Freedom Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 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.This is because of the great distances. For many it is not possible, or the government does give sealers the power to perform marriages. In all those cases, there are not restrictions. In all other cases, I see no need. Of course, there is a lot of pain for non-member parents who are not allowed to attend the ceremony so perhaps such a practice would soften the hearts of non-member relatives.
Darren10 Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Daniel2;That's not the *federal* government getting out of the marriage business but a state. I don't ind state regulation of marriage they may do as they deem fit, it's the federl government which I'd like to see get out Of the marriage business. Regardless, a band on marriage is not going to happen and if Oklahoma "bans" marriage it won't stop the federal government one iota from recognizing same-sex marriage.
Darren10 Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 The temple sealing is not going to lose its significance for those who are involved and who understand the importance of the temple. However, I think it is unfair for non-member families to be shut out of celebration of the couple, particularly when it is a sensitive situation of part-member families involved. My daughter and son-in-law were very touched by the spirit, and strongly realized the significance of their temple sealing. Nothing could ever change that. The Church needs to trust in its own sealing doctrine.There's no strict ban of civil ring ceremonies before or after a temple sealing that I'm aware of. If a couple feels strongly to have one then have one. However, do realize that marriage is of God. Family and friends attending is cultural. Does a couple want to focus on the eternal blessings of marriage or appease friends and relatives? I remind you I take no strict position against a ring ceremony and I don't see the LDS Church taking one as well. I do think. However, the Church's policy to discourage ring ceremonies is correct.
Buckeye Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 There's no strict ban of civil ring ceremonies before or after a temple sealing that I'm aware of. If a couple feels strongly to have one then have one. However, do realize that marriage is of God. Family and friends attending is cultural. Does a couple want to focus on the eternal blessings of marriage or appease friends and relatives? I remind you I take no strict position against a ring ceremony and I don't see the LDS Church taking one as well. I do think. However, the Church's policy to discourage ring ceremonies is correct. What is a "civil ring ceremony?" All of the ceremonies I have seen are just family events (sometimes overseen by an LDS Bishop) and have nothing to do with civil authority. There is nothing recorded by the state. So I'm puzzled what you mean by "civil." Do you just mean "secular?" More importantly, can you point me to the church policy discouraing ring ceremonies? I can't find it in CHI 2. It seems odd that there would be such a policy as I've know several LDS bishops who presided at ring ceremonies. I doubt they would have done so against church policy. If you can point me to the policy, I'll let them know so that they don't make that mistake again. Thanks.
EllenMaksoud Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 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? Considering the events of 1978, the church has demonstrated that it can change direction without warning.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 I like that there is no state religion and there will never be one in the US. Churches need to get out of the civil marriage business and stick with covenantal partnerships.On the other hand, the state could get out of the marriage business and stick with civil unions. While they are at it, why not extend the same legal benefits to any two adults living in the same household, such an adult caring for an aged parent?
ALarson Posted February 7, 2014 Author Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) My daughter got married 2 years ago. Her spouse's family are not Church members. They got sealed by my daughter's Grandpa in the morning, and then had a reception/ring ceremony later that afternoon with the traditional bridesmaid and groomsman lines, and her Dad and I walking her down the aisle. Our Ward Bishop conducted the ring ceremony, and my daughter and her new husband exchanged their own vows they had written. My son in law's parents felt very included and got to be a part of everything. I don't see why the Church can't encourage more situations like this. I know that currently in the handbook, bishops are counseled to "downplay" the ring ceremony, but what is wrong with having a celebration? The couple is ALREADY married and sealed. What is the big deal?escott, what a wonderful thing to do! I agree that this type of additional ceremony should be just fine to do in order to include everyone. I do know that our Bishop has refused to participate in anything like this and I don't understand why. Edited February 7, 2014 by ALarson
thesometimesaint Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Considering the events of 1978, the church has demonstrated that it can change direction without warning. It wasn't without warning. The building of the first Temple in Brazil was a warning, but it was unexpected to happen when it did.
