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

[Anddenex]

Maureen,

Where did you find that members in the UK have to get sealed the same day?

[HiJolly]

I would happily welcome such a change in Church policy.

HiJolly

[Maureen]

...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 co-habitat before marrying.

You and Leah are comparing marriage with living together? You can't compare the two, one is looked on favourably by the LDS church the other is not. What would be the down fall of a couple being lawfully married for 3 months before getting sealed? How would that be a terrible thing? How many threads do we read on this forum about members who are sealed for a only a few years already contemplating divorce? And then after divorce so torn up because they can't stand the thought of being sealed to their ex-spouse. What's wrong with being married and learning what it means to be committed to your temporal marriage, so that you are truly committed to your eternal one?

M.

[Maureen]

Maureen,

Where did you find that members in the UK have to get sealed the same day?

On a podcast that I listened to recently.

M.

[Backroads]

Anddenex, thanks for the clarification.

I'm at mixed feelings. I really do believe that if you are committed enough for marriage, you ought to be committed enough for a sealing, so I don't like the idea of using this theoretical policy change to "test" marriage.

But I also don't see why it's okay to snub non-sealed marriages. Marriages are committments! I have trouble believing every sealed LDS marriage is significantly more committed than all other marriages out there.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex, thanks for the clarification.

:)

I'm at mixed feelings. I really do believe that if you are committed enough for marriage, you ought to be committed enough for a sealing, so I don't like the idea of using this theoretical policy change to "test" marriage.

I would agree. If the policy change wasn't used as a "test" for marriage compatibility, then no harm. Unfortunately, some relationships would.

But I also don't see why it's okay to snub non-sealed marriages. Marriages are committments! I have trouble believing every sealed LDS marriage is significantly more committed than all other marriages out there.

I also don't agree with snubbing civil marriages, however, a civil marriage is not binding eternally, thus a sealing is of higher importance to those of the LDS faith. My parents are converts, they both converted and decided to marry civilly first.

IMHO, I don't believe any LDS member should marry civilly first, especially if they claim to have a testimony. If they do, up to them.

All my relatives, except for one of my father's brothers are non-LDS. Non of them have been able to attend any of our weddings.

I still, however, don't believe the church needs to change any of it's policies to suit disagreements from non-members.

In answer to the question presented by Maureen, if the church changed it's policy, it wouldn't bother me, however I am inline with Vort's response.

[Anddenex]

You and Leah are comparing marriage with living together? You can't compare the two, one is looked on favourably by the LDS church the other is not. What would be the down fall of a couple being lawfully married for 3 months before getting sealed? How would that be a terrible thing? How many threads do we read on this forum about members who are sealed for a only a few years already contemplating divorce? And then after divorce so torn up because they can't stand the thought of being sealed to their ex-spouse. What's wrong with being married and learning what it means to be committed to your temporal marriage, so that you are truly committed to your eternal one?

M.

Nope, we are comparing the same argument you provided for civil marriage then to a sealing marriage, with what those who cohabitate first, and then get married later, or never get married.

We are comparing arguments. If you can compare a sealing to a civil marriage, then we can use the same argument with cohabitation then to marriage.

This argument you provide, as quoted below:

How many threads do we read on this forum about members who are sealed for a only a few years already contemplating divorce?

Is the same argument cohabiters use to not get married civilly.

This quote is also used by cohabiters:

What's wrong with being married and learning what it means to be committed to your temporal marriage, so that you are truly committed to your eternal one?

The only difference in the argument is verbage. For example, "What's wrong with being a couple first, living together, learning what it means to be committed, before we tie the knot?"

EDIT: To be clear Maureen. I agree with you that a civil marriage and a cohabitating couple are not the same thing. I am only providing how cohabiters use the same argument. Hope that clarifies.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Anddenex

[Maureen]

Here are someone else's thoughts (from a blog) on why he feels it's a good idea for the couple to be married for a period of time before being sealed:

I think it's a good idea for a married couple to take their time and let the marriage marinate a little before being sealed together, because then the sealing ceremony will have a much deeper meaning. Get to know each other; get those first dozen or so major quarrels out of the way and behind you, settle in with each other a bit, get in a lot of loving.

