Temple wedding policies

[bluebell]

Just now, JulieM said:

Can you give an honest answer to this question?

If the leaders announced tomorrow that they were changing the policy and members can now choose to marry civilly and not have to wait a year to be sealed in the temple, would you flip to the other side and start defending a member's right to choose?

I know you didn't ask me, but from my point of view, these are not two different sides.

Personally, i am fine with the idea that policies, even policies that are condoned by God, change.  Things should change as we gain more knowledge, more understanding, more maturity, and are ready for the growth that comes from more difficult responsibilities/sacrifices. 

I support the policy as it is now, and i would be very happy if it changed.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So by that reasoning anything the church asks you to do would be covered under covenant to the law of consecration, right? Are there exceptions to this or is ALL self-will surrendered with that covenant regardless of what the church asks? Does keeping our covenant require us to be a puppet of church leadership?

That didn't work out so well for the people in the Baker-Fancher party.

If they had actually listened to their church leaders, those who instigated the MMM would not have gone ahead with their own plans.

[Storm Rider]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Innuendo?  I think the punishment is that either the relatives are denied participation in the wedding or the couple must wait for a year to be sealed.  If that one year wait is not punitive, than please explain to me what it is. 

I actually have heard of a priesthood leader stopping a ring ceremony because it too closely resembled wedding vows.

I'm honestly not sure how you do a ring ceremony that doesn't resemble marital vows. 

But, if non-member relatives are comforted by whatever ring ceremony the couple can create within the bounds of the policy - that's great.

This seems like mountains out of mole hills.

I have consistently said - get sealed in the morning and have whatever the couple needs to do in the evening, which is the most common time to have a reception.  I have never, not once heard of a bishop, stake president, or general authority stop a ring ceremony or anything else related to a reception.  If such a person choice to act I, as the parent and father, would throw them out and that would be end of that type of stupidity.  Were you there or is this hearsay?  I have been to a number of ring ceremonies and not a peep out of anyone.  

I think you are right - a ring ceremony is a typical wedding ceremony.  I have seen receptions with groomsmen and bridesmaids the whole shebang - I really am having difficulty understanding the fuss.  

There is a sealing - which has nothing similar to a wedding ceremony or anything else on the outside.  It is what we hold most sacred as LDS, but I see no need to make is so hard on non-members.  I think we do it unnecessarily.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, my grandparents did that when their son (my dad) was married.

But I think you understood my point that the loved ones don't have a choice as to whether they get to witness their child/grandchild/sibling's marriage.  That choice is made for them and is a choice that is forced by a church policy.

This can happen for anyone though.

My sister chose to have her wedding back east where she lived.  My parents had to choose if they were up to the trip or not.  Thankfully they could afford it.  I did not go because we could not afford it and no one offered to pay for it. 

We were thinking of having our wedding in Hawaii, my husband's favorite place where I could fly free there at the time as my dad worked for United.  His parents and brothers and sisters would not be able to attend.  As it was, several of his siblings could not attend because they were broke students and couldn't get off work for the time to drive or afford the travel cost of flying.

One of my sisters chose to elope.  No one was at her wedding.

In the normal run of things, parents have no say over what and where and when unless their children give them that choice.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This seems like mountains out of mole hills.

I have consistently said - get sealed in the morning and have whatever the couple needs to do in the evening, which is the most common time to have a reception.  I have never, not once heard of a bishop, stake president, or general authority stop a ring ceremony or anything else related to a reception.  If such a person choice to act I, as the parent and father, would throw them out and that would be end of that type of stupidity.  Were you there or is this hearsay?  I have been to a number of ring ceremonies and not a peep out of anyone.  

I think you are right - a ring ceremony is a typical wedding ceremony.  I have seen receptions with groomsmen and bridesmaids the whole shebang - I really am having difficulty understanding the fuss.  

There is a sealing - which has nothing similar to a wedding ceremony or anything else on the outside.  It is what we hold most sacred as LDS, but I see no need to make is so hard on non-members.  I think we do it unnecessarily.  

If that works (the post-sealing ring ceremony) for the family members, that's great.  As I've said, for some it just isn't really the same because they weren't able to be there for the actual marriage of their relative.  

Your answer seems to be to make the ring ceremony appear like a wedding ceremony.  Again, that's fine with me but it is a clear violation of the policy.  You seem to be saying to disregard the policy and that priesthood leaders won't stop it.  Do I misunderstand?

But we seem to agree on your last point... I also see no need to make it so hard on non-members.

[Hamba Tuhan]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your answer seems to be to make the ring ceremony appear like a wedding ceremony.  Again, that's fine with me but it is a clear violation of the policy.

