Rain Posted January 31 Posted January 31 I think most of us knew that before the recent policy change, except in places where it was required by law, if you got married before you got sealed you had to wait a year. Now I'm reading people say you were considered unworthy and had to meet with the bishop during that year to go through the repentance process. I have known of people who had relations before getting married so during that year they had to repent, but if there was no other thing to repent of there was no repentance process required. It was just time they had to wait. So is my understanding wrong? Did couples actually have to repent with the bishop's help merely for getting married first? If I had to guess, that wasn't church policy or teachings, just some bishop's understanding or else some people not realizing the couple was repenting for other things. 1
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 31 Popular Post Posted January 31 7 hours ago, Rain said: I think most of us knew that before the recent policy change, except in places where it was required by law, if you got married before you got sealed you had to wait a year. Now I'm reading people say you were considered unworthy and had to meet with the bishop during that year to go through the repentance process. I have known of people who had relations before getting married so during that year they had to repent, but if there was no other thing to repent of there was no repentance process required. It was just time they had to wait. So is my understanding wrong? Did couples actually have to repent with the bishop's help merely for getting married first? If I had to guess, that wasn't church policy or teachings, just some bishop's understanding or else some people not realizing the couple was repenting for other things. I’ve never known of anyone who had to repent of the sin of getting married civilly first. That would be pretty weird. But some bishops are probably pretty weird so I can’t say it never happened. 13
Devobah Posted January 31 Posted January 31 8 hours ago, Rain said: I think most of us knew that before the recent policy change, except in places where it was required by law, if you got married before you got sealed you had to wait a year. Now I'm reading people say you were considered unworthy and had to meet with the bishop during that year to go through the repentance process. I have known of people who had relations before getting married so during that year they had to repent, but if there was no other thing to repent of there was no repentance process required. It was just time they had to wait. So is my understanding wrong? Did couples actually have to repent with the bishop's help merely for getting married first? If I had to guess, that wasn't church policy or teachings, just some bishop's understanding or else some people not realizing the couple was repenting for other things. 45 minutes ago, bluebell said: I’ve never known of anyone who had to repent of the sin of getting married civilly first. That would be pretty weird. But some bishops are probably pretty weird so I can’t say it never happened. My sister married a Brit. It's interesting because in England, they do have a civil ceremony before getting sealed in the temple. I think there's some laws in place that causes the need for separation between the two. I think it's more a cultural thing in other countries. I don't think that I've met anyone who has decided to do the civil ceremony go through the repentance process. I agree with @bluebell that sometimes Bishops can be a bit weird. Personally I like the change, and I've seen some people take advantage of that. My brother got married during Covid. They did the sealing first, but then did a ring ceremony afterwards so people could join. They even wrote vows and everything. Now this is different because the temple would only accommodate a certain amount of people due to Covid restrictions. Only immediate family was allowed. 2
bluebell Posted January 31 Posted January 31 19 minutes ago, Devobah said: My sister married a Brit. It's interesting because in England, they do have a civil ceremony before getting sealed in the temple. I think there's some laws in place that causes the need for separation between the two. I think it's more a cultural thing in other countries. I don't think that I've met anyone who has decided to do the civil ceremony go through the repentance process. I agree with @bluebell that sometimes Bishops can be a bit weird. Personally I like the change, and I've seen some people take advantage of that. My brother got married during Covid. They did the sealing first, but then did a ring ceremony afterwards so people could join. They even wrote vows and everything. Now this is different because the temple would only accommodate a certain amount of people due to Covid restrictions. Only immediate family was allowed. I've heard of people doing ring ceremonies before the change in policy, but when we asked about it (because my husband was a convert and had no family who were members) we were told that exchanging vows or doing anything else that made the ring ceremony look like a wedding ceremony wasn't allowed. They were really serious about not having any vestiges of a 'wedding' connected at all to the day you were sealed. I'm glad that has changed. 4
sunstoned Posted January 31 Posted January 31 When I was young, there were several weddings performed in our Ward building. All could attend. The married couples were sealed in the temple a day or two later. I remember when that policy was changed. I never heard a valid reason for this. Now it is changed back. I'm glad it has. It is more supportive of family members. 1
Rain Posted January 31 Author Posted January 31 9 minutes ago, sunstoned said: When I was young, there were several weddings performed in our Ward building. All could attend. The married couples were sealed in the temple a day or two later. I remember when that policy was changed. I never heard a valid reason for this. Now it is changed back. I'm glad it has. It is more supportive of family members. I didn't realize it was that recent. I don't know how old you are, but was just thinking this went back 100 years or so and was only changed in other countries when needed.
