Temple wedding policies

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Before you make a decision not to attend, do you ask the couple why they invited you?  

You can certainly completely ignore the desires of the wedding couple, but that seems to also ignore one of the purposes of that day.

Interesting point... are you thinking that a couple might invite someone that they know can't enter the temple because they still want them in pictures?  Or perhaps that the couple doesn't know an individual can't attend a temple sealing?  Some other reason I'm missing?

[CV75]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I think you're misunderstanding the argument. I haven't seen anyone argue that non-worthy or non-members be permitted into the temple for the sealing. It's about choosing to have the non-temple ordinance of marriage outside of the temple so family can participate and then going to the temple for the sealing, at which only "qualified" individuals will attend.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Nobody is suggesting that those without recommends be permitted to enter the temple.  That hasn't been a part of the conversation.

By casting and giving priority to the ceremony as a family event over a priesthood ordinance event, a person is not demonstrating readiness for the latter. Giving the ceremony priority as a non-recommend holder event over a recommend-holder event is my way of highlighting that same distinction from another perspective. So yes, it has been a subtext of the conversation. Many people wait for other ordinances due to parental and family priorities; temple marriage is no different.

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2-Yes, that is the choice people are being asked to make even if the words are more flowery and less direct.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

You say that you wouldn't dream of asking a young couple if they want to exclude non-LDS parents and loved ones from their wedding and yet the current church policy encourages that.  It makes the couple choose between including non-LDS family and being sealed at the time that they are wed.

There is no recommended language to use in counseling people on what to prioritize, and I suppose we have 24 pages of what not to say. But requiring people to wait a year to demonstrate readiness is simply requiring people to wait a year to demonstrate readiness. The lovebirds evaluate their priorities and make their decision.

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- All of those benefits are realized through the sealing ordinance that may be more limited in scope of family participation. The wedding is separate. A couple could very easily accomplish both things: including loved ones and having the unique spiritual experience and blessings of the temple. It's a shame they are being forced to choose when it really isn't necessary.

I’m not sure how being forced to choose is a problem. We are by nature and design forced to choose all the time.

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

4- It's a false choice. The church sets up the situation in which this becomes a competing priority, but it doesn't need to be. At that point it becomes a loyalty test to the church and a punishment is affixed if the individual fails the unreasonable and unnecessary loyalty test.

A person who thinks the Church, as opposed to complex individual attitudes and choices with respect to the conventions I listed above, is setting up “the situation,” is evidently unable or unwilling to fully address the situation, and will come up with perceptions like the above. The Church’s policy addresses the situation, and does not create it.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Your last paragraph is what I found interesting and was asking about:  You characterize it as "equal and competing priorities".  I'm not sure I see it that way.  Why are the priorities in competition?  Why does wanting non-LDS loved ones to be able to witness your wedding mean that you are not ready for temple covenants?

A person places these priorities in competition for himself when he has not made a firm choice about what to do about them within their respective constraints. I think I answered the question: “wanting” is one thing and “choosing” is another. One should not proceed if one does not feel he can choose. If one’s priority is to create a melded choice that isn’t there, he will end up waiting also. if he proceeds with one and postpones the other, that is a reasonable choice. In either case, he is not ready, and the Church having a wait policy helps that person get to a better place and supports him in whichever choice he makes.

 

 

 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

By casting and giving priority to the ceremony as a family event over a priesthood ordinance event, a person is not demonstrating readiness for the latter. Giving the ceremony priority as a non-recommend holder event over a recommend-holder event is my way of highlighting that same distinction from another perspective. So yes, it has been a subtext of the conversation. Many people wait for other ordinances due to parental and family priorities; temple marriage is no different.

A person places these priorities in competition for himself when he has not made a firm choice about what to do about them within their respective constraints. I think I answered the question: “wanting” is one thing and “choosing” is another. One should not proceed if one does not feel he can choose. If one’s priority is to create a melded choice that isn’t there, he will end up waiting also. if he proceeds with one and postpones the other, that is a reasonable choice. In either case, he is not ready, and the Church having a wait policy helps that person get to a better place and supports him in whichever choice he makes.

The couples we are talking about are couples who have chosen to be sealed in the temple.  That's the choice they made.  That is what they have prioritized - the priesthood ordinance.

In addition, they decide that they'd like to have ceremony that the allows their non-LDS family to witness their marriage.  That doesn't change their choice of wanting to be sealed.  It doesn't de-prioritize the priesthood ordinance.  It is just the couple deciding that they'd like to have a civil marriage ceremony in addition to the temple sealing.