'If such an exchange is made, the circumstances should be consistent with the dignity of their temple marriage.  The exchange should not appear to replicate any part of the marriage ceremony, and the couple should not exchange vows'.

The policy clearly refers to the temple marriage ceremony.

[Storm Rider]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If that works (the post-sealing ring ceremony) for the family members, that's great.  As I've said, for some it just isn't really the same because they weren't able to be there for the actual marriage of their relative.  

Your answer seems to be to make the ring ceremony appear like a wedding ceremony.  Again, that's fine with me but it is a clear violation of the policy.  You seem to be saying to disregard the policy and that priesthood leaders won't stop it.  Do I misunderstand?

But we seem to agree on your last point... I also see no need to make it so hard on non-members.

I don't know the "policy", but my niece was married to a wonderful fellow in the temple and his family was Evangelical.  Their bishop facilitated a ring ceremony for the couple i.e. he stood in the place of a minister.  The ceremony was short, but it declared their love for one another.  They still had the bridesmaids and groomsmen that I see at LDS receptions, so exactly what is the issue?  You are trying to make a policy to be a commandment and that is not how it works in the Church.  

I admit I have know leaders that are so strict on their adhering to policy that it seems like it is a commandment given from on High, but I also know others who, in their minds, follow the spirit of the policy and adapt to circumstances.  

There is no reason to twist everyone into pretzels over acting flexible with nonmember families.  To allow them to witness an event that they will know was a marriage.

For us our marriage and sealing is done in the temple.  Nonmembers don't even accept the temple ceremony as real, certainly not Evangelicals.  

I also join with others who have said they don't like big-to-dos at weddings.  I think it is a colossal waste of time.  Our children had very modest receptions without bridesmaids and groomsmen that I have seen with others.  I find that most LDS couples today have modest receptions.  It seems like it is our culture and I applaud it.  However, when there are parents, aunts, uncles that are non-members I have no problem being flexible and making the reception an expanded affair....still don't like the bridesmaids and groomsmen, but I am not the one getting married and wanting pictures taken.  

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'If such an exchange is made, the circumstances should be consistent with the dignity of their temple marriage.  The exchange should not appear to replicate any part of the marriage ceremony, and the couple should not exchange vows'.

The policy clearly refers to the temple marriage ceremony.

Yes.  And "the marriage ceremony" and instructs not to exchange vows.  I'm not sure what your point it.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't know the "policy", but my niece was married to a wonderful fellow in the temple and his family was Evangelical.  Their bishop facilitated a ring ceremony for the couple i.e. he stood in the place of a minister.  The ceremony was short, but it declared their love for one another.  They still had the bridesmaids and groomsmen that I see at LDS receptions, so exactly what is the issue?  You are trying to make a policy to be a commandment and that is not how it works in the Church.  

I admit I have know leaders that are so strict on their adhering to policy that it seems like it is a commandment given from on High, but I also know others who, in their minds, follow the spirit of the policy and adapt to circumstances.  

There is no reason to twist everyone into pretzels over acting flexible with nonmember families.  To allow them to witness an event that they will know was a marriage.

For us our marriage and sealing is done in the temple.  Nonmembers don't even accept the temple ceremony as real, certainly not Evangelicals.  

I also join with others who have said they don't like big-to-dos at weddings.  I think it is a colossal waste of time.  Our children had very modest receptions without bridesmaids and groomsmen that I have seen with others.  I find that most LDS couples today have modest receptions.  It seems like it is our culture and I applaud it.  However, when there are parents, aunts, uncles that are non-members I have no problem being flexible and making the reception an expanded affair....still don't like the bridesmaids and groomsmen, but I am not the one getting married and wanting pictures taken.  

I actually don't think that the policy is a commandment given from on High.  I thought I was clear about that.  Others here seem to believe that the policy does reflect the will of God (does that make it a commandment)?

I think what your niece's bishop did was great.  What you describe is often referred to as "leadership roulette"... where sometimes you have an ecclesiastical leader who is strict in adhering to policies and sometimes you have one that is very accommodating with exceptions. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm honestly not sure how you do a ring ceremony that doesn't resemble marital vows. 

I think you may need to get out more. Where I live, most adult Church members are converts, and therefore nearly all temple marriages include ring ceremonies. I've attended literally dozens of them. In LDS chapels and halls, in gardens, in wedding halls. Presided over by bishops, done by the couple themselves, and as mentioned in a post above, in one case presided over by the groom's father, who is a priest. Every single one of them has followed the policy as written:

• They were consistent with the dignity of the couple's temple marriage.
• The exchange did not appear to replicate any part of the actual temple marriage ceremony.
• The couple did not exchange vows.

