Temple wedding policies

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

I think that's what the leaders fear (and for good reason as I do believe it quite possibly could evolve into more elaborate civil weddings).  

There could be strict guidelines, but look what happened with missionary farewells and open houses?  Some ended up being almost like a wedding reception with printed invitations, etc.

So, I understand the position the church leaders are in.  But I think the pain and hurt feelings it causes (mainly for nonmember families when a person has converted) are real and important to consider too.

I guess each person has to make their own decision. My sister had a nice wedding and waited a year to be sealed because her husband's family were all non members and it would have caused such a rift and hurt feelings.  Also, her husband absolute refused to exclude his parents (who he is extremely close to) from his own wedding.  It would have most likely done irreparable damage to his relationship with them and more importantly my sister's with her in-laws.

Edited May 15, 2017 by JulieM

[thesometimesaint]

I can't speak to others experiences. But can say that Grandkids do have a way with Grandparents.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

I've loved attending other denomination's wedding ceremonies!  I was fascinated with the Catholic wedding mass and loved the music, etc.

And, I don't think this started in Nauvoo.  I think most were civilly married before a sealing took place (but I don't know for sure...)

I'll bet JLHPROF knows the answer to this question!  Hopefully he will show up here 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we encourage that.  Just that we don't prohibit a civil marriage for those who find it needful.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

I'm glad that worked for you.  It doesn't mean it is the right pattern for everyone.

And that isn't a doctrinal basis for preventing people from having a civil marriage and a sealing on the same day/week/month.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I've loved attending other denomination's wedding ceremonies!  I was fascinated with the Catholic wedding mass and loved the music, etc.

And, I don't think this started in Nauvoo.  I think most were civilly married before a sealing took place (but I don't know for sure...)

I'll bet JLHPROF knows the answer to this question!  Hopefully he will show up here 

There is a post on PureMormonism that explains some of the early church history regarding civil/temple marriage:

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/02/go-ahead-and-skip-that-temple-wedding.html

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we encourage that.  

Sure they are. Advocates would scream bloody murder if the Church changed the policy to allow JP and city hall-married couples to go straight to the temple for the sealing. What advocates want is for an elaborate Hollywood marriage to be allowed, with a sealing following. Excluding an elaborate wedding would be "hurtful" and "harmful" to non-member family (even though LDS in other countries who, of necessity, get married first do so quickly through an official channel, not with a Hollywood wedding).

Just that we don't prohibit a civil marriage for those who find it needful.

If they find it needful enough to keep the peace, not hurt or harm non-member family, or whatever, then they can get married and then seek sealing after a year or more. Opportunity cost.

I wonder what the track record is for people who could have been sealed, but strategically chose not to in order to do it later? High activity and commitment rate?

[Teancum]

3 hours 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. 

Let such couples in the USA have a "civil ceremony" then go to the temple to be sealed later that day or the next. Then all can participate.  Drop the year wait. The policy is simply punitive and controlling and (wait here come the howls of protest and stones) cult like.

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm glad that worked for you.  It doesn't mean it is the right pattern for everyone.

And that isn't a doctrinal basis for preventing people from having a civil marriage and a sealing on the same day/week/month.

The leaders of the Church get to decide how to implement doctrine. The doctrine is that no unclean thing can enter the Temple. We're not going to come out and say nonmembers are bad or evil people. Because we don't believe that they are. Just that it takes certain commitments, and time constraints to attend the Temple. Further it just depends on how important a Temple wedding is to the couple. What would be the point in having a Temple wedding first then a civil one the same day/week/month? Isn't the Temple one good enough?

 

[RevTestament]

32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think that's what the leaders fear (and for good reason as I do believe it quite possibly could evolve into more elaborate civil weddings).  

There could be strict guidelines, but look what happened with missionary farewells and open houses?  Some ended up being almost like a wedding reception with printed invitations, etc.

So, I understand the position the church leaders are in.  But I think the pain and hurt feelings it causes (mainly for nonmember families when a person has converted) are real and important to consider too.

I guess each person has to make their own decision. My sister had a nice wedding and waited a year to be sealed because her husband's family were all non members and it would have caused such a rift and hurt feelings.  Also, her husband absolute refused to exclude his parents (who he is extremely close to) from his own wedding.  It would have most likely done irreparable damage to his relationship with them and more importantly my sister's with her in-laws.

Is something wrong with elaborate civil weddings? I believe the problem with missionary farewells is that it usually detracted from the Sabbath to throw a big sendoff. Most weddings are not on Sunday. 

