Sealings - current policy, not culture?

[estradling75]

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.

Countered by the missionary opportunity to declare their believes when asked why the person can't attend. And of the two this one is much more effective (although neither are really great)

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.

A sealing is private and then they have a party to celebrate their newly formed marriage (if they wish)... Yet your argument seems to imply and require that friends and family can't celebrate and be happy if they miss the private ordinance

[Dravin]

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.

Then why make up YW being taught that if they don't get sealed right off they'll die, assuming you understand that such a thing isn't being taught?

Now, I think the story is more like about doing thing the way the leaders wish.

The moral of the story is that we need to do things the right way to begin with and not count on being able to rectify it later, that you shouldn't procrastinate correct decisions as you aren't guaranteed a later to rectify things in. In particular he discounts the idea that proxy Temple ordinances are designed to accommodate the idea of procrastinating correct decisions.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Dravin

[Maureen]

A celebration does not just have to be the party. The wedding ceremony can also be the celebration. This is where the bride and groom become that new family. What better way to celebrate the creation of a new family than by having the witness and support of family and friends.

M.

[estradling75]

A celebration does not just have to be the party. The wedding ceremony can also be the celebration. This is where the bride and groom become that new family. What better way to celebrate the creation of a new family than by having the witness and support of family and friends.

M.

A better way is to show God that you are willing to do his will and not your own... That is truly something worth celebrating

[Just_A_Guy]

My knee-jerk response to that, Maureen, would be an observation that--by that logic--hospital delivery rooms should have spectator galleries.

But maybe we should consider how we're defining "celebrate" and what, precisely, it is that we "celebrate" with a wedding? Because I think many of our differences come down to the way we're defining those terms.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon gem2477. I hope you're having a good day! :)

I think the policy that makes couples who get married civily wait a year to get sealed - and the marriage and sealing should be seperated. Here's why:

1- Countries whose law says that a civil ceremony must occur before any religious ceremony already allow this - why not in North America?

2- It would be a great missionary tool to get non members in to the chapels.

3- It would be good PR and make the church look like it's moving in the right direction

4- Joseph Smith said “All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,” the scripture stated, “should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..." (The Times and Seasons, 1842)

5- I think it's a scare tactic to teach YW that if you don't get married in the temple right of, you'll die. The YW have a lesson in which Spencer W. Kimball told a story that a couple who didn't get married in the temple died on their way to the honeymoon, then used strong language against it. This is wrong.

6- The LDS doesn't have a huge part of human culture - public weddings. This needs to change.

7 - Families get torn apart by this. It is wrong to not allow families not to see the weddings of each other.

The path to heaven is strait and narrow. Prophets do not create truth. They reveal truth and they are bound by it.

The only question or concern that is really relevant is: Are we doing things the way Heavenly Father wants us to?

Progressivism, public relations, people's opinions, and what not really don't matter in the end if it doesn't conform with how truth and reality actually is and what the Father has decreed.

-Finrock

Edited December 4, 2013 by Finrock
Grammar and clarification

[Maureen]

My knee-jerk response to that, Maureen, would be an observation that--by that logic--hospital delivery rooms should have spectator galleries.

But maybe we should consider how we're defining "celebrate" and what, precisely, it is that we "celebrate" with a wedding? Because I think many of our differences come down to the way we're defining those terms.

Celebrating an event is determined by what is being celebrated. Common sense will tell you that the celebration of a wedding is different than the celebration of the birth of a baby.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Celebrating an event is determined by what is being celebrated. Common sense will tell you that the celebration of a wedding is different than the celebration of the birth of a baby.

M.

But Mormon "common sense" states that a Mormon temple wedding ceremony is not to be "celebrated" by a large, public ceremony.

So I think we maybe need to dig a little bit deeper into the definitions here and figure out why we celebrate a particular event, and what means are appropriate to celebrate that particular event.

[Maureen]

But Mormon "common sense" states that a Mormon temple wedding ceremony is not to be "celebrated" by a large, public ceremony.

