Sealings - current policy, not culture?

[applepansy]

My husband and I were married civilly before being sealed in the temple. That was the longest year of my life. I was young and if my husband had died I would have been encouraged to find someone else and get married again. That wasn't an option for me. Thus the fear.

Even though I had to live through the wait that year I am grateful for it. It wasn't easy but it helped us both cherish the temple and the covenants and the sealing.

As someone else mentioned the Church obeys the lays of the land. If other nations didn't have the requirement then everyone would be required to wait the year for their sealing. I

Personally, I think the one year wait is important.

My daughter didn't get married in the temple. My SIL mentioned that the Church should build chapels to accommodate civil weddings. I remember smiling and saying "Mormons should get married in temples not chapels." He didn't understand because the temple wasn't important to him. They had planned to be sealed on their 1st anniversary and 3 years later they have only taken the temple prep classes. I'm glad they had to wait, because they weren't ready for the commitments the covenants require.

Gem, Until you stop wanting the church to change to fit your perceptions you're not going to be happy.

[Maureen]

...LDS civil weddings are not performed in the chapel per Church policy... last I checked.

I thought the location of a wedding ceremony in an LDS meetinghouse was at the discretion of the Bishop performing the ceremony. Back in the '80s I went to an LDS wedding that was held in the Chapel. If ring ceremonies can be held in the Chapel (I've attended two that were in the Chapel) why can't weddings?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Per the 2010 Church Handbook, Book 1, page 18, weddings may be solemnized in the chapel; but there can be no photography/videography, no wedding march, no "extravagance in decorations", and no "pomp" (whatever that means) for ceremonies that take place in that room.

[gem2477]

All right, I'm going to address these by my own opinions:

To begin, I am in some favor of getting rid of the waiting period. BUT I am not against the current policy.

The countries don't allow it, the Church does. Since the United States recognizes most religious marriages as legal, there is no pressure. We are simply not in the same situation as other countries.

How? Temple dates have nothing to do with getting investigators into chapels. If you mean we will attract investigators by chancing the temple policy, you are assuming the vast majority of people have as strong an opinion on it as you do.

Again, do enough people care enough? And what is the "right direction"? It's not like we're doing anything outlandishly progressive if we were to drop the wait period.

The temple ceremony is public in that it involves people.

I agree that's a nasty story. But I have never heard such a blatant lesson. I think you are interpreting it the way you want.

So all wedding ceremonies need to have a billion people? "Public wedding" sounds weird. Like anyone can just wander in.

Why are so many against temple weddings excluding family but have no issues when a couple decides to elope without inviting the family?

1- Then why not standardize it for all the world?

2- I was just making the point that if couples get married in the church, non members who might not otherwise ever go in our church will be exposed to it. Who knows? Maybe they will want to know more?

3- Yes we would be. Allowing parents to see their children marry would seem very progressive, and would be kinder.

4- No it is not public at all. It is held on private property and the owner of said property only allows certain people. That isn't "public">

5- I remember that story - of course, I had to attend pretty much every Sunday as a kid, and it got to the point that I pretty well knew all the lessons after hearing them year after year. As a 12 year old impressionable girl, this story stood with me. I thought that a reason not to wait is because something bad might happen then you wouldn't be able to erase the mistake. An adult can see it for what it is, but a kid in YW? not so much.

[gem2477]

You clearly don't understand what a sealing is. You apparently think it is nothing more than another variation on current culture's concept of what a wedding should be.

Just because you want a certain kind of wedding doesn't mean there is any reason for church policy to change.

What is more important...having a fashion show/party (which is what many weddings amount to these days) or receiving a sacred ordinance? I think the church has it exactly right when it comes to marriage. Just as Heavenly Father ordained it.

I was just opening the discussion up. I hope it does change.

BOTH the celebration / fashion show / party and the ordinance are important. That is my entire point.

[gem2477]

The moral/point of the story is not, "If you don't get married in the temple you'll die." It's hard to take you seriously when you spout something so ridiculous.

Like I said, I don't think that way as an adult. I know you won't die. But as a YM that story seemed ominous and stuck with me. Now, I think the story is more like about doing thing the way the leaders wish.

[Guest]

I was just opening the discussion up. I hope it does change.

BOTH the celebration / fashion show / party and the ordinance are important. That is my entire point.

Nope.

My cousin and her husband got sealed, the family went to brunch, and they left on their honeymoon. They had a party at the VA a week later. I assure you, their marriage is as valid and their celebration was as joyous as any I've been to.

Important to you =/= important to everyone. If you want to get married on hay bales and go to the temple a year later, go for it. It's your wedding.

[gem2477]

Honestly, this tells me all about the OP that I care to know.

