Temple wedding policies

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

That's why advocates of a policy change in the U.S. want there to be the "real" wedding, with all of the cultural trappings, so that the non-member family don't have to be disappointed with the austere and simple sealing. They can roll their eyes at it, and shrug it off, because it's just that weird Mormon thing. The Hollywood wedding already took place.

I think this is more of a factor than "not being able to witness the marriage." I think that those whom this bothers are more bothered by how embarrassingly simple in the eyes of the world the sealing is than the fact that non-member family can't be there. 

That's a lot of mind reading going on there.

Although I do think you're right about the sealing being "embarrassingly simple." 

Or at least half right.

[Gray]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

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.

It's an artificial choice and a false dichotomy. The 1 year wait penalty will make everyone assume that you "messed up" and aren't worthy to be married in the temple. It works as a punishment to deter people from making the choice. 

 

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

 

27 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?

What is wrong with "glitz" outside of the temple? Isn't that kind of what LDS receptions are about?

If someone wants to pay for that extra traditional stuff, I don't really understand the problem. Many non-member parents would be happy to pay for it. It's not like we're going to be successful in forcing them to convert so they can go to the sealing. By "mollycoddling" do you mean doing what LDS do in most of the rest of the world anyway? - they go get their civil marriage first before getting sealed? So are we mollycoddling their cultures or governments? I just don't see a rationale for the long wait period in the US. Is there a fear that some members won't get sealed if there is a separate civil ceremony? It seems like the separate civil ceremony in the US is almost "punished." I don't really care too much one way or the other right now, but if one of my children married someone with non-member families I believe I would like them to be able to come to their wedding so as to get the families off to a good relationship at the start. It just seems to me like the required wait potentially drives a bit of a wedge between the families, because the faithful couple of course want to get sealed right away.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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."

Would that it was only 10% of my income.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

28 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.

As has already been pointed out to you, the reception and all the trappings that go with are the expensive part. Per this wedding guide here, the ceremony accounts for only 2-3% of the cost:

https://www.theknot.com/content/wedding-budget-ways-to-save-money

Given that every LDS wedding I've attended has had a reception, some form of entertainment, photographer, etc, I'm not sure that adding a ceremony would significantly alter the cost...

Edited May 15, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

Not even close to an accurate analogy.  It would be closer to say:  If a couple has decided to have chocolate ice cream, should the Church have a policy that prohibits them from having strawberry ice cream the day before (unless they live outside North America, in which case they can have both flavors whenever they want).

Where is the doctrine that we are to be married in the temple (rather than sealed)?  The "decision" is forced and artificial.

Edited May 15, 2017 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

What is wrong with "glitz" outside of the temple? Isn't that kind of what LDS receptions are about?

If someone wants to pay for that extra traditional stuff, I don't really understand the problem. Many non-member parents would be happy to pay for it. It's not like we're going to be successful in forcing them to convert so they can go to the sealing. By "mollycoddling" do you mean doing what LDS do in most of the rest of the world anyway? - they go get their civil marriage first before getting sealed? So are we mollycoddling their cultures or governments? I just don't see a rationale for the long wait period in the US. Is there a fear that some members won't get sealed if there is a separate civil ceremony? It seems like the separate civil ceremony in the US is almost "punished." I don't really care too much one way or the other right now, but if one of my children married someone with non-member families I believe I would like them to be able to come to their wedding so as to get the families off to a good relationship at the start. It just seems to me like the required wait potentially drives a bit of a wedge between the families, because the faithful couple of course want to get sealed right away.

Just depends on what is more important to the couple. Making nice nice to people you strongly disagree about religion with, or living your life with God as the center. We are called to convert the world not hand out goodies like Temple marriage to the unfaithful. The rationale is that we are to be married/Sealed in the Temple..In country's that require governmental ceremonies, we follow the laws of that country. The one and only family member that would have been able to attend my Temple wedding would have been my beloved Father-in-Law. We eloped with everyone knowing. If anyone was hurt by that they certainly didn't tell me that. Plus Grandkids do have big influence on their Grandparents.

