Is The Church Changing Its Temple/civil Marriage Policy?

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

I am under the impression that notary publics can marry folks

[thesometimesaint]

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?   

 

My mother lived the last three years of her life with us. That idea works for me.

[canard78]

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. 

 

What are you talking about?!

 

There are several countries where members have to get married civilly in a public place (most of Europe as far as I know). Are you saying that all of our temple sealings (that happen the same day or within about 48 hours depending on how far you are from the temple) are "irrelevant?"

 

How is getting married civilly in a public place for all to witness and celebrate, followed by getting sealed for eternity on the same day (or within a few days) in any way comparable someone attending church but not getting baptised or someone moving in together but not getting married.

 

Your last example was particularly nonsensical.

[canard78]

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.

 

Good grief. A good reminder of why I'm glad I came to the conclusion that I no longer accepted the words of the prophets without first evaluating them for myself. I feel very comfortable dismissing pretty much the entire three paragraphs you quoted as little more than one Utah Mormon's opinion.

[mfbukowski]

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.

It's a "belt and suspenders" approach.

 

Who knows if they could be forced to perform gay marriages in the temple, the way things are going.  Better to avoid the whole issue and just change the policy as is being suggested.  Just based on common sense I am also confident this is where the church will end up.

[mfbukowski]

i think the trek made the sealing very meaningful. If there's a temple in town, however, I agree that having a civil ceremony / festive celebration and then go to the temple nearby does diminish the sacredness of the sealing.

 

Now, your avatar is not manly enough. THIS is Gohan SS2:

 

 

Now that's one dude I wouldn't want to mess with.

Yeah but yellow is a sissy color.    Should be orange or red.

[mfbukowski]

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?

Anyone who "joins another church" is subject to a disciplinary council for apostasy.

 

Whether or not that would actually happen is of course another issue.

[jcake]

I believe that it would be a wonderful thing if it were possible for a temple bound couple to go to a a beautiful "waiting" room at the temple,  where non-member or non-active parents and immediate family could watch a simple civil marriage performed, and then it could be announced that the couple has chosen to make a commitment not just for this life, but for eternity, and the couple could then go into the temple sealing room and be sealed, while the others wait in the lovely room.  I think the message of that would be powerful, and the non-member/active parents would not be excluded. How much heart-ache this would save, how much more loving and accepting would our LDS ways seem to others, if we did things in this way?

[rpn]

In many states, maybe all, you don't have to be an ordained minister to marry.  A notary public can do so.  A judge can do so.   A court clerk can do so.

[jcake]

An addition to my post before the last one:  As the non-member and non-active family members waited in the civil marriage room, they could be taught about what sealing means.

[Calm]

Not a bad idea, I think the problem comes from wanting to do fairy tale weddings in magnificent settings....the kind of stuff that makes me want to poke my eyes out but fills magazine after magazine with princess for the day bride stuff, etc. etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not a bad idea, I think the problem comes from wanting to do fairy tale weddings in magnificent settings....the kind of stuff that makes me want to poke my eyes out but fills magazine after magazine with princess for the day bride stuff, etc. etc.

As a father of children who are either in high school or on the verge of entering it, I find I'm needing to resist the urge to try to re-live high school days through the lives of my children and to recognize they have their own interests, aspirations and preferences.

 

Maybe there's some analogous application of this to parents who are so set on the fairy-tale wedding idea for their kids that they can't bear it when the kids  opt for a temple wedding with reception and other festivities afterward.

[ALarson]

Maybe there's some analogous application of this to parents who are so set on the fairy-tale wedding idea for their kids that they can't bear it when the kids  opt for a temple wedding with reception and other festivities afterward.

I think you're onto something here.  But, I feel this mainly happens when a member marries a member with nonmember parents who had envisioned being a part of the fairy-tale wedding they'd planned for their child.  Hurt feelings ensue and the son or daughter feel like they are in the middle as they want to please their parents but also do what they now believe is right.

Edited February 10, 2014 by ALarson

[Gohan]

Here's the latest post about this on FB from John Dehlin, he acknowledges it as scuttlebutt:

 

 

A bit more about the rumors surrounding the LDS church's possible change in policy re: allowing civil marriage ceremonies in the U.S. prior to temple marriages (without the one-year wait penalty).