So I think we maybe need to dig a little bit deeper into the definitions here and figure out why we celebrate a particular event, and what means are appropriate to celebrate that particular event.

IMO, the truer statement would be:

But Mormon "common sense" states that a Mormon temple sealing is not to be "celebrated" by a large, public ceremony.

M.

[Guest]

IMO, the truer statement would be:

But Mormon "common sense" states that a Mormon temple sealing is not to be "celebrated" by a large, public ceremony.

M.

No, Maureen. Marriage is an eternal ordinance and sealed. The earthly ordinance of marriage only is a lower law. We strive to live by the higher standard not give it up for the price of an audience. Because the ideal is the marriage vows are made in the temple and sealed because of its eternal perspective. The only reason UK has it separated is because the marriage is not legally binding inside the temple and by virtue of the Articles of Faith, we have to abide by the law of the land and marriage has to be legal before it can be sealed so they get an exemption to the rule, not that they are the rule.

It shouldn't have any bearing on the celebration. Many many many non-LDS folks invite guests only for the reception. I, myself, eloped because my Catholic family did not deem my courthouse wedding as "valid".

So, it surely is not unique to LDS and this goopla about family being there when you say I do and not just for the throwing rice part is just smoke for those who don't recognize what is the sole purpose of the thing - marital vows for what they are - a promise between husband and wife, nothing more. It doesn't need the secular traditions to be special.

Edited December 4, 2013 by anatess

[mirkwood]

Do you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, of Prophets, of the Church? If you don't.. then you really need to focus on the basics

Sheeshhh....nine pages gem2477 and I still don't know the answer.

Edited December 4, 2013 by mirkwood

[Dravin]

What better way to celebrate the creation of a new family than by having the witness and support of family and friends.

M.

Which can happen at the reception. Sure, you won't be a witness to the sealing but you can still be a witness to the creation of a new family at the reception. Heck, it can happen on temple grounds after the sealing, there need not be a reception at all. The idea that to celebrate the creation of a new family, to have the support of family and friends, to be witnesses that a new family has been created requires public attendance at the solemnization itself is false.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Dravin

[Anddenex]

I think the policy that makes couples who get married civily wait a year to get sealed - and the marriage and sealing should be seperated. Here's why:

Late to the question, but I will give it a go.

1- Countries whose law says that a civil ceremony must occur before any religious ceremony already allow this - why not in North America?

There isn't a law in North America to determine a civil marriage should occur before a sealing. The Church honors the laws of the lands our members live within. If a law existed in North American, like in Switzerland, then members would honor the law and would be married civilly first. I am not sure the issue here. If these laws didn't exist in these countries then temple marriages would happen first as they do in North America and other countries where the law to marry civilly first doesn't exist. Why would I not want to marry in the temple first?

2- It would be a great missionary tool to get non members in to the chapels.

We already do without civil marriages. We have other great opportunities to invite people to church on Sunday, on Wednesday, and every activity. Also, if members decided to marry civilly first why would they choose (or how could you be sure all members would choose the chapel?) the chapel for their marriage. There are some pretty places to get married first. The chapel is only one option which wouldn't be the primary choice (I don't believe) of many members. Members in California, a wedding on the beach or the chapel -- the beach! It would be great, but I don't think many members would marry in our chapels if they had, and could afford, other choices more elegant and memorable.

3- It would be good PR and make the church look like it's moving in the right direction

The Church is already moving in the right direction, whether or not we want to follow this right direction is a personal choice. Although the Church is definitely concerned about how people view us, the Church is definitely more concerned with its members following a path of righteousness, not the world. The choice to be sealed in the temple first is the best option for all members. Not marrying in the temple first has some pretty interesting statistics of members not even choosing to marry in the temple a year later. Where the law prohibits marriage in the temple first, the statistics don't apply. I kinda like Spencer W. Kimball's statement in relation to this post, "Marriage is ordained of God. It is not merely a social custom. Without proper and successful marriage, one will never be exalted" (The Teaching of Spencer W. Kimball, pg. 291)

4- Joseph Smith said “All marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,” the scripture stated, “should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for this purpose..." (The Times and Seasons, 1842)

Joseph Smith also declared, "We believe all that God has revealed...and we believe he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." By whom are these important things declared? Our prophets have been pretty clear in persuading the sons and daughters of God to marry right first -- in the temple sealed to one another. The right direction is to follow the prophets.

