Why is there a 1 year waiting period to get a temple sealing after civil marriage?

[salgare]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you have no standing to say that it lacks a doctrinal basis.

Since there have been so many years of controversy on this issues, why have we NOT heard from our leaders as to WHY they continue with this.  Their silence is part of the immorality of this policy.

[Thinking]

On 1/16/2016 at 7:48 PM, filovirus said:

Honestly, no one is keeping your father out of the temple except for him.

Don't blame the non-member parents for the consequences of a policy they didn't create.

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, salgare said:

Yes, the young couples must learn to choose what is most important to them ... Church or Family.

Actually, the choice is between God and family. The scriptures tell us to choose God over everything. And I gave the reason for the policy in an earlier post which you quoted from.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Don't blame the non-member parents for the consequences of a policy they didn't create.

It's not placing blame to point out that one has a choice. 

[Sleeper Cell]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

1. no

2. yes, if they would publicly explain those reasons.

No?   You don’t “think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?” 

Yet in your very next sentence you give a conditional  “Yes” to the question: “Are you willing to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt as to having a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?”  

How can you expect us to believe that you are willing to give the leaders the benefit of the doubt for “having a reasonable good faith basis” (on condition they give a public explanation), when you have just stated that you think it is not possible they have a reasonable good faith basis? 

And, no doubt, you expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity and good faith.  You know, sorta like the same benefit of the doubt that you are clearly unwilling to give. 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Actually, the choice is between God and family. The scriptures tell us to choose God over everything. And I gave the reason for the policy in an earlier post which you quoted from.

Your God is immoral to require such an anti-family policy to be enforced by his Church.  My God is pro family and has no such requirements.

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

No?   You don’t “think it is possible that the leaders of the Church had a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?” 

Yet in your very next sentence you give a conditional  “Yes” to the question: “Are you willing to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt as to having a reasonable, good faith basis for imposing this policy?”  

How can you expect us to believe that you are willing to give the leaders the benefit of the doubt for “having a reasonable good faith basis” (on condition they give a public explanation), when you have just stated that you think it is not possible they have a reasonable good faith basis? 

And, no doubt, you expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your sincerity and good faith.  You know, sorta like the same benefit of the doubt that you are clearly unwilling to give. 

1. they are unwilling to give answer as to why this cruel policy is requirement, so no its not possible

2. if they were willing to give answer then it would simply be good faith reasons.

My sincerity should be obvious to anyone who has followed my posting here. 

 

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not placing blame to point out that one has a choice. 

The LDS Church could choose to allow the non-LDS close friends and relatives the privilege of witnessing the ceremony.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Thinking

[Stargazer]

I suppose that what I am about to say is going to introduce additional controversy, but whatever.  I present this as a curious case.

My late wife was sealed to her previous husband, and because I was in the US Army and about to be sent overseas to Germany, we were faced with the choice of being married civilly shortly before I was sent over, or waiting for her sealing cancellation, which might possibly not take place until I was gone.  Since the latter would have caused problems with respect to transportation costs and long delays, it seemed wisest to go ahead and marry ASAP.  So we did.  After returning from our honeymoon we found the sealing cancellation had been signed by President Kimball on the day we were married civilly.  The interesting thing about it was that the letter announcing the cancellation gave us permission to be sealed as soon as we were able to present ourselves at a temple!  No year-long wait.  Accordingly, we ended up being sealed together in the Swiss Temple about five months after our civil marriage.  

If I remember correctly, the paperwork requesting the cancellation described the situation with the military orders and the necessity of a civil marriage, and I suppose that President Kimball understood that if it had been possible for us to be married in the temple, then we would have done it that way.  So we got credit for wanting to do the right thing, as far as I can tell.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Stargazer

[JAHS]

12 hours ago, salgare said:

 

3 hours ago, salgare said:

Your God is immoral to require such an anti-family policy to be enforced by his Church.  My God is pro family and has no such requirements.

I assume you have not read the LDS Proclamation on the Family. "Our" God is as pro-family as any God can be.
Proclamation on the Family

If you hate the LDS Church so much what do you expect to accomplish by posting here? Just curious.

[cinepro]

I agree with Kevin Barney's thoughts on the subject:

 

 

Quote

 

I must be missing something. What is it? Because here is how I see it:

1. I see no theological reason that the civil portion of the wedding has to take place in the temple. We are accustomed to bifurcating the civil marriage to comply with state law and the religious sealing for eternity (IE we don’t make new converts get remarried for time in the temple, we just encourage them to get sealed). There is nothing special about getting married for purposes of state law in the temple; what is special about the temple is the sealing.

2. Civil weddings followed by temple sealings are already allowed in various areas of the world (particularly in South America and Europe) where the government does not recognize civil weddings conducted in the temple. This practice doesn’t seem to have diminished the gravitas of the temple in these areas.