 

The word from some circles is that this change is primarily motivated out of a desire to help the church avoid discrimination-based litigation once same-sex marriage is allowed in all 50 states. 

By separating civil ceremonies from the temple ceremonies (ahead of time)....apparently the church feels like it will avoid discrimination law suits down the road.

That's the latest scuttlebutt, anyway! We'll see if anything actually comes of it.

 

Nothing new, it seems to be what was generally being speculated here.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Gohan

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you're onto something here.  But, I feel this mainly happens when a member marries a member with nonmember parents who had envisioned being a part of the fairy-tale wedding they'd planned for their child.  Hurt feelings ensue and the son or daughter feel like they are in the middle as they want to please their parents but also do what they now believe is right.

I don't envy anyone in that position. I'm sure it must be a traumatic thing to go through.

 

I'd say the only appropriate course of action is for the young couple to grasp and assert their own autonomy and to be firm while at the same time compassionate and loving with the disgruntled parents.

 

Easier said than done, I know.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't envy anyone in that position. I'm sure it must be a traumatic thing to go through.

 

I'd say the only appropriate course of action is for the young couple to grasp and assert their own autonomy and to be firm while at the same time compassionate and loving with the disgruntled parents.

 

Easier said than done, I know.

 

I too know from personal experience. So we eloped and pissed everyone off equally.

[Scott Lloyd]

I too know from personal experience. So we eloped and pissed everyone off equally.

I don't rule that out as the best course of action under some circumstances. Think of Joseph and Emma Smith, for example.

[daz2]

I'd say the only appropriate course of action is for the young couple to grasp and assert their own autonomy and to be firm while at the same time compassionate and loving with the disgruntled parents.

 

Easier said than done, I know.

 

 

When my daughter and son-in-law were married 4 years ago, I told them that we would support them if they decided to marry civilly first, and then be sealed a year later, in order for his father to attend the wedding.  (His father, now deceased, belonged to no religion and was an atheist, but very supportive of his wife and children as LDS.)  Exercising their autonomy, they decided to be married and sealed at the same time, even though his father would not be able to attend. 

 

I then said I would stay outside the temple with his father, so his father would not be alone, and so I would be treated the same way as he was.  My son-in-law thanked me, but said that would make his father feel very awkward, and that his dad understood that this was all part of what it meant to have allowed his children to be raised LDS.

 

When my other daughter married, this was not an issue, because both of her in-laws were active LDS.

 

I know a handful of people who chose to marry civilly first specifically so both sets of parents could attend, and then waited a year for the sealing.  They were aware that the Church seemed to frown on choosing to do so.  While they were worthy to be sealed at the same time as being married, and while they both had temple recommends (and continued to attend during the one-year waiting period), they felt prompted that a civil marriage first, followed by a sealing a year later was the best thing for family relationships.

 

President Kimball once suggested if a couple marries civilly first, and dies before being sealed, that they were mocking God.

 

Yes, the family can go to the temple a year later. Yes, they can do the ordinance work for them. And the records will show it. But the question is, Will the young deceased couple accept the ordinances when they were of such little consequence to them while they lived? And more important than all else, do you think that God is going to be mocked? He is the God of the living, not of the dead. And they were dead, both physically and also, it would seem, spiritually. He has identified this ordinance as one to be done in mortality while you have your body and your spirit together.

 

 

I hope President Kimball did not have my friends in mind.  I hope he did not mean that someone who chooses the civil marriage/followed by sealing route to preserve family relationships "mock" God, nor that the validity of their sealing is in question.

 

Or perhaps both President Lee and President Kimball (and those who support continuation of the one-year wait rule) do believe that the gospel is intended to cause hardship to nonmember relatives of active members who marry.

 

I don't agree with that perspective, obviously.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Or perhaps both President Lee and President Kimball (and those who support continuation of the one-year wait rule) do believe that the gospel is intended to cause hardship to nonmember relatives of active members who marry.

