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

[Thinking]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Those who witness the marriage do not participate, and don't wear temple clothing.

By the way, we all know that divine mandates have been adjusted in the past.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Those who witness the marriage do not participate, and don't wear temple clothing.

By the way, we all know that divine mandates have been adjusted in the past.

The goings on inside the temple are intended only for the initiated. 

Consider the definition of the word divine to understand why what you call "the Church" cannot "choose" on its own initiative to alter divine mandates. 

[thesometimesaint]

All are participants, there are at least two legal witnesses. The others are also witness but not in the legal sense of the word.

Don't hold your breath on changes to the Temple requirement of Endowed members only in the Sealing Rooms.

[salgare]

On 1/15/2016 at 3:45 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

If by being "forced to obedience" you mean you don't get to disobey without suffering consequences, virtually every decision one makes in life bears consequences. Welcome to the real world.

Yes video, be afraid, be very afraid of those consequences.  You have a huge list of things to try and handle.  Remember that not only does taking action have consequences, but taking no action has just as dire of consequences.  Obey/consequence obey/consequence, obey/consequence ... endless list.  Its an authoritarian  organization.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Consider the definition of the word divine to understand why what you call "the Church" cannot "choose" on its own initiative to alter divine mandates. 

It can, however, petition for changes based on surveys and other feedback.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

My understanding is that civil ceremonies (in at least some of the countries that don't accept a temple ceremony as civil) must be public, accessible to anyone who desires to see it.  I think I remember reading this on the board, so would have to do some googling to figure out where I might find it for a cfr.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

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

They have recommends.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I like the idea of blaming the hippies.  Yes, that works!

I will admit that I don't like the policy.  I do see some vague benefit in it, but it is so vague that I find it hard to explain.  

When I lived in England, back in 1969-71, I attended one LDS wedding.  The couple exchanged "time only" vows ("until death do ye part") in front of the branch president, but since according to civil law there was no authority to marry vested in a minister of the gospel (even for Church of England), the couple then moved over to a temporary desk set up side of the chapel and, presided over by a civil magistrate, signed the legal forms that made them married in the eyes of the law.  Then there was a reception, whereupon they hopped in their car and drove to the temple to be sealed.  I think there was some rule in place concerned how much time was allowed between the civil ceremony and the sealing, and they had to remain apart -- no consummating until after the sealing.  Otherwise the rule about 1 year kicked in. 

The church does not permit polygamy among its members even in countries where it is legal -- so how can time / eternity marriage be treated so differently?

And back in the day, when temples were far apart and difficult to reach, members were routinely married civilly long before they were ever sealed -- and some were unable to do so before death intervened, and sealings were done by proxy.  The outcome of all those marriages were no different from those done the way we do it now, so the policy makes no sense to me.

 

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, salgare said:

Yes video, be afraid, be very afraid of those consequences.  You have a huge list of things to try and handle.  Remember that not only does taking action have consequences, but taking no action has just as dire of consequences.  Obey/consequence obey/consequence, obey/consequence ... endless list.  Its an authoritarian  organization.

Everything we do, or don't do, has consequences. We can choose our actions, but not the consequences. That is a simple fact of reality on this planet.

[busybee]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Marriages in the UK and Ireland don't require a government official to perform the ceremony but the marriage has to be performed in a building which has complete public access. In effect, the building is licensed by the State to have marriages performed therein.

I think the fact that South Africa now accepts Temple marriage came about because many civil marriages are still performed in a traditional tribal setting which would be presided over by the head of the tribe. The governement couldn't really continue to not accept Temple ceremonies as being valid whilst accepting tribal marriages. 

[busybee]

12 hours 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 (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).

I had a very small wedding due to lack of finances. We had a tiny reception at home of a friend just so that family that had travelled a distance didn;t starve on their way home. Literally snacks and sandwiches.

My husband was not a member at the time. He was baptized 3 months after we were married and we went to the temple when once he had been a member for a year. But my Daddy did walk me down the aisle to the traditional Wedding March  He passed away less than a year later so that is a memory I cherish.

[busybee]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I like the idea of blaming the hippies.  Yes, that works!

I will admit that I don't like the policy.  I do see some vague benefit in it, but it is so vague that I find it hard to explain.  

When I lived in England, back in 1969-71, I attended one LDS wedding.  The couple exchanged "time only" vows ("until death do ye part") in front of the branch president, but since according to civil law there was no authority to marry vested in a minister of the gospel (even for Church of England), the couple then moved over to a temporary desk set up side of the chapel and, presided over by a civil magistrate, signed the legal forms that made them married in the eyes of the law.  Then there was a reception, whereupon they hopped in their car and drove to the temple to be sealed.  I think there was some rule in place concerned how much time was allowed between the civil ceremony and the sealing, and they had to remain apart -- no consummating until after the sealing.  Otherwise the rule about 1 year kicked in. 

