Temple wedding policies

[bsjkki]

When did the church institute the 'wait a year' temple wedding policy? Google has not provided a quick answer. Do you think this will ever change?  Is this policy a good thing or bad thing for missionary opportunities? 

Edited May 15, 2017 by bsjkki

[carbon dioxide]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

When did the church institute the 'wait a year' temple wedding policy? Google has not provided a quick answer. Do you think this will ever change?  Is this policy a good thing or bad thing for missionar opportunities? 

It is a policy that does not apply in other countries.  I can change and probably will sooner rather than later.  The only thing I can see why for the policy is not to give too much emphasis on the civil marriage over the temple sealing but I think for most couples, the wedding day is long enough.  Better just to get everything done at one shot and then get on with the other activities of the day.

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is a policy that does not apply in other countries.  I can change and probably will sooner rather than later.  The only thing I can see why for the policy is not to give too much emphasis on the civil marriage over the temple sealing but I think for most couples, the wedding day is long enough.  Better just to get everything done at one shot and then get on with the other activities of the day.

I wish they would make an exception for non-member parents. The only reason I ever hear is the not emphasis on the civil over the eternal but is this a problem in those countries who have 2 ceremonies in one day?

[sunstoned]

I think it changed in the late 1960's or early 1970's.  I remember as a kid seeing weddings in the church with the couple getting sealed at a temple within the week.

I think the policy will change back once there is enough member pressure to do so.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is a policy that does not apply in other countries.  I can change and probably will sooner rather than later.  The only thing I can see why for the policy is not to give too much emphasis on the civil marriage over the temple sealing but I think for most couples, the wedding day is long enough.  Better just to get everything done at one shot and then get on with the other activities of the day.

As far as I am aware, the reason why the policy doesn't apply in some countries is because of legal requirements for weddings to be done in public.  In the UK, for example.  And weddings there are always done under civil authority, not religious.  If you recall the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, before the Archbishop of Cantebury conducted the apparent wedding ceremony, they both stopped off at the clerk's desk, where they signed the wedding register.  The wedding was then legal, and if they had decided to just run out of the church at that point, they would have been legally married at that point.  The Archbishop was just window dressing, from the standpoint of the civil law.  Same for temple weddings -- which are actually sealings, not weddings.

 

[JAHS]

From an article a couple years ago:

SALT LAKE CITY – Officials with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints addressed their rules regarding temple marriages as an organization is requesting change.

Under current rules, LDS couples in the U.S. and Canada who have their marriage ceremony outside of one of the church’s temples are required to wait one year before they can be sealed in a temple.

The group Family First Weddings is pushing for a change to those rules, and they are encouraging LDS Church leaders to reexamine the policy.

LDS Church officials said they are constantly examining such issues and that a change in the future is possible, but they said they want to be clear they are not announcing an immediate change in policy.

“Church leaders are well aware of the issues involved and continue to examine them carefully,” LDS Church spokesman Cody Craynor said in response to the issue.

Under current rules, many LDS couples choose to only hold a temple marriage ceremony in order to avoid the waiting period. Because entry into LDS temples requires a recommend, not everyone is allowed to attend those marriage ceremonies–which is part of the reason some are requesting a change to the policy."

LDS Church addresses rules regarding temple marriages

Here's a little history on the policy, but not sure of the accuracy:
The Temple One-Year Rules

[rongo]

12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I wish they would make an exception for non-member parents. The only reason I ever hear is the not emphasis on the civil over the eternal but is this a problem in those countries who have 2 ceremonies in one day?

It's in the temple, and it's the sealing ordinance --- the crowning ordinance of the temple. All people need to have a valid temple recommend to go past the recommend desk. I don't really understand where members are coming from who want worthiness and authorization rules to be done away with so that non-member parents can go to the sealing. 

Our stake president's parents weren't able to go to his, and they refused to go to his reception. "If we aren't allowed to go to the wedding, then why would we want to go to the reception?" But, they've gotten over it, and appreciate the strength of the family that marriage provided. 

