Temple wedding policies

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So get married in the temple and just have a big 'wedding' with no paperwork afterward. It's the perfect solution. You still haven't explained why it's not.

Because it's not a wedding if they are already married.  The non-LDS family members and loved ones are not that dense.

Now, can you tell me why they can't just have a civil ceremony before being sealed in the temple?

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That would apply to LDS chapels, I believe. The Church certainly has a right to dictate what happens in its chapels. What would happen to a couple who wanted vows, etc. outside a chapel?

No, the language in Handbook 1 applies to a ring ceremony anywhere, not just in LDS chapels.  Apparently the Church does want to dictate what a couple does outside a chapel.  You good with that?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My point being, if one thinks the policy should change -- and I'm not one of those people -- why not advocate for this change, thus allowing the sealing in the temple to retain its primacy?

How does getting married civilly first remove the primacy of the sealing in the temple?  Are all those sealings performed in other countries (where a civil marriage must happen first) somehow lesser than when someone gets married and sealed in the temple?  (Serious question, not rhetorical.)

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Oh I see. I personally think that would be a great step. If the church allowed for a ceremony after the temple I think many people would be satisfied. 

It would appear some would not be satisfied unless the ceremony is the actual marriage.

[Hamba Tuhan]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Apparently the Church does want to dictate what a couple does outside a chapel.  You good with that?

100%.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

It would appear some would not be satisfied unless the ceremony is the actual marriage.

I agree. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How does getting married civilly first remove the primacy of the sealing in the temple?

'Primacy = the state of being first'.

Quote

Are all those sealings performed in other countries (where a civil marriage must happen first) somehow lesser than when someone gets married and sealed in the temple?  (Serious question, not rhetorical.)

If such countries allowed marriages to be performed in our temples, do you have any doubt that the Church policy wouldn't also apply?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It would appear some would not be satisfied unless the ceremony is the actual marriage.

Do you understand why non-LDS parents might want to see the actual marriage of their child?

Do you understand that having a ceremony that is NOT a marriage doesn't really satisfy that righteous desire of the parents?

And, can you explain the doctrinal reason for punishing a couple in North America who chooses to get married civilly AND be sealed in the temple?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Primacy = the state of being first'.

I assumed you were using this definition of primacy:  "the fact of being primary, preeminent, or more important" rather than "first" because obviously whichever ceremony happens first, is first.  But a couple can be married civilly first while still maintaining the primacy of the sealing in the temple.  It is done all over the world.  Do you disagree?

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If such countries allowed marriages to be performed in our temples, do you have any doubt that the Church policy wouldn't also apply?

You didn't answer my question.  That tells me that your position doesn't have merit - and you realize it.

I'll answer yours when you offer me the same courtesy but I won't play the game where you just keep asking questions.

[Hamba Tuhan]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Because it's not a wedding if they are already married.  The non-LDS family members and loved ones are not that dense.

Now, can you tell me why they can't just have a civil ceremony before being sealed in the temple?

Because it's not a wedding if they are already married. We're not that dense.

The clear preference is for people to be married in the temple. Some nations don't allow that. We get around it with a second-preference fix, one that, by counsel and practice, remains simple and keeps the focus on the temple ordinance. I personally wouldn't consider myself married until I'd been sealed.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because it's not a wedding if they are already married. We're not that dense.

The clear preference is for people to be married in the temple. Some nations don't allow that. We get around it with a second-preference fix, one that, by counsel and practice, remains simple and keeps the focus on the temple ordinance. I personally wouldn't consider myself married until I'd been sealed.

God considers people married who are not sealed. The words don't mean the same thing. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because it's not a wedding if they are already married. We're not that dense.

The temple ceremony is a sealing first and foremost - not a civil marriage.  This is demonstrated every day in countries where people are married civilly first and then sealed.

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The clear preference is for people to be married in the temple. Some nations don't allow that. We get around it with a second-preference fix, one that, by counsel and practice, remains simple and keeps the focus on the temple ordinance. I personally wouldn't consider myself married until I'd been sealed.

Yes, that is the clear preference.  Is there any doctrinal support for the preference?  Can you identify it?

The church considers couples who have a civil marriage to be married, even without a sealing.

[Guest]

On May 14, 2017 at 9:42 PM, bsjkki said:

When did the church institute the 'wait a year' temple wedding policy? Google has not provided a quick answer. Do you think this will ever change?  Is this policy a good thing or bad thing for missionary opportunities? 

