Jump to content

No more time-only marriages in the temple


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

It may be weak for you, but I don’t agree that’s universal. For some people and under some circumstances, the reception is meaningful. 
 

I think it has a lot to do with mindset. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour 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

Last couple ceremonies I drove to the Washington DC temple for I sat outside with the family who couldn't or chose not to go inside. Luckily the DC temple has a wonderful visitors center. Some of my southern Baptist family grilled the sister missionaries when they came around and started asking if we were members. 

    It does make for an awkward situation if one or two family members start asking why they aren't allowed to go in. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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.

We give meaning to the ceremonies we are involved in. For me, having them separate would have increased the sacred sense of the temple sealing as the wedding would be before the world, but the sealing we withdraw from the world into uniquely (for me) sacred space before God and those who are with us have been also anointed to appear before him in a special place and time and way. 
 

I can easily see someone who was brought up in places where weddings were separate feeling they had missed out on the special nature of the sealing by having it combined with the wedding. It is all about what we bring to the experience.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It may be weak for you, but I don’t agree that’s universal. For some people and under some circumstances, the reception is meaningful. 
 

I think it has a lot to do with mindset. 

I agree as I posted just now before reading your post.  Therefore having the option of combining or not combining makes brilliant sense to me. Let those involved choose what best makes their marriage a sacred, God given gift they both embrace in joy in that moment. 
 

Quote

I don’t agree that’s universal

Since I never even implied my very personal reaction was universal, there is actually nothing you are not agreeing with. I was well aware at the time I was an oddball in the church for despising such things as receptions....which I don’t despise anymore even on a personal level, though if I could do it over, I would have invited only parents and grandparents to my wedding and sealing (having both families members makes my desire to be be sealed and married as one an easy decision, I don’t know what would matter most to me if a parent couldn’t attend) and had a reception a month later that was just partying, spending time with friends and families.

Quote

For some people and under some circumstances, the reception is meaningful.

 I wonder how many would choose to go to the reception as the more meaningful experience and decline to go to the wedding if they were given the choice.  Simply because the reception has meaning for many doesn’t preclude they may also feel they are missing something very important if they are not able to view the wedding itself. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

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.

I know so many couples that are overwhelmed before and after the temple wedding, distracted by the ton of stuff that must be coordinated to pull together wedding and reception.  While they may in the moment find the wedding very meaningful, they clearly had no time to dwell on those feelings much afterwards for the rest of the day. And if conversation is an indication of what they were spending their time thinking of, the sealing itself got a small percentage of their attention both in the day before and afterwards simply out of necessity even for those who looked forward to the wedding as a sacred temple experience. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would think when one spouse’s family are nonmembers, it would be ideal purely in terms of missionary work and  building family relations to do the civil ceremony first. I know of many converts whose families gained a very negative view of the church by being excluded from a wedding. 

A sealing performed after a civil marriage is no less holy and binding. Surely those who “accommodate” their families are not doing something less than ideal. 

LDS Bishops and sealers should get out of the marriage business and leave it to civil authorities.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree as I posted just now before reading your post.  Therefore having the option of combining or not combining makes brilliant sense to me. Let those involved choose what best makes their marriage a sacred, God given gift they both embrace in joy in that moment. 
 

Since I never even implied my very personal reaction was universal, there is actually nothing you are not agreeing with. I was well aware at the time I was an oddball in the church for despising such things as receptions....which I don’t despise anymore even on a personal level, though if I could do it over, I would have invited only parents and grandparents to my wedding and sealing (having both families members makes my desire to be be sealed and married as one an easy decision, I don’t know what would matter most to me if a parent couldn’t attend) and had a reception a month later that was just partying, spending time with friends and families.

 I wonder how many would choose to go to the reception as the more meaningful experience and decline to go to the wedding if they were given the choice.  Simply because the reception has meaning for many doesn’t preclude they may also feel they are missing something very important if they are not able to view the wedding itself. 

I understand and sympathize with that sentiment, but I still feel the ideal is for the marriage to take place in the temple and for the focus to be on that sacred ceremony and that in-laws should do their best not to stand in the way if the couple share that between them as their ideal. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. 