Dario_M Posted February 1 Posted February 1 A whole year is quite a long time to repent. Why not just a week?
Stargazer Posted February 3 Posted February 3 On 1/31/2025 at 6:53 AM, Rain said: I think most of us knew that before the recent policy change, except in places where it was required by law, if you got married before you got sealed you had to wait a year. That was the usual policy. There were case-by-case exceptions. I surmise that exceptions were not routine. In my case, my (now late) wife and I were under pressure to marry in time for my soon-to-occur US Army reassignment, so she could relocate with me at government expense. There was a problem, however: she had been previously sealed to her now former (and excommunicated) husband, and we were awaiting a sealing cancellation. As it turned out, her sealing cancellation was signed by President Kimball the day we were married civilly. We received the letter a few days later, and apparently because the documents that were sent in by our bishop (or stake president) seemed to have included her intent to remarry soon, the letter gave permission to be sealed in the temple immediately. So we were sealed in the Swiss Temple about six months later. I expect that there were other exceptional cases. On 1/31/2025 at 6:53 AM, Rain said: Now I'm reading people say you were considered unworthy and had to meet with the bishop during that year to go through the repentance process. I have known of people who had relations before getting married so during that year they had to repent, but if there was no other thing to repent of there was no repentance process required. It was just time they had to wait. So is my understanding wrong? Did couples actually have to repent with the bishop's help merely for getting married first? If I had to guess, that wasn't church policy or teachings, just some bishop's understanding or else some people not realizing the couple was repenting for other things. I think properly, this being considered unworthy would have applied only in case the marriage was a "shotgun wedding," as it were. I am personally familiar with a couple cases over many years. One was a returned missionary who got too frisky too early with his fiancée. Another was a prospective missionary and his sweetheart who decided to get married instead of his serving a mission, but did things in the proper order. In the first case, he was disfellowshipped, and the usual process of repentance occurred. In the second, there was no need for repentance, there being no violation of the commandments. In my opinion, it would be wrong for a bishop to require counseling for the mere act of marrying out of the temple. And I've never heard of such being done, though I am sure there were some bishops who did such things. 2
Rain Posted February 3 Author Posted February 3 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: That was the usual policy. There were case-by-case exceptions. I surmise that exceptions were not routine. In my case, my (now late) wife and I were under pressure to marry in time for my soon-to-occur US Army reassignment, so she could relocate with me at government expense. There was a problem, however: she had been previously sealed to her now former (and excommunicated) husband, and we were awaiting a sealing cancellation. As it turned out, her sealing cancellation was signed by President Kimball the day we were married civilly. We received the letter a few days later, and apparently because the documents that were sent in by our bishop (or stake president) seemed to have included her intent to remarry soon, the letter gave permission to be sealed in the temple immediately. So we were sealed in the Swiss Temple about six months later. 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I expect that there were other exceptional cases. I think properly, this being considered unworthy would have applied only in case the marriage was a "shotgun wedding," as it were. I am personally familiar with a couple cases over many years. One was a returned missionary who got too frisky too early with his fiancée. Another was a prospective missionary and his sweetheart who decided to get married instead of his serving a mission, but did things in the proper order. In the first case, he was disfellowshipped, and the usual process of repentance occurred. In the second, there was no need for repentance, there being no violation of the commandments. In my opinion, it would be wrong for a bishop to require counseling for the mere act of marrying out of the temple. And I've never heard of such being done, though I am sure there were some bishops who did such things. Yes, everyone I have known to have to repent it was a law of chastity thing so it surprised me that at least two people said it was just having the marriage first. It's possible they didn't know it was LoC,but one seemed pretty sure as it was just the civil wedding.