There is a deep, indescribable spiritual unity that develops in a couple after they have had sufficient time to experience the intense physical connection that comes with marriage, a shared intimacy that I feel should already be in place at the time the sealing ordinance is performed. A husband and wife who know what it is to be both spiritually and physically bonded, and who come to the altar with a calm, sober appreciation of their holy union are, in my opinion, more capable of appreciating the sacred ordinance that further binds and seals them together forever.

M.

[Anddenex]

Maureen,

As non-LDS, does it enter into the minds of nonmembers that not all LDS are able to see their family get married?

For example, when my older brother was married, non of my younger siblings were able to attend the Wedding. My sister, who I am closest with, would have loved to see me get married, but she had not gone through the temple yet.

Is this understood by non-members?

[Maureen]

...EDIT: To be clear Maureen. I agree with you that a civil marriage and a cohabitating couple are not the same thing. I am only providing how cohabiters use the same argument. Hope that clarifies.

That maybe true that you can see a similar argument, the difference is, the LDS church promotes marriage, whether that marriage is a civil marriage or an eternal marriage, the church sees both as good. They see a sealing as better, but the church does not condemn marriage. So if a couple were to wait 3 months after getting married, how is that worse than waiting one year?

M.

[Maureen]

Maureen,

As non-LDS, does it enter into the minds of nonmembers that not all LDS are able to see their family get married?

For example, when my older brother was married, non of my younger siblings were able to attend the Wedding. My sister, who I am closest with, would have loved to see me get married, but she had not gone through the temple yet.

Is this understood by non-members?

It is understood by me, I'm not sure all non-LDS people know this. But if the policy were to change, all family members could be witnesses of the wedding, even younger siblings. And the sealing would be just as sacred, just as special.

M.

[Backroads]

I personally have never understand the vitalness of "your sealing and marriage must be at the same time!" Mine was, but when we were hovering around waiting for my husband's sealing clearance, a civil ceremony was a possibility. My biggest worry was "Then I won't get married in my poor li'l ignored Ogden temple!" because I had little problem with waiting a year for the sealing--especially after my cousin reminded me "The sealing is what is important".

Yes, there are some cases where the sealing might never happen if it doesn't happen in the beginning, but I don't know if that's the truth overall.

[Anddenex]

I honestly have never had any other thought, then to be married in the Temple, sealed. I don't see any reason why to be married civilly first.

If I am remembering the conversation correctly I had with my mother, who was married civilly first, she would take it back and be married in the temple first. She saw no point in two wedding ceremonies.

This type of choice has never bothered me. If I were unable to attend a friends wedding due to a person's religious beliefs, it wouldn't bother me. I would accept their religious beliefs.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think you feel this way because it's all you've known.

Quite possibly.

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.

I'm not sure early Mormonism made that distinction. When the revelation about celestial marriage was received early Church leaders were re-sealed to women they had civilly married before the revelation came, but I don't think we have evidence of a reliable practice of a two-step sealing for subsequent wives. Given that many of these marriages were polygamous, the idea of solemnizing them civilly would have been absurd anyways.

I have never seen anything in Mormon doctrine that suggests God instituted a two-tiered marriage system. Rather we are taught that our temple marriages are after the same order as the marriage of Adam and Eve, which was performed in the Garden of Eden by God Himself. From a theological standpoint, God instituted marriage - eternal marriage - and secular governments attempted to conform to, if not co-opt, the divine pattern for their own purposes. We have no eternal duty to conform to secular legal procedure in regards to marriage, though our leaders have deemed it advisable for us to do so at the present time.

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.

I don't think I said any such thing. I merely said that the family, important though it is, is subordinate to God and His will. That concept does show up in the sermons of Jesus Himself as recorded in the Bible, though I grant you that as Mormons we've tended to downplay them of late.

Do you really believe that it is God that makes the policies of your church? Policy is not doctrine.

