Have we got it right?

[carlimac]

This weekend I attended the wedding of my niece in a beautiful fall location, out of doors, surrounded by nature with many close friends and family attending of all different faiths. It was really the most beautiful, warm and spiritual wedding I've ever been to. Music was played, beautiful songs sung, scriptures read and the active LDS bride and non-LDS groom read their vows to each other with love and power. The marriage was presided over and performed by a man and wife couple who are both ministers of some other faith. There was absolutely no sense of impropriety or out of order-ness that a woman was involved in performing this wedding. In fact she lent a special tenderness that her husband didn't provide quite as much. The couple are both good to the core individuals. My niece's now husband is a guy who provides more genuine and hardworking service to the community than I've ever seen before- even from Mormons. My niece is a sweet, happy loving girl who was jilted by her previous RM Mormon husband. Thankfully there were no children from that 5 yr marriage.

I've never seen someone so happy and in love on her wedding day as this girl was on Friday. She was positively glowing as was her husband. I wanted to feel like something was missing, but I honestly didn't.

After witnessing this amazing wedding, I couldn't help but feel that temple weddings are rather sterile and stiff and lacking in joy and rejoicing. It starts with being shushed every 5 min in the waiting room and ends with the couple being told they can't look at each other as the sealing is being performed. And having to be so quiet through the whole thing.

So aside from it being a this life only wedding (at this point) are we getting the rest of it right?

Edited October 14, 2013 by carlimac

[Dravin]

After witnessing this amazing wedding, I couldn't help but feel that temple weddings are rather sterile and stiff and lacking in joy and rejoicing.

Mine wasn't, I suppose other's may have varied.

[carlimac]

Mine wasn't, I suppose other's may have varied.

If you had been to this one you might think otherwise. I'm talking about the actual ceremony.

[Dravin]

If you had been to this one you might think otherwise.

I might, but I'm doubtful. I fail to see how this supposedly awesome ceremony would retroactively change what I experienced when I was sealed to Beefche.

I'm talking about the actual ceremony.

Yep, mine wasn't sterile, stiff, or lacking in joy and rejoicing. Additionally, we weren't told we couldn't look at each other. There were parts we were to look at the sealer but that isn't, "You can't look at each other." What you are talking about does not reflect my experience.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Dravin

[Jenamarie]

The bride and groom aren't supposed to look at each other during the Sealing? I've never been to one like that. My brother couldn't take his eyes off his bride when he married her a few years ago. And after the ceremony, even though we still had to whisper, we still got to express our congratulations to the couple, and there were lots of smiles and soft chuckles, and then of course the very powerful symbolism of having them stand between the two mirrors to see themselves reflected "into eternity".

And then there was the fun of all crowding around the steps of the Temple for pictures (this was the Oakland Temple).

I guess it does depend on what Temple Sealings you've been to, because all the ones I've been to have been very Spirit-filled, love-filling-the-room events.

[Anddenex]

So aside from it being a this life only wedding (at this point) are we getting the rest of it right?

Yes. If people are reverent they won't need to be hushed ( like little children ) every 5 minutes. The temple is a place of reverence, people shouldn't be surprised if they are hushed for a lack of reverence.

I have attended 6 other sealings within the temple and I never experienced what you are specifying that happens. Each of my friends and family members were able to look at their spouse. All six of these friends and family were ecstatic on their wedding day. They were happier that day more so than any other day I saw them.

I am not sure what you are speaking about regarding couples not being able to look at each other. I constantly looked into the eyes of my wife to be over the altar while the sealer spoke.

We have receptions for the joy and rejoicing and not worrying about being hushed every 5 minutes.

[carlimac]

Also, it was wonderful that no one that loved them was barred from being there. I knowthe reasons non-members aren't allowed in the temple, but it's wonderful when they can all be there.

[carlimac]

Yes. If people are reverent they won't need to be hushed ( like little children ) every 5 minutes. The temple is a place of reverence, people shouldn't be surprised if they are hushed for a lack of reverence.

I have attended 6 other sealings within the temple and I never experienced what you are specifying that happens. Each of my friends and family members were able to look at their spouse. All six of these friends and family were ecstatic on their wedding day. They were happier that day more so than any other day I saw them.

I am not sure what you are speaking about regarding couples not being able to look at each other. I constantly looked into the eyes of my wife to be over the altar while the sealer spoke.

We have receptions for the joy and rejoicing and not worrying about being hushed every 5 minutes.

I understand the need for quiet in the temple. But I still maintain that it feels too sterile and uptight compared to what I experienced this weekend. I have been to a few weddings where the sealer didn't allow them to look at each other during the actual sealing. I talked to another LDS woman who pointed out the same thing.