EllenMaksoud Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 It wasn't without warning. The building of the first Temple in Brazil was a warning, but it was unexpected to happen when it did.Often social injustice is not apparent until it is you who is the persecutor, or the persecuted. As to the Temple, I do not think it has value unless you are meant to go there. For those who truly love God, there is plenty to do without it.
thesometimesaint Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Often social injustice is not apparent until it is you who is the persecutor, or the persecuted. As to the Temple, I do not think it has value unless you are meant to go there. For those who truly love God, there is plenty to do without it. There is no social injustice in not allowing someone to participate in some private religious ceremony. The Church has never persecuted anyone, and I don't feel any persecution in not having a say in whom the Catholics decide is to be their Pope. I truly love God and find joy in going to the Temple. I truly wish all could go. But it is no social injustice that they don't. Just as it is no social injustice that I don't have a say in whom is the Pope. 1
cinepro Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) What is a "civil ring ceremony?" All of the ceremonies I have seen are just family events (sometimes overseen by an LDS Bishop) and have nothing to do with civil authority. There is nothing recorded by the state. So I'm puzzled what you mean by "civil." Do you just mean "secular?" More importantly, can you point me to the church policy discouraing ring ceremonies? I can't find it in CHI 2. It seems odd that there would be such a policy as I've know several LDS bishops who presided at ring ceremonies. I doubt they would have done so against church policy. If you can point me to the policy, I'll let them know so that they don't make that mistake again. Thanks. I don't know if ring ceremonies are specifically "discouraged". I've only heard that it shouldn't look like a "marriage ceremony"; just something like a meeting with a prayer and some music, usually followed by the remarks of a priesthood leader (doesn't have to be the Bishop). No ceremony though, and no vows. Rings aren't really a part of the Temple sealing, so they can be exchanged anywhere, but there can't be any ceremony or vows. So doing it at the "special meeting" described above works. I'm sure the Church Handbook of Instructions describes it in greater detail. Probably in the first book. On page 18. Edited February 7, 2014 by cinepro
Buckeye Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 I don't know if ring ceremonies are specifically "discouraged". I've only heard that it shouldn't look like a "marriage ceremony"; just something like a meeting with a prayer and some music, usually followed by the remarks of a priesthood leader (doesn't have to be the Bishop). No ceremony though, and no vows. Rings aren't really a part of the Temple sealing, so they can be exchanged anywhere, but there can't be any ceremony or vows. So doing it at the "special meeting" described above works. I'm sure the Church Handbook of Instructions describes it in greater detail. Probably in the first book. On page 18. That makes sense. Thanks. I'll have to ask someone with CHI 1. On a related note (sorry to threadjack), does anyone know if there is a policy against becoming an ordained minister in another faith in order to officiate at a wedding. I know that for LDS civil weddings only a currently-serving bishop may officiate. But I also know of men who, without being bishops, have obtained licenses through online churches in order to officiate at the civil wedding for a friend or family. Is there any policy speaking to that practice?
cinepro Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) . On a related note (sorry to threadjack), does anyone know if there is a policy against becoming an ordained minister in another faith in order to officiate at a wedding. I know that for LDS civil weddings only a currently-serving bishop may officiate. But I also know of men who, without being bishops, have obtained licenses through online churches in order to officiate at the civil wedding for a friend or family. Is there any policy speaking to that practice? That's a fascinating scenario. I would venture to say that since LDS men and women can be judges in their communities and perform civil marriages under that authority without it bothering the Church, there shouldn't be any logical reason that an LDS couldn't perform a civil marriage under another authority. As long as it's a legal matter, and not a religious one (i.e. the LDS officiator doesn't believe they are getting some sort of religious power to perform the ceremony, but acknowledge that it is just a secular permission recognized by the state) it should be fine. But I can see how such a scenario might make LDS leaders uncomfortable, so it could be outlawed based on that alone. Edited February 7, 2014 by cinepro
Buckeye Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Thanks again. I'm sure there are LDS priesthood holders who are also civil authorities and marry people by virtue of that authority without any problem. I was getting at someone who has no civil office and instead gets an online certificate from "the church of the Jedi" or whatever. I can see how that could be see as "false robes of the priesthood" and frowned upon. Doubly so if the person conducts a same-sex wedding. Edited February 7, 2014 by Buckeye
Brian 2.0 Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 That makes sense. Thanks. I'll have to ask someone with CHI 1. On a related note (sorry to threadjack), does anyone know if there is a policy against becoming an ordained minister in another faith in order to officiate at a wedding. I know that for LDS civil weddings only a currently-serving bishop may officiate. But I also know of men who, without being bishops, have obtained licenses through online churches in order to officiate at the civil wedding for a friend or family. Is there any policy speaking to that practice? My active friend did this exact thing to perform the ceremony for his not-active brother and his non-member bride. I don't think his bishop was aware of it or anything so nothing happened. I'll have to ask him if he ever asked his bishop about or anything.