LOL okay. Yes, I think be more inclusive of others would be the right direction. So sue me. Not thinking that show me all I need to know about you.....

[Guest]

1- Then why not standardize it for all the world?

Because temple weddings are not legally binding in other countries.

2- I was just making the point that if couples get married in the church, non members who might not otherwise ever go in our church will be exposed to it. Who knows? Maybe they will want to know more?

And our point is this event is more focused on the eternal marriage. Not the missionary experience. If you can have both then sure. Unfortunately, eternal sealing of marriages can only be performed at the temple. Those performed outside of it are not eternal. So, it's one or the other. You can have that same missionary experience in a reception. You can even have a ring ceremony.

3- Yes we would be. Allowing parents to see their children marry would seem very progressive, and would be kinder.

Jesus was very specific about forsaking family for His sake. The apostles were even commanded to leave their wives and children behind.

4- No it is not public at all. It is held on private property and the owner of said property only allows certain people. That isn't "public">

It is public. It is not the Church that causes one to not enter the temple. It is the person. ANYBODY can enter the temple as long as they meet certain conditions. The White House and the Pentagon are public buildings. Anybody can enter it but you have to meet certain conditions.

My house is private. The only way you can enter it without breaking the law is if I let you. You have no choice in the matter.

Edited December 4, 2013 by anatess

[gem2477]

Nope.

My cousin and her husband got sealed, the family went to brunch, and they left on their honeymoon. They had a party at the VA a week later. I assure you, their marriage is as valid and their celebration was as joyous as any I've been to.

Important to you =/= important to everyone. If you want to get married on hay bales and go to the temple a year later, go for it. It's your wedding.

That's you, though. That's okay if that is all you wanted, but I know of women who were disappointed and the cattle herding of brides and lack of personal attention they got at their wedding in the temple and wished for a big wedding.

[gem2477]

Because temple weddings are not legally binding in other countries.

And our point is this event is more focused on the eternal marriage. Not the missionary experience. If you can have both then sure. Unfortunately, eternal sealing of marriages can only be performed at the temple. Those performed outside of it are not eternal. So, it's one or the other.

Jesus was very specific about forsaking family for His sake. The apostles were even commanded to leave their wives and children behind.

It is public. It is not the Church that causes one to not enter the temple. It is the person. ANYBODY can enter the temple as long as they meet certain conditions. The White House and the Pentagon are public buildings. Anybody can enter it but you have to meet certain conditions.

My house is private. The only way you can enter it without breaking the law is if I let you. You have no choice in the matter.

No, the temple is private property. They could put anyone in jail for trespassing if they found that they forged a recommend or something like that.

[Guest]

Then it's probably good that they wait until they grow up and get some perspective before they make eternal covenants.

[Guest]

No, the temple is private property. They could put anyone in jail for trespassing if they found that they forged a recommend or something like that.

It is only private in the sense that it is owned by a Church. Do you think the Catholic Church is private property? If yes, then we'll consider your definition of private.

And no, you can't go to jail for forging a recommend. That's just silly. A recommend is not a legal contract.

[Guest]

That's you, though. That's okay if that is all you wanted, but I know of women who were disappointed and the cattle herding of brides and lack of personal attention they got at their wedding in the temple and wished for a big wedding.

A wedding is not for "personal attention" gem! It is about MARITAL COVENANTS! And here is EXACTLY why the wedding outside of the temple is discouraged! It leads to these type of thinking! You really need to understand that eternal perspective of marriage before getting married. Are you married?

[Just_A_Guy]

Gem2477, you may enjoy this thread. Here's something I contributed to it back when it was active (and Maureen had some very cogent counter-arguments then as well):

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.

[Guest]

Here's something I contributed to it back when it was active (and Maureen had some very cogent counter-arguments then as well):

I so love this JAG! The. Best. Can I share this with my friends? Full cut-and-paste like.

[Backroads]

And gem never implied such a thing, you did by this post. The point is, by letting members choose to have a civil wedding first, and sealed later (without the wait); the church is allowing non-members that would not normally enter an LDS chapel to do so at a wedding. The celebration is a positive event for both families and the church.

M.

What if they don't want a chapel wedding? What if they want to get married in the yard or the beach or Vegas or a bowling alley? What if the non-Mormon has little to no idea he is watching a "Mormon" wedding?

I agree with anatess, both you and gem are grasping at straws by saying that a great reason not to marry in the temple is to further interest non-members in the LDS church. It's a very, very weak connection.

[Dravin]

No, the temple is private property. They could put anyone in jail for trespassing if they found that they forged a recommend or something like that.

By that reasoning the Chapel is not public.

[Backroads]

1- Then why not standardize it for all the world

You tell me. I think the Church has reason for current policy.