Personally, we got married in a large civil wedding which I paid for. We got sealed over two years later - only her parents attended, but they were happy, and we were happy. I don't really understand the one year wait policy. If the Church wants to avoid hurt feelings, they could perhaps just require a wait of a day or a week or something like that to get sealed. A day wait wouldn't interfere with a honeymoon too much. 

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure they are. Advocates would scream bloody murder if the Church changed the policy to allow JP and city hall-married couples to go straight to the temple for the sealing. What advocates want is for an elaborate Hollywood marriage to be allowed, with a sealing following.

Where have you seen this advocated?  I know you're a Bishop, is this what you've heard from ward members?

I think if the church made it a requirement to be married in the chapel by the Bishop (if they are going to be sealed the same day), this would eliminate any Hollywood type weddings. 

It could be simple with some flowers in the chapel, with family and friends there. The bride could be brought in by her Father.  There could even be bridesmaids and so on.  But just very simple and low key.  

That could be required but if they want a Hollywood type wedding held in another venue (other than the chapel), they'd have to wait to be sealed.

ETA:

I do know this would add to your already busy work load as a Bishop too though!  If you had to civilly marry most couples getting married in your ward...

Edited May 15, 2017 by JulieM

[thesometimesaint]

Delete

Edited May 15, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Is something wrong with elaborate civil weddings? I believe the problem with missionary farewells is that it usually detracted from the Sabbath to throw a big sendoff. Most weddings are not on Sunday. 

Personally, we got married in a large civil wedding which I paid for. We got sealed over two years later - only her parents attended, but they were happy, and we were happy. I don't really understand the one year wait policy. If the Church wants to avoid hurt feelings, they could perhaps just require a wait of a day or a week or something like that to get sealed. A day wait wouldn't interfere with a honeymoon too much. 

While we don't go out of our way to offend people I don't see the point in mollycoddling them either.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Let such couples in the USA have a "civil ceremony" then go to the temple to be sealed later that day or the next.

Meaning what? JP or city hall? Or a wedding, complete with coming down the aisle, exchanging vows, petals strewn around, being given away by the father, etc.?

In other countries, the couple goes and signs a paper in a civil act before a government official. I could live with that, because it doesn't focus on glitz outside of the temple. But that is not what advocates are agitating for, is it?

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where have you seen this advocated?

Mormon message boards. 

 I know you're a Bishop, is this what you've heard from ward members?

Not at all, from my end. I don't know of anyone in my wards who have felt strongly about the U.S. policy. The big challenge for me has been when people want a really elaborate civil ceremony (i.e., nowhere near temple-readiness). It's challenging because you have to thread the needle between Church policy, my cultural background (illiteracy and lack of personal experience with a lot of the Hollywood wedding stuff), their wants/expectations, etc.

I think if the church made it a requirement to be married in the chapel by the Bishop (if they are going to be sealed the same day), this would eliminate any Hollywood type weddings.

It would be problematic in other ways (video cameras, for one). It's usually best to do them in a non-church setting, or the RS room so that people can have the civil ceremonies they want while the Church can keep its policies.

It could be simple with some flowers in the chapel, with family and friends there. The bride could be brought in by her Father.  There could even be bridesmaids and so on.  But just very simple and low key.

I've seen these also. It is actually a good missionary opportunity to explain to the families why the temple is exclusively for TR members. The disappointment/upset at the time usually works for the good over time, if the family is a good example of living the gospel and keeping their covenants. 

That could be required but if they want a Hollywood type wedding held in another venue (other than the chapel), they'd have to wait to be sealed.

I don't think there's any way of knowing, except anecdotally, but I would be interested in what percentage of "strategic late sealing" couples remain active and committed to the Church over time. I suspect that it's not a very high percentage. 

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Is something wrong with elaborate civil weddings?

They're too expensive. 
In my own case my wife's family were all non-members and it was a little hard for them to not be able to see their own daughter get married, but members of my side were allowed to attend. They were good sports about it though and enjoyed all the rest (ring ceremony/reception) that came with the wedding.
My father -in-law did insist on seeing the marriage certificate to convince him that we really were married. 

 

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure they are. Advocates would scream bloody murder if the Church changed the policy to allow JP and city hall-married couples to go straight to the temple for the sealing. What advocates want is for an elaborate Hollywood marriage to be allowed, with a sealing following. Excluding an elaborate wedding would be "hurtful" and "harmful" to non-member family (even though LDS in other countries who, of necessity, get married first do so quickly through an official channel, not with a Hollywood wedding).

That wasn't my point - I was calling you out on your strawman:  The church could allow civil marriage without encouraging it.  People are advocating that the church cease punishing couples who feel the need to marry civilly first, they aren't advocating that the Brethren start to encourage that people marry civilly.

