Temple wedding policies

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

It costs less to go to Temple than a JoP. I was a struggling first term Sgt in the Air force, and her parents were financially not doing well at the time. People can spend whatever they want on a fancy wedding. I just don't see the point of a fancy one day party Give the money to the couple to help them get established if you feel you must spend the money.

We have requirements that must be met to attend the Temple. You might not like them, but they are still there for a reason. if someone really wants to go, there is a way to do it Any other reason defeats the purpose of the Temple. If you want nonmember family and friends to attend your non Temple wedding be my guest. Have as small or large a party as you want. But don't shed crocodile tears over it.  

[probablyHagoth7]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

While I can completely respect your preferred traditions, is there not room for families who might opt to differ from your norm?

I would imagine none here, including yourself, would insist it sacrilege if a couple honeymooned somewhere different, or didn't leave town at all. If what people do *after* a sealing is their private family matter, why is there cause to overly fret about what people do *before* the sealing?  

Edited May 16, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It costs less to go to Temple than a JoP. I was a struggling first term Sgt in the Air force, and her parents were financially not doing well at the time. People can spend whatever they want on a fancy wedding. I just don't see the point of a fancy one day party Give the money to the couple to help them get established if you feel you must spend the money.

We have requirements that must be met to attend the Temple. You might not like them, but they are still there for a reason. if someone really wants to go, there is a way to do it Any other reason defeats the purpose of the Temple. If you want nonmember family and friends to attend your non Temple wedding be my guest. Have as small or large a party as you want. But don't shed crocodile tears over it.  

Crocodile tears?  The more I participate in this thread the more I feel like those who support the 1-year wait policy don't actually understand the concern of those who are opposed to it.

[probablyHagoth7]

17 hours 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.

Thanks for this. 

So this thread might be much ado about very little.

Edited May 16, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Thanks for this. 

So this thread might be much ado about very little.

Much ado about nothing... because 45 years ago someone was able to get an exception?

The policy is there and continues to impact peoples lives.  There is a strong hesitancy among church leaders to go against the handbook and, generally, exceptions need to go up to the FP.

Edited May 16, 2017 by rockpond

[probablyHagoth7]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Much ado about nothing... because 45 years ago someone was able to get an exception?

The policy is there and continues to impact peoples lives.  There is a strong hesitancy among church leaders to go against the handbook...

Not focusing on 45 years ago. 

I think bluebell was suggesting the solution today might be much more simple than many of us were assuming.

Are you certain that exceptions need to run all the way up the organizational flagpole?

Edited May 16, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

18 hours 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.

Thanks for this. 

So this thread might be much ado about very little.

The only special circumstances I know of right now is if the temple a couple is being sealed in, requires over night traveling to get to it, they can get a civil marriage before they leave on the trip. 

[probablyHagoth7]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Much ado about nothing... because 45 years ago someone was able to get an exception?

The policy is there and continues to impact peoples lives.  There is a strong hesitancy among church leaders to go against the handbook and, generally, exceptions need to go up to the FP.

And please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't (and am still not) dismissing your concerns. Because until moments ago, I shared them.

I'm now simply reassessing and realizing things aren't what many of us in this thread had believed. 

[bsjkki]

Just now, probablyHagoth7 said:

And please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't (and am still not) dismissing your concerns. Because until moments ago, I shared them.

I'm now simply reassessing and realizing things aren't what many of us in this thread had believed. 

How so? 

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Crocodile tears?  The more I participate in this thread the more I feel like those who support the 1-year wait policy don't actually understand the concern of those who are opposed to it.

I think I understand it pretty well. My Father-in-Law would have been the only family that could have attended our Temple wedding. I am the only member of my birth family, and my Mother-in-Law wasn't active. There was just me, my bride, my Bishop, and RS President, the officiator, and someone in the Celestial Room we asked to witness it. We made it a point to include our parents and parents-in-law, sibs, in our lives, and the lives our children. My and her parents are gone now. We miss them. Given the same circumstances we'd make the same decision today.

Edited May 16, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[bsjkki]

18 hours 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.

