Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

My child will have a say and both have said they don’t want to exclude their siblings from their wedding.

What if one chooses a partner who wants the marriage to be in the temple and they decide together that’s how it will be? 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What if one chooses a partner who wants the marriage to be in the temple and they decide together that’s how it will be? 

That will be up to them but I hope they don’t choose a partner who dismisses their desire to have their family members at their wedding. 

Do you feel a public ceremony diminishes a temple sealing?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

That will be up to them but I hope they don’t choose a partner who dismisses their desire to have their family members at their wedding. 

Do you feel a public ceremony diminishes a temple sealing?

 

I believe the focus ought to be on the sacred sealing ceremony in the temple and that a civil ceremony detracts from that. There is plenty of opportunity for public celebration with a reception, wedding breakfast/luncheon, etc. 

I think back on my older brother’s temple marriage. I was 11 at the time and was a gift bearer at the reception. I did not feel in the least excluded because I could not attend the temple ceremony. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the focus ought to be on the sacred sealing ceremony in the temple and that a civil ceremony detracts from that. There is plenty of opportunity for public celebration with a reception, wedding breakfast/luncheon, etc. 

I think back on my older brother’s temple marriage. I was 11 at the time and was a gift bearer at the reception. I did not feel in the least excluded because I could not attend the temple ceremony. 

So for members in England their public weddings detract from their sealing? It’s required by law.

My mother-in-law and aunt had no family at their temple weddings. They still feel some sadness about that to this day. They are very happy the policy has changed so weddings are not divisive nor exclusive. 
 

Your feelings as an 11 year older child do not represent the feelings of those outside the faith excluded from their child’s or siblings wedding. I grew up with a non member parent. I am grateful wedding can bring all together going forward based on the individual circumstances of the bride and groom. 
 

Talking with my aunt, she felt the new policy may even heighten the importance and sacred nature of the sealing ordinance. I can see that happening too.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Your feelings as an 11 year older child do not represent the feelings of those outside the faith excluded from their child’s or siblings wedding.

I can understand that. But my comment was alluding to your remark about how tight-knit your children are as siblings. My brother and I had a close relationship as well. Knowing what I did about his faith and devotion to the restored gospel (he was a returned missionary to whom I looked up as an example) I would have been disappointed had he chosen anyplace other than the temple for his marriage, especially if I had any inkling he was doing it so I could attend the ceremony. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can understand that. But my comment was alluding to your remark about how tight-knit your children are as siblings. My brother and I had a close relationship as well. Knowing what I did about his faith and devotion to the restored gospel (he was a returned missionary to whom I looked up as an example) I would have been disappointed had he chosen anyplace other than the temple for his marriage, especially if I had any inkling he was doing it so I could attend the ceremony. 

Yes, and in my family, it’s older siblings who have left the church. You projected your feeling on to my situation which in no way is similar. The policy has changed and I think it is a wonderful thing.

*IMO, nothing is lost from having a civil ceremony first. This is a cultural attitude. Many parts of the world have always required a public ceremony first and I don’t think that lessens their sealing.

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I look back on my wedding and feel bad that my in-laws, my sister, and my brother could not be there. My sister told me it didn't bother her much because she expected it. Of course, I had the favor returned with my daughters' weddings. I expected it, so it wasn't that awful either time, but I did feel excluded ... probably because I was. The worst part for me was that my daughter was begging me to get a temple recommend, and I just couldn't lie and say I believed. The rest of it wouldn't have been a big deal, but I couldn't pretend to believe, even for that. 

I think you have reason to be proud of your daughter’s commitment to her ideals. 

Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you have reason to be proud of your daughter’s commitment to her ideals. 

I am. I  have supported both of their commitments to the church and their faith. Why wouldn't I?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Just now, bsjkki said:

Yes, and in my family, it’s older siblings who have left the church. You projected your feeling on to my situation which in no way is similar. The policy has changed and I think it is a wonderful thing.

I was not projecting any more than you were by implying that close-knit siblings would unavoidably feel slighted by not being eligible to attend a temple wedding ceremony. I’m only telling you how it was for me, and I would have felt the same had I been closer in age to my brother. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am. I  have supported both of their commitments to the church and their faith. Why wouldn't I?