3. But my main reason for making this suggestion is that I don’t think we fully appreciate the *huge* amount of goodwill the Church loses when it tells people that they cannot witness the weddings of their sons or daughters. And this from the Family Church TM.

This may not come up that much among those who are in a position to really do something about this policy, since such people generally live in Utah, and when their children marry it usually involves the joining of large Mormon clans. But I live in Illinois, and out here it is not unusual for one or both young people to be converts and the only member of the Church in their families.

Have you ever had to have that conversation, telling someone that as a matter of policy our Church will not allow parents and other beloved family members to witness the wedding? That is a very, very difficult conversation to have. And since it appears to me to be theologically unnecessary, I think we should change the policy.

Please don’t tell me that a ring ceremony alleviates this situation. The rules are very strict to prevent such a ceremony from having the appearance of anything resembling a wedding or an exchange of vows. Well, those very rules prevent such a ceremony from having the desired effect of being a faux wedding ceremony, tossed as a sop to the non-LDS relatives. The ring ceremonies I’ve seen have been unavoidably lame, and you would have to think those non-LDS relatives are idiots to believe they would be satisfied by such a performance.

My best friend and I each got married at about the same time in August of 1980. We each married girls who were converts and the only members of their families. I got married in the Provo temple; he got married in a Lutheran church, and they waited their year to be sealed. At the time, I thought I was making the better decision. But in retrospect, none of my wife’s family was able to be there, and my own parents and most of my family weren’t able to be there either. As it happened, my father then died the night before our reception.

If I had it to do over again, I would have preferred to have a simple civil ceremony where *all* of our family and loved ones could be present, to be followed immediately by a temple sealing. But even without the policy change I suggest, I think that if I had it to do over again, I would have waited to get sealed. My in-laws were good sports about not getting to attend, but by now they are like my own parents, and I feel embarrassed that I married their daughter without them present. And I just don’t see the need for this exclusion.

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/02/temple-marriage-policy/

 

 

Ultimately, I think the this policy is similar to the Priesthood Ban.  I suspect it will only take one really good article on the origin and history of the Temple Sealing policy to bring about drastic change.

Edited January 17, 2016 by cinepro

[salgare]

42 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I assume you have not read the LDS Proclamation on the Family. "Our" God is as pro-family as any God can be.
Proclamation on the Family

If you hate the LDS Church so much what do you expect to accomplish by posting here? Just curious.

And that makes it so to you?

My wife, three adult children are all TBM with grandchildren being indoctrinated.  I do not like what the Church does but have no issues with the members.  I keep up on Mormon issues because: 1.  I'm still hold some fundamentalist beliefs, 2. keep an eye out for my posterity as to what is up.

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

My in-laws were good sports about not getting to attend, but by now they are like my own parents, and I feel embarrassed that I married their daughter without them present.

My situation was similar to yours but I do not feel embarrassed, because my in-laws (non-members) know how much both my wife and I love them, and they loved us enough to let us do it the way we felt was right. They understood that the marriage and marrying the right person was more important than a 15 minute ceremony.

All their other children were married and divorced several times and over the 40 years my wife have been together, they have realized how special and eternal our sealing was. 

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Ultimately, I think the this policy is similar to the Priesthood Ban.  I suspect it will only take one really good article on the origin and history of the Temple Sealing policy to bring about drastic change.

I agree it can easily be changed. I do not think there is an article needed. Unlike the Priesthood Ban there are not even professed scriptural justifications backing it. My understanding is the current policy came around in the 60s and seemed to back up the emphasis on temple worthiness to oppose the sexual revolution.

So basically it is the fault of the hippies so blame them for it.

I would be glad to see it change but support the Church Leadership in whatever they decide to do. I really doubt they need that silly petition wandering the internet to know this is an issue for many people.

[busybee]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was not aware of this, but it makes sense. It seems consistent with the idea that, for Latter-day Saint couples, a temple marriage should be the highest priority among all considerations and is not to be regarded casually. 

Couples in the area where we live at present usually have their civil ceremony in the chapel at the Stake Centre, which is on the same grounds as the Temple. They would then have a reception, after which they just walk up to the Temple with their guests to be sealed. In countries where there is no temple there is a little bit more leeway, but still has to be at the earliest opportunity. For example, we lived in Ireland when our eldest daughter got married. She was married civilly on a Saturday afternoon in our chapel (by her Dad who was the BP at the time ), We would not have made it to the nearest temple in the UK on the same day before they closed, so she was sealed on the following Tuesday (our temples are closed on Monday) If they hadn't gone on the Tuesday, the one year waiting period would have come in to play.

[Calm]

Can you give us feedback on how nonmember families usually react in the countries you've lived in and if the civil ceremonies tend to be big deals or small affairs (or vary significantly with each family)?

[busybee]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you give us feedback on how nonmember families usually react in the countries you've lived in and if the civil ceremonies tend to be big deals or small affairs (or vary significantly with each family)?

