Temple wedding policies

[phaedrus ut]

I had a close friend who did statistical work for the church.  One of the things he did was analyze temple attendance patters.  For example when a new temple is built in an area they see increased attendance with an up tick in tithing and new temple recommends.  I don't remember the exact statistics but he mentioned that because of the temple first wedding policy they see x amount of new renewed recommend holders and tithe payers when they have a child or close family member with an upcoming temple wedding.  

From a pure business standpoint the policy makes sense.  

 

Phaedrus

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am still not arguing in favor of an elaborate civil ceremony that supplants, upstages, or encroaches upon the intended purpose of the temple ceremony (if that were even possible, for me it is not).

But, if the Church were to get rid of the one year wait policy, I don't think it should concern itself with the scope and elaborateness of the civil ceremony.  I'm sure you agree with me that whatever secular trappings a bride and groom might be willing to pay for, they will always pale in comparison to the temple sealing.  Always.

 

I certainly believe that, and you might as well. But that does not negate the possibility that secular trappings might encroach in an unseemly way upon what ought to be a sacred occasion for the bride and groom.

Quote

My point in this thread has been and remains:  teach correct principles and let the members govern themselves.  It's a wonderful formula (and doesn't require such a large handbook).

One way for the Church to teach correct principles is by not tacitly consenting to goings-on that supplant or desecrate the sacredness of the temple marriage/sealing. But apparently you want to open the way for such encroachment, even as you pay lip service to the sacredness of the temple sealing.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I certainly believe that, and you might as well. But that does not negate the possibility that secular trappings might encroach in an unseemly way upon what ought to be a sacred occasion for the bride and groom.

One way for the Church to teach correct principles is by not tacitly consenting to goings-on that supplant or desecrate the sacredness of the temple marriage/sealing. But apparently you want to open the way for such encroachment, even as you pay lip service to the sacredness of the temple sealing.

Does it take such hyperbole to defend the church's policy? 

A civil wedding ceremony is not unseemly, nor does it desecrate the sacredness of the sealing. If the wedding and the sealing are separate I see no reason to think there would be some kind of desecration. Kind of over-the-top to suggest it does. I sure wouldn't want to suggest that everyone who has a civil wedding is desecrating the temple ceremony.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Does it take such hyperbole to defend the church's policy? 

A civil wedding ceremony is not unseemly, nor does it desecrate the sacredness of the sealing. If the wedding and the sealing are separate I see no reason to think there would be some kind of desecration. Kind of over-the-top to suggest it does. I sure wouldn't want to suggest that everyone who has a civil wedding is desecrating the temple ceremony.

In this instance, context is everything.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

I had a close friend who did statistical work for the church.  One of the things he did was analyze temple attendance patters.  For example when a new temple is built in an area they see increased attendance with an up tick in tithing and new temple recommends.  I don't remember the exact statistics but he mentioned that because of the temple first wedding policy they see x amount of new renewed recommend holders and tithe payers when they have a child or close family member with an upcoming temple wedding.  

From a pure business standpoint the policy makes sense.  

 

Phaedrus

If people get their act together in time to go to the temple for a wedding, then immediately backslide and cease paying tithing, the Church has not made a profit.

On the other hand, if they remain active, the Church has fulfilled its mission in that respect.

Of course, the idea is not to make a monetary profit, but to save souls. But you already knew that, right?

Edited May 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[filovirus]

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:03 AM, 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.

My wife and I did a temple sealing. Then a ring ceremony afterward for her parents/brothers. There was no pain involved for my in-laws.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I certainly believe that, and you might as well. But that does not negate the possibility that secular trappings might encroach in an unseemly way upon what ought to be a sacred occasion for the bride and groom.

One way for the Church to teach correct principles is by not tacitly consenting to goings-on that supplant or desecrate the sacredness of the temple marriage/sealing. But apparently you want to open the way for such encroachment, even as you pay lip service to the sacredness of the temple sealing.

I "might" believe (what I said I believed) and "lip service".   I assure you I was being sincere.  Your response to me was beneath you. 