I think standing firm on this actually leads to better converts, if and when these people end up joining the Church at some point. It teaches the sanctity of the temple, and the fact that this will and can never be set aside so as to make non-members happy. Even when this is inconvenient or tricky, socially. 

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's in the temple, and it's the sealing ordinance --- the crowning ordinance of the temple. All people need to have a valid temple recommend to go past the recommend desk. I don't really understand where members are coming from who want worthiness and authorization rules to be done away with so that non-member parents can go to the sealing. 

Our stake president's parents weren't able to go to his, and they refused to go to his reception. "If we aren't allowed to go to the wedding, then why would we want to go to the reception?" But, they've gotten over it, and appreciate the strength of the family that marriage provided. 

I think standing firm on this actually leads to better converts, if and when these people end up joining the Church at some point. It teaches the sanctity of the temple, and the fact that this will and can never be set aside so as to make non-members happy. Even when this is inconvenient or tricky, socially. 

Psychologically, a person's sacrifice often leads to a greater commitment, kind of like a confirmation bias. So a bigger, harder sacrifice would be likely to lead to an even bigger commitment as they double down to validate their sacrifice.

It's awful that parents wouldn't be allowed to see their child married. Awful!

As others have noted, this policy is different in other countries where law requires a "public" wedding so it seems that laws for "public" weddings in the US may be needed to push the church in that direction. Meanwhile, they have an inconsistent policy that negatively impacts upon families without any real justification or benefit. I honestly can't think of any good reason why it couldn't be the same in the US as it is in Europe. What does the church get out of this, other than upset families?

[rockpond]

It's a hurtful policy with no doctrinal basis.  Hopefully the Brethren will change it soon!

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As far as I am aware, the reason why the policy doesn't apply in some countries is because of legal requirements for weddings to be done in public.  In the UK, for example.  And weddings there are always done under civil authority, not religious.  If you recall the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, before the Archbishop of Cantebury conducted the apparent wedding ceremony, they both stopped off at the clerk's desk, where they signed the wedding register.  The wedding was then legal, and if they had decided to just run out of the church at that point, they would have been legally married at that point.  The Archbishop was just window dressing, from the standpoint of the civil law.  Same for temple weddings -- which are actually sealings, not weddings.

 

Better not tell my wife that, she thinks we're married.

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Psychologically, a person's sacrifice often leads to a greater commitment, kind of like a confirmation bias. So a bigger, harder sacrifice would be likely to lead to an even bigger commitment as they double down to validate their sacrifice.

It's awful that parents wouldn't be allowed to see their child married. Awful!

As others have noted, this policy is different in other countries where law requires a "public" wedding so it seems that laws for "public" weddings in the US may be needed to push the church in that direction. Meanwhile, they have an inconsistent policy that negatively impacts upon families without any real justification or benefit. I honestly can't think of any good reason why it couldn't be the same in the US as it is in Europe. What does the church get out of this, other than upset families?

I would have no problem at all with a policy change bringing the U.S. into alignment with the rest of the world, where a couple could be sealed immediately following their civil marriage. Of course, in the U.S., the sealing is a civil marriage, which is why the Church doesn't encourage people to get married and then get sealed in the U.S. 

I don't believe the policy will change until the federal government disallows religious marriages as legal marriage (which I think will happen). It would be silly to encourage people to have a fancy civil marriage for the non-member family, and then go get sealed if we don't have to. 

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's a hurtful policy with no doctrinal basis.  Hopefully the Brethren will change it soon!

The doctrinal basis is that the Temple is not of this world. Frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about. My bride and I eloped to the Oakland Temple in 1972. My beloved F-i-L would have been the only one that could have attended. He paid me $20 to take her off his hands. Plus there is no giving away the bride, flower-girls, best man, etc., etc., etc. Just two people dressed in simple white kneeling across an alter for about 3 minutes tops.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

All people need to have a valid temple recommend to go past the recommend desk. I don't really understand where members are coming from who want worthiness and authorization rules to be done away with so that non-member parents can go to the sealing. 

