Maureen

"Horrible" is what I was going for — thank you ❤️ 

This is tough for me. My wife and I were infertile for 6 years, and this question became very old. I tried not to let it bother me, and I think in general I was able to seperate my emotions over our infertility from the innocent questions (fortunately I never had to deal with jerks trying to make me feel bad). But my wife took these questions a lot harder than me. She tried not to, but her inability to conceive sent her spiralling into severe depression and every time someone asked her this it almost always left her in tears. So while I truly don't feel like anyone who asked me had malicious intent, I'm always going to avoid asking this question because I know how much it can hurt, even unintentionally. 

Back when we were in our active baby-making days, my wife would get seriously irritated at casual Church friends and acquaintances asking us about our reproductive plans. Given this, I have a hard time skewering the author; my wife might have written a similar article. But I no longer agree with the mindset. I think we should actively seek to build such societal intimacy, even at the cost of having to come outside our comfort zone. That doesn't mean that our private lives become an open book or that we must actually answer such intrusive questions, only that we react gracefully to such intrusions, seeing them as a perhaps ham-fisted attempt at building friendship and emotional unity.

I entirely endorse whatever dietary rules one chooses to accept because, to that individual, they seem to be good. But I cannot get my head around the idea that one should keep a rule for the sake of the rule. Pig meat, for example, may have been dangerous in bronze age times, due to parasites and disease, and that for me, would be an entirely adequate reason to forego. But it isn't now, and the rule is the ghost of what was then an entirely good idea. But I do not see why Jews and Muslims should keep the ghosts of such good ideas in today's climate of animal and human welfare.
My own particular weakness is for wine. And I note that Jesus was not averse to a cup or two, even to the extent of conjuring it up at the wedding in Canaa, and stipulating that we should remember him with a quaff in communion. I do not recommend alcoholism, but abstinence for no reason other than some rule seems to me to be no better than over indulgence. They are both a tad extreme for my taste. Life, it seems, keeps its rewards for those who are moderate in all things, including moderation.
Best wishes, 2RM.

But I also admitted I was exaggerating to make a point.
M.

So . . . this isn't really about not drinking coffee. It's the big speech---aka THE SERMON--that's the problem.  Wow. That just hurts, man. Real deep!

OK JAG and FP, you've said some things that are good that I agree with, but some that still sound awfully preachy and  insulting to people who are simple in their beliefs and gratitude for this blessing from God. You can look at it in any way you want, in fact go ahead and instruct your children to not have that "alternate" kind of wedding first, even if they are marrying someone who's family aren't members. And make sure they know that anyone who takes less than 3-4 hours to be sealed in the temple is just not doing it right and can't possibly be touched and filled with the spirit or understand those "salvific" ordinances. 
 Sometimes it's nice to simply recognize the mercy and beauty of what the Lord has done for us and free ourselves of this notion that we are wicked for ever wanting that blessing in the first place.  
 
Pfffft! What does  Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy mean anyway? 

My personal opinion is that people are overthinking this. It seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me. Because of missionary work there are more people now who are the only members of the church in their families than there were when the original policy of having to wait a year after a civil marriage to be sealed.  Just like the church is trying to be more inclusive of the LGBT crowd without changing doctrine, I see this change as simply being more friendly to people with non-member families without changing doctrine. Why should a couple who are worthy have to wait?  It has been an extremely hurtful thing that mothers and fathers have been excluded from the weddings of their children. Read the letter again.  https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Sealing-After-Civil-Marriage-Letter.pdf   It has nothing to do with the Lord making accomodations for his weakening saints. It's about family unity and that's about it. 
Everyone I've talked to personally is thrilled with the change. Only on this forum am I hearing anything negative or "suspicious" plus maybe a comment or two on KSL and Deseret News. But there is story after story on those sites about regret and family being offended and won't have anything to do with the church for years because of the way it was.  I'm just throwing up my hands about those who are pushing back or making it sound as if getting married civilly first is a weakness. As for me and my house we are rejoicing!
 
