If there is a change in policy regarding Sealings...

[Maureen]

If the LDS church did change the policy for Sealings for all members globally so that members could get married civilly first and then get sealed at a later date with the timing determined by the couple (no one year waiting restriction); what would be your reaction?

Would you welcome the change? Would you find it difficult accepting the change?

M.

[Guest]

I don't know why anyone would find it difficult to accept.

[JosephP]

I'm not understanding, are you saying there is a change in policy, or just wondering how people would feel about it if it happened?

[ruthiechan]

That would be okay with me. It'd help non-member family members feel included and then you wouldn't have to wait so long to get the sealing done. Married on Saturday morning sealed Saturday evening. Bada boom. Done

[annewandering]

Some areas of the world do this due to legal issues in certain countries. Its no problem to me how ever they want it done.

[Wingnut]

Assuming that there was still a wait policy in place for couples who were recently baptized/reactivated or otherwise not-yet-temple-worthy at the time of civil marriage, I'd otherwise be all in favor of such a policy change.

I think it would go a long way toward good will among families of converts. When I got married, not one person from my extended family came. I lived in New England, and most of my extended family live in California. My parents are both first-generation converts to the Church, so their families are familiar with temple policies, etc., having not been able to attend my parents' wedding. But all their family attended the reception. I had no one at mine, because it wasn't practical for anyone to travel across the country to not even be able to attend the wedding.

My only concern would be the hedonistic aspect -- with a wedding happening in the temple, it becomes (theoretically, anyway) the primary focus. I'd be worried about a sealing ceremony evolving into an afterthought, and too much pomp and circumstance happening at the wedding itself. I know that LDS still have somewhat traditional receptions already, but I think we would see a shift in tradition over a generation.

[Maureen]

I'm not understanding, are you saying there is a change in policy, or just wondering how people would feel about it if it happened?

I'm just wondering how members would react if the policy did change.

M.

[bytebear]

I don;t know that it would change anything. Whether it's a sealing in the morning and a reception in the evening, or a wedding in the morning and a sealing in the afternoon. But really, you are putting civil vows ahead of spiritual vows which is really I think the reason the church has the policy as it is now. Having a "pre-wedding" will not appease those who insist they are being left out of the temple experience.

[Maureen]

I don;t know that it would change anything. Whether it's a sealing in the morning and a reception in the evening, or a wedding in the morning and a sealing in the afternoon. But really, you are putting civil vows ahead of spiritual vows which is really I think the reason the church has the policy as it is now. Having a "pre-wedding" will not appease those who insist they are being left out of the temple experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "pre-wedding", but what I'm asking is if the LDS church made it acceptable, for those wishing to marry, to first have a civil wedding (which can be as spiritual as the couple wishes) for everyone to witness and celebrate, then a reception; and then at a later date that is best for the couple, a few days later or a few weeks later, or how ever long the couple is comfortable with, the sealing. Typically weddings have always been a public event so that the couple getting married could be surrounded by friends and family who show and give support. Not everyone who is married is sealed but you cannot be sealed if you are not married. So in a sense the sealing is not really a wedding, it is a ceremony that makes a temporal marriage into an eternal marriage. Since that is already acknowledged in other countries due to their marriage laws, why could not the LDS church make it a policy world wide; to let couples have a celebratory wedding where everyone is invited, a reception, and then the sealing can happen when the couple is prepared to understand and commit to a sealing, an eternal marriage.

The LDS church is pro-marriage so I can't imagine why a civil wedding would be looked down upon. The wedding does not take anything away from the sealing; in fact it would put everything into perspective. The wedding is a public event to celebrate the union of a new family. The sealing is more of a private event that makes covenants between the couple and God. Why can't each event have it's own importance?

M.

[Vort]

I would not object to such a policy change. I trust my leaders to be led by the Spirit in all such things.

But if you asked my opinion, I would strongly favor leaving things as they are.

[KevlarH]

I would be worried about it if a change like that was implemented and I'll tell you why. When I was on my Mission and we were preparing someone for baptism, we always warned them that Satan would try to stop them in some way. I found this true almost 100% of the time. Something or someone would try to put it off or cause doubts to stop it. The same would be true for marriage. If you try and put it off, then more and more things would happen to try and stop the Temple sealing from happening. It is Satan. Going to the Temple is a great blessing and strength for your family, and I don't think it would ever be wise to put it off when the spirit is prompting you to do it now. Your reasons may be good intentioned, but if you can get a Temple marriage irregardless of whether it effects non member family or friends attending, you should. It should be your number one priority. Have a ring ceremony afterwards that non member family and friends can watch you exchange rings , vows etc. and feel a part of.

