1 Year Wait

[ditd]

Coming from the UK we always had a civil ceremony before being able to be sealed in the Temple. I am now looking to get married in a country where both the legal and sealing ceremonies are completed together in the temple and if you wish to have a civil ceremony then you must wait one year.

This did not bother me when our wedding was beginning to be planned as I knew that choosing the temple sealing was the correct thing to do but as we get closer and closer to the date it is becoming harder.

As a convert ALL of my family are non-members. Although for the most part I am not emotionally saddened by them not being able to attend it breaks my heart to see my mum upset that she is unable to attend. If anything it seems righteous that you would want you family to attend the wedding.

I understand that the reason there is a waiting period is to ensure that members put the Savior first and foremost in their lives, but now I have mixed emotions - great happiness to be sealed to my fiance but a terrible sadness/guilt that it will not be with my parents.

Most of her close family will be there which is what makes it even worse for my mum, making her feel left out.

Any advice on how to deal with the situation and come to peace with my feelings would be greatly appreciated

[Guest Doctrine]

I had the same problem, and my family had a hard time with it as well, but I told them how much it ment to me that I loved my wife so much that I wanted to be with her forever and going to the temple is the only way, but not to worry iam going to throw one great big party after.

And after that most of them understood.

I only hope your family will be as understanding.

Advice, it's ok to be a bit selfish when it comes to your salvation

[Guest]

Coming from the UK we always had a civil ceremony before being able to be sealed in the Temple. I am now looking to get married in a country where both the legal and sealing ceremonies are completed together in the temple and if you wish to have a civil ceremony then you must wait one year.

This did not bother me when our wedding was beginning to be planned as I knew that choosing the temple sealing was the correct thing to do but as we get closer and closer to the date it is becoming harder.

As a convert ALL of my family are non-members. Although for the most part I am not emotionally saddened by them not being able to attend it breaks my heart to see my mum upset that she is unable to attend. If anything it seems righteous that you would want you family to attend the wedding.

I understand that the reason there is a waiting period is to ensure that members put the Savior first and foremost in their lives, but now I have mixed emotions - great happiness to be sealed to my fiance but a terrible sadness/guilt that it will not be with my parents.

Most of her close family will be there which is what makes it even worse for my mum, making her feel left out.

Any advice on how to deal with the situation and come to peace with my feelings would be greatly appreciated

Lots of people hold all the spiritual things in the temple then hold all the traditional stuff (like exchanging of rings and the wedding party) in a civil ceremony right after the temple sealing. This gives everybody who can't enter the temple a way to remain included in the wedding.

[Maureen]

You do have choices. You can get married civilly, have all family and friends attend, and wait the year to be sealed. Or you can have a temple wedding and before the reception, have a personal ring ceremony that everyone can attend and witness.

M.

[ditd]

Lots of people hold all the spiritual things in the temple then hold all the traditional stuff (like exchanging of rings and the wedding party) in a civil ceremony right after the temple sealing. This gives everybody who can't enter the temple a way to remain included in the wedding.

We are having a reception, but to my mum it isn't the same and I can see her point,

to me it isn't the same as the temple part is what is special, not the party and the exchanging of rings, but the vows.

You do have choices. You can get married civilly, have all family and friends attend, and wait the year to be sealed. Or you can have a temple wedding and before the reception, have a personal ring ceremony that everyone can attend and witness.

It doesn't feel like much of a choice, civil ceremony is choosing my family above the Savior

Choosing the temple feels like I'm ignoring the importance of my family...

I realise that I can't have my cake and eat it and that I definitely choose what is best in the eternal perspective and for my new eternal family but it's a horrible decision to have to make.

[Guest]

We are having a reception, but to my mum it isn't the same and I can see her point,

to me it isn't the same as the temple part is what is special, not the party and the exchanging of rings, but the vows.

Yes of course. It isn't the same. There's only one way it can be the same. Your mother needs to be baptized and worthy of a temple recommend. Because even if you marry civilly then wait 1 year to be sealed in the temple, your mother will still not be able to go to the important part of temple sealing (unless you feel that the vows made infront of a judge is important enough as the vows made at the temple)...

So in any case, it is a compromise - pursuing eternal things as opposed to worldly things always brings you this problem. It's not just getting married. It's not going with the family to the restaurant on Sunday, not drinking alcoholic beverages with the family, etc. etc. This is the life of a mixed-religion family.

