Temple wedding policies

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder why that would be. If it is ok for civilly married couples in the US to wait an entire year, I wonder why there is so much urgency for civilly married couple to get to the temple within the same day or week as their marriage. Seems a bit inconsistent.

I've yet to see anyone give a good explanation of benefit for this US Policy.

It might help you to understand if you recognize that having a civil ceremony beforehand was only ever intended as an accommodation to civil law in nations where temple weddings were not recognized by the law of the land. The intent all along has been that, where possible, a worthy and eligible couple have their marriage in the temple and, where not possible, that a temple sealing transpire as soon as possible after the civil ceremony.

To put it another way, having your marriage take place in the temple is the default course of action; doing the civil ceremony beforehand is the exception where the laws of the land don't recognize the temple marriage.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So members who have not yet gone to the temple are unclean?  Children, teenagers, new converts, etc?

I ask because it is a strange definition of unclean.  It seems to ignore the common usage in favor of a technical one, even though it still retains the negative connotations of the common usage.  Is this a common LDS definition of unclean or just your opinion?

 

It's not so much a strange definition as it is one that only makes sense in context.  For example, Peter (and the rest of the apostles) were unclean before Jesus washed them during the last supper and were clean afterwords.  Everyone else who had not been washed by Jesus could be called 'unclean' while they alone were 'clean'.  

I agree that defining that term in this way in regards to nonmembers is not very useful because they have no context for it.  And no, it's not a common LDS definition.  

This is how the terms are defined on lds.org-

In a spiritual sense, to be clean is to be free from sin and sinful desires. In this sense the word is used to describe a person who is virtuous and has a pure heart (Ps. 24:4). God’s covenant people have always had special instructions to be clean.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder why that would be. If it is ok for civilly married couples in the US to wait an entire year, I wonder why there is so much urgency for civilly married couple to get to the temple within the same day or week as their marriage. Seems a bit inconsistent.

I've yet to see anyone give a good explanation of benefit for this US Policy.

It might help you to understand if you recognize that having a civil ceremony beforehand was only ever intended as an accommodation to civil law in nations where temple weddings were not recognized by the law of the land. The intent all along has been that, where possible, a worthy and eligible couple have their marriage in the temple and, where not possible, that a temple sealing transpire as soon as possible.

To put it another way, having your marriage take place in the temple is the default course of action; doing the civil ceremony beforehand is the exception where the laws of the land don't recognize the temple marriage.

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder why that would be. If it is ok for civilly married couples in the US to wait an entire year, I wonder why there is so much urgency for civilly married couple to get to the temple within the same day or week as their marriage. Seems a bit inconsistent.

I've yet to see anyone give a good explanation of benefit for this US Policy.

I think the answer is that, clearly, it is important to the Brethren (and has long been the case) that couples regard their sealing as their marriage. Where required by law (i.e., everywhere else other than the U.S.) to marry civilly before their sealing, Church policy and teaching is to follow that up as soon as possible with sealing. In practice, for most people this applies to, this means immediately following. This doesn't imply any taint of illegitimacy or living in sin or anything like that, but rather, implies that the form of the law has been followed --- and now, let's perform the sealing. Where the sealing is of primary importance to the couple, they wouldn't let days or weeks or months or years go by; they would want to have their crowning ordinance ASAP. 

I think that's the thought and the implication of the policy in the U.S. --- where the heart of the Church still is. Yes, there are numerically more members outside of the U.S. on paper, but not in terms of activity, tithing status, raw tithing amounts, or disproportionate leadership. The heart of the Church remains in the U.S., and more narrowly, the intermountain west. I think this is why policies remain that focus on this continent and this region.

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So members who have not yet gone to the temple are unclean?  Children, teenagers, new converts, etc?

I ask because it is a strange definition of unclean.  It seems to ignore the common usage in favor of a technical one, even though it still retains the negative connotations of the common usage.  Is this a common LDS definition of unclean or just your opinion?