Every single one of them was planned carefully and approved by local leadership. Every single one of them was lovely and involved non-member family in a warm and welcoming way.

I understand that you need this to be a problem and, more importantly, that you need us to validate your perspective that this is a problem, but in the real world that I occupy, it just isn't a problem.

I can certainly guess that there are people somewhere in the world who resent the Church so much that they're willing to use this issue as a stick to beat their LDS family members with, but thankfully I've never met one of those people. I sincerely hope I never will.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I understand that you need this to be a problem and, more importantly, that you need us to validate your perspective that this is a problem, but in the real world that I occupy, it just isn't a problem.

This! 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If they had actually listened to their church leaders, those who instigated the MMM would not have gone ahead with their own plans.

This occurred to me as well, but I didn't get around to responding to the post. Thanks for articulating what I would have said.

[probablyHagoth7]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I know you didn't ask me, but from my point of view, these are not two different sides.

Personally, i am fine with the idea that policies, even policies that are condoned by God, change.  Things should change as we gain more knowledge, more understanding, more maturity, and are ready for the growth that comes from more difficult responsibilities/sacrifices. 

I support the policy as it is now, and i would be very happy if it changed.  

I wasn't asked either...but hasn't stopped me before...

bluebell,

What you describe reminds me of the concept from another denomination that they have constructively coined "Present Truth."

Meaning that they advance  with what truths they have today, and don't fret that some previous "truths" shifted or were abandoned yesterday, or that some current ones likely will too.

You either adopt a stance like that or kick yourself and others for decisions made yesterday that lacked the better information that you've only received today.

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[bsjkki]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you may need to get out more. Where I live, most adult Church members are converts, and therefore nearly all temple marriages include ring ceremonies. I've attended literally dozens of them. In LDS chapels and halls, in gardens, in wedding halls. Presided over by bishops, done by the couple themselves, and as mentioned in a post above, in one case presided over by the groom's father, who is a priest. Every single one of them has followed the policy as written:

• They were consistent with the dignity of the couple's temple marriage.
• The exchange did not appear to replicate any part of the actual temple marriage ceremony.
• The couple did not exchange vows.

Every single one of them was planned carefully and approved by local leadership. Every single one of them was lovely and involved non-member family in a warm and welcoming way.

I understand that you need this to be a problem and, more importantly, that you need us to validate your perspective that this is a problem, but in the real world that I occupy, it just isn't a problem.

I can certainly guess that there are people somewhere in the world who resent the Church so much that they're willing to use this issue as a stick to beat their LDS family members with, but thankfully I've never met one of those people. I sincerely hope I never will.

This is a problem and just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have given up that there is an actual history anywhere of these changes. I've read it was instituted anywhere from 'the end of the Joseph F. Smith' era, 1971 and slate magazine said it happened in 1961. I can express that excluding parents from being involved in their children's wedding is hard for them. It makes it harder for non-members to celebrate the marriage of their relative. I have heard comments at these weddings. My mother was grateful my father died before the weddings started because of the pain they would bring. Do any of you think this helps missionary efforts? No one has addressed this point. The temple sealing is sacred but a civil service before hand would cause no harm that I see. Carve out exceptions only for those with parents who are non-members so that a civil wedding can occur before the sealing. Would this really do a lot of harm?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Can you give an honest answer to this question?

If the leaders announced tomorrow that they were changing the policy and members can now choose to marry civilly and not have to wait a year to be sealed in the temple, would you flip to the other side and start defending a member's right to choose?

 

I wouldn't oppose it.

But why would it need advocacy? It would have already been implemented, so it would be a moot point. The only ones I see complaining are those who are unhappy with the way things are now.

Quote

Or would you still be strongly against it?

It's more a matter of my being strongly in favor of supporting the Church leaders in a policy that I think makes sense. If I'm "strongly against" anything, it's the naysaying and faultfinding that are directed toward anointed servants of God.

 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I understand that you need this to be a problem and, more importantly, that you need us to validate your perspective that this is a problem, but in the real world that I occupy, it just isn't a problem.

 

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This! 

 

You are incorrect.  I don't need this to be a problem.  I'm grateful that in your experience, this hasn't been an issue.  You are also wrong that I need validation - I could care less if you validate my belief on the matter.  I'm glad that in your world it isn't a problem.  That doesn't mean that it is the case for everyone and every family.  There has been plenty of pain caused by the policy which I believe isn't necessary.  You are under no obligation to share in that belief.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The temple sealing is sacred but a civil service before hand would cause no harm that I see. Carve out exceptions only for those with parents who are non-members so that a civil wedding can occur before the sealing.