Edited October 1, 2012 by ldrkholt

[Maureen]

ldrkholt, are you saying that if the leaders of the LDS church saw it fit to changed the policy for sealings, that you would question whether they were doing the right thing? In my scenario, I'm saying that the couple chooses when they want to be sealed - a couple days later, a couple weeks, a couple months. Do you see a problem with the couple getting sealed at a later date? The way the policy is set up now is, an LDS temple worthy couple who is civilly married in North America has to wait a year to be sealed. Those in the UK that have to get married civilly first have to get sealed on the same day. If the couple got to choose when to get sealed, then they could get more familiar with married life and be extra sure that they were fully committed toward their sealing, toward eternal marriage. The way the policy is set up now is, if the couple chooses a civil wedding for themselves and are temple worthy, they have the ability to do proxy sealings for their deceased relatives but they themselves cannot be sealed to each other. The thing is the policy is not the same globally. Do you see a problem with it changing so that it is the same for all members?

M.

[KevlarH]

No, I said I would be worried about the waiting and explained why; not that I would question whether they were right. Mostly the latter part of my answer was dealing with why I thought it would be not a good idea to wait. That was just my own feelings on that. I understand what you are asking, but I am sure the policy has been in place for a reason. Perhaps you should ask the bishop to find out exactly what the reasoning is.

[RMGuy]

I would welcome that change

-RM

[Blackmarch]

If the LDS church did change the policy for Sealings for all members globally so that members could get married civilly first and then get sealed at a later date with the timing determined by the couple (no one year waiting restriction); what would be your reaction?

Would you welcome the change? Would you find it difficult accepting the change?

M.

No, as long as the couple have the bishops/stake pres's agreement on the action, and as it is the current policy seems more technical than not, it wouldn't affect me a bit.

[Maureen]

...I understand what you are asking, but I am sure the policy has been in place for a reason...

From what I've read the policy has been in place since the sixties, before that LDS couples married civilly and then got sealed at a later date of their choosing. I believe exceptions were given because Temples were few and far between. A couple could seek permission from the presidency to have a civil wedding first and then go to the Temple days later, like Mitt and Ann Romney did.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it's still LDS policy that if travel is necessary, you can do a civil ceremony first so long as the sealing happens within a week.

For me, I think there'd be a loud initial "harrumph" - our ancestors braved the arid wastelands of the Honeymoon Trail so that their marriages could be solemnized correctly - the first time - in the St. George temple, and we can't even endure the awkwardness of explaining to our extended family that the traditional "ring ceremony" isn't technically the wedding itself? And from a Mormon theological standpoint, it is the civil ceremony that is a pale imitation of the temple marriage - not vice versa.

Moreover, for me, Mormonism loses something vital once the membership buys into the notion that our religion is always supposed to be easy or that biological links - important as they are - are a bigger priority than the will of the God who gave us those family connections.

That said - I wouldn't lose my testimony over a policy shift like the one described in the OP. But I gotta say, I'd be pretty irritated at the smugness among theological liberals that the shift would inevitably cause.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Leah]

ldrkholt, are you saying that if the leaders of the LDS church saw it fit to changed the policy for sealings, that you would question whether they were doing the right thing? In my scenario, I'm saying that the couple chooses when they want to be sealed - a couple days later, a couple weeks, a couple months. Do you see a problem with the couple getting sealed at a later date? The way the policy is set up now is, an LDS temple worthy couple who is civilly married in North America has to wait a year to be sealed. Those in the UK that have to get married civilly first have to get sealed on the same day. If the couple got to choose when to get sealed, then they could get more familiar with married life and be extra sure that they were fully committed toward their sealing, toward eternal marriage. The way the policy is set up now is, if the couple chooses a civil wedding for themselves and are temple worthy, they have the ability to do proxy sealings for their deceased relatives but they themselves cannot be sealed to each other. The thing is the policy is not the same globally. Do you see a problem with it changing so that it is the same for all members?

M.

Those sound like the same arguments people make for living together before marriage...try it out and see if it works first...see if you like living together. There is no commitment there.

To say that couples should "try out" marriage first before committing to a sealing seems to be quite at odds with what the church teaches about marriages and sealings.

