Temple wedding policies

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

When people do things we don't agree with, it's incredibly easy to assign to them bad motives or flawed thinking.  Your words above (how they don't seem to be concerned with pain or stress, etc.) are an example of that.  Another example is when people who agree with the policy frame those who don't as seeming to be more concerned with what other's want than what God wants or putting family above God.

Such judgments usually aren't fair because they are made in ignorance (because the person has not told us why they hold the position that they do) or are caricatures of someone's beliefs meant to frame them in the worst light possible so our beliefs seem like the only reasonable option in comparison.  And plus, often these accusations often contradict other characteristics that we know the people we are talking about possess.

It would be refreshing if we could acknowledge that someone can be wrong, and still be concerned with doing what God wants, still be concerned about the pain and stress of those involved, still want what was best for everyone. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

A traditional Latin solemn high nuptial Mass is a beautiful thing to behold.  I imagine for many here it smacks of "worldly pomp," because of the ritual trappings.  I, for one, am glad that Catholicism has rejected Puritanism and iconoclasm and encourages beauty in ritual because it has a way to lift the mind to God.  The Good, the True (stay out of this, mfbukowski ), and the Beautiful lead us to God, so to have a beautiful ceremony is part of Godliness.  That beauty comes from the architecture, the vestments, the flowers, the incense, the stained glass, the music, the chant...

I find it interesting that for Sunday chapels, the LDS church is quite Puritan, with a focus on simplicity and basically no ritual (no candles, no pictures/statues, no vestments, etc) but for LDS temples, it is quite the opposite.

Sorry for the slight derail, but I wanted to address the "wordly pomp" comment.

Here are two nice pictures of a solemn nuptial high Mass:

Edited May 16, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Non members are by definition unclean.

Even if they have fewer sins/faults/mistakes/what-have-you than a temple recommend carrying Mormon?

Edited May 16, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[thesometimesaint]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

My Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law were married several years before they joined the Church. So we allow it. I don't assign a negative stigma to anyone who for reasons beyond their control waits the year. Why do you?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.  

The money spent is not the central issue for me either. The central issue is allowing worldly customs and traditions to supplant or eclipse the temple marriage ceremony.

And I thought the matter at issue in this controversy was avoiding injuring the feelings of family members who can't attend the temple wedding of the bride or groom. Since when did it evolve to entitling the couple to be like the world in their choice of marriage ceremony while at the same time enjoying the privilege of an undelayed temple sealing?

 

[bluebell]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

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?

This is the exact wording-

The general rule of the Church is that a person may not apply for a temple recommend until he has been a member of the Church for one year, unless he receives written permission from the First Presidency granting permission for his sealing and/or early endowment. This letter must be presented with the temple recommend. Also, if a couple are civilly married and then decide later that they wish to be sealed in the temple (in contrast to special conditions, such as those in New Zealand, as noted above in number five), the general rule of the Church is that they may not apply for a temple recommend until one year from the date of their civil marriage. Any exception must be in writing from the First Presidency granting permission for the sealing. Permission in both instances is received through priesthood channels that begin with the bishop.

Number 5 has to do with sealings in countries where a civil marriage must take place first.  It says-

Marriages in temples in the United States and Canada are recognized by the law of the land as approved marriages, but laws in London, Switzerland, and New Zealand require persons desiring to be sealed in these temples to be married civilly first. In New Zealand, for example, the law requires that all marriages be performed in a place that is open to the public. Consequently, couples are generally married civilly first in the visitors center chapel or one of the ward chapels, following which they go immediately to the temple for their sealing. Obviously, all this influences somewhat your plans for your wedding day.

What is kind of crazy to realize is that when this list was compiled (in 1971) there were only 13 temples in the whole world.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Even if they have fewer sins/faults/mistakes/what-have-you than a temple recommend carrying Mormon?

Yes. Though members have more reason to repent.

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes. Though members have more reason to repent.

What makes the non-member unclean and the member clean when the member has more sins? In other words, what is your criteria/definition of "unclean"?

