Sealings can be done right away now!

[Rain]

 

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

It will be interesting to see the length of time that some couples choose to wait after the civil marriage. I think some that have parents who can't attend the temple may choose to marry in the temple on another day.

 

 

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems to me that from a believing perspective this could be a good thing. There is so much going on for the bride and groom on their wedding day. Hard to focus on something as sacred as the sealing. By doing it a week later, when all the focus can be put on the religious importance of the act, perhaps it will be even more meaningful to the couples. 

Thinking about this today I would not get sealed the day I was married. I have often wished that we had taken time out to be just the 2 of us. If I could do it over I would get married on Friday like we did, but civilly and then just me and my husband would go the temple on Tuesday to be sealed. I suspect it would have had much more meaning to us.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Rain

[Rain]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

I'm not sure why you don't think this might happen.  The church has a broad range of members.

 

The possibilities I inferred when I posted:

If a couple have the elaborate wedding, they will have a reception afterwards --and if there are a lot of family and friends who are non-member and used to a certain kind of wedding and reception, some may likely feel pressured to serve champagne to their guests who drink.

Some Brides already choose dresses they can't wear for the sealing.  Some LDS brides don't wear their wedding dress for the sealing, but only at the reception, and their bridesmaid dresses are not always modest.

'Frugality' of LDS weddings is not something I've seen to be common.  In my experience, the reception, dinners, parties can be very expensive.  A civil wedding ceremony just adds to that expense, if they are trying to put on a ceremony for those who can't attend the Temple sealing.

I didn't say it wasn't good news, I like them putting more responsibility on us to exercise agency.    Yes, I am concerned that a small percentage will choose to follow the world's trend, which I feel would be a mistake,  but each can choose--which is better than trying to protect members from poor choices they might make.

I would totally have got a dress I couldn't have worn in the temple. It would have had short sleeves, but would have been totally modest. 

I don't worry about what you worry about above. I stopped worrying about this kind of thing when I realized my son was an adult and makes his own choices and some of them are going to be choices I don't like. I've found that choices my children make only because I want them to make those choices don't mean much. It is empty. How much more joy I have when I allow them to make their own choices and they start to choose right.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Oh I agree the parents would have had a few moments of happiness if they could have seen the actual marriage event and I am glad it has changed. 
It's just that people seem to put the greatest importance on an event that lasts 15 minutes, rather than on the reason for the event that lasts for decades.

I think that for parents and grandparents, the wedding of their child or grandchild is very important.  As a bride or groom (or young person) we may not see that.  But if you have children (or grandchildren) you may understand the pain you'd feel if you were sitting outside the temple feeling like you'd been labeled "unworthy" while they were in marrying their sweetheart without you there.  It's just a different perspective....but an important one.  I believe our leaders can see the heartache this has caused in families.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think that for parents and grandparents, the wedding of their child or grandchild is very important.  As a bride or groom (or young person) we may not see that.  But if you have children (or grandchildren) you may understand the pain you'd feel if you were sitting outside the temple feeling like you'd been labeled "unworthy" while they were in marrying their sweetheart without you there.  It's just a different perspective....but an important one.  I believe our leaders can see the heartache this has caused in families.

It's really interesting to see how many Church members are quick to dismiss the importance of the wedding ceremony since our Church places such a high priority on ritual.

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Why would there be a massive drop off in young LDS getting sealed?

I don't think there will be a drop off in people getting sealed.  Back in the 1960's there was no wait time requirement.  I remember as a kid in California seeing a wedding held in our ward chapel, then the couple traveled to SLC to be sealed within the week.  

[mrmarklin]

Most of you are missing the point of the new policy. Two years ago I witnessed by nephew marry his bride civilly in Monterrey, MX. 

A couple of hours later, we went over to the local temple to witness the sealing. 

The church is accepting the reality of laws in many countries. Apparently over half the population of the church live under civil restrictions as to marriage.  The church is now recognizing that it’s rather silly to not have the same policy for everyone. 

 

BTW, for most marriages, the big bux are spent on the reception. But you knew this, right?

