carlimac

😮 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. 

You took that completely out of context.  I am speaking about what is in the mind of the couple.  Their reason to marry civilly first makes it so that they have detracted from the sanctity and meaning of the temple ordinance.  In other words, if one chooses an earthly ordinance over an eternal one, then in their minds, the earthly ordinance had more significance than the eternal one.  That is why they had to wait a year so they can be sure they understand the significance of the sealing that they are getting into.

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.
 
 

When I got married, some of the best advice I got was "this day isn't just about you and your husband, it's also about all the people whom love you coming together to celebrate".  

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? 

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to indicate you specifically were ambivalent about the wedding. But I've read here and on other forums those same words about how it's about the couple and not about the parents. I heartily disagree. I couldn't be more pleased that this doesn't have to be an issue anymore because of Church policy anyway. 

Fair enough.
I do agree that it's about the parents as well, in the sense that the parents are a critical part of the kids' life.  All I'm saying is that it isn't right to cause drama over it if one can't be there... Because the kids hurt too when loved ones can't attend, and that  just makes it worse, and taints the memory of the most important day of their life.

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. 

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to indicate you specifically were ambivalent about the wedding. But I've read here and on other forums those same words about how it's about the couple and not about the parents. I heartily disagree. I couldn't be more pleased that this doesn't have to be an issue anymore because of Church policy anyway. 

Well, actually, the church never has been in the wedding reception business, unless you count the Lion House ( church owned I think) which benefits from all the luncheons and receptions held there.  I would like the Church to even remove the statement that a civil wedding has to be simple and suggest it be done in an LDS chapel. That way the real true focus and the "test" of the couple on their devoutness will be in their going to the temple to be sealed.  I imagine that most couples (who marry in Utah or within an hour or two of a temple) would want to be sealed either the same day or within a day or two so that those temple worthy who came for the wedding can also attend the sealing. But truly, the sealing is the most important, private and intimate part of joining the couple  ( aside from the wedding night) so if the couple wanted to not invite anyone to their sealing, I would completely understand and agree. 
I love the idea of separating the wedding from the sealing. I think it really makes the sealing stand out in ways it didn't before. And it's such a nuisance when the girl insists on wearing her buffont wedding dress to get married in the temple and the robes are awkward over the fluffy dress and things slip and slide and it can be awkward. And when she doesn't wear her dress, the crowd outside the temple has to wait an hour or more while she gets ready to come out of the temple in a dress she didn't even get married in ( but probably paid a hefty price for. It has seemed a funny, bothersome, quirky aspect of LDS wedding traditions.  Now with this new way of doing things it will take some of that silliness out of the picture. 

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? 

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 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!

I completely disagree and foresee it as a wonderful time to come together with those of other faiths to celebrate the instant the couple becomes married!  I'm almost hoping some of my remaining unmarried kids choose this new option.  I know my son will since he's no longer a part of our faith. But I would cherish the moment, the instant my daughters get married outside the temple. And later reverently thank the Lord in the temple  for the sealing powers that give the couple the opportunity to be together for eternity if they live up to it.  

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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!

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.

I have thought about it a lot and could never come up with a good reason.  Nobody from my immediate family was able to participate in my marriage.  My mom was the only active member and was unendowed.  There were some serious hard feelings that never need have happened.  I am not the only person who has been in that boat.  This will fix the majority of these issues.