False dichotomy. And an uncharitable conclusion.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

 

When my daughter and son-in-law were married 4 years ago, I told them that we would support them if they decided to marry civilly first, and then be sealed a year later, in order for his father to attend the wedding.  (His father, now deceased, belonged to no religion and was an atheist, but very supportive of his wife and children as LDS.)  Exercising their autonomy, they decided to be married and sealed at the same time, even though his father would not be able to attend. 

 

I then said I would stay outside the temple with his father, so his father would not be alone, and so I would be treated the same way as he was.  My son-in-law thanked me, but said that would make his father feel very awkward, and that his dad understood that this was all part of what it meant to have allowed his children to be raised LDS.

 

When my other daughter married, this was not an issue, because both of her in-laws were active LDS.

 

I know a handful of people who chose to marry civilly first specifically so both sets of parents could attend, and then waited a year for the sealing.  They were aware that the Church seemed to frown on choosing to do so.  While they were worthy to be sealed at the same time as being married, and while they both had temple recommends (and continued to attend during the one-year waiting period), they felt prompted that a civil marriage first, followed by a sealing a year later was the best thing for family relationships.

 

President Kimball once suggested if a couple marries civilly first, and dies before being sealed, that they were mocking God.

 

 

I hope President Kimball did not have my friends in mind.  I hope he did not mean that someone who chooses the civil marriage/followed by sealing route to preserve family relationships "mock" God, nor that the validity of their sealing is in question.

 

Or perhaps both President Lee and President Kimball (and those who support continuation of the one-year wait rule) do believe that the gospel is intended to cause hardship to nonmember relatives of active members who marry.

 

I don't agree with that perspective, obviously.

 

It is always the hard choices we make that say whom we are. Do I please myself, do I please other men, or do I please the Lord? As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

[Calm]

Daz, while I think in general the respect of the temple sealing needs to be considered primary if we are focusing on our relationship as the eternal sealing of husband and wife, I don't discount that the Spirit may manifest to a couple that in their situation the sacrifice of waiting a year is appropriate.

Your consideration and willingness to sacrifice your own experience to share his (the groom's father) was very sweet.

"Or perhaps both President Lee and President Kimball (and those who support continuation of the one-year wait rule) do believe that the gospel is intended to cause hardship to nonmember relatives of active members who marry."

Do you really consider this at all likely?

Edited February 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

False dichotomy. And an uncharitable conclusion.

Scott, Would you mind sharing with me your thoughts on what would be good reasons for having a one year wait from a cival marriage before entering a temple to be sealed.  being a convert myself this is a sensitive issue to me as my parents could not attend and it has caused a divide that to this day is not completely repaired.

Thanks You

Bill

[daz2]

President Kimball's criticism of the couple who chose to marry civilly and died before sealing did not say the reason they chose the civil marriage was so that nonmember family, like parents, could be present.  I personally think that President Kimball would not criticize a couple who did that.

 

But President Lee does specifically criticize a couple who chose civil marriage first so that nonmember family could be present and says they were not following God's direction.  "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."

 

I take this to mean that from his standpoint, it is better to risk rupture of relationships with nonmember family and to dash the dreams of nonmember parents to be present when their children are married, than to marry civilly so they can attend and be sealed afterward.

 

From the perspective of an outsider, it is difficult to see President Lee's statement any other way.

 

If another religion encouraged its members to marry in ceremonies that nonmembers could not witness, and my child converted to that religion, I would not have a positive view of that religion if my child decided to marry in a ceremony I could not witness.

 

The FP and 12 know this.  They have concluded (although they are still studying the matter) that hurt feelings and relationships are necessary collateral (or potential collateral) damage of discouraging U.S. and Canadian members from marrying civilly before being sealed.  That is their judgment.  Perhaps it is God's will too.  Perhaps in a few cases the practice may even encourage nonmember family members to consider converting in order to attend the temple ceremony or for member family to seek a temple recommend.  Or perhaps it is viewed as part of Jesus' statement that "If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."  Perhaps it is too bad that people whose family are all TR holding members do not have the opportunity to show their faith and commitment and risk hurting feelings by excluding father and mother from the ceremonies in the same way others do.