It doesn't feel like much of a choice, civil ceremony is choosing my family above the Savior

Choosing the temple feels like I'm ignoring the importance of my family...

I realise that I can't have my cake and eat it and that I definitely choose what is best in the eternal perspective and for my new eternal family but it's a horrible decision to have to make.

Yes, it always is. It comes with obedience to God's covenants. This is the life of the Apostles when Jesus asked them to leave their families and "Come Follow Me". It is not to separate us from our families, no. It is being separated for a time to be together in the eternities.

[Maureen]

...It doesn't feel like much of a choice, civil ceremony is choosing my family above the Savior

Choosing the temple feels like I'm ignoring the importance of my family...

I realise that I can't have my cake and eat it and that I definitely choose what is best in the eternal perspective and for my new eternal family but it's a horrible decision to have to make.

I am non-LDS so I don't really understand this tug-of-war that seems to be required to be a good Mormon. The sealing you go through is not a wedding. The first ingredient to being sealed is you need to be married. You can get married without being sealed but you can't be sealed unless you are married first. With the LDS church in North American this is done with one ceremony, but it doesn't have to be. Converts who are already married, eventually get sealed, this does not diminish their sealing at all. You can get married civilly first, celebrate with all your family and friends, and then wait your year. Enjoy being married, get to know your new spouse and then when it's time to get sealed, it's all that much more sweeter. That's how I see it anyway. Good luck!

M.

[Vort]

The sealing you go through is not a wedding.

Yes, it is.

[Wordnerd]

I am non-LDS so I don't really understand this tug-of-war that seems to be required to be a good Mormon. The sealing you go through is not a wedding. The first ingredient to being sealed is you need to be married. You can get married without being sealed but you can't be sealed unless you are married first. With the LDS church in North American this is done with one ceremony, but it doesn't have to be. Converts who are already married, eventually get sealed, this does not diminish their sealing at all. You can get married civilly first, celebrate with all your family and friends, and then wait your year. Enjoy being married, get to know your new spouse and then when it's time to get sealed, it's all that much more sweeter. That's how I see it anyway. Good luck!

M.

I don't agree, I am a convert and while I don't feel that our sealing is in any way diminished by having been married for 12 years prior to it, a temple wedding is special, and is the ideal that I am hoping for for my own children. The celebration with the family and friends is not in any way threatened by the temple wedding, since the celebration is the reception in any case. Most religious people desire to be married according to the rites of their faith and saying the temple marriage is not important is like telling a Catholic or Protestant that getting married by a justice of the peace at a gas station (my mother actually did this) is as good as a church marriage. I have found that being sealed adds an extra degree of commitment and closeness to our marriage that I didn't even realise was missing before, and I think it is a valuable and worthy desire to want to start out your married life with that bond. OP this is where leaving your Father and Mother and cleaving to your wife starts, decide what is important to you as a couple and stick to it. You can show your family that you love and respect them by telling them why this means so much to you and asking them to be involved in the reception, and having a ring ceremony is a great idea.

[Leah]

Coming from the UK we always had a civil ceremony before being able to be sealed in the Temple. I am now looking to get married in a country where both the legal and sealing ceremonies are completed together in the temple and if you wish to have a civil ceremony then you must wait one year.

This did not bother me when our wedding was beginning to be planned as I knew that choosing the temple sealing was the correct thing to do but as we get closer and closer to the date it is becoming harder.

As a convert ALL of my family are non-members. Although for the most part I am not emotionally saddened by them not being able to attend it breaks my heart to see my mum upset that she is unable to attend. If anything it seems righteous that you would want you family to attend the wedding.

I understand that the reason there is a waiting period is to ensure that members put the Savior first and foremost in their lives, but now I have mixed emotions - great happiness to be sealed to my fiance but a terrible sadness/guilt that it will not be with my parents.

Most of her close family will be there which is what makes it even worse for my mum, making her feel left out.

Any advice on how to deal with the situation and come to peace with my feelings would be greatly appreciated

I am confused.

If you are legally married at the same time you are sealed, why would there even be a civil ceremony a year later? You'he already been married civilly/legally, so why - and how - would you do it again a year later?