 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

You do know what assuming does don't you?

I'm just telling you how it works in LDS communities. 

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

What makes the non-member unclean and the member clean when the member has more sins? In other words, what is your criteria/definition of "unclean"?

 

Really pretty simple. Those that haven't had the ordinances of washing and anointing are by definition unclean. We are pronounced clean, any sin we do after that, we need to repent of.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

So getting a civil marriage prior to the temple makes one "unclean"? Get real.

If that were the case the policy in foreign countries would not allow for all of these "unclean" married folks going to the temple after their civil weddings. I don't think you understand what this thread is about.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm just telling you how it works in LDS communities. 

I lived in Provo for an eternity of 2 years. The rest of my time has been out here in Sodom and Gomorrah.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Really pretty simple. Those that haven't had the ordinances of washing and anointing are by definition unclean. We are pronounced clean, any sin we do after that, we need to repent of.

So members who have not yet gone to the temple are unclean?  Children, teenagers, new converts, etc?

I ask because it is a strange definition of unclean.  It seems to ignore the common usage in favor of a technical one, even though it still retains the negative connotations of the common usage.  Is this a common LDS definition of unclean or just your opinion?

 

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

2. 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.

3. Non members are by definition unclean.

None of this applies here.

1.  Members would be following the law of the land as well in the U.S. if they married civilly prior to the sealing.

2.   Doesn't the washing and anointings apply to everyone receiving them?  Or do you believe those in the U.S. wouldn't be included?

3. No one is asking to allow nonmembers into the temple (that I've seen here.)

So, your doctrinal reason you've given quickly falls apart when any logic is applied here.

Edited May 16, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

Frequent reference has been made here to the policy of the Church outside North America with regard to temple sealings immediately after a civil marriage ceremony.

It has been a long time since I have lived in Europe, but what I remember from my mission days is that when a couple who were Church members wanted to get married in the temple, the civil ceremony beforehand was deemed a perfunctory chore intended to comply with civil law, but the central event, to be looked forward to, cherished and remembered fondly was the marriage ceremony in the temple.

What I am seeing here on the part of some is in effect turning that attitude on its head, where the lavish civil or sectarian ceremony would be the central event with the temple sealing relegated to being the perfunctory action. If this is the foreseeable trend should the Church leaders decide to relax the policy in North America, it would not surprise me in the least if they never did.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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.

I wonder why that would be. If it is ok for civilly married couples in the US to wait an entire year, I wonder why there is so much urgency for civilly married couple to get to the temple within the same day or week as their marriage. Seems a bit inconsistent.

I've yet to see anyone give a good explanation of benefit for this US Policy.

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

So getting a civil marriage prior to the temple makes one "unclean"? Get real.

If that were the case the policy in foreign countries would not allow for all of these "unclean" married folks going to the temple after their civil weddings. I don't think you understand what this thread is about.

Not what I said. Those that haven't had the ceremony of washing and anointing are by definition unclean.

We follow the laws of the countries we are in. The Temple marriage is the culmination of the Temple. The Church sets the requirements for it not the state.

[JAHS]

There can be "exceptions".  In the Handbook after talking about sealing policies after a civil marriage there is the statement:

"Only the First Presidency may grant exceptions to the preceding policies. The stake president may seek an exception if it appears to be justified. The couple should not go to a temple to be sealed unless they are notified that the First Presidency has granted an exception. They should bring this notification with them."

 

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

It's hard to know what to say that won't get me banned from this thread.

But I think it's safe to say that this POV will not win the church many friends/converts or influence people in a positive way.

[probablyHagoth7]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Such judgments usually aren't fair because they are...caricatures of someone's beliefs meant to frame them in the worst light possible so our beliefs seem like the only reasonable option in comparison.

But it's a very prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition. 

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would be refreshing if we could acknowledge that someone can be wrong, and still be concerned with doing what God wants, still be concerned about the pain and stress of those involved, still want what was best for everyone. 

Amen

Edited May 16, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So getting a civil marriage prior to the temple makes one "unclean"?

