Why did this happen?

[Guest mormonmusic]

14 years ago I was engaged. My family are non-members, my wife's family are members.

I wanted to have a civil ceremony first so my non-member family could be present, and then immediately go to the temple for the sealing.

The temple president forbade this, saying that if we had a civil ceremony, we had to wait a year before we could be married in the temple. There was no sin involved in our situation at all (by the way). I was afraid that if there was a year between the civil marriage, and the temple marriage, that we might never get to the temple ceremony given the problems I've heard newly married couples having, and the potential for us to feel uncertain if we wanted to be together for eternity as a result. As a secondary concern, I was also concerned about the perception that we'd been having relations and therefore weren't worthy to go to the temple, which wasn't true.

Because of the restriction placed on the civil marriage happening before the temple marriage, my non-member family was not present at my wedding -- we went with the temple marriage and no separate civil ceremony.

This hurt my parents deeply. My Dad told me how it broke his heart. My sister and brother stood outside the temple to support me, but my parents weren't there. I tried to have a ring exchanging ceremony at the reception, but my Dad said that if it was merely an attempt to appease him, then he didn't want that. To this day, it bothers them, and we just don't talk about it.

To this day, it's bothered me that my family were alientated this way.

This happened in Canada.

Does anyone know WHY this policy was in place -- that you couldn't get married civilly and then in the temple immediately aftwerwards? Why the restriction you have to wait a year to be married in the temple if you decide to get married civilly first? Why was so little consideration given to the needs non-member families at the time?

I was young at the time, and I never questioned this, but through the eyes of greater maturity, it strikes me as grossly unfair to my family, and completely unnecessary.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Lbybug]

i've had a lot of friends who have been faced with a similiar situation. most of them opted for a ring ceremony after the wedding (then a reception after that). i guess what it came down to for them is, they were getting married for their own selves, not for their family. i don't have an answer for why the policy was/is in place.

[Guest Godless]

Does anyone know WHY this policy was in place -- that you couldn't get married civilly and then in the temple immediately aftwerwards? Why the restriction you have to wait a year to be married in the temple if you decide to get married civilly first? Why was so little consideration given to the needs non-member families at the time?

My guess is that it has something to do with this:

I was afraid that if there was a year between the civil marriage, and the temple marriage, that we might never get to the temple ceremony given the problems I've heard newly married couples having, and the potential for us to feel uncertain if we wanted to be together for eternity as a result.

While you may not have wanted to have that year to think about your decision, it's quite possible that that's exactly what the Church wants for worthy couples who choose to do a civil ceremony before a temple sealing. It's not a decision to be made lightly, and if you're going to take the step from civil to eternal, then you'd better be absolutely sure that it's what you want. So I think the Church's policy is perfectly fair.

[MarginOfError]

This is a neat little twist on the Sunday dinner birthday question, now isn't it. And you'll see me flip over to the other side on this issue. (don't worry, I'm a firm believe in my own hypocrisy)

Simply put, the Church wants its members to be sealed for time and eternity by the authority of the Priesthood. Whereas the Sealing is the last (capstone?) ordinance necessary for our salvation, it is stressed very heavily. Where possible, the Church prefers to perform the legal marriage in conjunction with the Sealing, but this is not always possible.

The policy of a one-year waiting period between civil marriage and sealing is intended to reflect just how sacred the sealing is. There is nothing more important to your marriage than obtaining the blessings of the sealing covenant. Those who choose to put a civil ceremony ahead of the sacred ceremony are given a waiting period in which they should be instructed about the sacred nature of the sealing (I worry that this instruction rarely takes place).

So that is the principle behind the waiting period. And while there may be cases where individuals have a solid understanding of the sacred nature of the Sealing, it is a matter of great enough importance that the leaders of the Church have not decided to leave it open to the "But I'm the exception" game.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Why not do the civil marriage (ceremony) after the temple ceremony?

[hordak]

My guess is that it has something to do with this:

While you may not have wanted to have that year to think about your decision, it's quite possible that that's exactly what the Church wants for worthy couples who choose to do a civil ceremony before a temple sealing. It's not a decision to be made lightly, and if you're going to take the step from civil to eternal, then you'd better be absolutely sure that it's what you want. So I think the Church's policy is perfectly fair.