[Leah]

I am non-LDS so I don't really understand this tug-of-war that seems to be required to be a good Mormon. The sealing you go through is not a wedding. The first ingredient to being sealed is you need to be married. You can get married without being sealed but you can't be sealed unless you are married first. With the LDS church in North American this is done with one ceremony, but it doesn't have to be. Converts who are already married, eventually get sealed, this does not diminish their sealing at all. You can get married civilly first, celebrate with all your family and friends, and then wait your year. Enjoy being married, get to know your new spouse and then when it's time to get sealed, it's all that much more sweeter. That's how I see it anyway. Good luck!

M.

And yet you feel compelled to give advice about things of the church you do not understand. Strange.

[EarlJibbs]

You may never have harmony between you and your family when it comes to being in the church. My honest suggestion, for what it is worth, is you owe you should give your wife everything. Place her above your parents, as she is the one you are going to be with for eternity. Explain things to your mother, but if she doesn’t understand, maybe one day she will.

But in the end, can you still make it to live with God by being civilly married, then sealed later? You could, but I think this is placing the wishes of your wife to be sealed to you in 2nd place. Good luck.

[estradling75]

ditd,

Many couples in your situation opt to do some kind of ring exchange ceremony at the reception.

Its not quite the same a getting married in front of family but it is a much closer balance of your desire to do what is right with God and your (and your families) desire to be there for important things in your life.

[Guest]

I am non-LDS so I don't really understand this tug-of-war that seems to be required to be a good Mormon. The sealing you go through is not a wedding.

Yes, it is.

This is for Maureen, not the OP. Just to explain this a bit farther. You're probably more familiar with the Catholic wedding as it is portrayed more in Hollywood movies. A Catholic getting married at the courthouse is not the same as getting married by the Priest of the Catholic Church. The non-Catholic wedding does not have the proper Priesthood Authority.

That's the same difference between getting married in the courthouse and getting married in the temple for LDS. The covenants made in the temple is a wedding. But more than a wedding, it is an eternal union - not just until death do you part but to life after death. As far as an earthly union is concerned, the difference between Catholic wedding and an LDS temple wedding is that you have to have a temple recommend to enter a temple. So, even if you're LDS you can't attend someone's wedding in the temple unless you have a temple recommend. And even if you're LDS you can't get married in the temple unless you have a temple recommend. It's super duper special to have a wedding in the temple. It is a good foundation to be bound by those eternal temple covenants at the onset of a married couple's beginning.

For those who don't qualify to enter the temple, they can be married civilly as an earthly covenant. These unions are not bound eternally. As they fulfill their covenants, they may qualify for more covenants at the temple and be bound for eternity (what we call a sealing), hence the 1 year wait to work on fulfilling those baptismal covenants so that they will be ready to make more covenants in the temple.

In a marital union, the couple getting married promise themselves to follow certain covenants (for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, etc. etc.). The family's presence in making these vows is not as important as the vows being made. Therefore, unless the law of the land does not recognize temple marriages as lawfully wed, a couple can't just use the reasoning that their parents can't attend the temple, so they're getting married outside of the temple and then go to the temple to get sealed without the 1 year wait. And it is not a good idea to just get married civilly and wait the 1 year for the sealing so the family can bear witness to the vows. It gives the impression that the couple does not understand the importance of an eternal union.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Edited April 23, 2013 by anatess

[skippy740]

I have a personal opinion on this subject.

First, I understand the way that it is set up in the United States. For those who are raised in the Church, we want to stress and teach about purity before marriage - to be temple worthy for a temple sealing. This requires chastity and living the commandments.

Could you imagine teaching kids to be chaste and then to say "Well, it kinda doesn't matter because you can get a civil marriage and just wait a year to get a temple marriage, right? So, go ahead and 'have fun' and just procrastinate the day of your repentance because it'll be alright in the end."

As such, for those who are unable to do so, there is the option of a civil ceremony performed by your Bishop and with a proper wait (penalty) time, you can attend the temple at a minimum time frame of 1 year.

But for converts who do not have family within the Church, a temple sealing can be some of the worst PR that the Church can have. "We're going to have a wonderful religious experience... and you can't come because you're not one of us." It can imply arrogance to an outsider. Yes, you can teach them, but does it really change anything? Sometimes it does.

My brother married a convert. He baptized her about 3 years ago. When they decided to get married, they initially planned on a temple sealing. However, her non-member parents would be unable to attend, even though they were taking missionary discussions and finally changing their minds about the Church. (They had said things about wanting to burn the temple down if they couldn't go to their daughter's wedding... so an improvement is an improvement!)