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As has already been pointed out to you, the reception and all the trappings that go with are the expensive part. Per this wedding guide here, the ceremony accounts for only 2-3% of the cost:

https://www.theknot.com/content/wedding-budget-ways-to-save-money

Given that every LDS wedding I've attended has had a reception, some form of entertainment, photographer, etc, I'm not sure that adding a ceremony would significantly alter the cost...

Our entire reception consisted of bacon and eggs with Ginger Ale to drink for two.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Just depends on what is more important to the couple. Making nice nice to people you strongly disagree about religion with, or living your life with God as the center.

What an inaccurate way to express the choice many have to make (and not easily) when marrying someone who has converted or anyone who has nonmembers they are close to.

These "people" you refer to are family who may be future in-laws or dear family members and friends where it's important to consider their feelings and your ability with which to have and continue to have a good relationship.

And, how do you know they "strongly disagree about religion"?  They may fully support their son or daughter joining the church but just want to witness their child or loved one get married.

Edited May 15, 2017 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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...

What's wrong with a big wedding. Why should the church dictate such a significant life event. If a couple wants a big wedding. Great. Do it. If they want to go to the courthouse...great. Do it. If they want the bishop to marry them, great. Do it. What the church should not do is tell people how they should get married.

The goal is for people to be sealed to each other. Any requirement beyond personal worthiness is meddling. There is nothing about a civil wedding, big, little, or in between that makes a couple unworthy to be sealed. They should be able to go the same day, the next week, the next month...whenever they want to be sealed. Why should the church restrict a sealing based on timing? Seriously, is there a good answer? I've never heard one.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Our entire reception consisted of bacon and eggs with Ginger Ale to drink for two.

Yes and I'm sure if you went to the justice of the peace before the temple, it would have broken the bank for you. People can and do spend a lot of money on receptions and temple sealings without a civil ceremony. This topic has nothing to do with money and everything to do with allowing non-member loved ones to be apart of their son / daughter's wedding. This can be done cheaply or with considerable expense, but focusing on the money is a distraction from the topic at hand.

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

What is wrong with "glitz" outside of the temple? Isn't that kind of what LDS receptions are about?

My stake president and I just talked about this. His daughter just got engaged at BYU, and he told her that they told her that she gets $200 for her reception. I expressed surprise (ours was like $300 or so), because the trend lately is for more and more to cost thousands and thousands. A reception in the church gym is increasingly disdained (hence the costs, a lot of which has to do with facility rental). I said, "Good for you!" 

If someone wants to pay for that extra traditional stuff, I don't really understand the problem.

I don't, either. There can be as elaborate of a reception as the families want. But, we're talking about the actual wedding, complete with the Hollywood cultural trappings --- not the reception.

Many non-member parents would be happy to pay for it.

Not sure about that. My stake president's family wouldn't come to his reception, because they weren't allowed to his sealing. They were very against him joining the Church, as well. Many probably would be willing to pay for a reception, too. 

It's not like we're going to be successful in forcing them to convert so they can go to the sealing. By "mollycoddling" do you mean doing what LDS do in most of the rest of the world anyway? - they go get their civil marriage first before getting sealed?

They go to city hall and sign a paper. This doesn't have walking down the aisle, flower petals strewn, ring-bearers, father giving the bride away, exchanging of vows, etc. 

I just don't see a rationale for the long wait period in the US. Is there a fear that some members won't get sealed if there is a separate civil ceremony?

I think the cultural/familial accommodation is a canary in the mineshaft, an indicator of how committed the couple will remain in the face of other future family pressure, cultural tension, etc. 

I've brought this up before, but I don't think the long-term activity and commitment track record is very good of couples who could have been sealed, but strategically chose to delay it to accommodate family. 

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What's wrong with a big wedding. Why should the church dictate such a significant life event. If a couple wants a big wedding. Great. Do it. If they want to go to the courthouse...great. Do it. If they want the bishop to marry them, great. Do it. What the church should not do is tell people how they should get married.

The goal is for people to be sealed to each other. Any requirement beyond personal worthiness is meddling. There is nothing about a civil wedding, big, little, or in between that makes a couple unworthy to be sealed. They should be able to go the same day, the next week, the next month...whenever they want to be sealed. Why should the church restrict a sealing based on timing? Seriously, is there a good answer? I've never heard one.