Calm Posted February 3 Posted February 3 24 minutes ago, Rain said: Yes, everyone I have known to have to repent it was a law of chastity thing so it surprised me that at least two people said it was just having the marriage first. It's possible they didn't know it was LoC,but one seemed pretty sure as it was just the civil wedding. Could it be possible their spouse had an LoC issue they were not aware of and the bishop respected the wishes of the spouse not to share that fact, but still required a repentance process?
Rain Posted February 3 Author Posted February 3 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Could it be possible their spouse had an LoC issue they were not aware of and the bishop respected the wishes of the spouse not to share that fact, but still required a repentance process? Oh, I think it could be a lot of things. I would be concerned though if a couple were getting married and that was an issue the other person didn't know. For this question I had never heard of repenting for getting married first and just wanted to see if that was an actual church thing.
Calm Posted February 3 Posted February 3 4 minutes ago, Rain said: Oh, I think it could be a lot of things. I would be concerned though if a couple were getting married and that was an issue the other person didn't know. For this question I had never heard of repenting for getting married first and just wanted to see if that was an actual church thing. Yes, it doesn’t exactly remove the fact there appears to be a problem. Whenever I hear of odd things in the Church…and elsewhere for that matter….because I like the world being predictable, my mind tries to think of ways it becomes less odd…which only makes me more frustrated in not knowing details because I will never know if I am right or not, lol. 1
Teancum Posted February 3 Posted February 3 On 1/31/2025 at 1:53 AM, Rain said: I think most of us knew that before the recent policy change, except in places where it was required by law, if you got married before you got sealed you had to wait a year. Now I'm reading people say you were considered unworthy and had to meet with the bishop during that year to go through the repentance process. I have known of people who had relations before getting married so during that year they had to repent, but if there was no other thing to repent of there was no repentance process required. It was just time they had to wait. So is my understanding wrong? Did couples actually have to repent with the bishop's help merely for getting married first? If I had to guess, that wasn't church policy or teachings, just some bishop's understanding or else some people not realizing the couple was repenting for other things. No repentance needed if someone just opted to marry civilly first for other reasons. I was married to my wife civilly but she had not been a member a year. Two months later we went to the temple. No need for any repentance process. 1
Rain Posted February 3 Author Posted February 3 10 minutes ago, Teancum said: No repentance needed if someone just opted to marry civilly first for other reasons. I was married to my wife civilly but she had not been a member a year. Two months later we went to the temple. No need for any repentance process. Thanks. It sounds like either these people don't know of law of chasity issues with the couples they are talking about or the bishop is just doing his own thing then. Thanks. 3
sunstoned Posted February 5 Posted February 5 On 1/31/2025 at 3:57 PM, Rain said: I didn't realize it was that recent. I don't know how old you are, but was just thinking this went back 100 years or so and was only changed in other countries when needed. My experiences were in the late 60s. I think the changed to a one year wait sometime in the 1970s. 3
webbles Posted February 5 Posted February 5 47 minutes ago, sunstoned said: My experiences were in the late 60s. I think the changed to a one year wait sometime in the 1970s. I went through the old handbooks to see when this policy went in place. The first instance I found was actually in the 1960 handbook. It says: Quote Permission may be granted to couples who have been married by civil law to have their marriages solemnized in the temple at such time as the stake president and bishop feel assured of their personal purity and worthiness and of their genuine desire for the blessings of the House of the Lord. Where couples deliberately refuse temple marriage for reasons of their own, and afterward desire a sealing, they should be asked to wait for at least a year in which to demonstrate their sincerity and worthiness to receive this blessing. So, the 1 year wait only affects those who can get sealed in the temple but refuse it. The 1963 handbook is similar. The 1968 handbook is when the rule affects all civil marriages: Quote Where a couple are married by civil ceremony, they should not be recommended to the temple until after a year has elapsed since the civil ceremony was solemnized. And, interestingly, the 1976 handbook is even stricter: Quote A couple married by civil ceremony outside the temple are not to be issued recommends for performance of ordinances other than baptisms and confirmations for the dead in the temple until after a year has elapsed since the civil ceremony was performed. So, if you get civilly married, you can't do any temple ordinances except baptisms and confirmations. No washings, annointings, or sealings for the dead. 3