Maybe you meant that as a rhetorical question, but I never said you wouldn’t. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was not projecting any more than you were by implying that close-knit siblings would unavoidably feel slighted by not being eligible to attend a temple wedding ceremony. I’m only telling you how it was for me, and I would have felt the same had I been closer in age to my brother. 

I can see how non endowed active siblings raised in the faith would feel okay with it but I was discussing my child’s feelings so not exactly projecting on you.
 

You asked if I would respect the wishes of my child in an accusatory tone like I’m some dictator. I was explaining how my children felt based on your question about their desires. Now you’re accusing me of projecting when you interpreted explanations in an answer to your questions like I was accusing non endowed siblings of not being close. Wow. That is some accusation. 
 

You have made it clear,  in your opinion, a sealing after a civil ceremony is diminished. You can feel that way. It’s fine.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I can see how non endowed active siblings raised in the faith would feel okay with it but I was discussing my child’s feelings so not exactly projecting on you.
 

You asked if I would respect the wishes of my child in an accusatory tone like I’m some dictator. I was explaining how my children felt based on your question about their desires. Now you’re accusing me of projecting when you interpreted explanations in an answer to your questions like I was accusing non endowed siblings of not being close. Wow. That is some accusation. 
 

You have made it clear,  in your opinion, a sealing after a civil ceremony is diminished. You can feel that way. It’s fine.

I wasn’t making an accusation. I was doing the opposite. By implication, I was acknowledging that you were not projecting, and I was saying I wasn’t projecting on you any more than you were on me. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wasn’t making an accusation. I was doing the opposite. By implication, I was acknowledging that you were not projecting, and I was saying I wasn’t projecting on you any more than you were on me. 

You specifically asked about my children and their feeling and I explained how they felt. I never came close to saying anything like this:

20 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

implying that close-knit siblings would unavoidably feel slighted by not being eligible to attend a temple wedding ceremony.

You read all that into my response all by yourself. You put interpretations and implications into a statement specifically about my children after I explained how they felt based on your question. 

Your putting words in my mouth is unappreciated.

Here is the new policy. I celebrated this change. I had prayed for this to happen.
 

2E768CAC-7286-475D-BBDA-BDFFCF4D2940.jpeg

Edited by bsjkki
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I look back on my wedding and feel bad that my in-laws, my sister, and my brother could not be there. My sister told me it didn't bother her much because she expected it. Of course, I had the favor returned with my daughters' weddings. I expected it, so it wasn't that awful either time, but I did feel excluded ... probably because I was. The worst part for me was that my daughter was begging me to get a temple recommend, and I just couldn't lie and say I believed. The rest of it wouldn't have been a big deal, but I couldn't pretend to believe, even for that. 

With the new policy in place, do you think your daughter would have done anything differently?

My mother dreaded upcoming temple weddings and what that would have done to my non member father. He died so she never had to deal with that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I look back on my wedding and feel bad that my in-laws, my sister, and my brother could not be there. My sister told me it didn't bother her much because she expected it. Of course, I had the favor returned with my daughters' weddings. I expected it, so it wasn't that awful either time, but I did feel excluded ... probably because I was. The worst part for me was that my daughter was begging me to get a temple recommend, and I just couldn't lie and say I believed. The rest of it wouldn't have been a big deal, but I couldn't pretend to believe, even for that. 

When I got married in the Washington DC Temple, my dad could not attend.  At the time, I gave it almost no thought.  Now, it's one of my biggest regrets.  Unfortunately, he died before I could tell him that.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

When I got married in the Washington DC Temple, my dad could not attend.  At the time, I gave it almost no thought.  Now, it's one of my biggest regrets.  Unfortunately, he died before I could tell him that.

I apologized to my sister and brother a few years ago. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You specifically asked about my children and their feeling and I explained how they felt. I never came close to saying anything like this:

You read all that into my response all by yourself. You put interpretations and implications into a statement specifically about my children after I explained how they felt based on your question. 

Your putting words in my mouth is unappreciated.

Here is the new policy. I celebrated this change. I had prayed for this to happen.
 

2E768CAC-7286-475D-BBDA-BDFFCF4D2940.jpeg

I was only trying to say that, depending on the circumstances, siblings can be close-knit without feeling slighted if one or more of them chooses a temple wedding that the others are not (at the moment) eligible to attend. I regret that you were offended and read into my remarks an accusation, but I assure you such was not intended. The statement “I’m not accusing you any more than you are accusing me” is not tantamount to saying you are accusing me. Surely you can see that. 
 