[MustardSeed]

It was heartbreaking for me to walk out of the temple after my daughters wedding and see my two sons standing outside having no participation in the single most important event of her life.  I really wish that they and the entire wedding party who incidentally travelled hundreds of miles to support could have participated in a ceremony.  

Wedding ceremonies are of high value - our loved ones witness our commitment to spouse and to God.  

Temple ceremonies are deeply sacred.  Both matter, and now families need not feel left out of such important statements.  It’s ONLY good, in my mind.  I see no drawbacks at all. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Does this change apply anywhere but in the US? Where outside the US was this policy in effect - do you happen to know?

It was in Canada iirc.  I understood it was in place anywhere a civil marriage was not required.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

 

Thinking about this today I would not get sealed the day I was married. I have often wished that we had taken time out to be just the 2 of us. If I could do it over I would get married on Friday like we did, but civilly and then just me and my husband would go the temple on Tuesday to be sealed. I suspect it would have had much more meaning to us.

Same here.

[Stargazer]

I saw this in my Bing news feed just a few minutes ago and immediately came here to see what controversy (if any) was erupting over it.  I've always thought the previous policy was in need of being changed, and I'm glad it has been.

But the strange thing to me was that this news was in my news feed!  Along with major political matters, natural catasphrophes, Meghan and Harry having a son, and so on.  I found this puzzling, since I would imagine that 99% of pretty much everyone had never even heard of the policy, and probably hadn't even heard of eternal marriage.  I suppose that this makes a good publicity item -- perhaps it will interest some people in the church.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think that for parents and grandparents, the wedding of their child or grandchild is very important.  As a bride or groom (or young person) we may not see that.  But if you have children (or grandchildren) you may understand the pain you'd feel if you were sitting outside the temple feeling like you'd been labeled "unworthy" while they were in marrying their sweetheart without you there.  It's just a different perspective....but an important one.  I believe our leaders can see the heartache this has caused in families.

It is not just ineligible because of belief or lifestyle, but faithful siblings and friends who haven't their own endowments.  I missed my elder siblings' weddings.  I always found that rather strange.  When they didn't allow older single or married to a nonmember woman to get her own endowments, I know some women who were treated or felt like they were less than their endowed siblings because they couldn't participate in the ceremonies that celebrated the family most though they had done nothing wrong in their lives.  My great aunt was highly involved and very faithful in all things Church and Gospel related except for the temple.  There she was an outsider.   I was so grateful when that policy changed.

Now this removes another separation of family and loved ones in celebrations of each other.  I am very happy. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Most of you are missing the point of the new policy. Two years ago I witnessed by nephew marry his bride civilly in Monterrey, MX. 

A couple of hours later, we went over to the local temple to witness the sealing. 

The church is accepting the reality of laws in many countries. Apparently over half the population of the church live under civil restrictions as to marriage.  The church is now recognizing that it’s rather silly to not have the same policy for everyone. 

We haven’t missed that point, it’s been discussed.  But the situation you describe has been the case for decades (at least). So, while having the same policy for everyone is a good reason to do it, it doesn’t really explain why it took so long. 

[Duncan]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It was in Canada iirc.  I understood it was in place anywhere a civil marriage was not required.

In Canada the Temple marriage is the legal one as long as you fill out the proper paperwork of course. I did the Temple ceremony and later did the civil ceremony

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not just ineligible because of belief or lifestyle, but faithful siblings and friends who haven't their own endowments.  I missed my elder siblings' weddings.  I always found that rather strange.

When my oldest sibling (10 years my senior) was married it went like this: they went to the temple, were married/sealed, and then returned home for the reception.

The reception began with a formal ring exchange which had most of the trappings of a traditional secular wedding (i.e., everyone seated, groom waiting up front, bride with bouquet walked up to meet him, Mendelssohn's wedding march, etc.). The only thing missing was a droning clergy member.

Oh, and instead of having an exchange of vows, they had a musical number: There Is Love. (Man, I totally need to queue up a folk music channel on Pandora now.)

Anyway, it was much shorter than a traditional marriage ceremony (a positive, in my book), but I felt it was an adequate substitute for not being able to attend the sealing itself. I know that others feel differently, and I'm happy for them now that the church has a unified policy which will allow those who would normally not be able to attend a sealing to be able to participate in the wedding, should that be what the couple wants.