The civil ceremonies vary quite a bit, but are generally far more low key than non-LDS weddings which tend to be planned for years (literally) ahead of time and thousands are spent. Most LDS weddings have some sort of reception following the civil ceremony, whether it is for all wedding guests or just a few sharing a meal. That varies from family to family, usually depending on their financial capabilities!!!. 

In South Africa during the 80's I seem to remember there being some instruction regarding civil marriages being performed in the chapels. If members were going to be married civilly in the chapel there was to be no wedding march, the bride wasn't to be walked down the aisle by her father, she was to be seated at the front of the chapel etc, So much of the traditional wedding custom would have to be done away with. I found this sad to be honest. (what girl doesn't want her Dad to walk her down the aisle!!!) They did encourage members to use other venues like homes, hotels or other wedding venues etc) for their civil ceremonies, rather than the chapels, if they wanted a traditional ceremony. The marriage had to be performed by a person licensed by the State, and while there were a few LDS marriage officers, there weren't many for a country that size. Most wedding venues (not Vegas-style venues ), on the other hand had their own marriage officer. Civil marriages were not done through Priesthood authority, but by the authority vested by the government. The government has recently recognized Temple marriage in South Africa.

In Ireland and the UK civil ceremonies are performed mainly by Bishops or BPs in the chapels, and, as per the marriage ceremony as set out in the GHI, Priesthood authority is mentioned in pronouncing the couple married. I have also noticed that all the wedding traditions are usually observed in the chapels here. Except the traditional wedding marches, but that could be down to the personal choice of the bride.

I don't know too much about non-members reactions. I suspect there are not too many who have a problem with not being able to attend the sealing as they would have attended the civil ceremony. We have a room just inside the front door of our temple where close (non-member) family members are invited to wait while the sealing is being performed. They would generally be hosted there by a member of the Temple Presidency during that time, who would answer any questions. All are made to feel welcome.

Edited January 18, 2016 by busybee

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, salgare said:

Since there have been so many years of controversy on this issues, why have we NOT heard from our leaders as to WHY they continue with this.  Their silence is part of the immorality of this policy.

Maybe they do not even know. God is under no obligation to explain the whys of his instructions.

[Calm]

Thanks for the info.

Quote

what girl doesn't want her Dad to walk her down the aisle!!!

Me actually.  I was so grateful to be able to skip all that stuff.  My ideal marriage would have been 'eloping' to the temple (just him and me), but my to be husband nixed that idea (and he should have) and my mom insisted on putting on a small reception afterwards (buffet meal at our home).  While I appreciated the idea of support from community, it turned it into a day for others and not myself.  I am someone who is too aware of others (most of the time I see this as a good thing, but it makes it hard to get lost in a moment).

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thanks for the info.

Me actually.  I was so grateful to be able to skip all that stuff.  My ideal marriage would have been eloping to the temple, but my to be husband nixed that idea and my mom insisted on putting on a reception afterwards.  While I appreciated the idea of support from community, it turned it into a day for others and not myself.  I am someone who is too aware of others (most of the time I see this as a good thing, but it makes it hard to get lost in a moment).

Where were you when I was dating?  

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Where were you when I was dating?  

Having grandkids?  My daughter is the same (she's 25), but I want her to be a bit more stabilized before I start matching her up with friends.  Marriage is hard enough with just normal anxieties.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

The LDS Church could choose to allow the non-LDS close friends and relatives the privilege of witnessing the ceremony.

Not without violating the divine mandate that only persons who can attest to their own eligibility for a temple recommmend be admitted into a dedicated house of the Lord. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not without violating the divine mandate that only persons who can attest to their eligibility for a temple recommend be admitted into a dedicated house of the Lord. 

What about young children who go into the temple to be sealed to their parents?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, busybee said:

Couples in the area where we live at present usually have their civil ceremony in the chapel at the Stake Centre, which is on the same grounds as the Temple. They would then have a reception, after which they just walk up to the Temple with their guests to be sealed. In countries where there is no temple there is a little bit more leeway, but still has to be at the earliest opportunity. For example, we lived in Ireland when our eldest daughter got married. She was married civilly on a Saturday afternoon in our chapel (by her Dad who was the BP at the time ), We would not have made it to the nearest temple in the UK on the same day before they closed, so she was sealed on the following Tuesday (our temples are closed on Monday) If they hadn't gone on the Tuesday, the one year waiting period would have come in to play.

If a government permits an officer of the LDS faith (such as a stake president) to perform a civil ceremony, I don't understand why it would refuse to recognize a temple ceremony performed by one who presumably is authorized by the government to perform weddings. I wonder how much if any negotiation there has been in the past on behalf of the Church to bring that about. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

What about young children who go into the temple to be sealed to their parents?

Well, OK. But that's a different proposition than allowing adult non-members into the temple.