That seems like more reason for the church to encourage a civil marriage first. (Which it obviously doesn't)

You don't say "In a year i might not wish to spend eternity together, so lets hurry and get it done" anymore then you would say "I might regret this tattoo when i sober up (assuming you found a tattoo artist who would give you one drunk) so let's do it now":D

I see what you mean but they don't make non married couples wait a year so essentially( the only bigger step from civil marriage to eternal is from nothing to eternal) they are assuming either civil married couples have doubts

In either case i think a bishops/SP interview could determine a couples readiness to accept this as they determine the readiness of going on missions, callings, endowments, and going to the temple in general.

[MarginOfError]

Why not do the civil marriage (ceremony) after the temple ceremony?

The Church actually instructs that there should be no ceremony after the Sealing. Couples may exchange rings in a simple gathering if they like, but they should not have a second ceremony or exchange vows. Doing so would detract from the sacredness of the Sealing, almost as if saying that the action of the Priesthood was insufficient.

[MarginOfError]

In either case i think a bishops/SP interview could determine a couples readiness to accept this as they determine the readiness of going on missions, callings, endowments, and going to the temple in general.

I would love for their to be more thorough interviews prior to sealings. I'm not sure if they take place as you suggest or not, but I agree, I think they should.

But could you imagine the backlash if a bishop were to tell a person that he couldn't recommend the individual for sealing due to insufficient understanding of the ordinance?

[hordak]

Why not do the civil marriage (ceremony) after the temple ceremony?

IIRC the church discourages civil weddings after word ( ring exchanges ok but real ceremony I.E. vows frowned upon)

[Guest mormonmusic]

MOE and everyone:

If the sacred nature of the ceremony is at the heart of this, this is another one of those situations where there are competing values at play. Philosophers call this a "value conflict". In this case, the conflict is between the relationship one has with their non-member parents, as well as their perception of the gospel, and the sacred nature of the ceremony.

The result of this decision I made was, as I said was to extremely alienate my family.

And further, I don't see how having a civil ceremony followed by a sacred one lessens the sacred nature of the temple ceremony. How do you think it does this? In my view, the civil ceremony gives the law what it requires, and the sealing gives the Lord and the married couple the sealing it requires.

As Christ said -- give until Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Why not do the civil marriage (ceremony) after the temple ceremony?

Because by that time you're already married. So, it's not the ceremony anymore, it's a post- marriage ceremony -- something my parents rejected when I presented it to them.

[Guest Godless]

That seems like more reason for the church to encourage a civil marriage first. (Which it obviously doesn't)

You don't say "In a year i might not wish to spend eternity together, so lets hurry and get it done" anymore then you would say "I might regret this tattoo when i sober up (assuming you found a tattoo artist who would give you one drunk) so let's do it now":D

I see what you mean but they don't make non married couples wait a year so essentially( the only bigger step from civil marriage to eternal is from nothing to eternal) they are assuming either civil married couples have doubts.

I know the Church frowns upon dual ceremonies, but in the event that a couple does decide to do it anyway, it makes sense for the Church to give them a waiting period so they can get a feel for the marriage before moving on to the next step. Again, that's just speculation/opinion on my part. I have no idea if it reflects Church policy or not.

[hordak]

I would love for their to be more thorough interviews prior to sealings. I'm not sure if they take place as you suggest or not, but I agree, I think they should.

But could you imagine the backlash if a bishop were to tell a person that he couldn't recommend the individual for sealing due to insufficient understanding of the ordinance?

Wouldn't it be better then going through an ordnance you're not ready for? Isn't that how everything else works? (or is supposed to)

[Guest mormonmusic]

While you may not have wanted to have that year to think about your decision, it's quite possible that that's exactly what the Church wants for worthy couples who choose to do a civil ceremony before a temple sealing. It's not a decision to be made lightly, and if you're going to take the step from civil to eternal, then you'd better be absolutely sure that it's what you want. So I think the Church's policy is perfectly fair.

Highly judgmental in my view. There wasn't any doubt we wanted to be married for eternity and understood what we were getting into. But there was also a simple desire to show respect for my parents and their sacred role as mother and father, who had raised me and deserved to see their first son get married. It also was born out of a desire to prevent years of discord and disharmony, and to show respect for my parents differing views.