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this instance, context is everything.

I truly believe it can be done with reverence and respect to the temple sealing if a civil wedding is done first.  They can both be touching, meaningful and memorable.  For me, I'd keep the wedding simple but beautiful and the temple sealing, sacred and special too.  One doesn't have to detract from the other.

Edited May 18, 2017 by JulieM

[sunstoned]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With those who are criticizing the Church leaders for the policy pertaining to the one-year wait period for temple sealings following civil marriage ceremonies, I am curious about the extent of their demands.

If the policy were to change, would you want the Church to permit a civil ceremony as elaborate and lavish as the couple chooses to make it, with the marching down the aisle, giving away of the bride, flowery exchange of vows, or would you be content with the Church permitting only a simple ceremony to be followed immediately by the temple sealing?

 

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems you are viewing a traditional western/European wedding in a negative light. I think this is a mistake.  Most see a wedding as a time for celebration. It is the uniting of not only the bride and groom, but of two families.  All cultures have their wedding traditions that in many cases go back hundreds of years.  Traditions bind people and generations together.  I was lucky enough to experience a traditional wedding in Namibia of the Huralo people.  Their traditions mean as much to these people as a temple sealing means to LDS members.  It would be wrong to take that away from them, or from anyone else for that matter.  That's what the Spanish did in the Americas.  They replaced (or tried to) native cultures with their own brand of religion and ceremonies.  I think we can all agree it didn't work out so well.

 I doubt the top leadership would really care what type of civil ceremony is performed.  The rub is not about the ceremony, it is about the one year wait.  IMO it serves no purpose other than causing pain, hurt feelings, and many times divisions within families.  For an organization that is hemorrhaging members, especially young members, this type policy that promotes exclusion really doesn't make much sense.

You describe a non-mormon service as being elaborate and lavish. The funny thing is that I have heard the temple described as elaborate and lavish.  I have also heard the church's city creek mall described the same way.  So I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.

[sjdawg]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

That is disappointing.  What temple were you guys in?

Cardston, Alberta

[sjdawg]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you want a two million dollar wedding be my guest. Just don't expect the Church, or me, to think its a good idea.

SEE http://www.brides.com/story/billionaire-samvel-karapetyan-wedding-photos

I don't know that anyone is suggesting a 2 million dollar wedding is a good idea.  Seems like the argument is going off the rails a bit.  Currently the reception can be as lavish as anyone desires and I don't see many 2 million dollar wedding receptions.    

Edited May 18, 2017 by sjdawg

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Currently the reception can be as lavish as anyone desires.  

It can ... but this is certainly not what the Church encourages or teaches:

From A Parent's Guide: 'The reception following should be moderate and dignified'.

From the June 1986 Ensign: 

Quote

I’ve noticed a trend for newlyweds to have elaborate, expensive wedding receptions. Is this necessary, particularly for a temple marriage?

Wedding receptions are popular in many societies, and Latter-day Saints often celebrate their marriages in this manner. Unfortunately, receptions can be quite expensive, particularly for those who go into debt or overextend their budget in trying to “keep up” with friends and neighbors.

A number of alternatives to wedding receptions have been adopted by many people which have brought happiness to the bride and groom. One popular practice is to eliminate the expense of a wedding reception and instead provide the couple with a sum of money to help furnish their new home or cover other expenses.

Even if a reception is chosen, it need not be extravagant. In fact, elaborate wedding receptions sometimes detract from the real meaning of the day. Here are some ideas you may want to consider in planning a reception:

1. Consider a home reception...

2. Don’t feel bound by society’s expectations...

3. Think of alternatives to traditional receptions...

...

The gospel is a gospel of salvation, both temporal and spiritual. Each Latter-day Saint couple should consider marriage in the temple as the primary source of happiness in this life and eternal joy in the world to come. Some Latter-day Saints have suggested that the time and energy spent on a wedding reception could more profitably be devoted to preparation for the temple marriage itself.