 

You should have found a different dealer  

I am really surprised how riled up this has got some people!!
I just saw this as a globalisation of policy and reflection of the more global nature of church membership and a move away from US centric policies with modifications for "the rest of us".
It works well here in the UK, civil ceremony in the chapel and then the couple and close family attend the temple then if close enough to the temple an evening reception or for those who have 4-5 hours to travel each way to get to the temple, family celebrations tend to take place the next day when the couple have returned from the temple.
When I was married then sealed in this way it meant that I could easily separate out the civil service and focus on the ordinance. It made the sealing ordinance the complete focus; we were just concerned about us as a couple and Heavenly Father with no other distractions. We had a simple civil service with close friends and family, both of us the only members in our families and this gave my spouse (who had been shunned by his family due to his conversion and their faith) the opportunity to reunite with his parents and opened the door to them having a relationship again after many years of no communication at all.  - Just my personal view of course.

😮 Pretty judgemental. I'd say one size does NOT fit all. There are so many variations in circumstances. I heard of a couple who got married in a hospital room where the father was dying so he could be there for their wedding. They knew perfectly well the significance of Eternal Marriage.

I'm not saying the civil wedding replaces sealing- end of wedding story.  In my mind, the civil wedding/temple sealing/party are all in the same agenda. Same day if possible. There is nothing wrong with this agenda now. In some countries this is how it's always been. So are those people weaker than Americans? 
From the First Presidency letter- " We anticipate that this change will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a man and woman." 
That's all I need to know. I don't really need to worry that some people won't relax their grip on the old way of doing things. I anticipate that at least one of my daughters will still get married AND sealed in the temple. My guess is that one won't because so many of her close friends aren't members of the church. Even though she's only 16  anddoesn't have even a boyfriend, she grinned ear to ear...  so happy to know that people who mean so much to her can now witness her marriage. 

Just over 20 years ago, my wife and I decided to get married, at 28/30 years old.  We went to her Stake Pres of the YSA ward in Hunt Beach, and he said, get married in the temple or don't, no exceptions. We went to my Stake Pres, in Orange, and he said the same thing. So we went to her parents Stake Pres, who knew my wife's dad was not a member. He said, "Let's try the first presidency, there's nothing in the gospel that says you can't go to the church in San Diego, get married for all non-members to see and participate, then walk over to the temple and get sealed, which would be the most important thing for us.
The First Presidency wrote back and said, "It is not in present church policy to allow such things to take place. Perhaps in some future time policy will change."
We never took it as anything but policy; not the gospel. We went ahead and were married and sealed in the temple, and my wife's dad decided to have nothing to do with our wedding, (inviting my wife's good friends/coach over to his house on our wedding/reception day). A bully, yes. But it would have been nice to cater to the non-members in the family. He had previously had nothing to do with an older sister's wedding when they decided to get married in the temple, and threatened to divorce his wife if she attending the reception of her own daughter. The parents did not participate there, either.
For those of you who know Peter Vidmar (gymnast), a freind, told us that he had a ring ceremony, after the temple wedding, where his non-member father in law was able to perform a ring ceremony and give his daughter away. If you didn't look carefully, you'd never have known that it wasn't the actual marriage. But that didn't fly with my wife's dad.
So policy has now changed, as it was already everywhere except America. A good change. Let us cater to non-members, reduce the unintended (mormon) offense, and help bring all families together.

Well I'm sorry he wasn't able to go. I'm not suggesting he didn't want to be there. But I disagree that the wedding day is only about the couple. It is very much about the parents who raised those children, too. 

This is the part that's wrong!!  "Was it about me?  NO.  It was therefore not relevant how I felt.  It was his and his wife's day.  Not mine, not anybody else's." 
Now if you can't help but do something really offensive in public settings, peeing in the punch or hitting the grooms dad in the nose or flirting with the bridesmaids- embarrassing your child and ruining the happy party, then please don't come. But to say it was not relevant how you felt is very short sighted and self indulgent IMHO.. I would think most children getting married want very much to have their parents there in attendance to support them and rejoice with them.  To do this Eeyore thing, " Don't mind me. I'm not important" is ridiculous. YES, parents ARE important at a wedding!! The fact that they have been excluded for so long is heartbreaking.
 I feel the same way about some other chuyrch policies like  missionaries not going home for parents' funerals. What in the what??  That is cruel and heartless in my opinion. I've heard some returning missionaries flaunt this as a badge of righteousness and sacrifice and it makes me sick.I don't think there is anything noble in that.  Is that missionary really going to be effective while they know their family is conducting their mother's funeral? What about the lack of closure and extended grief and PTSD and all that?  OK now I'm going down a different road. Pardon me.
 