I think that converts should prayerfully consider their situation and alternatives and not necessarily adopt a hardline way of thinking of "This is the way it should be for everyone."

[ditd]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and considered answers.

For me the Temple Sealing is the only option that I feel is appropriate and shows the commitment to my future wife and our Savior.

Fortunately my mum hasn't made a fuss at all about not being able to enter the temple but I can see in her words and body language that it makes her sad that she cannot attend. This is exacerbated by the fact the my fiance's family can be there. It is like there is a party that she wants to go to, she knows she cant but cant really understand why. That is the part that I find difficult because I can see that it bothers her a lot but she cares too much to say.

At the same time my fiance's family have been supportive and are really great people and my fiance has dreamed of being sealed on her wedding day with her family there and that is something I would not deny her.

I understand the reasons behind this policy/instruction, however I feel that the legal and sealing ceremonies being performed withing the same day is a much better method as for me the sealing would be the most special part however for non-member family they would get to enjoy the civil event.

It is the concepts being at odds - the temple is for happy eternal families but having to start off by excluding my own family who have brought me this far

Edited April 23, 2013 by ditd

[ditd]

If you are legally married at the same time you are sealed, why would there even be a civil ceremony a year later? You'he already been married civilly/legally, so why - and how - would you do it again a year later?

In the UK you must have your civil ceremony first then your sealing. They must also be on the same day. If they are not on the same day you must wait a year before you are able to be sealed.

In other countries especially in North America where the civil and sealing ceremonies are able to be performed at the same time then it must all be done in the temple, otherwise civil first and then sealing a year later.

[Maureen]

Coming from the UK we always had a civil ceremony before being able to be sealed in the Temple. I am now looking to get married in a country where both the legal and sealing ceremonies are completed together in the temple and if you wish to have a civil ceremony then you must wait one year.[before you can be sealed in the temple].

[brackets added by me]

I am confused.

If you are legally married at the same time you are sealed, why would there even be a civil ceremony a year later? You'he already been married civilly/legally, so why - and how - would you do it again a year later?

Leah, it is obvious that ditd meant that if he and his fiance were to get married civilly first then they would be required to wait one year before being sealed.

And yet you feel compelled to give advice about things of the church you do not understand. Strange.

I do have an opinion Leah; and this is a forum where, if I am interested in the topic I am free to share my opinion, just like you.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Ditd, you may be interested in some thoughts on the issue that I posted here and here a while back. It may not make things easier; but perhaps it might give some insight into why the Church takes such a draconian stance.

There are a lot of questionable arguments and bogus history that critics of the Church's policy try to bring out. For example:

--some people say Joseph Smith originally taught marriages should be solemnized publicly and even introduced this into an early edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (not true; the "Article on Marriage" was rammed through a Church conference in Smith's absence by Oliver Cowdery as a direct response to rumors that Smith was already teaching polygamy).

--some say that that Brigham Young had no authority to change Church practice in matters of marriage (such as instituting temple marriages) because he "admitted to not being a prophet", which is a demonstrable falsehood once you chase down the citations that such people quote. (See, e.g., here.)

--some stoop so far as to dismiss the temple ceremonial clothing as "ugly", or compare the experience to dealing with a government bureaucracy.

--some accuse the Church of being "vindictive".

I don't dismiss the difficulty that the Church's policy imposes. On the other hand: there are certain covenants whose observance exacts a high personal cost; and we should beware of those who would exploit that cost in order to try to get us to help bear the chip that they carry on their own shoulders.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ditd]

unless you feel that the vows made infront of a judge is important enough as the vows made at the temple

To me the most important part is the vows made within the temple

To my mother the most important part are the vows made to the representative of the government/state.

Not having been present at an actual sealing I cannot comment however my previous Stake President mentioned that during the sealing ceremony we will be pronounced man and wife for civil/legal purposes and then again for time and eternity as part of the sealing vows

I'm not poking holes but surely if it has to be done twice even in the temple then I don't see why the legal part to satisfy the world cannot be undertaken outside of the temple it just feels that that is a more loving/inclusive way to do things

Of course church policy is not going to change and it is something I must bear - I just wish there was a more spiritual answer than "because the church says so and you're fortunate/unfortunate to live in a certain place"

[ditd]

I don't dismiss the difficulty that the Church's policy imposes. On the other hand: there are certain covenants whose observance exacts a high personal cost; and we should beware of those who would exploit that cost in order to try to get us to help bear the chip that they carry on their own shoulders.