 

It is what it is.  The FP and 12 makes the decisions.  The practice has been in place for almost 50 years.  I cannot change it, I do not have the authority.  But I don't see the practice as a positive one.  I would support a change, if my opinion had any effect.  At some level, I think the opinions of LDS rank and file members are taken into account by the FP and 12. 

[Buckeye]

Scott, Would you mind sharing with me your thoughts on what would be good reasons for having a one year wait from a cival marriage before entering a temple to be sealed. being a convert myself this is a sensitive issue to me as my parents could not attend and it has caused a divide that to this day is not completely repaired.

Thanks You

Bill

 

If I can interject (Scott, feel free to add more), here are the instructions from President Kimball in 1979 (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/the-importance-of-celestial-marriage?lang=eng).

 

Civil marriages are definitely ended when death comes. That is absolute. The Lord has so declared it. I have heard women say, “But my husband was a good man. I know we’ll be husband and wife in eternity.” Even though sincere, they are wrong! They have had their opportunity, for God has spoken! He has given them the program through his servants. Now if they have never heard the gospel, nor had an opportunity to accept it, that is something different. They may hear it in the spirit world and the work may be done vicariously for them on earth, and they may be united. But for us who have heard the word of the Lord, who have the scriptures with us, who have had many witnesses and many testimonies, who have been informed—tomorrow is too late! We may be angels, if we are righteous enough. Even unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only.

 

You see, it is not a matter of righteousness only. That is one of the two important elements, but righteousness alone is not sufficient. There must be both the righteousness and the ordinances. Any of you would go around the world for the sealing ordinance if you knew its importance, if you realized how great it is. No distance, no shortage of funds, no situation would ever keep you from being married in the holy temple of the Lord.

 

 

There are other quotes from this same time period about couples who civily marry and die before their temple sealing, with the opinion expressed that such couples will not be sealed together in the eternities because "they had their chance." Just my view, but it seems that in times past our leaders took a strong view that work for the dead will only benefit those who had no chance to receive the ordinances in their lifetimes. If someone did have a chance, however slight, and put other considerations first, then either (i) their work would not be done or (ii) even if their work was done, the person would not accept it because they would still be of the same mind in the next life and thus not value temple ordiances.

 

In my experience, views have softened considerably during the past decades so that most members now believe that all people who die, even LDS, maintain an ability in the next life to continue growing and accepting good things, even ordinances which they did not accept in their mortal life. Also, as the church has expanded globally and lost many members in it's backyard, the percentage of members with family thatare excluded from the temple has increased. And, of course, we have many years of experience dealing with countries which do not recognize temple marriages as civily valid and so the church has had to accomodate there. All of this had increased the pressure to allow couples in the US/Canada to have a civil marriage followed shortly thereafter by a temple sealilng - the same as in most countries. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a change in policy.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Buckeye

[Paloma]

I think you're onto something here.  But, I feel this mainly happens when a member marries a member with nonmember parents who had envisioned being a part of the fairy-tale wedding they'd planned for their child.  Hurt feelings ensue and the son or daughter feel like they are in the middle as they want to please their parents but also do what they now believe is right.

I have to say that, as a non-LDS person, I take exception to what you and Scott Lloyd have been saying here about those folk (whether non-temple recommend carrying family or non-LDS members as you mention) "who had envisioned being a part of the fairy-tale wedding they'd planned for their child". 

 

I think that you, ALarson and Scott Lloyd, are missing the mark about why people want to be part of their children's wedding.  It's not about the external accoutrements.  Throughout human history, celebrating weddings have been occasions of great joy and very much a communal affair! 

 

I certainly understand Calmoriah's point about people getting caught up in the "fairy tale wedding" phenomena with the proliferation of Bride's magazines, wedding shows, wedding planners, etc.  And I can see that this may contribute to someone wanting a wedding that is something different from a Temple sealing (likely in addition to the sealing).

 

But for you to then run with that idea and (to my eyes) downplay and trivialize the very real desire for parents to attend their children's weddings because of love and because of family solidarity, (not to mention the excruciating pain caused by being excluded) is unfortunate, if not unfeeling.