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Anyway, it was much shorter than a traditional marriage ceremony (a positive, in my book), but I felt it was an adequate substitute for not being able to attend the sealing itself.

I agree that many went to the effort to try and include those who weren't able to attend the actual wedding.  I've been to a few of those ring ceremonies too and they were nice, but everyone knew it was not the wedding/marriage ceremony.

But now, there does not need to be a "substitute"....all can attend the wedding of their loved ones and that's wonderful news.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ALarson

[mnn727]

9 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

 

BTW, for most marriages, the big bux are spent on the reception. But you knew this, right?

As someone married in a non-LDS church, in some cases the wedding is the most expensive part.

Dresses 

flowers 

photographer 

venue 

music - singer, organist 

officiator

sometimes transportation 

Edited May 7, 2019 by mnn727

[mrmarklin]

14 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

As someone married in a non-LDS church, in some cases the wedding is the most expensive part.

Dresses 

flowers 

photographer 

venue 

music - singer, organist 

officiator

sometimes transportation 

Most of the items listed are still needed for the reception. And on top of that, music, food and drink, a decent venue and some sort of entertainment etc. 

Best man of course is usually the officiator, but sometimes an MC is hired to coordinate the steps in the various rituals, like cutting the cake, etc  

Of course we have all forgotten the rehearsal dinner and the wedding breakfast!

 

yeah, tabs can be run up!

Edited May 7, 2019 by mrmarklin

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's really interesting to see how many Church members are quick to dismiss the importance of the wedding ceremony since our Church places such a high priority on ritual.

I guess we could say that our church puts a high priority on ritual, but ritual implies a sacred or religious ceremony that follows a prescribed order with prescribed actions.   For a lot of members, a civil wedding doesn't fall, in their minds, under the category of ritual.  

 

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We haven’t missed that point, it’s been discussed.  But the situation you describe has been the case for decades (at least). So, while having the same policy for everyone is a good reason to do it, it doesn’t really explain why it took so long. 

Most of the discussion revolved around how attitudes and customs could/would change among us Stateside based LDS. 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I guess we could say that our church puts a high priority on ritual, but ritual implies a sacred or religious ceremony that follows a prescribed order with prescribed actions.   For a lot of members, a civil wedding doesn't fall, in their minds, under the category of ritual.  

Good point.  And I think you're right.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree that many went to the effort to try and include those who weren't able to attend the actual wedding.  I've been to a few of those ring ceremonies too and they were nice, but everyone knew it was not the wedding/marriage ceremony.

But now, there does not need to be a "substitute"....all can attend the wedding of their loved ones and that's wonderful news.

Not necessarily.  I think we need to remember that the bride and groom should still get the final word and that the wedding should be what they want and not what everyone else wants.  Some brides and grooms will probably view having a civil ceremony before a temple sealing as being a poor substitute for a temple wedding and the change in policy wouldn't affect that. 

My husband was the only member of the church in his family, so his mom and siblings couldn't be there (though they were very supportive of him which made it much easier for him I'm sure).  My sister couldn't be there and neither were my friends or anyone from my side of the family other than parents and one set of grandparents.  We wouldn't have had a civil ceremony first though even if this had been the policy back then.  

Absolutely no judgment against those who would but we had no interest in a civil ceremony.  I think having a civil ceremony before a temple sealing (when it's not required by law) sounds awful.  That's just me and I'm not saying that anyone else should think that way or that it's a superior way to think or anything like that.  It's just for my husband and I, being asked to have a civil ceremony before the temple sealing would have been a very sad thing for us.  It was not what we wanted and the one year waiting period to go to the temple wasn't why we didn't want it.

Edited May 7, 2019 by bluebell

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we need to remember that the bride and groom should still get the final word and that the wedding should be what they want and not what everyone else wants.  Some brides and grooms will probably view having a civil ceremony before a temple sealing as being a poor substitute for a temple wedding and the change in policy wouldn't affect that. 

My husband was the only member of the church in his family, so his mom and siblings couldn't be there (though they were very supportive of him which made it much easier for him I'm sure).  My sister couldn't be there and neither were my friends or anyone from my side of the family other than parents and one set of grandparents.  We wouldn't have had a civil ceremony first though even if this had been the policy back then.  