Why should the church change its teachings and ordinances to conform to a secular world that really doesn't believe in marriage?

[Maureen]

I think it's still LDS policy that if travel is necessary, you can do a civil ceremony first so long as the sealing happens within a week.

Yes, I believe you are correct but I don't think a lot of members know about it.

For me, I think there'd be a loud initial "harrumph" - our ancestors braved the arid wastelands of the Honeymoon Trail so that their marriages could be solemnized correctly - the first time - in the St. George temple, and we can't even endure the awkwardness of explaining to our extended family that the traditional "ring ceremony" isn't technically the wedding itself? And from a Mormon theological standpoint, it is the civil ceremony that is a pale imitation of the temple marriage - not vice versa.

I think you feel this way because it's all you've known. I don't believe members getting married in the forties viewed the wedding and the sealing as inferior and superior respectively. I think they realized that the wedding is the union bringing the couple together and the sealing was the ordinance making that union eternal.

Moreover, for me, Mormonism loses something vital once the membership buys into the notion that our religion is always supposed to be easy or that biological links - important as they are - are a bigger priority than the will of the God who gave us those family connections.

Isn't there some contradiction in this view. The LDS church promotes the family, preaches about the family and now you're saying that the family is really not that important. Do you really believe that it is God that makes the policies of your church? Policy is not doctrine.

That said - I wouldn't lose my testimony over a policy shift like the one described in the OP. But I gotta say, I'd be pretty irritated at the smugness among theological liberals that the shift would inevitably cause.

IMO, I think a lot of members (whether they are liberal or traditional) would be jumping for joy. Quite a few forums and blogs out there talk about this subject a lot and I get the picture that this would be welcomed joyously.

M.

[IRealtor007]

Wouldnt bother me one bit...

[Maureen]

Those sound like the same arguments people make for living together before marriage...try it out and see if it works first...see if you like living together. There is no commitment there.

To say that couples should "try out" marriage first before committing to a sealing seems to be quite at odds with what the church teaches about marriages and sealings.

Why should the church change its teachings and ordinances to conform to a secular world that really doesn't believe in marriage?

Wow Leah, are you really painting marriage as evil? The LDS church likes marriage, it believes in marriage, it sees marriage as good. I think you are confusing marriage with an ordinance that is distinctly a Mormon practice. If the LDS church does eventually change their policy regarding sealings, the change would neither diminish marriage or the sealing. It would put both special events into perspective. It would allow families to celebrate together the union of a new family and the sealing would stay a special, private event that it has been described as being, even on this forum.

Leah, if the LDS leaders did see fit to change this policy would you loose faith in those leaders?

M.

[Backroads]

I would be just fine with it. I do not fight against the current policy or think anything wrong with it, but I admit I would prefer the policy you suggested.

[Backroads]

Those sound like the same arguments people make for living together before marriage...try it out and see if it works first...see if you like living together. There is no commitment there.

To say that couples should "try out" marriage first before committing to a sealing seems to be quite at odds with what the church teaches about marriages and sealings.

Why should the church change its teachings and ordinances to conform to a secular world that really doesn't believe in marriage?

I don't understand what all the fire is about here. You are basically saying that anyone who does have to wait a year before a sealing is "testing out marriage". Maureen did not say a single word about "trying out marriage".

I interpreted her OP as simply doing away with the official one-year wait.

[Anddenex]

I don't understand what all the fire is about here. You are basically saying that anyone who does have to wait a year before a sealing is "testing out marriage". Maureen did not say a single word about "trying out marriage".

I interpreted her OP as simply doing away with the official one-year wait.

I believe Leah was actually responding to this part of Maureen's statement, not her original statement:

If the couple got to choose when to get sealed, then they could get more familiar with married life and be extra sure that they were fully committed toward their sealing, toward eternal marriage.

This statement implies "trying out" marriage civilly before being sealed, by which Leah responded, and her statement takes weight, that the same argument is being said by those who don't want to be married civilly first, they would rather cohabitate before marrying.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Anddenex

[Maureen]

I recently listened to a podcast talking about this very subject. A few of the speakers talked about how when they had their civil weddings in an LDS church before being sealed, it made for a very joyous occasion for both LDS members and non-LDS members. The ceremonies were so nice that many of the non-members at the wedding became very curious about the church and it became a very positive experience for everyone. If that's not a great missionary tool then I don't know what is.

M.