From the October 2004 Ensign: 

Quote

If you have a reception or other celebration after your temple wedding, keep it simple. The most important part of your wedding day will be the sacred marriage ceremony. You will be eternally sealed by priesthood authority to the one you love. Remember to make this a day of family and close friends and not let other festivities overshadow the importance of your eternal marriage.

 

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I don't know that anyone is suggesting a 2 million dollar wedding is a good idea.  Seems like the argument is going off the rails a bit.  Currently the reception can be as lavish as anyone desires and I don't see many 2 million dollar wedding receptions.    

When my oldest got married we held an open house as the reception. Good food, good drink, everyone was happy, and it didn't cost us an arm and a leg to pull off. I'm not saying that has to be what every couple does. but big fancy receptions really aren't in keeping with my idea of the spirit of modesty in our actions is.

[stemelbow]

I love how this thread has turned to condemning lavish wedding receptions. 

This has gone from saying things like "well the brethren aren't wrong about this because we know they must have prayed and they know stuff and God talks to them..." to "There are NT passages telling us to forsake our family and even hate them, so it's ok to have this policy" to "well if people want to get married with their family present then that means they want something really fancy....and that means they don't really see value in a temple sealing...and that means they dont' really love God because they love their family, 'cause remember in the NT Jesus said you should hate your family...."

Whatever.  This thread has been a fancy joke, if you ask me.  If people think having a sealing is so important it should supersede a loving and supportive family, be my guest.  I find it silly to twist ourselves into pretzels trying to condemn people we don't know to defend a policy that has never been claimed to be by revelation. 

Ah well....we've seen it all before, I suppose. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 4:50 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

With those who are criticizing the Church leaders for the policy pertaining to the one-year wait period for temple sealings following civil marriage ceremonies, I am curious about the extent of their demands.

If the policy were to change, would you want the Church to permit a civil ceremony as elaborate and lavish as the couple chooses to make it, with the marching down the aisle, giving away of the bride, flowery exchange of vows, or would you be content with the Church permitting only a simple ceremony to be followed immediately by the temple sealing?

I can't imagine why the church should have a say in what kind of wedding ceremony the couple has. Why would they need to "permit" anything? It's a choice for the couple to make. I'm not sure why this kind of traditional ceremony is viewed so negatively and with such derision.

Also, you seem to equate a "criticism" with a "demand". They really aren't the same things. But to answer this question I would want the church to maintain the same standards of temple worthiness for the couple. If they meet those standards, they can be sealed in the temple. End of story. Why add more rules about what kind of wedding they can have? Seems silly.

The church can certainly have policies about what happens inside its meetinghouses so they could restrict the walk down the aisle (though I don't see the point). They could have restrictions against using candles inside the building etc. But that's not the same thing as having policies about all weddings. The church may see that members don't use the buildings for weddings because of all the restrictions. I don't see anything wrong with people using different venues than the building. But if the church wants to remain involved in the wedding process with bishops performing the weddings in the church, they may want to reconsider some of the restrictions or people will go elsewhere and use different people to perform the legal weddings.

 

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I had a close friend who did statistical work for the church.  One of the things he did was analyze temple attendance patters.  For example when a new temple is built in an area they see increased attendance with an up tick in tithing and new temple recommends.  I don't remember the exact statistics but he mentioned that because of the temple first wedding policy they see x amount of new renewed recommend holders and tithe payers when they have a child or close family member with an upcoming temple wedding.  

From a pure business standpoint the policy makes sense.  

 

Phaedrus

 

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If people get their act together in time to go to the temple for a wedding, then immediately backslide and cease paying tithing, the Church has not made a profit.

On the other hand, if they remain active, the Church has fulfilled its mission in that respect.

Of course, the idea is not to make a monetary profit, but to save souls.

If people reactivate and say, 'gosh I forgot what the spirit felt like and I am going to return to church,' I agree that is a good thing, but my guess is that happens somewhat infrequently. Are there stats on that? So in Mormon-land stats go up before a family wedding but how about after? Do most people return to their prior lives of lesser activity? Reactivating for the sake of following rules just smacks me the wrong way.