I believe the Church is led by a bona fide prophet of the Most High and fourteen additional true Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are those within our Church who choose to justify its failure to conform to their social preferences by assuming that our leaders live a cloistered existence surrounded by an endless litany of awe-stricken yes-men, and are unable or unwilling to understand how their decisions affect the hoi polloi of the Church. I am not among that group. The LDS leadership, while generally aged, have grandkids, and nieces and nephews, and even kids - sometimes inactive - who experience first-hand the ramifications of Church policy from a variety of perspectives. I do not believe the Church leaders are ogres. I believe that if they felt they had divine license to change the policy, the policy would have changed long ago.

My paternal grandparents - not Mormons - were married in my grandfather's family parlor. My maternal grandparents - one of whom was a Mormon - were married by a branch president with precisely six witnesses present. It is not the Mormon concept of wedding ceremonies that has radically evolved over time, and I'm not terribly impressed by arguments that the Church should necessarily hop on board with some will o'the wisp social notion of an "ideal" wedding.

When society quits viewing elopement as "romantic" and starts giving the Las Vegas quickie-wedding industry as much grief as they give the LDS Church, maybe then we can start having an honest discussion about how Mormon wedding practices inhibit bonding with one's extended family.

IMO, I think a lot of members (whether they are liberal or traditional) would be jumping for joy.

And some would be using it as a stepping stone for the next big thing - gay marriage, opening the temple liturgy to non-Mormons or doing away with it entirely, or wherever our Mormon strain of liberalism feels compelled to wander in the coming decades. That's my concern.

[Saguaro]

I would be in favor of such a policy change. It's just a policy, no doctrine would change and the sanctity of both marriage and sealing would not change, and more non-LDS as well as LDS family would be able to participate in the actual wedding, while keeping the sacredness of the temple sealing intact.

[Just_A_Guy]

That maybe true that you can see a similar argument, the difference is, the LDS church promotes marriage, whether that marriage is a civil marriage or an eternal marriage, the church sees both as good. They see a sealing as better, but the church does not condemn marriage. So if a couple were to wait 3 months after getting married, how is that worse than waiting one year?

The Mormon theological perception of marriage is radically different than the world's, or even conventional Christian marriage. In Mormonism the defining feature isn't just about "love", or committing to share in each other's joys and trials, or to pick up his dirty socks, or to eat her terrible cooking. It's not even about two individuals becoming one in some generic-but-inexplicably-mystical sense, or even the union of extended families or their pledge to support the happy couple.

It's about creating an eternal god-unit. Full stop.

Even lots of Mormons don't really get it. We get wrapped up in the veil, and the dress, and something borrowed and something blue and Grandma's pearls and that cool hold-two-candles-together-and-light-a-single-bigger-candle thing. Daddy has to walk the daughter down the aisle. Mother has to have a dance with her son. We smile, we laugh, we weep, we take pictures, and everything's just so cute and romantic. We've become slaves to "traditions" that, if they even existed a century ago, were common only among the wealthy who could throw money at things like this, and could be spared from the rigors of a day's work to travel a few (hundred?) miles to go partake in the festivities.

Now, I can let myself get wrapped up in these modern niceties - even the family aspect - and I can, on those grounds, deliberately opt out of the whole "become a god-unit" thing. I can decide that I don't want to become an heir to the blessings of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I can decide that I'm not really ready to become a member of the patriarchal order of priesthood. On a given day I can choose my family over my theology. And contrary to Jesus' own Biblical pronouncements, His Church will even give me a mulligan - I can opt into a temple marriage down the road. But that second chance isn't something I'm entitled to or can expect as a matter of right. Rather, it's something Christ in His mercy offers me after I've taken some time and come to understand just what it was that I first rejected. Hence, the one-year waiting period.