The way you put it here, it sounds punitive to someone who wants to act with sensitivity to their parents. It's as if the policy is saying "Think about your decision to respect your parents and avoid disharmony in your family -- isn't the temple ceremony important to you brother???!!!"

The reasons given so far smack of a closed-minded, narrow perspective on the issue. I believe there are places in the world where there has to be two separate weddings -- heard this once....maybe my solution would've been to get married there!

Also, think of the way a separate ceremony could pull non-members toward our religion, by having a civil ceremony and in it, describing the subsequent sealing that will take place elsewhere -- invite people to see the temple, learn about our faith, from someone close to them.

I did accept the policy at the time, it was only after the aftermath that I started wondering about the reasons -- as there were never any really clear ones, and haven't been since....another thing I accept on faith.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mormonmusic

[MarginOfError]

MOE and everyone:

If the sacred nature of the ceremony is at the heart of this, this is another one of those situations where there are competing values at play. Philosophers call this a "value conflict". In this case, the conflict is between the relationship one has with their non-member parents, as well as their perception of the gospel, and the sacred nature of the ceremony.

It very much is a value conflict. In that situation, you're being asked to choose between two good decisions. The thing is, there is nothing that is more valuable to a married couple than the blessings associated with entering the sealing covenant.

The result of this decision I made was, as I said was to extremely alienate my family.

The result of that decision was also to gain all the blessings available from the sealing covenant. And those blessings are far more important to your family (read you, your spouse, and your children) than the parents of one of the parties entering the covenant.

And further, I don't see how having a civil ceremony followed by a sacred one lessens the sacred nature of the temple ceremony. How do you think it does this? In my view, the civil ceremony gives the law what it requires, and the sealing gives the Lord and the married couple the sealing it requires.

As Christ said -- give until Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God.

In the US and Canada, the sealing ordinance gives the law what it requires. It simultaneously renders to Cesar and to God. We're very fortunate that such is the case. A second ceremony, however, says to the world, "We went to the temple and were sealed for time and eternity, but to prove it to you, we want to make vows to each other that you can all see." It's essentially seeking validation through a source that has no authority.

[MarginOfError]

Wouldn't it be better then going through an ordnance you're not ready for? Isn't that how everything else works? (or is supposed to)

It would be far better. I just don't know how many leaders out there have the kahunas to actually go through with it.

[applepansy]

The sealing is sacred and it is intended to be the one and only marriage. If you have another ceremony are you really taking the sealing seriously? (where here are no legal requirments for a civil ceremony)

[applepansy]

Because by that time you're already married. So, it's not the ceremony anymore, it's a post- marriage ceremony -- something my parents rejected when I presented it to them.

Isn't this the same reason that God wants us to be married in his house first?

[Guest Godless]

There wasn't any doubt we wanted to be married for eternity.

Then why were you worried about waiting a year?

The way you put it here, it sounds punitive to someone who wants to act with sensitivity to their parents. It's as if the policy is saying "Think about your decision to respect your parents and avoid disharmony in your family -- isn't the temple ceremony important to you brother???!!!"

I hate to sound harsh, but you're the one who chose to forgo the waiting period. The Church has a policy in place that would have allowed you get sealed AND satisfy your parents. This is a path that the Church doesn't recommend due to the sacred nature of the temple sealing, so I think requiring a waiting period as a condition of dual ceremonies is perfectly fair.

[MarginOfError]

Highly judgmental in my view. There wasn't any doubt we wanted to be married for eternity, there was this desire to show respect for my parents and their sacred role as mother and father, who had raised me and deserved to see their first son get married.

The way you put it here, it sounds punitive to someone who wants to act with sensitivity to their parents. It's as if the policy is saying "Think about your decision to respect your parents and avoid disharmony in your family -- isn't the temple ceremony important to you brother???!!!"

It smacks of a closed-minded, narrow perspective on the issue, particularly when there are no apparent legal reasons for it based on the reasons given so far.