The "constraints" are then imposed by the church - so I am still not seeing how that affects a couple's readiness to make those covenants in the temple.  The entire premise of this discussion is that the couple was already deemed worthy to be married in the temple.  Then, because they also wanted to have a ceremony that includes their loved ones, they are now (according to your theory) deemed "not ready".

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Interesting point... are you thinking that a couple might invite someone that they know can't enter the temple because they still want them in pictures?  Or perhaps that the couple doesn't know an individual can't attend a temple sealing?  Some other reason I'm missing?

I can think of a lot of reasons why couples might invite people to the Temple even though they know they can't go in.  If good friends, it may be reassuring to have their support before and after even if it is little more than a hug or a friendly smile in the midst of the chaos.  They may want them as involved as possible even if involvement just means being present.  My husband's family wanted siblings there as much as possible, even the too young to go.  Pictures are a huge thing if family as these events may be the only chance for extended families that they have (no one I know want to have family pictures at funerals).  Reception pictures do not always include the more extended parts of the family, though they probably could (there may be some reason that someone has to choose one or the other and chooses Temple, but that is probably not too common).

And someone just might have a unique personal reason that makes another's presence highly meaningful.  You don't know unless you ask.  If someone cares enough to go to the effort to request that you are there, it seems like the loving and respectful choice would be to take the time to ask and even, if uncomfortable in attending for whatever reason, suggest alternatives such as a dinner get together earlier that week.

----

Do you think it would be appropriate for a parent to tell their child "it is pointless for me to come since I can't go in" if their child has asked for them to be there?

If a daughter asked their parents to wait in the hospital while she had a caesarian so that as soon as possible afterwards she could share the experience of being a new mother with them even though they couldn't be present for the delivery, would anyone think that strange?

If it would be inappropriate for a parent to say "no, not really interested unless I can be there for the main event", why would it be appropriate for anyone in a loving relationship with another to do so without first discussing why they were wanted at least?

Edited May 19, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can think of a lot of reasons why couples might invite people to the Temple even though they know they can't go in.  If good friends, it may be reassuring to have their support before and after even if it is little more than a hug or a friendly smile in the midst of the chaos.  They may want them as involved as possible even if involvement just means being present.  My husband's family wanted siblings there as much as possible, even the too young to go.  Pictures are a huge thing if family as these events may be the only chance for extended families that they have (no one I know want to have family pictures at funerals).  Reception pictures do not always include the more extended parts of the family, though they probably could (there may be some reason that someone has to choose one or the other and chooses Temple, but that is probably not too common).

And someone just might have a unique personal reason that makes another's presence highly meaningful.  You don't know unless you ask.  If someone cares enough to go to the effort to request that you are there, it seems like the loving and respectful choice would be to take the time to ask and even, if uncomfortable in attending for whatever reason, suggest alternatives such as a dinner get together earlier that week.

----

Do you think it would be appropriate for a parent to tell their child "it is pointless for me to come since I can't go in" if their child has asked for them to be there?

If a daughter asked their parents to wait in the hospital while she had a caesarian so that as soon as possible afterwards she could share the experience of being a new mother with them even though they couldn't be present for the delivery, would anyone think that strange?

If it would be inappropriate for a parent to say "no, not really interested unless I can be there for the main event", why would it be appropriate for anyone in a loving relationship with another to do so without first discussing why they were wanted at least?

I am in complete agreement with you.  What you've written above is a great addition to the thread.

[mnn727]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

This is a pretty standard Mormon wedding schedule. I have found I prefer a later sealing that has the wedding party arriving to a reception immediately after the sealing. It is much easier on everyone. 

My favorite Mormon wedding was when the sealing was the last of the day at the salt lake temple, and the wedding party could walk across the street for the reception. So much nicer than driving all over the valley to the temple...to a restaurant...to someplace to hang out for hours and then to the reception.

I prefer informal luncheons where guests can mingle and are not stuck at an assigned table. Those are not too fun.

Must be a Utah thing

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Must be a Utah thing

Since I lived outside of Utah for the majority of my life, not really.

California, Kansas, Illinois, Alberta, and Utah all had this going on.  My sister had it back east.  I learned of it first from nonmember friends.

You have probably just been lucky or unlucky, however you want to look at it.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The couples we are talking about are couples who have chosen to be sealed in the temple.  That's the choice they made.  That is what they have prioritized - the priesthood ordinance.

In addition, they decide that they'd like to have ceremony that the allows their non-LDS family to witness their marriage.  That doesn't change their choice of wanting to be sealed.  It doesn't de-prioritize the priesthood ordinance.  It is just the couple deciding that they'd like to have a civil marriage ceremony in addition to the temple sealing.