 

I'll interject here because I don't particularly share the same outlook about the temple. Sometimes members (incl GAs) refer to the ordinances therein as "saving ordinances." I do not share this view. Those who do not ever go to the temple can be saved - it may not be to the Celestial Kingdom, but D&C makes it clear that going to the terrestrial kingdom for instance is salvation. The ordinances are covenants. Innocent children are clean or innocent before the Lord even though they have not made these covenants themselves. I don't see the ordinances of the temple making us "clean." I see them as allowing us to progress in the Lord, beyond a state of cleanness to a state of being one with the Lord. I believe one is clean before the Lord from the point of baptism so long as one repents of their sins and strives to follow the Lord. There is some wording in the initial ordinance of the temple which suggests one is being cleansed, but in actuality one should already be clean to enter the temple, and the wording can refer to one's baptism and/or a continuation there of in additional promises. This is my perspective, and i am LDS - so I just wanted to share it.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

FWIW, I don't think that was at all his/her intended meaning.

 

Right. It's the non-member family and friends who are unclean. That's not helping much.

Temple worthiness has absolutely NOTHING about this policy. A couple can be completely worthy to attend the temple, yet if the choose to be married in a place where their loved ones can participate and witness the wedding, they are no long allowed to be sealed in the temple. What is the justification for this policy? I think I've asked 4-5 times now but no one has given a logical answer. What is the value of this policy?

It's NOT about...

-worthiness

-the law of the land

-consistency of policy church wide

-bringing families closer together

-building relationships with non-member family members

So what's the purpose? Why does this policy exist?

 

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes.

We are talking about a religious ceremony here. It is quite similar to Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles. Not because their feet were dirty, but because they needed to be clean of all sin.

I can't speak for all LDS, but yes that is the doctrine of the Church.

So... do you tell your members that have not gone to the temple that they are unclean?  Is it part of the children's curriculum that they learn that they are unclean?  Is it part of the new member Sunday class?

I guess I'm just a little surprised that people are told they are unclean when there is nothing they can do to make themselves clean, since children and new members can't go to the temple.

We talk about sin and uncleanliness all the time in Catholicism (well, at least in the traditional Catholic parish I attend) but it is always accompanied with talk of confession and Christ's mercy.  In other words, the point of the talk is to get people to confess and become clean.

There really isn't anything a 10 year old child can do to become clean in the situation you've described.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

? If you're asking what some of us believed, it is the assumption that things in the US/Canada were too convoluted (compared to places like Europe).

However, based on recent input from one source, which was then reiterated/expanded from two thread participants, resolving the complications might be as simple as consulting with local leader(s).

Where is the evidence that it is easy to get an exception to the policy?  I heard one case that was cited (without a source) from 1971.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'll interject here because I don't particularly share the same outlook about the temple. Sometimes members (incl GAs) refer to the ordinances therein as "saving ordinances." I do not share this view. Those who do not ever go to the temple can be saved - it may not be to the Celestial Kingdom, but D&C makes it clear that going to the terrestrial kingdom for instance is salvation. The ordinances are covenants. Innocent children are clean or innocent before the Lord even though they have not made these covenants themselves. I don't see the ordinances of the temple making us "clean." I see them as allowing us to progress in the Lord, beyond a state of cleanness to a state of being one with the Lord. I believe one is clean before the Lord from the point of baptism so long as one repents of their sins and strives to follow the Lord. There is some wording in the initial ordinance of the temple which suggests one is being cleansed, but in actuality one should already be clean to enter the temple, and the wording can refer to one's baptism and/or a continuation there of in additional promises. This is my perspective, and i am LDS - so I just wanted to share it.

Those who do not go to the temple in mortality still need the temple ordinances to be saved. They must be performed for them vicariously by living Church members.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I'll take your response as a "no" to my question. Which helps me answer yours.

I don't concede that the Brethren are under any obligation to proof-text a procedural decision they make under inspiration to preserve the sanctity of the temple marriage ceremony and protect it from encroachment from worldly customs and traditions. I think they are entitled to do that under the authority of their calling. Thus, I don't feel any need to proof-text it for them.

That wasn't an answer to my question.  If you aren't willing to dialogue, we're done.

[MiserereNobis]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not so much a strange definition as it is one that only makes sense in context.  For example, Peter (and the rest of the apostles) were unclean before Jesus washed them during the last supper and were clean afterwords.  Everyone else who had not been washed by Jesus could be called 'unclean' while they alone were 'clean'.  

I agree that defining that term in this way in regards to nonmembers is not very useful because they have no context for it.  And no, it's not a common LDS definition.  

This is how the terms are defined on lds.org-

In a spiritual sense, to be clean is to be free from sin and sinful desires. In this sense the word is used to describe a person who is virtuous and has a pure heart (Ps. 24:4). God’s covenant people have always had special instructions to be clean.

