perform gay marriagesThey will never be forced anyways. Clergy cannot be forced to perform heterosexual marriages so why would they be forced to perform homosexual marriages? People cannot sue the church and force us to give them a temple sealing or even have a bishop marry them.
thesometimesaint Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Thinking about this, should gay marriage become legal federally here, this may be a strategy for the church- make sealings purely ecclesiastical and give up on making them legal marriages. Maybe that is what is happening here. The church therefore would never have to deal wit being forced to perform gay marriages Agreed.
cinepro Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) It has always been the case that, if you are married civily, you can go to the temple a year later. the issue is, marriage is a sacred ceremony and it is diminished or made irrelevant if you can go have a big public wedding and then go to the temple just to have an ordinance performed. This would be a bad news thing in my opinion. Lets going the church and have a calling and worry about the baptism thing later. Lets move in together and have all the benefits but none of the commitments of marriage and worry about the legality later. I kept waiting for your post to make sense, but it never happened. If that's the kind of thinking that has perpetuated the one-year waiting period, then I'm surprised it hasn't been done away with sooner. Edited February 6, 2014 by cinepro 2
Daniel2 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Thinking about this, should gay marriage become legal federally here, this may be a strategy for the church- make sealings purely ecclesiastical and give up on making them legal marriages. Maybe that is what is happening here.The church therefore would never have to deal wit being forced to perform gay marriagesThis was my immediate thought, as well. I think it's a sensible change for LDS leadership to make. Although I don't believe any attempt to force mormons to marry gays in the temple would ever succeed, I can see how, in the view of thr church, this change would further delineate the difference between civil marriage and temple marriage, bringing greater peace of mind that chances of future litigation would be decreased and the LDS church's religious liberty further strengthened. Edited February 6, 2014 by Daniel2
ALarson Posted February 6, 2014 Author Posted February 6, 2014 Of course all of the Tom Phillips fans are taking credit for this if it happens. They're saying that if nothing else comes from his lawsuit, this change is worth it.
Buckeye Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) FWIW, here is the best official explanation of the practice I have found. It's from an article authored by Harold B. Lee, then first counselor in the first presidency, found at the beginning of the January 1971 Ensign (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/01/gods-kingdom-a-kingdom-of-order?lang=eng). The church magazines had just be restructured and for the first time fell within the oversight of the correlation department. The article is entitled "God’s Kingdom—A Kingdom of Order" and sets out how changes can be made in an orderly way: The great historian Will Durrant once said, “In my youth I wanted freedom. In my mature years I want order.” There is nothing so important in the kingdom of God as order; yet the tendency today is to resist law and order, which must be maintained in the kingdom of God if we are to be pleasing in the sight of the Lord. “Be one,” the Lord said, “and if you are not one you are not mine.” The only way we can be one is by following the leadership of the Church as the Lord has directed. Even in the matter of temple ordinances, there is sometimes a resistance to order. We have many requests from young couples who want to have a civil marriage first for some reason—perhaps someone in one of the families is not a member of the Church—and then they want to have a temple marriage immediately thereafter. When we say no and that a sealing following a civil marriage is not a temple marriage but a sealing after marriage, they frequently ask, “Why isn’t such a subsequent sealing just as valid as a temple marriage in the first place?” The simple answer has to be, “Because a temple marriage is the Lord’s way by his command.” Any other way than that lacks some of the blessings that could have been enjoyed if the Lord’s way had been chosen. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an official explanation of what blessings are foregone by members outside the US/Canada who are sealed the day after their marriage. And I haven't heard any explanation as to whether those blessings are eternally foregone or just missed during the interval between civil marriage and sealing. The best speculation I've seen is the whole "they could die in a car accident on the way to the temple" motif, but that's never been very convincing to me because of temple proxy work. If anyone knows of a better or more complete information, please do share. FWIW, President Lee's article contains this gem at the end: On one occasion I asked some people to define the words liberal, conservative, and radical. I received some interesting answers. One answer was given by a prominent person in educational circles whose definition of liberal in the Church was very simple: “A liberal in the Church is simply one who doesn’t have a testimony.” That’s all. If you’re liberal in the Church and making decisions on your own, it is because you lack a rock-bottom testimony and faith in the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the leadership that presides today. Sufficet to say, I'm still working to develop a testimony. Edit to add link. Edited February 6, 2014 by Buckeye
daz2 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I wonder if President Lee was the one behind the tightening and enforcement of the one-year penalty. Given his emphasis on families, it seems hard to believe he really wanted to punish nonmember parents whose children converted to the Church and wanted to be married or sealed in the temple in the Lord's way. Because that is how it is perceived. I would feel that way if my child converted from Mormonism to another faith, and that other faith excluded me from attending my child's wedding unless I converted to the other faith.
Buckeye Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I wonder if President Lee was the one behind the tightening and enforcement of the one-year penalty. Given his emphasis on families, it seems hard to believe he really wanted to punish nonmember parents whose children converted to the Church and wanted to be married or sealed in the temple in the Lord's way. Because that is how it is perceived. I would feel that way if my child converted from Mormonism to another faith, and that other faith excluded me from attending my child's wedding unless I converted to the other faith. I'm too young to know President Lee's intentions, but I have every reason to believe he supported the policy because he thought there was something significantly better about "temple marriage" over "civil marriage+sealing." I just wish he'd said what that was.
mfbukowski Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 This was my immediate thought, as well. I think it's a sensible change for LDS leadership to make. Although I don't believe any attempt to force mormons to marry gays in the temple would ever succeed, I can see how, in the view of thr church, this change would further delineate the difference between civil marriage and temple marriage, bringing greater peace of mind that chances of future litigation would be decreased and the LDS church's religious liberty further strengthened.I tend towards pessimism. The way things are going who knows what could happen. We are in for a rough season.
daz2 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Someone must have pretty strong feelings in the FP and 12 that President Lee was right. I cannot think of any other reason why the policy in the U.S. is not changed to mirror the policies in many other countries, just as the policy of mission ages was changed to reflect other countries.
tsm1927 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I know I am not a regular poster here, but have lurked off and on for some time. I do have one observation on any potential church policy change on civil/temple marriage timing. I know the lead attorney the church has used on much of its marriage equality issues (i.e., prop 8, recent hawaii legislation, etc.). Definitely an insider and pro church policy. It is his opinion that it is inevitable that marriage equality will ultimately be pushed through in every state and that the church will respond by revising its church wide policy provide civil marriage first with temple sealing to follow. Similar to the UK policy. He didnt' elaborate on why he thought this change marriage equality across the country would ultimately bring the church to changing this policy. Could it be for fear of litigation? That doesn't sound reasonable to me. How could they be forced to performed gay marriages in the temple? I don't see the precedent. However, that insider felt extremely confident this is where the church would be ending up.
Recommended Posts