Calm Posted February 5 Posted February 5 (edited) I remember it being mentioned as starting as a policy when the Endowment House was functioning because many were getting married with the intent to be endowed later due to the difficulty of travel back then, but never getting sealed. I don’t remember where I read this and don’t know if it was accurate. Should have googled first. Looks like earliest it was SOP was 1956. https://jasmingimenez.wordpress.com/2019/05/06/the-history-of-latter-day-saints-waiting-for-one-year-to-be-sealed-in-the-temple-after-a-civil-marriage/#:~:text=The first time the Church,policy%2C from 1940 to 1989. Quote The earliest document I could find commenting on this issue was the Handbook of Instruction from 1940. The first time the Church requires couples to wait a year after a civil wedding to be sealed in the temple is in 1956. Below is a brief history of the wedding waiting period policy, from 1940 to 1989. If anyone knows of a document or policy before 1956, or after 1989 (I don’t have access to the current Handbook 1), let me know! Also, be sure to check out Devery Anderson’s book The Development of LDS Temple Worship, which is where I collected all this information. It’s an invaluable source book. 1940 Handbook of Instructions, Number 16 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1940), 123-25, 129-33. Sealings After Civil Marriages—Permission may be granted to couples who have been married by civil law to have their marriages solemnized in the Temple, at such time as local authorities feel assured of their personal purity and worthiness and of the genuineness of their desire for the blessings of the House of the Lord. Couples who have associated together illicitly should not be recommended to the Temple until they have satisfied their bishops that they have thoroughly repented, and have shown their repentance by living righteously for a prolonged period of time. Mere sorrow is not repentance. It is urged that the desirability of Temple marriages be continually emphasized. Marriages in the Temple following civil ceremonies are sealings only, and should not be reported as Temple marriages. A Temple marriage is one in which the parties enter into the marriage relationship for the first time. Quote 1944 Handbook of Instructions, No. 17 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1944), 76-83, 89-90. Sealings After Civil Marriages: Permission may be granted to couples who have been married by civil law to have their marriages solemnized in the temple, at such time as local authorities feel assured of their personal purity and worthiness and of the genuineness of their desire for the blessings of the House of the Lord. Marriages in the temple following civil ceremonies are sealings only, and should not be reported as temple marriages. A temple marriage is one in which the parties enter into the marriage relationship for the first time. Devery S. Anderson. The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History. Signature Books. Kindle Edition, location 6665. 1956 Helps and Suggestions for Ward Bishoprics (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1956), 17-23 Where couples have been married by civil law, permission to have their marriages solemnized in the temple may be granted one year or more after the civil ceremony, provided that local authorities feel assured of their personal purity and worthiness and of the genuineness of their desire for the blessings of the house of the Lord. No exceptions to this one-year rule waiting period are to be made except by permission of the First Presidency. … Any request to have a temple marriage annulled must come before the President of the Church for action. Edited February 5 by Calm 2
Calm Posted February 5 Posted February 5 (edited) Looks like originally exceptions were made for part member families: Quote Occasionally we receive requests for exceptions to this ruling, the reason given being that the parents of one or both of the contracting parties are non-members and are desirous of witnessing the civil ceremony. In such cases we have, as a general rule, granted permission. It should be understood, however, that this permission must be obtained in each instance from the First Presidency before authorization may be given. Where parents of the couple to be married are members ofthe Church but not active or qualified to receive temple recommends, we have not felt to grant exceptions to the general rule that the marriage should be performed in the temple in the first instance. Same link. 1966 David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner, and Joseph Fielding Smith, circular letter, July 6, 1966 The 1970 letter says no way, contrary to policy. Not surprisingly, Pres McKay passed away in Jan of 1970 and Joseph Fielding Smith was likely the president at the time of the change of policy. So it became set in stone with Joseph Fielding Smith. Quote Frequently couples whose parents, one or more, are not members of the Church desire to be married by civil ceremony before going to the temple so that the nonmember parent may witness the marriage. It is contrary to policy to grant such requests. Edited February 5 by Calm 3
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now