[Seanette]

After witnessing this amazing wedding, I couldn't help but feel that temple weddings are rather sterile and stiff and lacking in joy and rejoicing. It starts with being shushed every 5 min in the waiting room and ends with the couple being told they can't look at each other as the sealing is being performed.

Huh, what? Either you had an odd sealer or you misunderstood something. DH and I got no such demand from ours.

As for what was missing, well, I'd consider eternity to have been missing from this otherwise lovely ceremony you attended. At the death of one spouse, that marriage will end, while if she'd held out for a man who could take her to the Temple, she'd have at least had the opportunity for a marriage to last forever.

[Guest]

I didn't feel that my sealing was uptight. I recall some joking and laughing, and advice from our sealer. I don't remember not being able to look at my groom. In fact when I look back I barely remember anyone else in the room, though there were many. Lots of happiness and joyful embraces after and plenty of celebrating the rest of the day.

I've also been to many other weddings inside and outside of the temple that were beautiful and the brides and grooms happy in their own ways. Not everyone emotes the same way (or at all in public). I love all weddings. Of course there is the Eternity aspect to a Temple wedding and I hope that for my children, but I think all marriages (between man and woman) are sanctified and I have definitely felt the Spirit in weddings outside of the Temple.

[Just_A_Guy]

I can see both sides of it. My temple-wedding-experience is in line with Dravin's, Jenamarie's, and Eowyn's--no one needed to be shushed; lots of smiles; and no one ever told Just_A_Girl and I to quit looking at each other.

That said: I do think that our current notions of "reverence" in the temple may be more of a cultural construct than an absolute mandate from God--David danced before the Ark of the Covenant; and there was even occasional square dancing in the Nauvoo Temple in between endowment sessions. Nevertheless, until the Brethren issue instructions to the contrary, I'm quite happy to whisper in our modern temples. :)

Edited October 14, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

Huh, what? Either you had an odd sealer or you misunderstood something. DH and I got no such demand from ours.

As for what was missing, well, I'd consider eternity to have been missing from this otherwise lovely ceremony you attended. At the death of one spouse, that marriage will end, while if she'd held out for a man who could take her to the Temple, she'd have at least had the opportunity for a marriage to last forever.

Did you read what I wrote? She did get married in the temple the first time. He ended up leaving the church and abandoning and abusing her emotionally. Now she is married to a non member who is living a Christlike life, who will love and cherish her. Their honeymoon is to a foreign country to do humanitarian work.

As I said, I tried to feel there was something missing at the ceremony but it felt as complete and right as any temple wedding I've been to- perhaps more so. I just can't explain it and it makes me wonder if we really do have it right in the church. I can't imagine that God wouldn't bless this marriage as much as a temple marriage when they are doing so much good in this life together. I have to believe that it will all work out in the eternities even if her new husband never joins the church when he is serving the Lord every day of his life. (I could tell you more of what he's done but don't want to identify them in a public forum.) In other words, she married the right guy this time. I certainly didn't feel that way with the first guy- temple recommend and RM status notwithstanding.

[Backroads]

carlimac, I can't help but feel that you're trying to find all the bad in a temple ceremony that you can. Whenever someone says they had a nice time in the temple, you seem to get all offended.

I think it's apples and oranges. I fully enjoyed my temple sealing, and the wedding you described sounds wonderful. I dare you to say there is one perfect type of wedding and the rest fail.

Frankly, I have been to far too many non-temple weddings that are just awkward (opinion: why use the bishop if he can't do the ceremony gracefully?)

Edited October 14, 2013 by Backroads

[Just_A_Guy]

I see where you're coming from, Carlimac, but it may be worth observing that there is a difference between "they married the right people/they will be happy" versus "they will, without more, inherit every single blessing that a couple that was married in the temple will get".

A couple that was married in the temple, keeps their covenants, and relies on Christ while accepting the fulness of the Gospel, attains exaltation and eternal increase. They join God in His work of creating and populating new worlds. You just don't get there without going through the temple (let alone, without going through the elementary rite of baptism) and making the covenants that pertain to those rituals.

It's very possible that your friend's husband will convert at some point and the couple will make it to the temple (that's what happened with my parents, actually), and (if I may make a wholly unsolicited stab at interpreting your spiritual manifestations) maybe that's why you felt what you did.

But I'd do a double-take at someone who concluded, from such an experience, that a non-temple marriage is per se on par with a temple marriage. It isn't.