And how about in places where the Church is growing and is not strong in numbers and there are many family members who are non-members? Here is where the issue in this thread most arises, and the leadership shows every indication of realizing it:

"We have been speaking in terms of the participants in the temple experience, but there are occasions when a temple wedding is being planned and some very close members of the family are not qualified for temple recommends. It may be that the groom or the bride is a convert and his or her parents are not yet in the Church; or, that they are too new in the Church to qualify for a temple recommend. Or it may be that the parents are members of the Church but one of them is not living the gospel standards sufficiently to receive a temple recommend. These limitations loom large at times of temple marriages. These are the times when families should be very close together, when they should be drawn together to share in these sacred moments of life. The withholding of a temple recommend to one who is not qualified, or the inability to invite a nonmember friend or relative to witness the sealing, can quickly present problems. This might cause unhappiness and contention at the very moment when there is a great need to have things serene, to have the greatest harmony."

***

"When a temple marriage is scheduled and one of the parents or a very close relative is not able to enter the temple, careful planning may well make that an opportunity instead of a problem. Consider these suggestions. Invite the nonmember parent, or the member who is not eligible for a temple recommend, to come to the temple with the wedding party. There is a spirit and influence on the temple grounds that is not found in other places. Some of the temples have visitors’ centers. The temple grounds in every case are beautifully kept. All in all it is a place of peace and serenity.

Arrange to have someone wait with that family member. Surely you would not leave the person alone. There are instances in which family members who were quite eligible to enter the temple to witness the marriage were content instead to spend the time on the temple grounds with those who could not. Here in the surroundings of the temple they have been able to explain the desire of the young couple to be sealed in the house of the Lord.

There can be great influence exerted at this time that may not have been possible otherwise. For instance, at some of the larger temples tours are conducted. Planning ahead may provide some special attention tailored to fit the need of a close family member who for one reason or another is not able to enter the temple. The disappointment and even resentment, sometimes bitterness, on the part of the nonmember parents or ineligible-member parents can be greatly softened in these ways."

 

My guess is this softening of hurt feelings does not happen much. I really don't know. My guess is the problem of resentment recognized by the Church often remains, and becomes a wedge for a family that otherwise might be more open to the Church. I have no statistics on this but my guess is family conversions resulting from attending a reception of a wedding they were not allowed to attend are quite low. This all seems a bit of arm twisting to me, which I don't really like - at least that is the end result. Rather than trying to convert family members in a temple waiting room, the Church should rely on the missionary zeal of its newly wedded members and their missionary zest for life to be the light of conversion for their families. In short the Church realizes the wedge this policy sometimes drives, but has no intention of changing it. To me it seems at least somewhat counterproductive, but I am no longer in an expansion area so can't make real number assessments. However, my guess is in countries where there is no wait period, members get sealed just the same because they want the blessings thereof. This is where we need to look to see if not having a wait period has the feared detrimental effect. My guess is it doesn't. If not, then this imposed wait period is undoubtedly doing more harm than good. The Church has not convinced me this policy is good. I realize I am making this assessment with limited info, but it is my 2 cents.

Edited May 18, 2017 by RevTestament

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

If people reactivate and say, 'gosh I forgot what the spirit felt like and I am going to return to church,' I agree that is a good thing, but my guess is that happens somewhat infrequently. Are there stats on that? So in Mormon-land stats go up before a family wedding but how about after? Do most people return to their prior lives of lesser activity? Reactivating for the sake of following rules just smacks me the wrong way.

And how about in places where the Church is growing and is not strong in numbers and there are many family members who are non-members? Here is where the issue in this thread most arises, and the leadership shows every indication of realizing it:

"We have been speaking in terms of the participants in the temple experience, but there are occasions when a temple wedding is being planned and some very close members of the family are not qualified for temple recommends. It may be that the groom or the bride is a convert and his or her parents are not yet in the Church; or, that they are too new in the Church to qualify for a temple recommend. Or it may be that the parents are members of the Church but one of them is not living the gospel standards sufficiently to receive a temple recommend. These limitations loom large at times of temple marriages. These are the times when families should be very close together, when they should be drawn together to share in these sacred moments of life. The withholding of a temple recommend to one who is not qualified, or the inability to invite a nonmember friend or relative to witness the sealing, can quickly present problems. This might cause unhappiness and contention at the very moment when there is a great need to have things serene, to have the greatest harmony."