Thank you for your advice. I do not really understand what you mean by exploit that cost?

For me it is not a question of choosing one or the other as I have made my choice for what I believe to be the correct one but trying to understand where the love is with this policy.

I find it hard to find any official church material that state it and none that explain the reasons why.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thank you for your advice. I do not really understand what you mean by exploit that cost?

In other words, try to use this as a wedge issue to get you to share their contempt for the Church.

For me it is not a question of choosing one or the other as I have made my choice for what I believe to be the correct one but trying to understand where the love is with this policy.

Understandable. It's a hard choice and it does challenge our fundamental notion of what "love" really means, and the kinds of relationships (with God, our family, and our spouse) that really come into play with regard to the temple covenants.

I find it hard to find any official church material that state it and none that explain the reasons why.

I agree with you that the Church could do a better job of explaining itself. I think the rationale can be reasonably inferred from the theology that we have; but it would be nice to have the Church formally "connect the dots".

[pam]

President Spencer W. Kimball told the following true story:

“A few years ago a young couple who lived in northern Utah came to Salt Lake City for their marriage. They did not want to bother with a temple marriage, or perhaps they did not feel worthy. At any rate, they had a civil marriage. After the marriage they got into their automobile and drove north to their home for a wedding reception. On their way home they had an accident, and when the wreckage was cleared, there was a dead man and a dead young woman. They had been married only an hour or two. Their marriage was ended. They thought they loved each other. They wanted to live together forever, but they did not live the commandments that would make that possible. So death came in and closed that career. They may have been good young people; I don’t know. But they will be angels in heaven if they are. They will not be gods and goddesses and priests and priestesses because they did not fulfill the commandments and do the things that were required at their hands.

“Sometimes we have people who say, ‘Oh, someday I will go to the temple. But I am not quite ready yet. And if I die, somebody can do the work for me in the temple.’ And that should be made very clear to all of us. The temples are for the living and for the dead only when the work could not have been done. Do you think that the Lord will be mocked and give to this young couple who ignored him, give them the blessings? The Lord said, ‘For all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.’ (D&C 132:7)” (in Conference Report, Japan Area Conference 1975, pp. 61–62).

While this story may apply to a couple who felt they weren't ready for a temple marriage, it can apply to any couple who chooses to have a civil marriage when a temple marriage and sealing is available to them.

[viannqueen3]

I think Skippy said it well. I'm not trying to rile you up Pam but that story attributed by President Kimball has always irked me for some reason. I mean- can't they give a better explanation for making a temple marriage a priority than using fear tactics? I would bet that it's entirely possible that this poor young couple that died tragically soon probably had their temple work done after their passing. No that's not ideal but neither is tragically passing away on your wedding day. But we all make mistakes, we all need repentance. Seems awfully judgmental for this poor couple that were at least trying to do something right and get married. Sorry for the tangent.

I've been to some very nice ring exchanges after a temple ceremony. I've also been to some very lovely sealings where the bride and groom were married at least a year previously. I know that's not the norm but I've appreciated the simplicity of the sealing ordinance without all the worry and fluff of wedding rituals going on that same day. I would take up the matter prayerfully.

[pam]

I think Skippy said it well. I'm not trying to rile you up Pam but that story attributed by President Kimball has always irked me for some reason. I mean- can't they give a better explanation for making a temple marriage a priority than using fear tactics? I would bet that it's entirely possible that this poor young couple that died tragically soon probably had their temple work done after their passing. No that's not ideal but neither is tragically passing away on your wedding day. But we all make mistakes, we all need repentance. Seems awfully judgmental for this poor couple that were at least trying to do something right and get married. Sorry for the tangent.

I've been to some very nice ring exchanges after a temple ceremony. I've also been to some very lovely sealings where the bride and groom were married at least a year previously. I know that's not the norm but I've appreciated the simplicity of the sealing ordinance without all the worry and fluff of wedding rituals going on that same day. I would take up the matter prayerfully.

You aren't riling me. But to be honest before I EVER saw this story I have always thought "What if something happened to a couple within that year? What if they decided to wait when that opportunity was available to them? It applies to anything. Life can end at any time. So you need to do now what you know to be right because you just never know if you will have that opportunity again.