5- I think it's a scare tactic to teach YW that if you don't get married in the temple right of, you'll die. The YW have a lesson in which Spencer W. Kimball told a story that a couple who didn't get married in the temple died on their way to the honeymoon, then used strong language against it. This is wrong.

This is wrong only from your point of view, or frame of reference. Spencer W. Kimball never declared that if members of the Church married outside of the temple that they would "die" -- this is clearly false. Spencer W. Kimball probably recognizes the importance of a temple marriage at a much greater depth than you probably do. He recognized the importance of the sealing. He recognizes that God allows agency and choice. He also recognizes that God is not only a merciful God; he is also just. Couples who choose to marry outside of the temple first (not including those who live in lands where the law requires otherwise) and then die leave themselves either to the justice or mercy of God (and his ways are just), or they can choose correctly, live righteously, in the temple and should they pass on during the honeymoon -- they know for sure they are sealed. I like the idea of knowing I am sealed should I die before I am able to marry in the temple. If I made a clear choice to not follow the counsel of the prophets, then I make a clear statement by my actions I am willing to accept God's judgement -- sure and true.

6- The LDS doesn't have a huge part of human culture - public weddings. This needs to change.

Clearly a personal opinion, which you are entitled to. The reception is public, and people rejoice at the receptions for the wonderful union of the couple. The Church needs to continue as it is, as the Lord directs. At this moment, the prophets are clear -- marry in the temple. Members who feel otherwise need to stop kicking against the pricks -- this needs to change. The LDS have a great part of human culture -- marriage which is ordained of God. The first marriage that took place was a sealing by God.

7 - Families get torn apart by this. It is wrong to not allow families not to see the weddings of each other.

Some do, some don't. Clearly, again, a personal opinion. My younger sister and younger brother were not able to see me get sealed in the temple. I personally very much enjoyed the peace in the temple with only 10 other people in the sealing room. It was our personal choice to only invite a few couples we were close to. It is more wrong for a person to tell others their personal choice to marry in the temple first is wrong. If you have qualms with it then you have qualms with it.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

IMO, the truer statement would be:

But Mormon "common sense" states that a Mormon temple sealing is not to be "celebrated" by a large, public ceremony.

M.

I don't think Mormonism recognizes a substantive difference between a "temple sealing" and a "temple wedding ceremony"--at least, from a cultural standpoint. From our perspective, the wedding is the sealing; and any perceptions to the contrary are either mandated by local government or are cultivated by certain elements within the Church who--frankly--prioritize the trappings of a civil marriage ceremony over the covenants made in an LDS sealing and their theological implications.

Granted, in limited circumstances a couple can have a "time-only" marriage solemnized in a temple; but even then it's understood that there will be only a very small, exclusive circle of witnesses to the actual ritual.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

A celebration does not just have to be the party. The wedding ceremony can also be the celebration. This is where the bride and groom become that new family. What better way to celebrate the creation of a new family than by having the witness and support of family and friends.

Hmmm. How about by solemnizing the union with the power of God through all eternity?

Yeah, I think that qualifies as a better way.

[Maureen]

No, Maureen. Marriage is an eternal ordinance and sealed....

Marriage can be an eternal ordinance. For LDS, you do have a choice to be married for time or for time and eternity. You are taught to favor the eternal choice but marriage is an important union either way.