Absolutely no judgment against those who would but we had no interest in a civil ceremony.  I think having a civil ceremony before a temple sealing (when it's not required by law) sounds awful.  That's just me and I'm not saying that anyone else should think that way or that it's a superior way to think or anything like that.  It's just for my husband and I, being asked to have a civil ceremony before the temple sealing would have been a very sad thing for us.  It was not what we wanted and the one year waiting period to go to the temple wasn't why we didn't want it.

I know many will have the same decision to make.  For me, I would always choose to have both and having a civil ceremony first would in no way lesson the importance or spiritual aspect of the sealing for me.  I'd always choose to include everyone and have no hurt or pain associated with my wedding.  I've discussed this with all my kids now too and they agree and plan on doing the same (I listened to their views before expressing my own).

It's an individual choice and I agree that no one should judge what others choose to do.  It will be an individual matter between them and their family members (or friends) who can not attend a sealing.  Hopefully this takes the pain out of it for many....but it could really potentially add to the pain if members still choose to have a sealing only (now that everyone knows they can have a civil ceremony first and include everyone who is able to come).

It'll be interesting to watch how many deal with all this now.  Overall, I feel there's very little negative regarding this change and much to celebrate.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not necessarily.  I think we need to remember that the bride and groom should still get the final word and that the wedding should be what they want and not what everyone else wants.  Some brides and grooms will probably view having a civil ceremony before a temple sealing as being a poor substitute for a temple wedding and the change in policy wouldn't affect that. 

My husband was the only member of the church in his family, so his mom and siblings couldn't be there (though they were very supportive of him which made it much easier for him I'm sure).  My sister couldn't be there and neither were my friends or anyone from my side of the family other than parents and one set of grandparents.  We wouldn't have had a civil ceremony first though even if this had been the policy back then.  

Absolutely no judgment against those who would but we had no interest in a civil ceremony.  I think having a civil ceremony before a temple sealing (when it's not required by law) sounds awful.  That's just me and I'm not saying that anyone else should think that way or that it's a superior way to think or anything like that.  It's just for my husband and I, being asked to have a civil ceremony before the temple sealing would have been a very sad thing for us.  It was not what we wanted and the one year waiting period to go to the temple wasn't why we didn't want it.

My convert wife's first marriage was in the temple here, and her folks traveled out from Virginia to attend.  Being Baptists, they couldn't actually attend.  It has been a heartbreaking problem for many, many years.  This new policy surely was intended, at least in part, to address this.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know many will have the same decision to make.  For me, I would always choose to have both and having a civil ceremony first would in no way lesson the importance or spiritual aspect of the sealing for me.  I'd always choose to include everyone and have no hurt or pain associated with my wedding.  I've discussed this with all my kids now too and they agree and plan on doing the same (I listened to their views before expressing my own).

It's an individual choice and I agree that no one should judge what others choose to do.  It will be an individual matter between them and their family members (or friends) who can not attend a sealing.  Hopefully this takes the pain out of it for many....but it could really potentially add to the pain if members still choose to have a sealing only (now that everyone knows they can have a civil ceremony first and include everyone who is able to come).

It'll be interesting to watch how many deal with all this now.  Overall, I feel there's very little negative regarding this change and much to celebrate.

I agree. I just hope that people realize that trying to persuade or guilt a couple into have a civil ceremony first when that's not what they want will still add to the pain of that day and will still create an association of hurt and pain with the couple's wedding.  It will just be the hurt and pain of the couple instead of the friends and family.  

I'm a big believer in that the feelings and wants of the couple are much more important than anyone else and that the feelings and wants of the family are a very distant second in importance, and that it's the family and friends duty to make sure the couple is having the type of wedding that they want to have.  I think most of the time what the couple wants and what the family wants will be the same thing so it won't usually be a problem.  

I also agree that there is much to celebrate.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My convert wife's first marriage was in the temple here, and her folks traveled out from Virginia to attend.  Being Baptists, they couldn't actually attend.  It has been a heartbreaking problem for many, many years.  This new policy surely was intended, at least in part, to address this.

Definitely.