I was going to make an involved comparison between that and being present for a wedding...how odd it would have seemed to you if a sibling or neighbour even was allowed in to with your beloved wife and child, but you weren’t kind of thing, etc., but changed my mind for now. So feel free to ignore. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still feel the ideal is for the marriage to take place in the temple and for the focus to be on that sacred ceremony

How often have you actually seen the focus be on that sacred ceremony when there is a reception around the same time (hours or days)?  I don’t believe I have ever seen it that way if what people talk about before and after the ceremony indicates focus. At best focus is shared. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know so many couples that are overwhelmed before and after the temple wedding, distracted by the ton of stuff that must be coordinated to pull together wedding and reception.  While they may in the moment find the wedding very meaningful, they clearly had no time to dwell on those feelings much afterwards for the rest of the day. And if conversation is an indication of what they were spending their time thinking of, the sealing itself got a small percentage of their attention both in the day before and afterwards simply out of necessity even for those who looked forward to the wedding as a sacred temple experience. 

When people put more importance and focus into temporal/social things such as dresses, bridesmaids, flowers, reception, etc., rather than on the sealing, of course it’s not going to get much of their attention. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would think when one spouse’s family are nonmembers, it would be ideal purely in terms of missionary work and  building family relations to do the civil ceremony first. I know of many converts whose families gained a very negative view of the church by being excluded from a wedding. 

A sealing performed after a civil marriage is no less holy and binding. Surely those who “accommodate” their families are not doing something less than ideal. 

I’m not persuaded there is any way of knowing how frequently in-laws are converted to the Church because their children compromised and postponed their sealing in favor of a prior civil marriage, so your point about missionary work strikes me as speculative. 
 

And anytime a compromise has to be made to accommodate someone’s feelings, that is by definition less than ideal. The ideal would be for the close in-laws and older siblings to prepare themselves to enter the temple to be present for the marriage. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was going to make an involved comparison between that and being present for a wedding...how odd it would have seemed to you if a sibling or neighbour even was allowed in to with your beloved wife and child, but you weren’t kind of thing, etc., but changed my mind for now. So feel free to ignore. 

I sensed that’s where you were going, but on your advice, I will ignore. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not persuaded there is any way of knowing how frequently in-laws are converted to the Church because their children compromised and postponed their sealing in favor of a prior civil marriage, so your point about missionary work strikes me as speculative. 
 

And anytime a compromise has to be made to accommodate someone’s feelings, that is by definition less than ideal. The ideal would be for the close in-laws and older siblings to prepare themselves to enter the temple to be present for the marriage. 

Jeez, you can do both the same day. The idea that respecting your family is “compromising” your beliefs is silly. I think maybe I’ll have to agree with Bishop Crockett that maybe they just shouldn’t be doing civil marriages as part of the sealing. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

How often have you actually seen the focus be on that sacred ceremony when there is a reception around the same time (hours or days)?  I don’t believe I have ever seen it that way of what people talk about before and after the ceremony indicates focus. At best focus is shared. 

I’ve seen it quite often, actually, when I’ve been privileged to attend a temple marriage. 
 

On the other hand, if there is an elaborate civil ceremony with all the attendant earthly trappings, pomp and ceremony, marching down the aisle, giving away of the bride, etc., and the sealing ceremony takes place days or weeks afterward, it seems to me the temptation would be to treat the temple ceremony as kind of an afterthought. 
 

I know the thought is the civil ceremony would or should not be that elaborate, but if it isn’t, wouldn’t that rather miss the point of postponing the temple sealing so as to placate one’s relatives? 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Jeez, you can do both the same day. The idea that respecting your family is “compromising” your beliefs is silly. I think maybe I’ll have to agree with Bishop Crockett that maybe they just shouldn’t be doing civil marriages as part of the sealing. 

Interesting how you try to imbue him with added credibility by calling him “Bishop Crockett.” Is this an example of the appeal to authority fallacy? 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting how you try to imbue him with added credibility by calling him “Bishop Crockett.” Is this an example of the appeal to authority fallacy? 