The church does not permit polygamy among its members even in countries where it is legal -- so how can time / eternity marriage be treated so differently?

And back in the day, when temples were far apart and difficult to reach, members were routinely married civilly long before they were ever sealed -- and some were unable to do so before death intervened, and sealings were done by proxy.  The outcome of all those marriages were no different from those done the way we do it now, so the policy makes no sense to me.

 

I don't think that not consummating  the marriage until after the sealing was ever a 'rule'.  I do know there were some couples who chose to do that. But, in the eyes of the church, the couple are legally married and are able to conduct themselves as married people do, as long as they are sealed at the very first available opportunity. 

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, busybee said:

I don't think that not consummating  the marriage until after the sealing was ever a 'rule'.  I do know there were some couples who chose to do that. But, in the eyes of the church, the couple are legally married and are able to conduct themselves as married people do, as long as they are sealed at the very first available opportunity. 

I admit I did not inquire into the matter at the time.  But the couple seemed to be in a particular hurry to get to the temple -- but in retrospect this is probably because they had an appointment there for the sealing.

[salgare]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Everything we do, or don't do, has consequences. We can choose our actions, but not the consequences. That is a simple fact of reality on this planet.

Like if I don't do my home teaching, or drink coffee or don't sustain the FP/Q12 or attend all my meetings or pay a full tithing or don't go on a mission or don't wear G's 7x24 or neglect my Church callings.  Yes video your worthiness in the eyes of God and potential Exaltation is based on a long list of trite man made requirements that are assigned the most brutal of possible consequences.  Both in mortality and for the following eternities.

For example I was unable to be with my Children for their weddings because I drank coffee and could not sustain the FP/Q12, and thus I'm judged an apostate to be assigned the Terrestrial Kingdom separated from all whom I love because of this.

How can people not see how ridiculousness this is.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, salgare said:

Like if I don't do my home teaching, or drink coffee or don't sustain the FP/Q12 or attend all my meetings or pay a full tithing or don't go on a mission or don't wear G's 7x24 or neglect my Church callings.  Yes video your worthiness in the eyes of God and potential Exaltation is based on a long list of trite man made requirements that are assigned the most brutal of possible consequences.  Both in mortality and for the following eternities.

For example I was unable to be with my Children for their weddings because I drank coffee and could not sustain the FP/Q12, and thus I'm judged an apostate to be assigned the Terrestrial Kingdom separated from all whom I love because of this.

How can people not see how ridiculousness this is.

I didn't go on a Mission for the Church. I joined when I was 20 and looking at a very low Draft Card number. So joined the US Military instead. I'm every bit as worthy as someone who did go on a Mission for the Church. 

So you want all the goodies but none of responsibilities. Most of us outgrow that attitude sometime in our early adolescence. I don't judge you an apostate. Heretic maybe, but not an apostate. If you are separated because of your actions, why are you complaining about the consequences of those actions? I noticed you keep using the past tense of your verbs. Hopefully you have or will change your mind/actions.  

[salgare]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I didn't go on a Mission for the Church. I joined when I was 20 and looking at a very low Draft Card number. So joined the US Military instead. I'm every bit as worthy as someone who did go on a Mission for the Church. 

So you want all the goodies but none of responsibilities. Most of us outgrow that attitude sometime in our early adolescence. I don't judge you an apostate. Heretic maybe, but not an apostate. If you are separated because of your actions, why are you complaining about the consequences of those actions? I noticed you keep using the past tense of your verbs. Hopefully you have or will change your mind/actions.  

It's a painful culture where you feel you have to explain why you did not go on a mission.  I also noted Nehor in this same thread softly stating his opinion but quickly noting his obedience to the will of the leaders so as not to appear insubordinate.  Always in fear of being out of line with the overly authoritative Church who claims to be God's one true church.

My God "gives me all the goodies" without asinine requirements with outrageous consequences for the likes of drinking coffee or not sustaining a corrupt organization.

Your God seems to be an organization that demands obedience to it above all else.

As for complaining about being deemed unworthy, its all in showing just how immoral and unjust your God is (all over a "policy" with no doctrinal backing ... see Nehor's comments upthread).

Edited January 18, 2016 by salgare

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

They have recommends.

My two-month old didn't.

[smac97]

On 1/17/2016 at 2:34 AM, salgare said:

1. no

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

The answer is not in the John Walsh resource linked.