 

I would love to know how the wording in the handbook has changed over the years.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

And please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't (and am still not) dismissing your concerns. Because until moments ago, I shared them.

I'm now simply reassessing and realizing things aren't what many of us in this thread had believed. 

I don't see how an exception from 45 years ago alleviates the problems of today. The policy exists today.

If you are suggesting that the church could easily fix the problem, then I agree. But they don't seem concerned enough with the familial pain and stress the policy creates, to correct it. They seem to be going down the wrong road. They've hit the dead end but just keep on going. Sure, they could correct it without changing any kind of doctrine, which is why it hurts more when they don't.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see how an exception from 45 years ago alleviates the problems of today. The policy exists today.

If you are suggesting that the church could easily fix the problem, then I agree. But they don't seem concerned enough with the familial pain and stress the policy creates, to correct it. They seem to be going down the wrong road. They've hit the dead end but just keep on going. Sure, they could correct it without changing any kind of doctrine, which is why it hurts more when they don't.

The doctrine is set. No unclean thing can enter the Temple.

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The doctrine is set. No unclean thing can enter the Temple.

...and here we go again...

[Gray]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

If you have to wait a year everyone will assume you broke the law of chastity. Lots of social shaming in that. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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?

The handbook policy is ASAP. Most occur immediately following the civil ceremony. Obviously, where circumstances require (geography, etc.), there are exceptions, but in non-U.S. countries that of necessity do this, it is strongly encouraged not to let a lot of time elapse between the civil and the sealing. Like immediately following.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The doctrine is set. No unclean thing can enter the Temple.

So, you believe those in other countries who marry civilly prior to being sealed are entering the temple unclean?

How about those who wait a year to enter?  Unclean too?

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

The handbook policy is ASAP. Most occur immediately following the civil ceremony. Obviously, where circumstances require (geography, etc.), there are exceptions, but in non-U.S. countries that of necessity do this, it is strongly encouraged not to let a lot of time elapse between the civil and the sealing. Like immediately following.

Thanks, rongo, for the info.

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The doctrine is set. No unclean thing can enter the Temple.

Not relevant to the conversation.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think I understand it pretty well. My Father-in-Law would have been the only family that could have attended our Temple wedding. I am the only member of my birth family, and my Mother-in-Law wasn't active. There was just me, my bride, my Bishop, and RS President, the officiator, and someone in the Celestial Room we asked to witness it. We made it a point to include our parents and parents-in-law, sibs, in our lives, and the lives our children. My and her parents are gone now. We miss them. Given the same circumstances we'd make the same decision today.

I'm glad it worked out well for you.

You said "given the circumstances"... What if the circumstances were different and the church not only allowed a civil wedding prior to your sealing but there was also no negative stigma attached to handling it that way?

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

And please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't (and am still not) dismissing your concerns. Because until moments ago, I shared them.

I'm now simply reassessing and realizing things aren't what many of us in this thread had believed. 

How are they not was many of us in this thread believe?

[probablyHagoth7]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How are...believe?

? If you're asking what some of us believed, it is the assumption that things in the US/Canada were too convoluted (compared to places like Europe).

However, based on recent input from one source, which was then reiterated/expanded from two thread participants, resolving the complications might be as simple as consulting with local leader(s).

Edited May 16, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Scott Lloyd]

6 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?

 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

I'll take your response as a "no" to my question. Which helps me answer yours.

I don't concede that the Brethren are under any obligation to proof-text a procedural decision they make under inspiration to preserve the sanctity of the temple marriage ceremony and protect it from encroachment from worldly customs and traditions. I think they are entitled to do that under the authority of their calling. Thus, I don't feel any need to proof-text it for them.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

If you have to wait a year everyone will assume you broke the law of chastity. Lots of social shaming in that. 

You do know what assuming does don't you?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So, you believe those in other countries who marry civilly prior to being sealed are entering the temple unclean?

How about those who wait a year to enter?  Unclean too?

We follow the law of the country we're in.

What about them? We do washing and anointing in the Temple. We are pronounced clean. It is after that we can do the other ceremonies.

Non members are by definition unclean.

Edited May 16, 2017 by thesometimesaint