Oh, brother. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

When people put more importance and focus into temporal/social things such as dresses, bridesmaids, flowers, reception, etc., rather than on the sealing, of course it’s not going to get much of their attention. 

Well, I put no value on such things as a bride and it still managed to pull my attention because it was around me. My wedding dress was my temple dress I had spent an afternoon finding and my sister in law gave my husband money to run out and buy flowers for a bouquet for me for pictures after the wedding where I stood in another off the rack green dress I could wear to church.  I had no bridesmaids either.  And yet my mind was focused on the reception because of the guests and having to socialize etc instead of the wedding. 
 

No doubt there are some couples capable of compartmentalizing the two close in time events so one does not distract from the other, but I haven’t met any that I know of. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

When people put more importance and focus into temporal/social things such as dresses, bridesmaids, flowers, reception, etc., rather than on the sealing, of course it’s not going to get much of their attention. 

 

19 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

When people put more importance and focus into temporal/social things such as dresses, bridesmaids, flowers, reception, etc., rather than on the sealing, of course it’s not going to get much of their attention. 

And when we are instructed not to speak casually in detail outside the temple of the things that occur therein (the very etymological meaning of “profane” is “outside the temple”) it stands to reason one would not hear a lot of chit chat outside the temple about the ceremony. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t the most profound part of the wedding for the couple. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know the thought is the civil ceremony would or should not be that elaborate, but if it isn’t, wouldn’t that rather miss the point of postponing the temple sealing so as to placate one’s relatives? 

Not from what I have seen. Many civil ceremonies are quite simple, the point of the wedding in the couple’s view is simply that friends and family share it with them. 
 

I don’t doubt that there are those that want a civil ceremony so they can imitate the Princess For a Day versions, but the majority appear to me to be more focused on who is there (or not there when they have wanted it small and intimate with only people they know well involved).

The civil weddings I have seen in the last year have been relatively simple and the brides have said they would have likely done the same thing even if Covid wasn’t around. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My thought exactly when you called him “Bishop Crockett.”

I was going to call him Brother Crockett but remembered you’re supposed to call a former bishop “Bishop.” Either way, there is no doctrine that a civil marriage is ideally done in a temple. Your position implies that those who “compromise” (your word) have somehow done something wrong. You’re on very shaky ground doctrinally. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

”) it stands to reason one would not hear a lot of chit chat outside the temple about the ceremony. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t the most profound part of the wedding for the couple. 

I totally agree that chit chat is not going to be about the temple. But what is talked about tends to focus one’s attention. It isn’t easy to be feeling the serenity and timelessness of the temple ceremony when immersed in errands and just giving other people attention.  When there is pretty much constant talking and fussing around, how much silent contemplation of the sacredness of the temple ceremony can take place?  
 

Nor am I saying it is not the most profound moment of the day(s).  My issue is that couples are not given the time to immerse themselves and revel in the temple experience in many cases. They can’t sit for the morning praying, reading scriptures, walking in nature to quiet and prepare their minds as we may be able to choose to do for proxy ceremonies.  They are generally not able to sit for an hour or more or do whatever else would help frame the experience in sacred meaning for them or just to digest what they have been through after the sealing, just being with each other to set in their mind this new phase of their eternal existence. They are swept from one thing to another even for simple receptions.  
 

And wanting to have relatives and friends around one isn’t about “placating” relatives for most I know struggling with that. They wanted deeply to have someone who was absent be there, not because they were worried about hurt feelings, but because they wanted to share the experience...have it in both their memories. 
 

The only person I really wanted to be there with me, my best friend, wasn’t able to as she was a member, but not endowed. She decided not to come to the reception either because she saw it having the same value as I did...to make others happy and figured we wouldn’t be able to spend any meaningful time together...and she was right.  It hurt me that she wasn’t there as I assumed it hurt her she wasn’t allowed, but she didn’t want to make it worse Inam guessing so she didn’t express feelings about what couldn’t be changed. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

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...