The definition from lds.org makes much more sense because it is not a technical definition that still carries the connotations of the common definition.

The word "cult" has a technical definition in sociology, by which every religion is a cult.  However, the common usage of cult has a negative connotation to it, so if I said "the LDS church is a cult" and I am using the sociological definition, I would be absolutely correct.  However, the negative connotation from the common usage is some heavy baggage, so it would NOT be a very good thing for me to say.

Perhaps "unclean" is similar.  Technically, a person who hasn't been to the temple is unclean, but the common usage (which lds.org uses) has a negative connotation.  Telling a child "you are unclean" fits the technical definition, but the child comes away with the idea that they are the opposite of "a person who is virtuous and has a pure heart."

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

My Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law were married several years before they joined the Church. So we allow it. I don't assign a negative stigma to anyone who for reasons beyond their control waits the year. Why do you?

We don't allow a civil marriage without requiring a punitive one year wait before being sealed.

I don't assign a negative stigma, that's on the church leaders.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Right. It's the non-member family and friends who are unclean. That's not helping much.

Temple worthiness has absolutely NOTHING about this policy. A couple can be completely worthy to attend the temple, yet if the choose to be married in a place where their loved ones can participate and witness the wedding, they are no long allowed to be sealed in the temple. What is the justification for this policy? I think I've asked 4-5 times now but no one has given a logical answer. What is the value of this policy?

It's NOT about...

-worthiness

-the law of the land

-consistency of policy church wide

-bringing families closer together

-building relationships with non-member family members

So what's the purpose? Why does this policy exist?

 

The only thing I can think of is it seems like the Church had decided some time ago, that they must try and make temple weddings most important.  Thus, if one chooses to get married outside the temple first, one has chosen that which the Church does not want them to do.  The Church has tried to force people's hand here. 

[RevTestament]

48 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

A traditional Latin solemn high nuptial Mass is a beautiful thing to behold.  I imagine for many here it smacks of "worldly pomp," because of the ritual trappings.  I, for one, am glad that Catholicism has rejected Puritanism and iconoclasm and encourages beauty in ritual because it has a way to lift the mind to God.  The Good, the True (stay out of this, mfbukowski ), and the Beautiful lead us to God, so to have a beautiful ceremony is part of Godliness.  That beauty comes from the architecture, the vestments, the flowers, the incense, the stained glass, the music, the chant...

I hope I don't offend you but we see beauty as not an outward thing but as a spiritual thing. We believe the Lord cares not for outward things, but looks on the things of the heart. Even in our temples there is no pomp. The Temple is supposed to represent the things of heaven, and so we do put effort into making them physically beautiful, but there is no idea of ladening them with riches.

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So getting a civil marriage prior to the temple makes one "unclean"? Get real.

If that were the case the policy in foreign countries would not allow for all of these "unclean" married folks going to the temple after their civil weddings. I don't think you understand what this thread is about.

In the absence of any doctrinal support for the policy - we continue to have posters here create strawmen so that they have something to argue against.

My question still stands, other than "the Brethren said so" what is the doctrinal support for this one-year wait policy?

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those who do not go to the temple in mortality still need the temple ordinances to be saved. They must be performed for them vicariously by living Church members.

What do we do with those whom we can't identify because there are no records?  Those who have lived and died and have left no surviving record? 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The only thing I can think of is it seems like the Church had decided some time ago, that they must try and make temple weddings most important.  Thus, if one chooses to get married outside the temple first, one has chosen that which the Church does not want them to do.  The Church has tried to force people's hand here. 

So it's essentially a control mechanism, right?

I agree. I get that.

But I don't think the church would admit that is their purpose.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That wasn't an answer to my question.  If you aren't willing to dialogue, we're done.

I see it as very much an answer to your question (unless you were expecting me to give a single-word answer without explanation; I won't be kept in that sort of cage).

But I certainly don't want to prolong this conversation if you don't.

 

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those who do not go to the temple in mortality still need the temple ordinances to be saved. They must be performed for them vicariously by living Church members.