***

"When a temple marriage is scheduled and one of the parents or a very close relative is not able to enter the temple, careful planning may well make that an opportunity instead of a problem. Consider these suggestions. Invite the nonmember parent, or the member who is not eligible for a temple recommend, to come to the temple with the wedding party. There is a spirit and influence on the temple grounds that is not found in other places. Some of the temples have visitors’ centers. The temple grounds in every case are beautifully kept. All in all it is a place of peace and serenity.

Arrange to have someone wait with that family member. Surely you would not leave the person alone. There are instances in which family members who were quite eligible to enter the temple to witness the marriage were content instead to spend the time on the temple grounds with those who could not. Here in the surroundings of the temple they have been able to explain the desire of the young couple to be sealed in the house of the Lord.

There can be great influence exerted at this time that may not have been possible otherwise. For instance, at some of the larger temples tours are conducted. Planning ahead may provide some special attention tailored to fit the need of a close family member who for one reason or another is not able to enter the temple. The disappointment and even resentment, sometimes bitterness, on the part of the nonmember parents or ineligible-member parents can be greatly softened in these ways."

 

My guess is this softening of hurt feelings does not happen much. I really don't know. My guess is the problem of resentment recognized by the Church often remains, and becomes a wedge for a family that otherwise might be more open to the Church. I have no statistics on this but my guess is family conversions resulting from attending a reception of a wedding they were not allowed to attend are quite low. This all seems a bit of arm twisting to me, which I don't really like - at least that is the end result. Rather than trying to convert family members in a temple waiting room, the Church should rely on the missionary zeal of its newly wedded members and their missionary zest for life to be the light of conversion for their families. In short the Church realizes the wedge this policy sometimes drives, but has no intention of changing it. To me it seems at least somewhat counterproductive, but I am no longer in an expansion area so can't make real number assessments. However, my guess is in countries where there is no wait period, members get sealed just the same because they want the blessings thereof. This is where we need to look to see if not having a wait period has the feared detrimental effect. My guess is it doesn't. If not, then this imposed wait period is undoubtedly doing more harm than good. The Church has not convinced me this policy is good. I realize I am making this assessment with limited info, but it is my 2 cents.

I agree. I think this is a wedge or resentment that often grows. Even if family is reconciled it's hard to believe that many non-members would find greater respect for the church after they are prohibited from seeing a loved one's wedding. A leaders who suggests that a parent go to the temple to enjoy the spirit of the grounds while the son or daughter is inside getting married inside seems quite callous.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

If people reactivate and say, 'gosh I forgot what the spirit felt like and I am going to return to church,' I agree that is a good thing, but my guess is that happens somewhat infrequently. Are there stats on that? So in Mormon-land stats go up before a family wedding but how about after? Do most people return to their prior lives of lesser activity? Reactivating for the sake of following rules just smacks me the wrong way.

And how about in places where the Church is growing and is not strong in numbers and there are many family members who are non-members? Here is where the issue in this thread most arises, and the leadership shows every indication of realizing it:

"We have been speaking in terms of the participants in the temple experience, but there are occasions when a temple wedding is being planned and some very close members of the family are not qualified for temple recommends. It may be that the groom or the bride is a convert and his or her parents are not yet in the Church; or, that they are too new in the Church to qualify for a temple recommend. Or it may be that the parents are members of the Church but one of them is not living the gospel standards sufficiently to receive a temple recommend. These limitations loom large at times of temple marriages. These are the times when families should be very close together, when they should be drawn together to share in these sacred moments of life. The withholding of a temple recommend to one who is not qualified, or the inability to invite a nonmember friend or relative to witness the sealing, can quickly present problems. This might cause unhappiness and contention at the very moment when there is a great need to have things serene, to have the greatest harmony."

