Temple wedding policies

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

And what would be the basis for your suspicion?  Other than some worn out rationalization about how certain things in politics go hand in hand with seeking change to church policy, that is.

[ttribe]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

So, are you suggesting there are different revelations for marriage practices based on the local laws of the land?  I've always understood this policy to be just that, a policy.

Edited May 15, 2017 by ttribe

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

I think that's great rongo, I really do.

I do fear that this next generation may feel differently though.  They seem to want more.  I'm not saying that's always good, but maybe there should be a change so that the policy is the same worldwide.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, JulieM said:

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

 

Most LDS boys and girls are going to be WAY more familiar with non-LDS wedding traditions. You see it all the time in movies. By contrast an LDS person will not typically become familiar with what an LDS sealing ceremony looks like until they have their own. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

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

 

I understand it's what you "believe," but it's still assuming facts not in evidence.

I've not seen it done at the (admittedly few) non-LDS weddings I've attended.

Edited to add: As far as "most girls" not being LDS, I thought it was the preferences of LDS girls that was the subject of discussion here. I see no reason why LDS girls should expect -- or be conditioned to expect -- to have a custom followed at their weddings that has its roots in a medieval mindset about a man's daughter being his chattel that is to be conveyed to the possession of another man. 

Besides, I thought this whole issue was about placating the feelings of family members ineligible for admission to the temple, not indulging fancies about a "fairy-tale wedding."

Edited May 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Don't you have an opinion or any thoughts of your own here?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

My hunch is that most have not bothered to think about it seriously -- if they're even aware of the derivation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Can you point to the evidence that the current policy (apparently implemented in the last 40-50 years or so) was adopted by the First Presidency acting under divine inspiration? Just wondering what this clear evidence would look like vs other policy changes implemented by the brethren.

Edited for clarity.

Edited May 15, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Don't you have an opinion or any thoughts of your own here?

Cheap shot not worthy of a response.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, are you suggesting there are difference revelations for marriage practices based on the local laws of the land?  I've always understood this policy to be just that, a policy.

I think the Brethren are divinely inspired to formulate policies that are workable under existing or prevailing circumstances.

Your default assumption seems to be that if it's what you call a "policy," it is uninspired.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And what would be the basis for your suspicion?  Other than some worn out rationalization about how certain things in politics go hand in hand with seeking change to church policy, that is.

Personal experience in discussing things with people. I see a lot of affinity and alignment on political issues often going hand-in-hand with wish lists of policy changes in the Church. 

Don't you?

Obviously, there are exceptions, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. At least in my experience.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to the evidence that the current policy (apparently implemented in the last 40-50 years or so) was adopted by the First Presidency acting under divine inspiration? Just wondering what this would look like.

I think it's a really slippery slope to start litmus testing most or all Church policies as to whether they were inspired, claimed as revelation, or just procedural. 

Unless it's scouting. Then, it's okay to insist that it wasn't inspired . . . 

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think that's great rongo, I really do.

I do fear that this next generation may feel differently though.  They seem to want more.  I'm not saying that's always good, but maybe there should be a change so that the policy is the same worldwide.

I think you're probably right about the rising generation and how they differ/will differ from the Church establishment and precedent/tradition on a lot of things. 

Count me as one who thinks that this is usually not good . . .  

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to the evidence that the current policy (apparently implemented in the last 40-50 years or so) was adopted by the First Presidency acting under divine inspiration? Just wondering what this would look like.

No, I can't cite specific documentation. My general assumption is that in administering the affairs of the Church, the apostles and prophets seek and receive divine direction. That if there were ever an instance when that were not the case, it would very much be the exception.

Can you document that this was not implemented until "the last 40-50 years or so"?

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's a really slippery slope to start litmus testing most or all Church policies as to whether they were inspired, claimed as revelation, or just procedural. 

Unless it's scouting. Then, it's okay to insist that it wasn't inspired . . . 

I would tend to agree, hence my question to Scott.

[RevTestament]

51 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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...

Well, a link provided by JAHS seems to answer my questions assuming its accuracy...

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/12/the-temple-one-year-rules/

"So how did that rule come about in the first place? Because early in the 20th century, the staging of elaborate public weddings became all the rage in Mormon country, pushing the temple sealing into a secondary afterthought, almost a stumbling stone somewhere between the elaborate public wedding and the elaborate public reception."