That would depend on how they went about making their choices.  Just because they like the idea of both a civil wedding and a sealing does not mean they are prioritizing the sealing.  It may be seen as a necessity rather than a privledge for example, something that must be done so the real important stuff can happen.

Otoh, it could be the reverse, they see the civil as something not particularly personally desired, but necessary to keep family peace or because it was expected.

I think the concern is simple.  So often once we starting adding stuff, we just don't stop, but always look for the next thing, the bigger, the better, the new and exciting.  Both inside the Church and without.  And if one has a civil wedding being planned with or by nonmember parents, there is no reason for them to keep things low key unless it is personal preference.  And if they have been dreaming of a certain style for their children, it may be very hard for their child to say no, that is not what I want or need and sometimes it is hard for a parent to accept that when the child is comfortable enough to push back against pressure.

I am seeing this ever expanding reception quite a bit in Utah where there are a lot of LDS receptions to get ideas from and compare to...I think it is slower elsewhere because you just don't have the exposure to that many LDS receptions.  There is a dramatic difference in the cost of the receptions I am going to now than when I first lived in Utah almost 40 years ago,  

Edited May 19, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The couples we are talking about are couples who have chosen to be sealed in the temple.  That's the choice they made.  That is what they have prioritized - the priesthood ordinance.

In addition, they decide that they'd like to have ceremony that the allows their non-LDS family to witness their marriage.  That doesn't change their choice of wanting to be sealed.  It doesn't de-prioritize the priesthood ordinance.  It is just the couple deciding that they'd like to have a civil marriage ceremony in addition to the temple sealing.

The "constraints" are then imposed by the church - so I am still not seeing how that affects a couple's readiness to make those covenants in the temple.  The entire premise of this discussion is that the couple was already deemed worthy to be married in the temple.  Then, because they also wanted to have a ceremony that includes their loved ones, they are now (according to your theory) deemed "not ready".

I am talking about the same couples. If they aren’t on a track to be sealed in the temple, they haven’t really chosen to be sealed in the temple. If they “wanna” be sealed in the temple, that isn’t a choice with sufficiently mature intent. If they are in a quandary, they haven’t made a choice. If they find themselves waiting, that is their choice. That is a good way to enjoy the benefits of both experiences, whichever they choose to have first. Nothing wrong with waiting.

It really doesn’t matter if the couple isn’t worthy and simply answered the TR questions correctly, so that is a false premise with regards to the issue of what people want and what they choose. It is about the exercise of agency, and with all the considerations (family, customs, law, religion, etc.), the decision of whom, where and how to marry provides a perfect life experience.

They can still want a ceremony that includes their loved ones outside the temple and choose to be married in the temple without them. They can still want a temple ordinance yet choose to be married civilly or in a church first. They’re presumably adults; who can tell whether they are acting against their wants or choices? Their level of readiness is reflected in what they aim to do and then actually do, but it’s “nunya” except for those responsible for issuing temple recommends and counsel, and they are the ones asking these kinds of questions and for whom the policy is designed. With the best interests of all concerned being weighed of course, for that is their sacred calling.

Edited May 19, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am talking about the same couples. If they aren’t on a track to be sealed in the temple, they haven’t really chosen to be sealed in the temple. If they “wanna” be sealed in the temple, that isn’t a choice with sufficiently mature intent. If they are in a quandary, they haven’t made a choice. If they find themselves waiting, that is their choice. That is a good way to enjoy the benefits of both experiences, whichever they choose to have first. Nothing wrong with waiting.

It really doesn’t matter if the couple isn’t worthy and simply answered the TR questions correctly, so that is a false premise with regards to the issue of what people want and what they choose. It is about the exercise of agency, and with all the considerations (family, customs, law, religion, etc.), the decision of whom, where and how to marry provides a perfect life experience.

They can still want a ceremony that includes their loved ones outside the temple and choose to be married in the temple without them. They can still want a temple ordinance yet choose to be married civilly or in a church first. They’re presumably adults; who can tell whether they are acting against their wants or choices? Their level of readiness is reflected in what they aim to do and then actually do, but it’s “nunya” except for those responsible for issuing temple recommends and counsel, and they are the ones asking these kinds of questions and for whom the policy is designed. With the best interests of all concerned being weighed of course, for that is their sacred calling.