***

"When a temple marriage is scheduled and one of the parents or a very close relative is not able to enter the temple, careful planning may well make that an opportunity instead of a problem. Consider these suggestions. Invite the nonmember parent, or the member who is not eligible for a temple recommend, to come to the temple with the wedding party. There is a spirit and influence on the temple grounds that is not found in other places. Some of the temples have visitors’ centers. The temple grounds in every case are beautifully kept. All in all it is a place of peace and serenity.

Arrange to have someone wait with that family member. Surely you would not leave the person alone. There are instances in which family members who were quite eligible to enter the temple to witness the marriage were content instead to spend the time on the temple grounds with those who could not. Here in the surroundings of the temple they have been able to explain the desire of the young couple to be sealed in the house of the Lord.

There can be great influence exerted at this time that may not have been possible otherwise. For instance, at some of the larger temples tours are conducted. Planning ahead may provide some special attention tailored to fit the need of a close family member who for one reason or another is not able to enter the temple. The disappointment and even resentment, sometimes bitterness, on the part of the nonmember parents or ineligible-member parents can be greatly softened in these ways."

 

My guess is this softening of hurt feelings does not happen much. I really don't know. My guess is the problem of resentment recognized by the Church often remains, and becomes a wedge for a family that otherwise might be more open to the Church. I have no statistics on this but my guess is family conversions resulting from attending a reception of a wedding they were not allowed to attend are quite low. This all seems a bit of arm twisting to me, which I don't really like - at least that is the end result. Rather than trying to convert family members in a temple waiting room, the Church should rely on the missionary zeal of its newly wedded members and their missionary zest for life to be the light of conversion for their families. In short the Church realizes the wedge this policy sometimes drives, but has no intention of changing it. To me it seems at least somewhat counterproductive, but I am no longer in an expansion area so can't make real number assessments. However, my guess is in countries where there is no wait period, members get sealed just the same because they want the blessings thereof. This is where we need to look to see if not having a wait period has the feared detrimental effect. My guess is it doesn't. If not, then this imposed wait period is undoubtedly doing more harm than good. The Church has not convinced me this policy is good. I realize I am making this assessment with limited info, but it is my 2 cents.

Thank you for addressing one of my initial questions about this policy and how it may effect missionary work.

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. I think this is a wedge or resentment that often grows. Even if family is reconciled it's hard to believe that many non-members would find greater respect for the church after they are prohibited from seeing a loved one's wedding. A leaders who suggests that a parent go to the temple to enjoy the spirit of the grounds while the son or daughter is inside getting married inside seems quite callous.

My non member brother won't show up at the temple anymore. He is Catholic and finds it a complete waste of time to wait outside. He is a loving uncle who attends all the receptions but waiting on the temple grounds in no way helps to change his heart concerning the church. His wife makes passive aggressive comments about being excluded. I don't blame them because it is not easy for them.

Edited May 18, 2017 by bsjkki

[JulieM]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I certainly believe that, and you might as well. But that does not negate the possibility that secular trappings might encroach in an unseemly way upon what ought to be a sacred occasion for the bride and groom.

One way for the Church to teach correct principles is by not tacitly consenting to goings-on that supplant or desecrate the sacredness of the temple marriage/sealing. But apparently you want to open the way for such encroachment, even as you pay lip service to the sacredness of the temple sealing.

How does a civil wedding "desecrate the sacredness" of a temple sealing if it's done in a beautiful manner?  

Would you be opposed to walking or escorting your daughter (if you have one) into get married if she was marrying someone who had nonmember family that wanted to see their son married?  If it was important to her to keep good feelings and a close future relationship with her in-laws, could you support her?

You could then travel with her to the temple for the sacred sealing and that would be special and memorable too.