So the Church seemed to be addressing this issue in the Roaring 20s. That was a time of many excesses. It seems to me that most weddings don't have this kind of glitz these days, and the one year wait seems to be a mere policy rather than a doctrine or revelation. Of course I can't make the Church change it, but I think a change would be largely beneficial given the many complaints I hear from disappointed family members, and hurt feelings. That's just IMHO. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by RevTestament

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Cheap shot not worthy of a response.

 

Not at all.  Others are giving their personal experiences, along with some of their own thoughts and opinions.  I was just asking if you have any of your own. It's fine, if you don't of course (or just don't want to express them if you do).

Edited May 15, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, a link provided by Scott Lloyd seems to answer my questions...

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/12/the-temple-one-year-rules/

"So how did that rule come about in the first place? Because early in the 20th century, the staging of elaborate public weddings became all the rage in Mormon country, pushing the temple sealing into a secondary afterthought, almost a stumbling stone somewhere between the elaborate public wedding and the elaborate public reception."

So the Church seemed to be addressing this issue in the Roaring 20s. That was a time of many excesses. It seems to me that most weddings don't have this kind of glitz these days, and the one year wait seems to be a mere policy rather than a doctrine or revelation. Of course I can't make the Church change it, but I think a change would be largely beneficial given the many complaints I hear from disappointed family members, and hurt feelings. That's just IMHO. 

You have me confused with someone else. I did not provide this link.

 

[JAHS]

36 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.

Culture is a factor. Mahana, certainly didn't mind being an eight cow wife. ;-) 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not at all.  Others are giving their personal experiences, along with some of their own thoughts and opinions.

I trust the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to fulfill their roles and act in the authority of their calling.

Your loaded question -- which I repeat is a cheap shot -- assumes this means I don't have my own thoughts and opinions.

Or does my expression of trust in the Brethren, based on my own experience and observation, not count as my own thought or opinion?

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I can't cite specific documentation. My general assumption is that in administering the affairs of the Church, the apostles and prophets seek and receive divine direction.

So what would then make it clear "that the First Presidency, acting under divine inspiration (as opposed to social pressure) opted to change it"? If you generally assume divine direction is received, why make this a special case?

 

Quote

Can you document that this was not implemented until "the last 40-50 years or so"?

I based this (perhaps / likely depending on how we want to define it) on my reading of a comment in this thread. Doing some digging:

We know President Kimball was sealed 7 months after marriage in 1918. So that puts an upper range to it.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/12/the-temple-one-year-rules/

Dates it to around Heber J Grant. (much earlier than I stated).

Apparently exceptions were still being granted into the 1960's:

User comment at above:

Quote

My husband and I lived over a thousand miles from our assigned Temple when we were married. My parents were not members and his parents weren’t active. Our Stake President requested permission for us to be sealed after a civil marriage. We were granted permission and took a letter from the First Presidency with us to Salt Lake. This was in 1968.

User comment at http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/02/temple-marriage-policy/:

Quote

The current policy has not always been the policy. Members of my own family were married in civil ceremonies on the late 60’s and then married in the temple a day later. 

 

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have me confused with someone else. I did not provide this link.

 

My apologies Scott - you quoted JAHS who cited it. It is an unofficial source. I have corrected my mistake.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Culture is a factor. Mahana, certainly didn't mind being an eight cow wife. ;-) 

Just saying that some might want to consider the traditional meaning behind this "traditional" practice. Especially those who are apt to reject "tradition" based on feminist or other ideology (I think rongo raised a good point about irony).

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the Brethren are divinely inspired to formulate policies that are workable under existing or prevailing circumstances.

Your default assumption seems to be that if it's what you call a "policy," it is uninspired.

 

 

Well, your use of the word "uninspired" seems to be a little loaded, so I think I'll leave it alone.  That being said, I can't recall any member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve having claimed inspiration relative to this policy.  I freely admit I could have missed it, though.  If you can point me to something, I'd be glad to check it out.

[HappyJackWagon]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

But what if that divine inspiration was really a "wrong road" like Elder Holland describes? They simply need to recognize they are on the wrong road so they can get onto the correct path. Can we ever really know if the inspiration is correct or if they're are giving in to social pressure?

Whoops. Wrong thread.