I think we're talking past each other here.  The disagreement I have with you determining that a couple isn't ready for a temple sealing because they also want a civil ceremony for loved ones is that the choice is imposed upon them by the policy.  Your thinking is circular.  I'm asking why we need a 1-year wait and you are saying that they aren't ready to be married in the temple if they aren't okay with the 1-year wait.  Readiness for the temple should have nothing to do with an arbitrary policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, mnn727 said:

In my 61 years on this planet I have honestly never of a wedding meal outside of a reception (where there is a lot of money involved)

Here's a Wikipedia entry on "wedding breakfast" that provides some background.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think we're talking past each other here.  The disagreement I have with you determining that a couple isn't ready for a temple sealing because they also want a civil ceremony for loved ones is that the choice is imposed upon them by the policy.  Your thinking is circular.  I'm asking why we need a 1-year wait and you are saying that they aren't ready to be married in the temple if they aren't okay with the 1-year wait.  Readiness for the temple should have nothing to do with an arbitrary policy.

I suppose  you could take any eligibility requirement for admission to the temple -- Word of Wisdom, tithe paying, sacrament meeting attendance, proper wearing of the garment -- and arbitrarily characterize it as an "arbitrary policy."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That would depend on how they went about making their choices.  Just because they like the idea of both a civil wedding and a sealing does not mean they are prioritizing the sealing.  It may be seen as a necessity rather than a privledge for example, something that must be done so the real important stuff can happen.

Otoh, it could be the reverse, they see the civil as something not particularly personally desired, but necessary to keep family peace or because it was expected.

I think the concern is simple.  So often once we starting adding stuff, we just don't stop, but always look for the next thing, the bigger, the better, the new and exciting.  Both inside the Church and without.  And if one has a civil wedding being planned with or by nonmember parents, there is no reason for them to keep things low key unless it is personal preference.  And if they have been dreaming of a certain style for their children, it may be very hard for their child to say no, that is not what I want or need and sometimes it is hard for a parent to accept that when the child is comfortable enough to push back against pressure.

I am seeing this ever expanding reception quite a bit in Utah where there are a lot of LDS receptions to get ideas from and compare to...I think it is slower elsewhere because you just don't have the exposure to that many LDS receptions.  There is a dramatic difference in the cost of the receptions I am going to now than when I first lived in Utah almost 40 years ago,  

Amen.

Which is why it won't do to coyly protest that one is not calling for an elaborate civil ceremony that upstages the temple sealing. The reality is that once Pandora's box is opened, it is impossible to keep the contents inside.

And which is why I don't think the Brethren will ever alter the policy as it stands.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think we're talking past each other here.  The disagreement I have with you determining that a couple isn't ready for a temple sealing because they also want a civil ceremony for loved ones is that the choice is imposed upon them by the policy.  Your thinking is circular.  I'm asking why we need a 1-year wait and you are saying that they aren't ready to be married in the temple if they aren't okay with the 1-year wait.  Readiness for the temple should have nothing to do with an arbitrary policy.

But there is no policy that requires them to make a choice (“Thou shalt choose between the two”). There is no policy that says, “Thou art not ready for a temple sealing.” Common sense simply states that if they choose one over the other, they are not ready, prepared and in some cases willing to realize the unchosen option, whatever it is (yet, anyway). That is the case with or without the policy.

Who said the policy is arbitrary? My understanding is that policies are made from careful thought and consideration to address specific needs that have played out badly without the instruction a policy offers. Or is this about “Someday when the policy changes, you’ll know I was right 20 years ago”?

The fiancées’ readiness is not a matter of being OK with the 1-year wait, it’s a matter of prioritizing one of the other options ahead of the temple ceremony. If framing the policy in terms of readiness is not palatable to you, we can frame it from other standpoint if you wish. Any suggestions?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here's a Wikipedia entry on "wedding breakfast" that provides some background.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amen.

Which is why it won't do to coyly protest that one is not calling for an elaborate civil ceremony that upstages the temple sealing. The reality is that once Pandora's box is opened, it is impossible to keep the contents inside.

And which is why I don't think the Brethren will ever alter the policy as it stands.

I don't think it is impossible, just that it would require a lot of guidance and encouragement to keep things simple.

I would be interested to hear how weddings outside Canada and the US are generally.

 

[Stargazer]

On 5/15/2017 at 8:10 AM, thesometimesaint said:

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

Ha ha.  Well, I was speaking of temple weddings in countries where legal weddings must be public, and thus temple weddings/sealings don't have the force of law.  Not here in the US and Canada.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Amen.

Which is why it won't do to coyly protest that one is not calling for an elaborate civil ceremony that upstages the temple sealing. The reality is that once Pandora's box is opened, it is impossible to keep the contents inside.

And which is why I don't think the Brethren will ever alter the policy as it stands.

 

 

This seems an unfounded fear given that the civil marriage and temple sealing are separate in virtually every other country and *Pandora's box* doesn't seem to have opened up.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't think it is impossible, just that it would require a lot of guidance and encouragement to keep things simple.