Thank you for quoting the policy. I knew what it said, but you saved me from having to look it up. I note that Church leaders still “encourage members to qualify for temple marriage and be married and sealed in the temple.” (Emphasis mine). This is true notwithstanding some Church members are prohibited, through no fault of their own, by the laws of the land from having their marriages transpire in the temple. It is obvious that a temple marriage is still the ideal. 
 

From this, I feel justified in continuing to teach and encourage my children (and, where practical, others of my posterity) to strive for and look forward to the ideal of marriage in the temple. I earnestly hope any prospective in-laws will not hinder that. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post

When polygamy was illegal but still being practiced, how did legal marriage work? Would the husband and first wife be legally married (paperwork and all that) and the subsequent wives just sealed? Or did Utah "go rogue" and continue to issue marriage licenses for marriages for all wives?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 5/30/2021 at 5:32 PM, Teancum said:

... I don't know what God thinks if there even is a God. Nobody really does. They just think they do.

 

On 5/30/2021 at 5:42 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

God does, or at least I hope he knows what he thinks.

Aye, but of course and I know you know this, JustAnAustralian ... (May I call you Justin, for short? :D ;) Sometimes, I crack myself up, y'know?  Where was I?) ... Oh, yes: I know you know this, it's just a general observation ... Oftentimes, God doesn't really tell us the whole story, let us in on all of the background, clue us in on all of the minute details ... Isaiah 55:8-9. 

Link to post
31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was only trying to say that, depending on the circumstances, siblings can be close-knit without feeling slighted if one or more of them chooses a temple wedding that the others are not (at the moment) eligible to attend. I regret that you were offended and read into my remarks an accusation, but I assure you such was not intended. The statement “I’m not accusing you any more than you are accusing me” is not tantamount to saying you are accusing me. Surely you can see that. 
 

Thank you for quoting the policy. I knew what it said, but you saved me from having to look it up. I note that Church leaders still “encourage members to qualify for temple marriage and be married and sealed in the temple.” (Emphasis mine). This is true notwithstanding some Church members are prohibited, through no fault of their own, by the laws of the land from having their marriages transpire in the temple. It is obvious that a temple marriage is still the ideal. 
 

From this, I feel justified in continuing to teach and encourage my children (and, where practical, others of my posterity) to strive for and look forward to the ideal of marriage in the temple. I earnestly hope any prospective in-laws will not hinder that. 

Are there any circumstances in which it would be ideal to have the civil ceremony first?

  • Like 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Are there any circumstances in which it would be ideal to have the civil ceremony first?

None that I can see. It will always be, at best, an accommodation, whether it be to the government or to relatives/friends. 
 

And that’s how I view the recent policy change by the Church, an accommodation. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

think back on my older brother’s temple marriage. I was 11 at the time and was a gift bearer at the reception. I did not feel in the least excluded because I could not attend the temple ceremony. 

I did. I have always disliked receptions and when I then not only had to fly to a place I had never been and instead of seeing new sights, get stuck behind a table smiling at people I didn’t know and would never see again was extraordinarily unappealing.  The only event I saw of any value was the wedding which I could not go to.  I actually had a big argument with my parents that it was stupid for me to have to go instead of being able to stay home. No one would notice me or need me. I would be no more than window dressing occasionally named to be sure wedding pictures had no gaps.  And I was right. 
 

Though sad I could not participate in the ritual I saw as eternally and temporally significant, I did not resent being excluded as I realized the reason had value, but the idea that somehow going to a reception makes up for missing the wedding is weak. 
 

My own sealing suffered from being the “event” because being who I am, I could not focus on what was happening to me and instead was worried about the guests coming and making it back home smoothly, etc. plus I was mentally exhausted from having just gone through the endowment after a bad night due to a bit of chaos the night before in getting ready for the reception (which my mother insisted on).  It would have made so much difference if I could have had the social side done previously and then been able to focus on the spiritual during my temple time. I got much more out of participating in proxy sealings and was more spiritually and emotionally moved during those services than I was with my own sealing. Thankfully at least somehow I managed to ge able to focus on the ceremony for my endowment prior to that. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...