The blog you quote falls prey to the common critic's trap of assuming that the only two choices the Church really offers (whether for temple marriage, missionary service, or conformance to any one of the Church's numerous standards of living) are poor preparation, or an outright refusal to prepare. I would suggest that it is also possible for a young engaged couple to take their time, get their priorities straight, and go to the temple with at least a basic understanding of what it is they're really committing to do from a theological standpoint. I acknowledge we often fall short of this standard. But the difference between an orthodox and a liberal Mormon is that the former tries to change the practice to fit the doctrine; the latter tries to change the doctrine to fit the practice.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

Just_A_Guy, after reading all of your posts I get the feeling that you are seeing this as more complicated than is necessary. A policy change like this would not endanger the sealing or what the church and its members deem as sacred. The tradition of getting sealed first (combining the wedding and sealing into one event) has not always been the practice for Mormon couples. There was a time when couples did have public ceremonies and the sealing was done later. That tradition changed into what it is now. As time goes on, the church will always have to consider different policy changes. A policy does not pronounce doctrine, it just sets a standard of practice. Policies can be changed, with no effect to doctrine, or sacredness. It might effect a person's perception, but most people over time are able to adapt.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

The tradition of getting sealed first (combining the wedding and sealing into one event) has not always been the practice for Mormon couples. There was a time when couples did have public ceremonies and the sealing was done later. That tradition changed into what it is now.

I would be interested to see a source confirming that this was the case a) after the Church quit solemnizing polygamous marriages that were universally acknowledged to be of no legal effect, and b) in communities where temple ordinances were readily available.

Just_A_Guy, after reading all of your posts I get the feeling that you are seeing this as more complicated than is necessary. A policy change like this would not endanger the sealing or what the church and its members deem as sacred.

You see no threat to the "sealing" because as a non-Mormon you quite naturally reject the Mormon theology of marriage: that temple sealing is true marriage; and civil marriage is essentially a social construct--man's poor attempt to mirror the pattern God established.

As time goes on, the church will always have to consider different policy changes. A policy does not pronounce doctrine, it just sets a standard of practice. Policies can be changed, with no effect to doctrine, or sacredness. It might effect a person's perception, but most people over time are able to adapt.

But you miss the fact that frequently, the policy sets a standard of practice that is designed to conform to a core doctrine. The weaker the nexus between a policy and some underlying doctrine, the more easily that policy can change.

Here, three underlying doctrines are 1) the temple sealing is a sort of liturgical "gate", if you will, that a couple passes through at the beginning of their joint path to godhood; 2) we do not administer sacred ordinances to people who have demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to understand and keep the covenants associated with those ordinances; and 3) our progression in God's plan and our determination to serve Him should trump every other earthly obligation and priority.

The current one-year waiting period policy reinforces these doctrines; and if it is removed, then either a) it will be removed to the detriment of one or more of those doctrines, or b) it will be replaced with a new policy that reinforces those doctrines at least as well as the old one did. And the odds are that our liberal wing wouldn't like that new policy, either.

Because in my experience, at their cores, most Mormon liberals just don't see the temple liturgy as anything of lasting theological significance; they don't see a significant link between some institutional standard of "worthiness" and liturgical participation; and/or they don't really think that loyalty to the will of God (as expressed by the canon and leadership of the LDS Church) should trump secular social and familial bonds.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

I would be interested to see a source confirming that this was the case a) after the Church quit solemnizing polygamous marriages that were universally acknowledged to be of no legal effect, and b) in communities where temple ordinances were readily available.

So far I have come across one blog where the writer states that both his parents and grandparents (all temple worthy) had public ceremonies before being sealed later. I am searching for other sources though.

You see no threat to the "sealing" because as a non-Mormon you quite naturally reject the Mormon theology of marriage: that temple sealing is true marriage; and civil marriage is essentially a social construct--man's poor attempt to mirror the pattern God established.

I do not have a personal testimony myself of the validity of the "sealing" but I respect that belief and doctrine. I also believe that marriage is good, even civil marriages performed with or without a religious foundation. Marriage unites people together, to carry on a family structure; and wedding/marriage traditions are as diverse as the different cultures that exist. To say that there is one wedding/marriage tradition above all others is just arrogant.

The current one-year waiting period policy reinforces these doctrines; and if it is removed, then either a) it will be removed to the detriment of one or more of those doctrines, or b) it will be replaced with a new policy that reinforces those doctrines at least as well as the old one did. And the odds are that our liberal wing wouldn't like that new policy, either.