 

It was a loose analogy, perhaps, but what I meant was that once the one-year waiting period was discontinued, many people still wouldn't be satisfied, and there would be a clamor for elimination of all restraints pertaining to a civil ceremony preceding a temple sealing. I've already seen subtle indications of that sort of attitude on this thread.

Quote

 

I would be interested to hear how weddings outside Canada and the US are generally.

 

It's a different proposition in those locales. There, civil ceremonies precede temple marriages only because legally, they can't get married without them. That's not the case in the U.S. and Canada.

There, it is an expedient, and everyone understands that it is an expedient, a chore to be undertaken to satisfy the law of the land. That's all it ever was. What is being called for here is entitlement, and I think history shows that once one entitlement is granted, there is a hue and cry for greater entitlement.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This seems an unfounded fear given that the civil marriage and temple sealing are separate in virtually every other country and *Pandora's box* doesn't seem to have opened up.

See my post that appeared just after yours about an expedient vs. an entitlement.

[rockpond]

It's an arbitrary policy because it isn't tied to worthiness.  You can hold a valid recommend and you can attend the temple, as a couple, and do proxy sealings all while being told to wait one year for your own sealing.  And it isn't applied universally, as other temple recommend requirements are... it's arbitrary because it depends on what part of the world you live in. 

As for the civil ceremonies getting out of hand... is there evidence of that happening in the rest of the world?

Even if someone did choose to have an elaborate civil ceremony, why does that matter?  I don't see how the temple ceremony could be overshadowed.  To someone who has waited their whole life to be sealed, that seems like an odd concern.  And if it is a real concern for the Brethren, I guess they need to start regulating the elaborate ring ceremonies and lavish receptions. 

[bsjkki]

Interesting guide for non-members attending a Mormon wedding. I had not known about the tradition of dancing with the bride and giving money until attending a non temple Mormon wedding in the mid-west. https://www.thoughtco.com/mormon-wedding-basics-2159050

[bsjkki]

http://rationalfaiths.com/marriages-in-the-united-kingdom/ A few stories about weddings in England. 

[sheilauk]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think it is impossible, just that it would require a lot of guidance and encouragement to keep things simple.

I would be interested to hear how weddings outside Canada and the US are generally.

 

I've not much experience but have attended 3 LDS weddings in the UK. none of them were lavish, but neither were the half dozen non LDS weddings I've been to.  where I live,  lavish isn't yet the norm, as much because people can't afford it as anything else. Most had the reception in the cultural hall.  also, my understanding is that you have to be sealed the same day or you have to wait the year.   This means the couple have to leave the reception early and rush off to one of the temples, making for a long day.  The temples often stay open late especially to accommodate them (the nearest temple to me is a 3 hour drive, the other is 4 hours).  I have been to one other wedding,  in Finland,  which accepts temple marriage. several family and friends didn't have a recommend but came to the temple and waited and were then in the photos.   none of them complained about not seeing the ceremony and they said they'd had a great time socialising together.  The bride's parents weren't able to attend because they couldn't afford to travel from the USA, so missed it anyway. They didn't express anything but support for their daughters decision,  though I'm sure they were disappointed.   In Finland,  the tradition is to hold the reception on a different day to the wedding which reduces the stress a lot!  so there were just close family and friends at the wedding, everyone else came to the reception,  held in the cultural hall.   It wasn't lavish either,  but that was the couples choice, many receptions in Finland are apparently (so I'm told).  personally,  I think the wedding etc should be entirely and only what the couple want to do, it's their day,  no one else's and no one, including parents should complain about their choice or pressurise them.   parents should be supportive not causing more stress. (My sister who is not LDS years ago chose to marry without our parents there or her sisters!  We were disappointed but respected her choice and said nothing to her).   doing both ceremonies on the same day is stressful though I don't think the sealing ceremony was diminished for those I know who have done it, being sealed was very important to them which is why they took the time and effort.   The couple who didn't still aren't sealed, several years later and have gone less active.   

Edited May 20, 2017 by sheilauk

[sheilauk]

47 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Interesting guide for non-members attending a Mormon wedding. I had not known about the tradition of dancing with the bride and giving money until attending a non temple Mormon wedding in the mid-west. https://www.thoughtco.com/mormon-wedding-basics-2159050

Interesting maybe,  but not useful. Most of it hasn't been my experience.  Other than the temple, I've found little difference between LDS  and non LDS weddings!  and all the LDS civil ceremonies took place in the chapel. I think this article is maybe rather UScentric!

Edited May 20, 2017 by sheilauk