You know you're right.  I really do believe the leaders fear that the youth would start focusing on a big wedding rather than the sealing.  Otherwise, why try to control this?

One thing that really hurt my sister when she decided to save her convert husband's feelings (and keep a good relationship with his family) and have a beautiful, civil wedding first, was that she was a young women's leader at the time and was very close to the youth.  Many parents refused to allow their daughters to attend my sister's wedding because they felt she was "glamorizing" the wedding or marriage.  She still talks about how that stung.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've brought this up before, but I don't think the long-term activity and commitment track record is very good of couples who could have been sealed, but strategically chose to delay it to accommodate family. 

So you are saying that those who disobeyed the counsel of current church leadership and got married outside the temple are less committed to the church? Two thought questions for you:

If the church encouraged civil ceremonies for those with non-member/temple worthy family members, do you think such a correlation would still exist? In other words could it be that less faithful members are the ones choosing to marry outside the temple in the first place?

Second, what if the decision to marry outside the temple creates the first crack in someone's testimony? That is, what if someone had been faithful their whole life, but in order to appease family, they married oustide the temple. This couple then went on to feel shame associated with this decision from those in the church. Could the shame / dissonance from having to choose be the cause of lower long-term activity? In other words if they never had to choose between two good things in the first place (family relationships / church temple marriage) would they have a stronger commitment to the church? 

In either case, it is not clear to me that a causal relationship exists that says choosing temple marriage over civil marriages causes faithfulness. I think it is more likely that forcing people to choose church over family is the cause of a loss of faith. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

From an article a couple years ago:

SALT LAKE CITY – Officials with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints addressed their rules regarding temple marriages as an organization is requesting change.

Under current rules, LDS couples in the U.S. and Canada who have their marriage ceremony outside of one of the church’s temples are required to wait one year before they can be sealed in a temple.

The group Family First Weddings is pushing for a change to those rules, and they are encouraging LDS Church leaders to reexamine the policy.

LDS Church officials said they are constantly examining such issues and that a change in the future is possible, but they said they want to be clear they are not announcing an immediate change in policy.

“Church leaders are well aware of the issues involved and continue to examine them carefully,” LDS Church spokesman Cody Craynor said in response to the issue.

Under current rules, many LDS couples choose to only hold a temple marriage ceremony in order to avoid the waiting period. Because entry into LDS temples requires a recommend, not everyone is allowed to attend those marriage ceremonies–which is part of the reason some are requesting a change to the policy."

LDS Church addresses rules regarding temple marriages

Here's a little history on the policy, but not sure of the accuracy:
The Temple One-Year Rules

The article was more than a couple of years ago. It was three years and three months ago.

The quote from Craynor in the above-cited news story essentially says nothing new or noteworthy. If I were one of those pushing for a change in policy by the Church, I would not derive much hope from the Craynor quote, especially now that more than three years has gone by and there has been no change.

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

They go to city hall and sign a paper. This doesn't have walking down the aisle, flower petals strewn, ring-bearers, father giving the bride away, exchanging of vows, etc. 

That wasn't the experience for this blogger:

Quote

My wedding day was wonderful. At 11 a.m. I walked down the aisle on my father's arm, followed by five bridesmaids, to where my husband-to-be was waiting with his best man.  We recited traditional vows, exchanged rings, walked back down the aisle together, and then had a wonderful reception celebration with 80 guests. For most of our family members and many of our friends and colleagues it was the first time they had set foot in an LDS church.

After the reception we drove to the London England LDS Temple where we were sealed for time and for all eternity in the presence of 20 friends, most of them members of our ward.

It was a wonderful day, and I particularly love the fact that we had the best of both worlds. We had the dream traditional wedding in our LDS chapel surrounded by those we love, and we also had the meaningful  and sacred sealing ordinance. I  wouldn't change a thing.

http://mormonmommywriters.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-british-mormons-will-never-marry-in.html

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Just depends on what is more important to the couple. Making nice nice to people you strongly disagree about religion with, or living your life with God as the center. We are called to convert the world not hand out goodies like Temple marriage to the unfaithful. The rationale is that we are to be married/Sealed in the Temple..In country's that require governmental ceremonies, we follow the laws of that country. The one and only family member that would have been able to attend my Temple wedding would have been my beloved Father-in-Law. We eloped with everyone knowing. If anyone was hurt by that they certainly didn't tell me that. Plus Grandkids do have big influence on their Grandparents.