I don't understand why you're making this an either/or situation.  It's not like it's either a temple sealing or it's desecrating the sacredness.  It wouldn't need to be like that and I'd imagine most would be respectful and supportive of making sure that didn't happen.

Even you stated that you would not oppose a change in this policy if was changed by the leaders.

Edited May 18, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How does a civil wedding "desecrate the sacredness" of a temple sealing if it's done in a beautiful manner?  

Would you be opposed to walking or escorting your daughter (if you have one) into get married if she was marrying someone who had nonmember family that wanted to see their son married?  If it was important to her to keep good feelings and a close future relationship with her in-laws, could you support her?

You could then travel with her to the temple for the sacred sealing and that would be special and memorable too.

I don't understand why you're making this an either/or situation.  It's not like it's either a temple sealing or it's desecrating the sacredness.  It wouldn't need to be like that and I'd imagine most would be respectful and supportive of making sure that didn't happen.

I think "desecrating the sacredness" is too extreme. 

I think that the important thing in the eyes of the Church is that the sealing comes first, where possible (U.S.). Where it isn't possible because of the law, then the Church does the best it can with that (encourage sealing ASAP following the civil marriage). 

I think the takeaway from the policy, its "policing," and its practice in the flagship headquarters country is that the Church would very much prefer if the sealing were the only marriage. 

[RevTestament]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. I think this is a wedge or resentment that often grows. Even if family is reconciled it's hard to believe that many non-members would find greater respect for the church after they are prohibited from seeing a loved one's wedding. A leaders who suggests that a parent go to the temple to enjoy the spirit of the grounds while the son or daughter is inside getting married inside seems quite callous.

Just to be clear - I am not criticizing the current Presidency. I do not believe Prs Monson is callous. I believe him to be a very genuine man, who would be hurt by such a statement. However, times change, and policies which were once good may not be serving the Church well anymore. I don't have all the information necessary to determine whether this policy is due for a change, but from the information I do have, it seems it may be due for a change. I believe if it hasn't been done already, the countries which have a separate civil ceremony should be assessed to see if that is harming the spiritual life of Church members. If not, I hope the Presidency will use their keys to reassess this policy. That is all I have to say, and with that I think I am going to bow out of this thread, unless someone has something to offer about that.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I love how this thread has turned to condemning lavish wedding receptions. 

This has gone from saying things like "well the brethren aren't wrong about this because we know they must have prayed and they know stuff and God talks to them..." to "There are NT passages telling us to forsake our family and even hate them, so it's ok to have this policy" to "well if people want to get married with their family present then that means they want something really fancy....and that means they don't really see value in a temple sealing...and that means they dont' really love God because they love their family, 'cause remember in the NT Jesus said you should hate your family...."

Whatever.  This thread has been a fancy joke, if you ask me.  If people think having a sealing is so important it should supersede a loving and supportive family, be my guest.  I find it silly to twist ourselves into pretzels trying to condemn people we don't know to defend a policy that has never been claimed to be by revelation. 

Ah well....we've seen it all before, I suppose. 

Jesus doesn't say to hate them. He just says that it depends on what is more important to you.

[MiserereNobis]

54 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

My non member brother won't show up at the temple anymore. He is Catholic and finds it a complete waste of time to wait outside. He is a loving uncle who attends all the receptions but waiting on the temple grounds in no way helps to change his heart concerning the church. His wife makes passive aggressive comments about being excluded. I don't blame them because it is not easy for them.

Does something happen outside the temple after the wedding?  Something that non LDS family members could participate in?  Like pictures or something.

If not, then I probably wouldn't go, either.  I'm not sure what the point would be to watch people go from the car into a building, wait outside for however long (how long would the wait be? an hour?) and then watch them go from the building back into the car.

ETA: Now, if there was a decent brewpub next door in which I could down a smokey porter while waiting, then that would change my whole calculation

Edited May 18, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[stemelbow]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Jesus doesn't say to hate them. He just says that it depends on what is more important to you.

Well you can't back off now:

Quote

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

If you want his words to apply to us in our day and apply to this Mormon sealing question, then you can't really play both sides, no?