I don't want non-members to be able to go in the temple (does anyone push for this?) I would like couples to be able to have a civil marriage and then go get sealed later the same day. I don't think this lessens the temple sealings importance but it does cause a lot less pain to parents who cannot witness their childs wedding.

I really would like a thorough timeline of Mormon wedding policies if anyone knows where to find one.

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don't want non-members to be able to go in the temple (does anyone push for this?) I would like couples to be able to have a civil marriage and then go get sealed later the same day. I don't think this lessens the temple sealings importance but it does cause a lot less pain to parents who cannot witness their childs wedding.

I really would like a thorough timeline of Mormon wedding policies if anyone knows where to find one.

Which one is the most important to the couple?

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don't want non-members to be able to go in the temple (does anyone push for this?)

I've seen people here push for even anyone who wants to to come into a temple and observe what goes on (endowment, sealings, etc.). That's an extreme example I'm sure isn't shared by many, but there are more people who would want a "limited use" policy exception for non-member family to be admitted to observe the sealing. 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don't want non-members to be able to go in the temple (does anyone push for this?) I would like couples to be able to have a civil marriage and then go get sealed later the same day. I don't think this lessens the temple sealings importance but it does cause a lot less pain to parents who cannot witness their childs wedding.

I really would like a thorough timeline of Mormon wedding policies if anyone knows where to find one.

I would like to see this too.  It's obviously not doctrinal or this would have been necessary from the beginning.  

I've seen it cause great pain and even rifts between family members.

I see no reason to not allow a civil wedding (where a bride can have her Father walk her down the isle....most every young girl's dream.).  And then making a special trip to the temple for the sacred sealing.

When did this change (to being the legal marriage and the sealing too)?  I'm interested to know as you are...

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Which one is the most important to the couple?

My perspective...for  those who did not marry in the temple initially, I have seen incredible joy when they are able to go and be sealed, sometimes years later, in the temple. The sealing ceremony is sacred and has eternal importance that is not undercut by a civil marriage. Maybe, those in England or other countries that allow civil marriages and same day sealing, could share their perspective?

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I would like to see this too.  It's obviously not doctrinal or this would have been necessary from the beginning.  

I've seen it cause great pain and even rifts between family members.

I see no reason to not allow a civil wedding (where a bride can have her Father walk her down the isle....most every young girl's dream.).  And then making a special trip to the temple for the sacred sealing.

When did this change (to being the legal marriage and the sealing too)?  I'm interested to know as you are...

In the US churches have long had the legal right to conduct marriage ceremonies.

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

My perspective...for  those who did not marry in the temple initially, I have seen incredible joy when they are able to go and be sealed, sometimes years later, in the temple. The sealing ceremony is sacred and has eternal importance that is not undercut by a civil marriage. Maybe, those in England or other countries that allow civil marriages and same day sealing, could share their perspective?

My beloved parents-in-law became members after they'd been married for several years. Yes; it was very joyful. In England you must be married in a public ceremony first. They don't legally recognize any church wedding.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

In the US churches have long had the legal right to conduct marriage ceremonies.

Of course I know that.  But that's not what is being asked here.  Other churches allow all family members and friends to attend the religious wedding ceremonies (such as a Catholic wedding mass, etc.).

When did the sealing become the civil marriage as well?  

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not necessarily addressing the genuinely hurt feelings that can result from exclusion from a Sealing Ceremony (Hell, I'm an Eternal Bachelor!  Whaddo I know?!! )  That said, I think the uninitiated who are accustomed to much more pomp and circumstance surrounding such rites (and who don't understand the implications of the language used in ours) would be quite ... underwhelmed ... by the Sealing Ceremony: "I've waited my whole life to see my son or daughter get married ... reared them, fed them, clothed them, changed their diapers, walked the floor at night with them when they were fussy and couldn't sleep, walked the floor at night waiting for them to come home ... for this?  This is it?  