In the US being married civil has always been a stereotypical, "oh they had sex and could not go to the temple" reaction from members. The linked source noted this as well with statements like the couple needed to speedily repent etc.

Thus the fear of this scarlet letter "helps" members.  I guess this is a good faith reason?

Please share others.

No, thanks.  I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone . . . with your point of view.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.

I also think that online efforts to confer about difficult-and/or-controversial topics with someone who cannot accommodate differing-but-reasonable viewpoints are an exercise in futility.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 18, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

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

No, it couldn't.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

Simple solution.   Let temple worthy couples who may have non member family or friends or others who can't attend the temple do a civil ceremony then go to the temple to be sealed later that day or the next. Nothing is lost and no ill will is created between family.   And no this doe Not diminish the value of the temple sealing.

 

[salgare]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, thanks.  I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone . . . with your point of view.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.

I also think that online efforts to confer about difficult-and/or-controversial topics with someone who cannot accommodate differing-but-reasonable viewpoints are an exercise in futility.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sorry to hear you cannot accommodate for other viewpoints.

[smac97]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

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 appreciate and respect Kevin's thoughts on the subject, as limited as they are.  He is, by his own admission, speaking from a position of ignorance ("I see no theological reason," "This practice [of a pre-sealing civil wedding] doesn’t seem to have diminished the gravitas of the temple," "I don’t think we fully appreciate the *huge* amount of goodwill the Church loses," etc.).  If I get to the point where the Church's policy sticks in my craw, I will do something about it.  It likely will not involve publicly criticizing the Church's position.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[salgare]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate and respect Kevin's thoughts on the subject, as limited as they are.  He is, by his own admission, speaking from a position of ignorance ("I see no theological reason," "This practice [of a pre-sealing civil wedding] doesn’t seem to have diminished the gravitas of the temple," "I don’t think we fully appreciate the *huge* amount of goodwill the Church loses," etc.).  If I get to the point where the Church's policy sticks in my craw, I will do something about it.  It likely will not involve publicly criticizing the Church's position.  

Thanks,

-Smac

In the meantime continue to make the couple choose between this godless policy and their families and friends, all the time blaming the problem on the unworthiness (judged by the Church) of non-temple recommend members.

And for what? smac97 did not want to discuss it, but is willing to simply assume they must have good reasons.

The non-transparency of these reasons only reinforces the immoral enforcement of this policy, claiming its of God's will and for good reasons.  Of course those reasons will never be elaborated on as they are simply for corrupt reasons.

[Gillebre]

I'm so grateful that the Church has taken steps to really remind us about the importance of loyalty to God and His teachings. I'm sad to see people can't recognize such loyalty when they see it.

 

I'm starting to believe that happiness and hatred cannot coexist (like light and darkness) in the same space, or person, at the same time. How sad that people seem so full of hate and bile that there is no room for true happiness. Truly they are choosing to be unhappy, and in the end that will be the greatest tragedy of all, that they would rather feel the righteous indignation of having been hurt and victimized than truly happy and at peace. No one can hate and be at peace.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

It's a painful culture where you feel you have to explain why you did not go on a mission.  I also noted Nehor in this same thread softly stating his opinion but quickly noting his obedience to the will of the leaders so as not to appear insubordinate.  Always in fear of being out of line with the overly authoritative Church who claims to be God's one true church.

My God "gives me all the goodies" without asinine requirements with outrageous consequences for the likes of drinking coffee or not sustaining a corrupt organization.

Your God seems to be an organization that demands obedience to it above all else.

As for complaining about being deemed unworthy, its all in showing just how immoral and unjust your God is (all over a "policy" with no doctrinal backing ... see Nehor's comments upthread).

Not painful to me in the slightest. I rather enjoyed my experience in the military. 8-5 five days a week; Worked in an air conditioned office. Drove my car to my off base apartment every week day evening; Saturdays and Sundays off; Made Sgt in record time. Met some of the nicest people around. Used the GI Bill to further my education.

Still in that early adolescent stage I see. if you're insubordinate in civilian life you'll get fired from your job. Heck I was a C.O.O of medium sized company. I'd fire you if you were insubordinate to me. I have no fear of being out of line. I'm far from perfect but I like being the person I've become. I honestly believe this Church is God's only one true and living Church on the face of the earth.

Since you chose the consequences what the heck are you complaining about? I don't care much for the the taste of coffee so it was no sacrifice to me to not drink it. Tobacco makes me gag. No sacrifice there. I value my leaders opinions and idea's on many subjects. Why shouldn't I respect and honor them? 

I see nothing wrong with obedience. It is just your childish idea that actions shouldn't have consequences.