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

If they find it needful enough to keep the peace, not hurt or harm non-member family, or whatever, then they can get married and then seek sealing after a year or more. Opportunity cost.

I wonder what the track record is for people who could have been sealed, but strategically chose not to in order to do it later? High activity and commitment rate?

The "opportunity cost" you cite is one that has been artificially created by the Church without a doctrinal basis.

As was mentioned before, forcing a couple to choose the church over non-member family probably does create more of a commitment to the church.  Seems to value loyalty to the institution over family.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They're too expensive. 
In my own case my wife's family were all non-members and it was a little hard for them to not be able to see their own daughter get married, but members of my side were allowed to attend. They were good sports about it though and enjoyed all the rest (ring ceremony/reception) that came with the wedding.
My father -in-law did insist on seeing the marriage certificate to convince him that we really were married. 

 

The reception was the expensive part of my wedding - feeding all those guests, and renting the facilities. Just setting out chairs for the wedding on the grounds was about a quarter of the expense. No reception afterwards would have eliminated most of the expense. Sounds like the typical US LDS wedding has the same issue for the most part.

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The leaders of the Church get to decide how to implement doctrine. The doctrine is that no unclean thing can enter the Temple. We're not going to come out and say nonmembers are bad or evil people. Because we don't believe that they are. Just that it takes certain commitments, and time constraints to attend the Temple.

I haven't suggested that we should let "unclean" non-recommend holders into the temple.  That's a strawman.  My statement is that there is no doctrinal reason for preventing a couple from being sealed in the temple after having had a civil marriage that day/week/month.

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

What would be the point in having a Temple wedding first then a civil one the same day/week/month?

Do you really not know the answer to this question?

Civil marriage first (with family and loved ones present) followed by a sealing in the temple.  The way it used to be done in the church.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours 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. 

The Jews likewise had strict policies prohibiting entry into the temple if not a Jew -- on pain of death.

[thesometimesaint]

IMNTBHO spending $500,000 on a wedding is wrong. In fact spending more than a few hundred is wrong. My entire wedding cost less than $20 including license and travel with money left over. After 45 years it seems a good investment.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Is something wrong with elaborate civil weddings? I believe the problem with missionary farewells is that it usually detracted from the Sabbath to throw a big sendoff. Most weddings are not on Sunday. 

Personally, we got married in a large civil wedding which I paid for. We got sealed over two years later - only her parents attended, but they were happy, and we were happy. I don't really understand the one year wait policy. If the Church wants to avoid hurt feelings, they could perhaps just require a wait of a day or a week or something like that to get sealed. A day wait wouldn't interfere with a honeymoon too much. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with them.  They can sometimes be overly expensive and stem from an abundance of pride and trying to keep up with the joneses, but we can fall into that trap everyday without having to throw a wedding.

I think the issue is that they could easily overshadow the temple ceremony, which is a problem if the temple ceremony is the most important part of the marriage.  

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

Meaning what? JP or city hall? Or a wedding, complete with coming down the aisle, exchanging vows, petals strewn around, being given away by the father, etc.?

In other countries, the couple goes and signs a paper in a civil act before a government official. I could live with that, because it doesn't focus on glitz outside of the temple. But that is not what advocates are agitating for, is it?

Yeah... who cares about the parents who raised the bride or groom!  Why do they deserve to see their child get married?  They weren't blessed enough to be members of OUR church so they ought to be waiting outside while their child gets married.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

IMNTBHO spending $500,000 on a wedding is wrong. In fact spending more than a few hundred is wrong. My entire wedding cost less than $20 including license and travel with money left over. After 45 years it seems a good investment.

I assume my friend did not invent this joke, but he was the first that I heard tell it:

After seeing his temple wedding picture, my friend's co-worker asked how much it cost to be married in such a beautiful church.  My friend replied, "Just 10% of your income for the rest of your life."

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That wasn't my point - I was calling you out on your strawman:  The church could allow civil marriage without encouraging it.  People are advocating that the church cease punishing couples who feel the need to marry civilly first, they aren't advocating that the Brethren start to encourage that people marry civilly.

The "opportunity cost" you cite is one that has been artificially created by the Church without a doctrinal basis.

As was mentioned before, forcing a couple to choose the church over non-member family probably does create more of a commitment to the church.  Seems to value loyalty to the institution over family.

It is not a punishment any more than deciding you want chocolate as opposed to strawberry ice cream when both are offered.

The doctrine is that we are to married in the Temple. We get to decide what more important to us.

It was Christ who said to choose him first. If family and friends are more important to you, be happy with your choice.