The problem with the current one year waiting period is that it does not apply to all members of the church globally. It applies to North American members, but there are other members who do not have these specific stipulations. Are those doctrines in jeopardy in other countries because they do not follow this policy?

M.

[Backroads]

JaG, I believe the sealing to be of the upmost importance, but I'm getting the impression that you believe "if you can't get married right off in the temple, you might as well never bother to seek a sealing" with all your focus on the sealing and not on the marriage.

[Backroads]

The problem with the current one year waiting period is that it does not apply to all members of the church globally. It applies to North American members, but there are other members who do not have these specific stipulations. Are those doctrines in jeopardy in other countries because they do not follow this policy?

I think this is a fair question. If the policy were significantly following a doctrine, why would it only apply to some countries? I understand the differences in laws, but are those in those countries given some other policy to make up for the doctrinal deficiency?

[MarginOfError]

Seeing as Mormons have a higher divorce rate during the first three years than the rest of the population (not statistically significant), perhaps it would be wise to consider a change to the policy.

Other options might include

• Doing a better job of teaching youth what marriage is about (as JAG notes, we seem to get lost in the pomp, circumstance, and romance of the ceremony, but fail to take seriously the implications of the ordinance and the covenant)
• Stop pressing our young adults to get married so young.
• Emphasize more strongly the endowment as a marker of personal growth and development, and not just a necessary step to complete prior to being sealed.

Disclaimer: I may or may not agree or disagree with any of these statements. Just more fodder for conflict in the thread

[Anddenex]

The problem with the current one year waiting period is that it does not apply to all members of the church globally. It applies to North American members, but there are other members who do not have these specific stipulations. Are those doctrines in jeopardy in other countries because they do not follow this policy?

M.

As Backroads had specified, this is a great question. Doctrines are really never in jeopardy, only the ability to practice them, however the work continues.

We have doctrine, to honor the laws of the lands wherever the church is practicing. For example, before the East Berlin Wall was brought down, there were church members within the wall.

One of the laws was that no published material could be brought into the area. President Monson, at this time Elder Monson, was given assignment to memorize a manual or the Book of Mormon, and when he arrived, to sit down and write the whole manual or Book of Mormon. When he arrived and sat down, he looked up and fortunately a copy of the manual was there.

Also, there were no temples in East Berlin, yet there were people who wanted to be married in the temples. They married civilly first, because Temples at that time were not accessible to members. The doctrine didn't change, and the doctrine still stood, however as a result of the Church honoring the communist laws there, the government begin to give permission to church members to leave and be married in temples. The government trusted the Church that if members of the communist society were permitted to leave, then the church would make sure they returned and the church did.

As a result, of the Church and its honoring of the laws, if I am remembering correctly, a temple was able to built giving access to the temple for the members.

Without the church honoring the laws of this land to begin with, other members would have never had the opportunity.

The doctrines are never at jeopardy, the ability for some members to live those doctrines may be for a short time, however, the Lord provided.

[Maureen]

Seeing as Mormons have a higher divorce rate during the first three years than the rest of the population (not statistically significant), perhaps it would be wise to consider a change to the policy.

Other options might include

• Doing a better job of teaching youth what marriage is about (as JAG notes, we seem to get lost in the pomp, circumstance, and romance of the ceremony, but fail to take seriously the implications of the ordinance and the covenant)
• Stop pressing our young adults to get married so young.
• Emphasize more strongly the endowment as a marker of personal growth and development, and not just a necessary step to complete prior to being sealed.

Disclaimer: I may or may not agree or disagree with any of these statements. Just more fodder for conflict in the thread

My husband and I married 31 years ago in the Lutheran church and the requirement from the Pastor was to take pre-marriage counseling. IIRC, it was a 3 day course, with several speakers. I believe quite a few mainstream Christian church offer pre-marriage counseling classes before performing marriages. Does the LDS church offer pre-marriage counseling?

M.

[Backroads]

I don't recall any official counseling program the Church has set up, but I have heard of various bishops recommending it.

Anddenex, great post.

My next question is, what is the doctrine?

To be sealed in the temple or to have the sealing/sign the official civil marriage document all at once in the temple?