[Traveler]

Did you read what I wrote? She did get married in the temple the first time. He ended up leaving the church and abandoning and abusing her emotionally. Now she is married to a non member who is living a Christlike life, who will love and cherish her. Their honeymoon is to a foreign country to do humanitarian work.

Your are wrong the problem was not that they married in the temple. The problem was that they did not live up to their covenants. Obviously you do not know what the covenants are concerning being married (sealed) in the temple. I am quite sure that if you did you would not be in such a hurry to desecrate those that take upon themselves - not just a covenant to another person (their spouse) but a covenant with G-d. It does not matter what the husband broke his covenants - there is no justification for their spouse to break and desecrate their covenants. I am sorry and regret that you think such behavior is "spiritual" and "beautiful".

As I said, I tried to feel there was something missing at the ceremony but it felt as complete and right as any temple wedding I've been to- perhaps more so. I just can't explain it and it makes me wonder if we really do have it right in the church. I can't imagine that God wouldn't bless this marriage as much as a temple marriage when they are doing so much good in this life together. I have to believe that it will all work out in the eternities even if her new husband never joins the church when he is serving the Lord every day of his life. (I could tell you more of what he's done but don't want to identify them in a public forum.) In other words, she married the right guy this time. I certainly didn't feel that way with the first guy- temple recommend and RM status notwithstanding.

Not everything that looks true from the outside is true to its foundation. Again obviously what is - is not always what seem to appear to be. The fact that some people cannot get temple marriage right - regardless of how many times they attempt a marriage - leaves me wondering how it is that you are so convinced that they are serving G-d????

The problem is not in a temple ritual and incantations. The problem is that the ritual and incantations are meaningless unless the covenants are taken seriously. From you description neither individual took their covenants seriously - and somehow you thinks this justifies that you do not take such covenants any more seriously than either of them. Or that you somehow have come to the conclusion that those that do take their temple covenants seriously are somehow inadequate and inferior in your mind because you know a couple that despite that fact that they participated in a temple marriage did not take their covenant before G-d as a serious and binding covenant.

WOW!!!

The Traveler

[pam]

Carlimac, I'm glad the wedding you went to was a wonderful experience for you and for those involved.

I've never been sealed to anyone in the temple so I can't speak from personal experience. But have literally known hundreds of people who have. Those that I have heard describe it have said it was the most wonderful experience of their life. I've never heard one negative comment regarding it.

I think we need to be very careful in how we discuss this on lds.net. The purpose of this site is to encourage the beliefs that we, as LDS, have regarding Mormon doctrine and policy.

The title of this thread and the OP suggest otherwise and I would hate for anyone investigating or lurking to get the wrong idea of the importance of temple marriage/sealings. Or that they can't enjoy it as much as a civil wedding.

[classylady]

Have we got it right? Yes we do!!!

I have been to several temple sealings where the couple was asked not to look at each other, but to look at the sealer. I've been to temple sealings where the sealer was not the greatest at delivering heart-felt advice. I've also been to sealings where the couple only looked at each other, and I've been to sealings where the sealer had a wonderful personality and gave some great counsel. And the same goes for weddings performed outside of the temple. I've seen it all. NONE of that matters! What is important is how the couple lives up to their covenants.

This young couple (or any couple for that matter), can be head over heels in love, have the most wonderful officiator, and grand wedding/reception, or could have just gone to the courthouse and had a judge marry them, it does not make a marriage. The wedding is not the marriage. This young couple needs to work at their marriage to make it wonderful. They need to have love, respect, trust, understanding, friendship, etc. to make their marriage work. And only time will tell if they get it right. And no matter how wonderful a wedding was that was performed outside of the temple, it has no promise beyond this life. And the same goes for a temple marriage. The temple marriage needs to have those positive qualities of love, respect, friendship, etc. to be valid beyond this life! I will forego a wonderful officiator, for a marriage that can be forever. This young couple's marriage is not forever. They were not sealed together. That does not mean in the future that it possibly could be. But, as of right now, they do not have a marriage that will be valid beyond this life.

Edit: After reviewing in my mind many of the weddings I've attended, I'm feeling quite old.

Edited October 14, 2013 by classylady

[Seanette]

Did you read what I wrote? She did get married in the temple the first time. He ended up leaving the church and abandoning and abusing her emotionally. Now she is married to a non member who is living a Christlike life, who will love and cherish her. Their honeymoon is to a foreign country to do humanitarian work.