2- I was just making the point that if couples get married in the church, non members who might not otherwise ever go in our church will be exposed to it. Who knows? Maybe they will want to know more?

A very weak reason. Fluff at best.

3- Yes we would be. Allowing parents to see their children marry would seem very progressive, and would be kinder.

Now, this is why I would be in favor of a policy change, so couples aren't stuck in a tough choice. But I still say it is the couples' choice. They are adults.

4- No it is not public at all. It is held on private property and the owner of said property only allows certain people. That isn't "public">

Not significantly more private than any other building owned by someone who has the right to say who can and can't enter. You must be in favor of wedding crashing and inviting yourself to stuff.

5- I remember that story - of course, I had to attend pretty much every Sunday as a kid, and it got to the point that I pretty well knew all the lessons after hearing them year after year. As a 12 year old impressionable girl, this story stood with me. I thought that a reason not to wait is because something bad might happen then you wouldn't be able to erase the mistake. An adult can see it for what it is, but a kid in YW? not so much.

Then hold other lessons with confused girls.

[Backroads]

That's you, though. That's okay if that is all you wanted, but I know of women who were disappointed and the cattle herding of brides and lack of personal attention they got at their wedding in the temple and wished for a big wedding.

Then they should have planned a different wedding. They are mature enough to marry, they are mature enough to work for the wedding they want. I was married in the Ogden temple so I could be spoiled. I have a friend who for family reasons delayed the sealing and had a big to-do wedding.

[Backroads]

No, the temple is private property. They could put anyone in jail for trespassing if they found that they forged a recommend or something like that.

How dare a dishonest person face consequences!

But anatess is right... forging a recommend is not going to have someone put in jail unless they were really throwing a fit. But yes, if someone was destroying temple property, they would be arrested. Just like they would be arrested if they destroyed a Baptist church or a Catholic church or a gas station down the road.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Backroads

[estradling75]

3- Yes we would be. Allowing parents to see their children marry would seem very progressive, and would be kinder.

Feel free to tell Christ that he isn't progressive enough or kind enough for you...

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[Maureen]

What if they don't want a chapel wedding? What if they want to get married in the yard or the beach or Vegas or a bowling alley? What if the non-Mormon has little to no idea he is watching a "Mormon" wedding?

I agree with anatess, both you and gem are grasping at straws by saying that a great reason not to marry in the temple is to further interest non-members in the LDS church. It's a very, very weak connection.

I think you are reading into our statements more then was intended. We are not saying that the main reason an LDS couple should marry civilly first is for missionary purposes. We are saying that there is opportunity for those not familiar with the LDS church to become aware by attending a wedding in a LDS Chapel. But the main reason people marry is to celebrate family. A wedding is an opportunity for all family members to witness the creation of a new family and be supportive. A wedding should be a celebration. A sealing should be a private event between the couple and God.

M.

[Guest]

But the main reason people marry is to celebrate family.

There's the problem. For an LDS person getting married in the temple for the right reasons, "celebrating the family" is not at the top of the list. Fulfilling a commandment is. Making covenants is. Ensuring an eternal family is.

Really, if someone wants the pageantry and the party and that's what's important to them, there's nothing stopping them from doing it. Honestly. If they look at the sealing as secondary, and with disdain because they can't invite their mom's sorority sisters and dad's business partner into the sealing room, then yes, they should wait until they realize the importance and gravity of the sealing. If they have that perspective, it shouldn't matter. Because you can still have the big party. You can still have the ballgown and 15-tier cake and dinner at the country club. You can even have a lovely ring exchange like I've seen done, and toasts and dances and whatever your heart pleases.

But no matter what, if done in the proper spirit, the sealing is the most important part of the day, and the only people who "need" to be there are the people getting sealed, the sealer, and their witnesses.

I don't get all the hair flipping over missing 10 minutes out of the day.

[Backroads]

I think you are reading into our statements more then was intended. We are not saying that the main reason an LDS couple should marry civilly first is for missionary purposes. We are saying that there is opportunity for those not familiar with the LDS church to become aware by attending a wedding in a LDS Chapel. But the main reason people marry is to celebrate family. A wedding is an opportunity for all family members to witness the creation of a new family and be supportive. A wedding should be a celebration. A sealing should be a private event between the couple and God.

M.

Perhaps I have, but you two did kept bringing it up instead of using the family celebration bit you brought up here.

In many traditions, the big celebration part of the wedding is not the ceremony itself, but, well, the celebration (see Eowyn's post above). Very few ceremonies last longer than a matter of minutes anyway.

Yes, I like the idea of the purpose of a wedding celebrating family, but that is where we differ. It's important in LDS faith, yes, but the purpose of a wedding for us is to create a family, not celebrate a union. A slight difference, perhaps, but I do think it is making it hard for us to understand each other.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Backroads