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I would like to see this too.  It's obviously not doctrinal or this would have been necessary from the beginning.  

I've seen it cause great pain and even rifts between family members.

I see no reason to not allow a civil wedding (where a bride can have her Father walk her down the isle....most every young girl's dream.).  And then making a special trip to the temple for the sacred sealing.

When did this change (to being the legal marriage and the sealing too)?  I'm interested to know as you are...

No LDS woman, even those who have their parents in attendance, who gets married in the temple gets to have her father walk her down the isle though.  

Would nonmember parents be happy watching their children get married by a justice of the peace before they went to the temple?  Some would but from my experience it's not missing the marriage that many are upset about but missing a wedding (my husband was the only member in his family).  

They want the experience of being the mother/father of the bride that is typical in our culture, they want the isle, the flower petals, the couple standing up in front of their family and friends and saying the "I Do's" that they have been expecting to have.  They don't just want the "I Do's."  

None of that happens for LDS temple marriages though until the reception.  All the nonmember family member misses are the vows (which i'm not saying aren't important to witness, i'm only saying that most nonmember families want more than just that part). 

My only concern with a change in policy would be whether or not it would also create a change in wedding culture in the American church, where a big wedding (completely with all the cultural trimmings) takes place before the sealing even for those who's families can attend the temple sealing with them.

When I've heard of members in the U.K. getting married before their temple sealing, it's not a wedding like we typically think of.  They go to the equivalent of the justice of the peace and have a very simple ceremony-no walking down the isle or flower girls, bridesmaids, etc. and then they go right to the temple.  Maybe what i've heard is the exception and not the norm though.  My husband served his mission in England, but accurately remembering LDS wedding culture there was not really on his mind at the time.

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not necessarily addressing the genuinely hurt feelings that can result from exclusion from a Sealing Ceremony (Hell, I'm an Eternal Bachelor!  Whaddo I know?!! )  That said, I think the uninitiated who are accustomed to much more pomp and circumstance surrounding such rites (and who don't understand the implications of the language used in ours) would be quite ... underwhelmed ... by the Sealing Ceremony: "I've waited my whole life to see my son or daughter get married ... reared them, fed them, clothed them, changed their diapers, walked the floor at night with them when they were fussy and couldn't sleep, walked the floor at night waiting for them to come home ... for this?  This is it?  

That's why advocates of a policy change in the U.S. want there to be the "real" wedding, with all of the cultural trappings, so that the non-member family don't have to be disappointed with the austere and simple sealing. They can roll their eyes at it, and shrug it off, because it's just that weird Mormon thing. The Hollywood wedding already took place.

I think this is more of a factor than "not being able to witness the marriage." I think that those whom this bothers are more bothered by how embarrassingly simple in the eyes of the world the sealing is than the fact that non-member family can't be there. 

[rongo]

Just now, bluebell said:

When I've heard of members in the U.K. getting married before their temple sealing, it's not a wedding like we typically think of.  They go to the equivalent of the justice of the peace and have a very simple ceremony-no walking down the isle or flower girls, bridesmaids, etc. and then they go right to the temple.  Maybe what i've heard is the exception and not the norm though.  My husband served his mission in England, but accurately remembering LDS wedding culture there was not really on his mind at the time.

Same in Germany (and I think, everywhere else).

The "free Mormon sealings now!" crowd think that the policy change would unleash a huge, elaborate, Hollywood wedding before people go down to the temple for the sealing. This isn't how it's done outside of the U.S., and for good reason. 

As you said, I don't think the advocates would be happy with a JP or city hall wedding, either. 

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Of course I know that.  But that's not what is being asked here.  Other churches allow all family members and friends to attend the religious wedding ceremonies (such as a Catholic wedding mass, etc.).

When did the sealing become the civil marriage as well?  

Lets reverse the question. Why do other churches allow nonmembers into their most holy ceremonies?

Don't know for sure, but most likely when the Temple was built in Nauvoo; Ill the first time.