As I said, I tried to feel there was something missing at the ceremony but it felt as complete and right as any temple wedding I've been to- perhaps more so. I just can't explain it and it makes me wonder if we really do have it right in the church. I can't imagine that God wouldn't bless this marriage as much as a temple marriage when they are doing so much good in this life together. I have to believe that it will all work out in the eternities even if her new husband never joins the church when he is serving the Lord every day of his life. (I could tell you more of what he's done but don't want to identify them in a public forum.) In other words, she married the right guy this time. I certainly didn't feel that way with the first guy- temple recommend and RM status notwithstanding.

So because you knew ONE couple who couldn't keep their covenants, the entirety of Gospel teaching on marriage and the Temple is invalid? (shakes head) Sorry, you won't convince me that a marriage doomed to end at the death of one spouse is at all preferable to eternal covenants made in the Lord's House in obedience to Him.

[Guest]

It's either you believe in Eternal Families or you don't. That's really all there is to it.

I can have a Disney Princesses type wedding with all the romanticism of a fairy tale... but, it pales in comparison to the simple vows my husband and I made at that sealing room. There was my husband and I and the priest. Everybody else that was in that room could have been absent and it wouldn't subtract from that moment.

The wedding only has 3 components - the vows of the husband, the vows of the wife, and God represented by proper authority. Everything else is "Disney". None of the "Disney" components can't replace the 3 components. More often than not, the "Disney" components become a distraction from the sanctity of the 3 components.

I've been through too many Catholic weddings filled with drama that so many of my family wish they could just elope like I did.

Edited October 14, 2013 by anatess

[skippy740]

We can do 'Disney'. You just need to get sealed here: :)

[Seanette]

I'm puzzled as to why the wedding day is supposedly so much more important to the OP than the married life, and whether it CAN last beyond death.

[carlimac]

For those who are mistating the truth, my niece DID keep her temple covenants. Her first husband did not.

[MarginOfError]

"Have we got it right?"

Probably not. But not the reasons you think.

Where we get it wrong is the cultural notion that a sealing is the same thing as a wedding. The wedding occurs when the couple, the sealer, and the witnesses sign the marriage certificate. The sealing is a priesthood ordinance. You could argue that it hasn't always been this way, but for all intents and purposes, that's how it is now.

In some ways, I think we'd be better off if we talked more about getting married and sealed instead of just getting married or just getting sealed.

I have some of the same misgivings you have. I don't particularly like that close family can be excluded from the wedding (though I have no problem with the restrictions of family from observing the sealing). There's a part of me that would like for couples to have the option to have a wedding ceremony outside the temple and the follow it up with the sealing. Unfortunately, our culture gets so caught up in the weddings that when this happens, the sealing often becomes an afterthought. And I don't think that's the appropriate mindset in which to view the sealing--the sealing is far more important than the wedding (even if the wedding is a necessary condition) and should be recognized as such.

But the sealing is still a priesthood ordinance, and consistent with our other priesthood ordinances, we ought to perform it humbly, and without excessive fanfare.

So I see your point, carli, I really do. But it seems like our culture has competing ideals of what a wedding and a sealing should look like. I don't see how we could facilitate both without cheapening the meaning of the sealing ordinance.

[Windseeker]

I have seen some wonderful examples of faith, love, charity, commitment, and values from those of other faiths. I have also seen where members of this church have fallen far short. None of these experiences caused me to question whether or not we have it right.

You are either learning/ growing in the gospel or not. Nothing I have been taught in this church does anything other than encourage bad men and women to be good and provide a path for good men and women to become great.

I think you would agree it would be silly to suggest that if the first marriage had not gotten married in the temple and instead had a ceremony with the husband and wife officiators then they would not have encountered the problems that broke their marriage.

Your niece has married a much better man and that’s wonderful. But it would be unfortunate if she ends up associating the Church, which only ever teaches and encourages men to be good and come unto Christ, with the abuse and emotional pain she suffered thru her ex-husband.

Praising her marriage ceremony while denigrating the temple ceremony only does her a further disservice.

[Vort]

For those who are mistating the truth, my niece DID keep her temple covenants. Her first husband did not.

Duly noted.

I think what people here are reacting to is that you seem to equate the abusive (we are told) first husband with a temple sealing. While it might be understandable that your niece make this false connection, you should not be doing so.

As for your point that the wedding you observed was just all sorts of superior to a temple sealing, well, you have a right to your opinion. Others have a right to theirs. And their opinion is that you are wrong in your characterizations. For myself, I tend to agree more with them than with you. I think temple sealings are beautiful things, and my experience with non-temple weddings leads me to believe that they are more often concerned with pomp, imagery over substance, and lavish spending than they are with dignity and love. That's not a blanket judgment, just an observation based on the weddings I have witnessed.