FWIW, I don't think that was at all his/her intended meaning.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

This is the exact wording-

The general rule of the Church is that a person may not apply for a temple recommend until he has been a member of the Church for one year, unless he receives written permission from the First Presidency granting permission for his sealing and/or early endowment. This letter must be presented with the temple recommend. Also, if a couple are civilly married and then decide later that they wish to be sealed in the temple (in contrast to special conditions, such as those in New Zealand, as noted above in number five), the general rule of the Church is that they may not apply for a temple recommend until one year from the date of their civil marriage. Any exception must be in writing from the First Presidency granting permission for the sealing. Permission in both instances is received through priesthood channels that begin with the bishop.

Number 5 has to do with sealings in countries where a civil marriage must take place first.  It says-

Marriages in temples in the United States and Canada are recognized by the law of the land as approved marriages, but laws in London, Switzerland, and New Zealand require persons desiring to be sealed in these temples to be married civilly first. In New Zealand, for example, the law requires that all marriages be performed in a place that is open to the public. Consequently, couples are generally married civilly first in the visitors center chapel or one of the ward chapels, following which they go immediately to the temple for their sealing. Obviously, all this influences somewhat your plans for your wedding day.

What is kind of crazy to realize is that when this list was compiled (in 1971) there were only 13 temples in the whole world.

From this, it appears that it was never contemplated that a Latter-day Saint couple be entitled to plan a lavish civil ceremony with pomp and circumstance prior to their sealing in the temple -- which is what it appears some are calling for now in the U.S. and Canada.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So members who have not yet gone to the temple are unclean?  Children, teenagers, new converts, etc?

I ask because it is a strange definition of unclean.  It seems to ignore the common usage in favor of a technical one, even though it still retains the negative connotations of the common usage.  Is this a common LDS definition of unclean or just your opinion?

 

Yes.

We are talking about a religious ceremony here. It is quite similar to Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles. Not because their feet were dirty, but because they needed to be clean of all sin.

I can't speak for all LDS, but yes that is the doctrine of the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When people do things we don't agree with, it's incredibly easy to assign to them bad motives or flawed thinking.  Your words above (how they don't seem to be concerned with pain or stress, etc.) are an example of that.  Another example is when people who agree with the policy frame those who don't as seeming to be more concerned with what other's want than what God wants or putting family above God.

Such judgments usually aren't fair because they are made in ignorance (because the person has not told us why they hold the position that they do) or are caricatures of someone's beliefs meant to frame them in the worst light possible so our beliefs seem like the only reasonable option in comparison.  And plus, often these accusations often contradict other characteristics that we know the people we are talking about possess.

It would be refreshing if we could acknowledge that someone can be wrong, and still be concerned with doing what God wants, still be concerned about the pain and stress of those involved, still want what was best for everyone. 

 

I haven't heard them address this topic in any kind of empathetic way that indicates they are concerned with the pain or stress. Are you aware of anything. What I see is a long lasting policy. It has caused pain for many years. I am aware of individuals who have petitioned the church for many years to change this policy, yet it hasn't been. When the problem is presented to the brethren, yet it is not addressed, how should I view that silence?

Church leaders depend on good will and the assumptions of the members that they care, and are doing things for Godly reasons, when we have no evidence of that beyond general assumptions that validate our general worldview.

I've asked repeatedly on this thread about what the positive benefits of this policy might be. I've yet to see anyone try to address that. What does the church get out of enforcing this policy in the US when it is clearly different elsewhere. Is it a doctrine? It doesn't appear to be. Does it cause families pain? Sure seems to. So what is the reason for the policy? I'm open to an answer and/or statements from brethren showing empathy and explaining the necessity for the policy. But I haven't seen that.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard to know what to say that won't get me banned from this thread.

But I think it's safe to say that this POV will not win the church many friends/converts or influence people in a positive way.

We're not here to win friends, though that is nice. We are here to convert the world in preparation for Christs Second Coming. We are to be the voice of warning to the world.