But this policy wasn't put in place for people in your situation. More than likely, it was put in place to prevent people from having large, worldly, and extravagant wedding ceremonies civilly because that's what is popular, and then going for the sealing as an afterthought. Even with this policy in place, there are temples that have problems with brides complaining that they can't wear their chosen dress to the sealing because it is inappropriate for temple worship.

The Church's position is that when people go to the temple to be sealed, it should be done with a singular focus on the meaning and significance of the covenant they are making and nothing else. In our religion, being sealed is not a milestone. It is a part of our worship.

Unfortunately, you were caught in something of a crossfire in the fight to keep sealing about being sealed.

[Guest mormonmusic]

The result of that decision was also to gain all the blessings available from the sealing covenant. And those blessings are far more important to your family (read you, your spouse, and your children) than the parents of one of the parties entering the covenant.

The latter part of this statement is flawed -- I think you've defined the family too narrowly. I'm both a parent and a child, and the relationship goes forward to my children, and backwards to my parents. Both directions are equally valid.

We're very fortunate that such is the case. A second ceremony, however, says to the world, "We went to the temple and were sealed for time and eternity, but to prove it to you, we want to make vows to each other that you can all see." It's essentially seeking validation through a source that has no authority.

See, for me, it had nothing to do with grandstanding beliefs -- it was about showing respect to my parents.....

Individuals go to the temple after being married civilly for years -- is there sealing any less valid or eternal? So far, I'm not convinced of any good reason for the policy.

Edited May 4, 2010 by mormonmusic

[hordak]

I know the Church frowns upon dual ceremonies, but in the event that a couple does decide to do it anyway, it makes sense for the Church to give them a waiting period so they can get a feel for the marriage before moving on to the next step. Again, that's just speculation/opinion on my part. I have no idea if it reflects Church policy or not.

But that's where i'm missing you.

Life long worthy members and RMs Brother Smith and Sister Jones after dating for 2 year decide at the age of 28. Even though they were born in the church thier parents are convert so a temple wedding would exclude numerous uncles and aunts plus great grandma Sue who isn't expected to live out the rest of the year. Given the circumstances they decide to wed civil first, because the church will not hold a wedding for them afterword.

Now without knowing the story the church says 1 year wait.

Converts of 2 years Bro BoB and Sis Sue, after meeting in the singles ward and dating for 2 months decide they wish to be married. They go to the temple and get sealed no questions asked.

Who would you think needs a feel for marriage?

[MarginOfError]

The latter part of this statement is flawed -- I think you've defined the family too narrowly. I'm both a parent and a child, and the relationship goes forward to my children, and backwards to my parents. Both directions are equally valid.

Well, except for this: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen. 2: 24)

When the Church speaks of your responsibility to your family, it almost always means to your spouse and your children; and your children only until they become fully accountable to themselves. It's a nicety to include your parents and siblings, but doctrinally speaking, the sealing is about you, your spouse, your children, and God. No one else is included in that covenant.

See, for me, it had nothing to do with grandstanding beliefs -- it was about showing respect to my parents.....

I never claimed it was about grandstanding your beliefs. I only said that a second ceremony sends the false impression that a temple marriage can be validated by something non-binding.

Individuals go to the temple after being married civilly for years -- is there sealing any less valid or eternal? So far, I'm not convinced of any good reason for the policy.

While their sealing is no less valid or eternal, they haven't enjoyed the blessings of the sealing covenant for those years before they enter the covenant. As a whole, they'd have been better off if they could have been sealed to start with.

[applepansy]

What this all comes down to is Obedience to God's commandments. Sometimes we have to choose God over our families. This happens every day when someone is baptized into the church, contrary to their family's wants.

mormonmusic, If you had to choose who is more important who would you pick??? Your Heavenly Father or your earthy parents?

[MarginOfError]

What this all comes down to is Obedience to God's commandments. Sometimes we have to choose God over our families. This happens every day when someone is baptized into the church, contrary to their family's wants.

mormonmusic, If you had to choose who is more important who would you pick??? Your Heavenly Father or your earthy parents?

I think this might be a little overly simplistic, and sometimes leads to a level of over-zealousness that I find disconcerting. As I've said previously, I feel this kind of a stand is appropriate on this issue only because the sealing is so vital as a part of our worship and eternal progression.