 

I don't think it will have much effect on things. Already two of our kids had a wedding dinner the night before. It was much better than a wedding breakfast after the ceremony like I had.  I doubt the sealing ceremony will take 2-4 hours. Maybe an hour at most. I would expect that brides who haven't served a mission will go through the temple for their endowments before the wedding day like they do now.  Pictures will probably go on as usual ( while the wedding party waits- sometimes hours. MIne did. We were late to our wedding breakfast.)  The choice would have to be made if the pictures will be at the temple or at the wedding venue. But that's not a crisis kind of decision. Nothing like having to exclude parents from the wedding altogether.  Why would a honeymoon have to be abbreviated? ESpecially with temples all over the world and some in prime honeymoon locations like Hawaii? 

Hogwash.  If we had been allowed to have a civil marriage so my family could attend, and then gone to the temple for our sealing it would not have lessened one iota the importance of the sealing.  The fact that you would even imply this is beyond ridiculous.   Seriously.

And just because you see it as a weakness doesn’t mean it is. After all the Lord has revealed this through his prophet. I see this as a wonderful way of healing hearts and drawing families together. 
I’m also excited that younger siblings would be able to attend the wedding. What a great example the couple  can be to their younger siblings as they make the extra effort to go inside the temple for the sealing. It will separate and add importance I believe to the sealing. 
It feels to me like the perfect puzzle piece has been found for the hole in the puzzle. A satisfying perfect fit!

And it's toppled many a family relationship because they weren't able to be there. With the rings ceremonies afterward ( I've been to many) they feel fake and like a big old compromise. Everyone knows they are already married and  I don't think many take it seriously. It's very anti climactic after the bride and groom have come out of the temple and received lots of congratulations. I can imagine the non-member family feeling short changed.  
 I love that now those who feel so seriously about the civil/legal wedding can be a part of it and the ones who are serous about the temple ceremony can be a part of that. No one need be hurt. 

How? Are you saying that a sealing looses it's reverence, authority, sacredness just because it occured after a civil marriage? That the time inbetween the wedding and the sealing, whether it's hours, days or weeks, causes the bride and groom to loose focus of the sealing ceremony, making it less effective?
I'm going to speculate that if Latter-day Saints in the UK can cherish the temple sealing after getting married then North American members can do the same.
M.

This seems pretty harsh in relation to the parents or family that couldn't witness the wedding. I think of Sister Marriott who's parents planted the magnolia tree in their yard so that their daughter could be married there later in life. Then she got married without any family  present.
Parents, LDS or not can be  very invested the marriage of their child and I think this is a wonderful change that will help smooth the path for so many families rather than creating offense through exclusion. I would think that most non-member family aren't interested in the temple sealing and wouldn't mind not being a part of it. So the couple can go do that after and have it be more private and special without the hurt of not having their non member family there. 

How? Are you saying that a sealing looses it's reverence, authority, sacredness just because it occured after a civil marriage? That the time inbetween the wedding and the sealing, whether it's hours, days or weeks, causes the bride and groom to loose focus of the sealing ceremony, making it less effective?
I'm going to speculate that if Latter-day Saints in the UK can cherish the temple sealing after getting married then North American members can do the same.
M.

How? Are you saying that a sealing looses it's reverence, authority, sacredness just because it occured after a civil marriage? That the time inbetween the wedding and the sealing, whether it's hours, days or weeks, causes the bride and groom to loose focus of the sealing ceremony, making it less effective?
I'm going to speculate that if Latter-day Saints in the UK can cherish the temple sealing after getting married then North American members can do the same.
M.

I don't mean to offend but your questions are crazy.
Civil or legal marriage is where two people, in conjunction with the law, vow to become husband and wife. (And in some countries where SSM is legal, also spouses). The main requirements for a legal marriage are a marriage licence, valid officiant and two witnesses.
M.

I thought it was particularly interesting that the letter specifically mentions the scenarios "when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded." As long as I can remember, there have been lessons with case studies and hypothetical scenarios that addressed this, and all of those lessons concluded that the "right" choice was to marry in the temple. It seems to me that, by specifically mentioning this scenario, they are saying that the right choice going forward may very well be to include those family members in the wedding.