I am glad your sealing is important to you. It is definitely special to hold it in such high regard. However, I don't see how it is less important if one has a traditional wedding the day before a sealing as happens in most of the world apparently. I've always seen the sealing as a continuance of marriage after this life. It shouldn't be a reason to potentially drive a wedge between families. That just doesn't really seem to be helping the cause of Christ's Church - rather it sometimes seems to alienate non-member families who may otherwise be more open to the gospel. Rather, perhaps a couple can find a way to promote the idea that marriage can continue after death without making it controversial. Perhaps to announce that there will be another small reception after the sealing if anyone would like to attend... or something like that. What happens in other countries? My interest is just bringing families together rather than alienating them. I just don't see a clear purpose for a year wait. If it is not necessary in other countries, why is is necessary here? Does it serve a good or useful purpose? Or is it a relic which we can see from LDS sealings in other countries doesn't really serve the purpose it was once thought to serve? Are LDS sealings in other countries somehow less holy or important because they don't wait a year after the civil ceremony? It just seems the one-year wait is possibly a relic without a cause anymore...

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The article was more than a couple of years ago. It was three years and three months ago.

The quote from Craynor in the above-cited news story essentially says nothing new or noteworthy. If I were one of those pushing for a change in policy by the Church, I would not derive much hope from the Craynor quote, especially now that more than three years has gone by and there has been no change.

Would you care if it were changed in the U.S. to correlate with what takes place in other countries with civil marriages and the the sealing?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I see no reason to not allow a civil wedding (where a bride can have her Father walk her down the isle....most every young girl's dream.). 

 

That it's "most every young girl's dream" is assuming facts not in evidence.

I would think that would depend on whether the young girl had been conditioned to expect it, and even then it would depend on whether the prospect met with the young girl's preference if she understood she had the option to forego it.

For example it would be entirely foreign to our 11-year-old daughter, primarily because we have said nothing to her about such a thing.

Some might even find this cultural trapping distasteful considering its derivation -- the idea of the father "giving away" the bride to the groom as though she were chattel or property to be conveyed from one man to another.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

I was digging around on lds.org and discovered that, at least in 1971, it was possible to get special permission to be married after a civil ceremony in the US and Canada before the year anniversary.  That's kind of interesting.  I wonder if they still do that and what special circumstances might be approved.

 

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That wasn't the experience for this blogger:

http://mormonmommywriters.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-british-mormons-will-never-marry-in.html

This blogger also wants the sealing to be downgraded in the eyes of members, and a public wedding to be upgraded.

"What do you think? Was your Temple marriage perfect in every way, or would you have preferred to walk down the aisle in your chapel too?"

I'm sure it happens (maybe more in England, I don't know). They were unheard of in Germany. 

My wife and I didn't have a ring ceremony of any kind. We didn't even exchange them off to the side in the sealing room. We considered our sealing to be our marriage.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That it's "most every young girl's dream" is assuming facts not in evidence.

Oh, I believe most girls dream of a fairy tale wedding (and that includes being walked down the aisle by their Father or someone they love and admire)....at least where this is part of a traditional wedding.

Remember that most girls are not LDS

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some might even find this cultural trapping distasteful considering its derivation -- the idea of the father "giving away" the bride to the groom as though she were chattel or property to be conveyed from one man to another.

That is interesting, and ironic. Most of those on the "change Church policy!" end of the spectrum on this would also be on the feminist/anti-male-centric end as well, I suspect. Yet, in this instance, they find that custom to be really neat. 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was digging around on lds.org and discovered that, at least in 1971, it was possible to get special permission to be married after a civil ceremony in the US and Canada before the year anniversary.  That's kind of interesting.  I wonder if they still do that and what special circumstances might be approved.

That's interesting.  Did it state what the special circumstances were?

Edited May 15, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Would you care if it were changed in the U.S. to correlate with what takes place in other countries with civil marriages and the the sealing?

Not if it were clear that the First Presidency, acting under divine inspiration (as opposed to social pressure) opted to change it.