Damien the Leper Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Oh, I think the establishment of a state religion on the federal level is well on its way. And fundamentally I would like to see the federal government out of marriage completely but that's not going to happen. If there is going to be a state religion, may as well let the Unitarians have it. The country would not survive a hierarchical state religion. The atheists, agnostics, and non-religious won't put up with it. As for marriage, religious institutions don't own the rights to define what makes a marriage at the state or federal level. Nor should they ever. They want to call their covenantal partnerships marriage? That's fine but the government should not have to recognize the union unless it is partnered with a separate civil contract. It's rather simple.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 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.In what world? Tom Phillips, nor any other dictate Church policy and doctrine.
Darren10 Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 What is a "civil ring ceremony?" All of the ceremonies I have seen are just family events (sometimes overseen by an LDS Bishop) and have nothing to do with civil authority. There is nothing recorded by the state. So I'm puzzled what you mean by "civil." Do you just mean "secular?" More importantly, can you point me to the church policy discouraing ring ceremonies? I can't find it in CHI 2. It seems odd that there would be such a policy as I've know several LDS bishops who presided at ring ceremonies. I doubt they would have done so against church policy. If you can point me to the policy, I'll let them know so that they don't make that mistake again. Thanks. A) Yes, "secular" would be a better word. B) I guess by "policy" I was thinking of the discouragement by the LDS Church to allow any other "procedure" to "overshadow" the temple sealing. That latter should be the focus of a wedding, not exchanging rings and vows one to another. The sanctity and impressiveness of the marriage ceremony should not be overshadowed by any other procedure. http://www.lds.org/new-era/1987/02/fyi-for-your-information
Darren10 Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 As for marriage, religious institutions don't own the rights to define what makes a marriage at the state or federal level. Nor should they ever. They want to call their covenantal partnerships marriage? That's fine but the government should not have to recognize the union unless it is partnered with a separate civil contract. It's rather simple. I agree but it's still not going to happen.
Daniel2 Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 I don't know if ring ceremonies are specifically "discouraged". I've only heard that it shouldn't look like a "marriage ceremony"; just something like a meeting with a prayer and some music, usually followed by the remarks of a priesthood leader (doesn't have to be the Bishop). No ceremony though, and no vows. Rings aren't really a part of the Temple sealing, so they can be exchanged anywhere, but there can't be any ceremony or vows. So doing it at the "special meeting" described above works. I'm sure the Church Handbook of Instructions describes it in greater detail. Probably in the first book. On page 18.As a 41 year old man, I just had a "Eureka!" moment I'd never thought of, being born (a defendant of polygamist ancestors), raised, and living as a Latter-day Saint for 31 years... There's a reason why rings have not been part of the LDS marital tradition; a polygamist man could not wear a wedding bad for each wife he married. Logistically (how many rings he could wear, per finger) and legally (as a physical sign of how many wives he had). That seems so obvious. Funny I never thought of it before. 1
Calm Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) My understanding is that guys in general...not just LDS...haven't been wearing wedding rings for that long. According to one source I just glanced at to confirm my own memory, it is only in the last half of the last century that it has become popular.Apparently the change came about in WWII with all the men away from their wives wanting to show their commitment. Edited February 7, 2014 by calmoriah
Daniel2 Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) My understanding is that guys in general...not just LDS...haven't been wearing wedding rings for that long. According to one source I just glanced at to confirm my own memory, it is only in the last half of the last century that it has become popular.Apparently the change came about in WWII with all the men away from their wives wanting to show their commitment.just Googled it as well, Cal. Good to know! Thanks for the education. Edited February 8, 2014 by Daniel2
Calm Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I was just thinking about this the other day...it seems to me it was my generation where it became expected as my dad never had one and I never noticed any guy wearing one as a kid, guys had signet rings instead. But by the time I was in the market it was a given to have both.Neither my husband nor I wear our rings, I hate jewelry on my hands and his got caught a few times on something so it just seemed safer. I refused to let him buy me an engagement ring, felt it was a total waste of money.
bluebell Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I was just thinking about this the other day...it seems to me it was my generation where it became expected as my dad never had one and I never noticed any guy wearing one as a kid, guys had signet rings instead. But by the time I was in the market it was a given to have both.Neither my husband nor I wear our rings, I hate jewelry on my hands and his got caught a few times on something so it just seemed safer. I refused to let him buy me an engagement ring, felt it was a total waste of money. My husband and i don't wear our wedding rings either. I really love my rings, but rings make me feel claustrophobic so even when i do wear them, i take them off as soon as i can. Hubby works on vehicles in most of his spare time so it's not very safe for him to wear one.
Calm Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 just Googled it as well, Cal. Good to know! Thanks for the education. I actually thought it was a Utah Mormon thing when I first heard of it at BYU, lol.
Recommended Posts