Honest question that I asked above: If you really think this policy needs to change, why not advocate for a 'civil wedding' after the temple marriage? Why is it so important to you that it be beforehand?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wouldn't oppose it.

But why would it need advocacy? It would have already been implemented, so it would be a moot point. The only ones I see complaining are those who are unhappy with the way things are now.

It's more a matter of my being strongly in favor of supporting the Church leaders in a policy that I think makes sense. If I'm "strongly against" anything, it's the naysaying and faultfinding that are directed toward anointed servants of God.

 

Can one disagree with a policy without being considered a naysayer and faultfinder of the servants of God?

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Honest question that I asked above: If you really think this policy needs to change, why not advocate for a 'civil wedding' after the temple marriage? Why is it so important to you that it be beforehand?

I don't actually care the order as long as couples can be married and sealed the same day without waiting a year. Really, what is the harm in being sensitive about how tricky these situations are and including parents in a wedding ceremony. And, while I am happy you have seen well done ring ceremonies, I've seen some that have only caused more harm because they were so poorly executed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don't actually care the order as long as couples can be married and sealed the same day without waiting a year.

Quote

And, while I am happy you have seen well done ring ceremonies, I've seen some that have only caused more harm because they were so poorly executed.

That's a real shame!

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Can one disagree with a policy without being considered a naysayer and faultfinder of the servants of God?

Absolutely one can! Unfortunately, you have not done so in this discussion. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I actually don't think that the policy is a commandment given from on High.  I thought I was clear about that.  Others here seem to believe that the policy does reflect the will of God (does that make it a commandment)?

I think what your niece's bishop did was great.  What you describe is often referred to as "leadership roulette"... where sometimes you have an ecclesiastical leader who is strict in adhering to policies and sometimes you have one that is very accommodating with exceptions. 

It is unfortunate that it is that way.  There is a reason why the Mosaic Law is not longer what we follow.  It is much harder to live by the Higher law that Christ gave the world; it demands that we live by the Spirit.  

I believe we will find that even with Church Policies leaders are counseled to follow the Spirit.  Unfortunately, it is too easy to stop thinking and feeling and just follow what is written.  Unfailingly, the prophet and apostles consistently teach leaders to first and last follow the Spirit.  Exceptions will be made because exceptions should be made.  There are round holes and square holes and we shouldn't mix them up because of the unnecessary pain that results.  

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is unfortunate that it is that way.  There is a reason why the Mosaic Law is not longer what we follow.  It is much harder to live by the Higher law that Christ gave the world; it demands that we live by the Spirit.  

I believe we will find that even with Church Policies leaders are counseled to follow the Spirit.  Unfortunately, it is too easy to stop thinking and feeling and just follow what is written.  Unfailingly, the prophet and apostles consistently teach leaders to first and last follow the Spirit.  Exceptions will be made because exceptions should be made.  There are round holes and square holes and we shouldn't mix them up because of the unnecessary pain that results.  

Agreed.

And interesting anecdotal note:  During my 4.5 years serving as a bishop's counselor there was just one issue that was sent by our bishop to the SP and on to the FP.  It was sent up the priesthood chain at the insistence of the member with the question.  The first time it went to the FP, the answer came back in support of the SP's original decision.  The member pushed again and pleaded that the question be asked of the FP again.  The second time it was sent to the FP, the opposite answer was returned.

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Absolutely one can! Unfortunately, you have not done so in this discussion. 

How have I been a naysayer (a person who habitually expresses negative or pessimistic views) and a faultfinder (a person who habitually finds fault, complains, or objects, especially in a petty way)?

I've expressed my reasons for disagreeing with the policy and I've asked for the doctrinal support of it.

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wouldn't oppose it.

But why would it need advocacy? It would have already been implemented, so it would be a moot point. The only ones I see complaining are those who are unhappy with the way things are now.

It's more a matter of my being strongly in favor of supporting the Church leaders in a policy that I think makes sense. If I'm "strongly against" anything, it's the naysaying and faultfinding that are directed toward anointed servants of God.

Thanks for your honest response. 

I haven't seen any faultfinding against the leaders though, only disagreement with the policy.  I admit I haven't read the entire thread, but where have you seen this being done?

I think everyone agrees that the leaders make mistakes (they are not infallible). Why then is it wrong to disagree with them at times, if it's done without making it personally against them or attacking them?

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by JulieM