I believe you to be incorrect. Those who are never sealed and do not accept it, will be saved as angels in the celestial kingdom or in a lesser kingdom.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't heard them address this topic in any kind of empathetic way that indicates they are concerned with the pain or stress. Are you aware of anything. What I see is a long lasting policy. It has caused pain for many years. I am aware of individuals who have petitioned the church for many years to change this policy, yet it hasn't been. When the problem is presented to the brethren, yet it is not addressed, how should I view that silence?

Church leaders depend on good will and the assumptions of the members that they care, and are doing things for Godly reasons, when we have no evidence of that beyond general assumptions that validate our general worldview.

I've asked repeatedly on this thread about what the positive benefits of this policy might be. I've yet to see anyone try to address that. What does the church get out of enforcing this policy in the US when it is clearly different elsewhere. Is it a doctrine? It doesn't appear to be. Does it cause families pain? Sure seems to. So what is the reason for the policy? I'm open to an answer and/or statements from brethren showing empathy and explaining the necessity for the policy. But I haven't seen that.

I agree it does take a level of trust in the character of the apostles because they have not gone on record as ever discussing the policy.  Do you believe though they are generally uncaring people who have no sympathy or empathy for those who feel hurt because of LDS policies?  You believe they generally unfeeling towards pain and suffering?  

If you answer 'no' to those questions, then why would you assume that where the policy is concerned they are acting in contradiction to their character?  

They have certainly gone on record dozens and dozens of times stating their love and concern for us in general, right?  We don't rely on assumptions of good will or care in general and we have a lot of evidence to support our trust in them.   I could quote dozens of references of them declaring that love and concern.

And people have addressed your questions.  You just don't agree with the answers and you will only settle for something official.  That's different than saying that they haven't been addressed though.

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I hope I don't offend you but we see beauty as not an outward thing but as a spiritual thing. We believe the Lord cares not for outward things, but looks on the things of the heart. Even in our temples there is no pomp. The Temple is supposed to represent the things of heaven, and so we do put effort into making them physically beautiful, but there is no idea of ladening them with riches.

I'm not offended at all (it's a common criticism by protestants of Catholicism), but I don't think you're being quite consistent here.  LDS temples are absolutely beautiful and I'm sure cost way more than the chapels I posted pictures of.  So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "laden with riches."  Can you elaborate on that?

ETA: and of course Catholics see spiritual beauty as the most beautiful, but we live in a physical world, so physical beauty points us towards spiritual beauty.  We don't see them as in conflict, but complimentary.

Edited May 16, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Frequent reference has been made here to the policy of the Church outside North America with regard to temple sealings immediately after a civil marriage ceremony.

It has been a long time since I have lived in Europe, but what I remember from my mission days is that when a couple who were Church members wanted to get married in the temple, the civil ceremony beforehand was deemed a perfunctory chore intended to comply with civil law, but the central event, to be looked forward to, cherished and remembered fondly was the marriage ceremony in the temple.

What I am seeing here on the part of some is in effect turning that attitude on its head, where the lavish civil or sectarian ceremony would be the central event with the temple sealing relegated to being the perfunctory action. If this is the foreseeable trend should the Church leaders decide to relax the policy in North America, it would not surprise me in the least if they never did.

If that's what you see here than you have misunderstood the point of wanting to eliminate the one year wait.  I'm not aware of anyone here who is suggesting we change the policy so that lavish, sectarian ceremonies can become more important than the temple.  That's a strawman and I think you know it.

To be clear:  I think the policy should be eliminated because it is hurtful to families... particularly non-member relatives who don't share our faith but raised a child with the assumption that they'd get to see that child be married.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What do we do with those whom we can't identify because there are no records?  Those who have lived and died and have left no surviving record? 

At some time or other all will be identified.

I expect that much of the work will take place during the Savior's millennial reign on earth.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

I believe you to be incorrect. Those who are never sealed and do not accept it, will be saved as angels in the celestial kingdom or in a lesser kingdom.

Regardless of whether they accept it, the ordinances still must be performed in their behalf.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see it as very much an answer to your question (unless you were expecting me to give a single-word answer without explanation; I won't be kept in that sort of cage).

But I certainly don't want to prolong this conversation if you don't.

 

I would never expect you to restrict yourself to a one word answer.  But an answer, rather than skirting the issue, would have been nice.  That said, I rarely expect you to provide direct answers when you know your argument lacks merit.

I get that your position is that the Brethen want it this way so it must be God's will.  But that is not doctrinal support.  It is simply an expression of your faith.