It pre-marriage counseling class, in an effort to help the Husband and wife to be learn how to cope. Classes deal with a long list of things that can harm a marriage. They have classes on "conflict resolution", "financial planning", parenting classes", workbooks, etc, etc, etc. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

Again with the mind reading...I am assuming nothing.  I'm simply looking for additional information that I might have missed.  If you don't have any, just say so.

I thought I had already done that when I said that differing local laws was the obvious reason that things are done differently elsewhere than in the United States and that is reason enough for me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Seriously?  You can't be sealed if you aren't married first.  And if you get married in the temple first, you can't get civilly married after.

This isn't about what God wants or doesn't want.  This discussion is about a policy in a church handbook.  Any connection to the will of God is purely speculative.

Not as speculative as the notion that prophets and apostles would formulate and sustain procedures as important as those pertaining to temple marriage without ascertaining the will of God. The very idea is alien to what I understand and believe about the behavior of the Brethren. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The temple ceremony is a sealing first and foremost - not a civil marriage.  This is demonstrated every day in countries where people are married civilly first and then sealed.

Yes, that is the clear preference.  Is there any doctrinal support for the preference?  Can you identify it?

The church considers couples who have a civil marriage to be married, even without a sealing.

The Church doesn't consider a civil marriage to have supremacy over a temple marriage. Where allowed by local laws, the temple sealing obviates the need for a civil ceremony. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Nope, no desire to do things mans way when Gods way is available and is required for exaltation. We invited friends and family to the reception (in our Wards cultural hall) and exchanged rings there.

Were there some feelings hurt? yeah, but neither DW or I would change a thing. We understand what it means to be exalted and the requirement (of celestial marriage) to become exalted.

I don't understand why anyone would want to spend thousands of dollars on worldly pomp. 

What? Your convert bride didn't want the so-called "fairy-tale wedding" with the marching down the aisle and being given away? I thought that was "most every young girl's dream."

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

The temple ceremony is a sealing first and foremost - not a civil marriage.  This is demonstrated every day in countries where people are married civilly first and then sealed.

Yes, that is the clear preference.  Is there any doctrinal support for the preference?  Can you identify it?

Can you identify the point of doctrine that precludes the First Presidency, acting under inspiration and in the authority of their calling, from formulating and sustaining procedures that preserve the sanctity of the temple marriage ceremony and inhibit encroachment from worldly customs and traditions?

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church doesn't consider a civil marriage to have supremacy over a temple marriage. Where allowed by local laws, the temple sealing obviates the need for a civil ceremony. 

Agreed (not sure why you specifically responded to me with that). 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you identify the point of doctrine that precludes the First Presidency, acting under inspiration and in the authority of their calling, from formulating and sustaining procedures that preserve the sanctity of the temple marriage ceremony and inhibit encroachment from worldly customs and traditions?

Is that a "no" to the question I asked?

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What? Your convert bride didn't want the so-called "fairy-tale wedding" with the marching down the aisle and being given away? I thought that was "most every young girl's dream."

I would hope you know that "most" is not synonymous with "all"?  

I think what mnn and his wife chose to do is great.  Simple can be beautiful and meaningful. I actually prefer small and simple too.   But, the key word here is "chose".

And, the argument of it being about how much money is spent is moot, IMO.  I've been to some very lavish, expensive receptions held after a sealing.  Once again though, that was their choice.  

Edited May 16, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

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 . . .  

I tend to think some of it is good, but definitely not all.  Many traditions and precedents are important to keep.

The one we're discussing though is one I see no reason why it couldn't be changed.  It's already this way for marriages outside the U.S.  I respect that others feel differently though and I understand their feelings here too.

You seem somewhat familiar with what takes place in other countries, rongo.  Do you know if the sealing always takes place the same day as the civil marriage (where a temple is nearby)?  Or is it just within a few days or weeks?

Edited May 16, 2017 by JulieM

[mnn727]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What? Your convert bride didn't want the so-called "fairy-tale wedding" with the marching down the aisle and being given away? I thought that was "most every young girl's dream."

Nope, we put God first in our marriage, with our eyes wide open.

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

 

Waiting a year isn't a mess up. My fiance waited a year for me to have one year in the Church.

[probablyHagoth7]

17 hours ago, ttribe said:

I've always understood this policy to be just that, a policy.

Some policies can be adapted by local leaders, when they deem it necessary.

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Nope, we put God first in our marriage, with our eyes wide open.

Well, good, we've come full circle on the strawman.