The bottom line on how I see it is that, marriage is a good thing and the LDS church is pro-marriage. So why make restrictions and rules on something that is extremely family oriented like marriage. Let LDS members choose for themselves how and when they wish to marry and be sealed. Make it a happy occasion for all concerned.

So, it surely is not unique to LDS and this goopla about family being there when you say I do and not just for the throwing rice part is just smoke for those who don't recognize what is the sole purpose of the thing - marital vows for what they are - a promise between husband and wife, nothing more. It doesn't need the secular traditions to be special.

Goopla? I'm going to assume that's a typo. :)

Marital vows are a promise between a husband and wife and nothing more? You make it sound like you are indifferent to marriage. And you see family members and relationships as secular? From many of the posts I've read on this thread, you guys are giving me the impression that family is really not that important after all.

I found this under laws.com that I find helpful is explaining my concept of weddings a little better:

In a religious wedding ceremony, couples also proclaim their bond with God and the church. In any case, a wedding ceremony is meant to be a very spiritual and bonding experience for the couple and for their friends and family. Wedding ceremonies offer everyone present, an opportunity to recognize and appreciate the unique bond between husband and wife.

Marriage Ceremony Importance

M.

[Vort]

A celebration does not just have to be the party. The wedding ceremony can also be the celebration. This is where the bride and groom become that new family. What better way to celebrate the creation of a new family than by having the witness and support of family and friends.

Hmmm. How about by solemnizing the union with the power of God through all eternity?

Yeah, I think that qualifies as a better way.

[Leah]

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.

If you believe that a fashion show or a party are important to marriage..... And especially if you are putting that imagined importance on the same level as an ordinance......then you really haven't the slightest clue what marriage - especially eternal marriage - is about.

It's time to put aside the Hollywood fantasies and the romance novels (and the focus on self) and focus on the scriptures.

[Backroads]

Maureen and gem,

I get the desire to celebrate the new couple. I get the family/community/whatever all wanting to be there. I really do. In fact, if the First Presidency were to show up and say the policy, to stay or to go, would depend entirely on my opinion, no pressure on anything, I would pick getting rid of the policy largely so the bride and groom can have whomever they want at their wedding. Yes, that celebration is a wonderful thing.

But, you say the purpose of a wedding is to celebrate a new couple. Perhaps it's syntax, but that can be interpreted as saying the celebration is more important that the joining itself of the new couple. Which is why so many LDS people care less about the length of any policy to a temple sealing and more about the sealing itself. That is why the sealing trumps everything else.

When did weddings have to become about the celebration? Why do marrying couples have people at their wedding they barely know who were invited just to please some random relative? (And that's not just non-LDS weddings--why do so many LDS temple sealings have those rooms bursting at the seams?) Of course, very close family like the parents is a different degree than the aforementioned near-stranger and I don't intend to disrespect that, but once again, it becomes about a relative wanting to celebrate, not the couple marrying.

Two people in love and wanting to marry before God can't just get married. Oh, no. That marriage has to be CELEBRATED, like it or not.

So fine, have a celebration. But that celebration is NOT the marriage (whether that be a LDS temple sealing situation or not).

So when LDS folks aren't in a huge desire to clamor for a change to the year-long wait, it's not really about punishing people or even about the wait in any real way. It's a simple recognition that the sealing is what's truly important here. Not the celebration of that sealing, not even family's feelings.

In a religious wedding ceremony, couples also proclaim their bond with God and the church. In any case, a wedding ceremony is meant to be a very spiritual and bonding experience for the couple and for their friends and family. Wedding ceremonies offer everyone present, an opportunity to recognize and appreciate the unique bond between husband and wife.

To bring back the point of elopement: those people that elope usually just want to get married, to heck with anyone's celebration. According to this law, those marriages aren't legal because they didn't include friends and family. How does that work?

Edited December 5, 2013 by Backroads

[Guest]

Marriage can be an eternal ordinance. For LDS, you do have a choice to be married for time or for time and eternity. You are taught to favor the eternal choice but marriage is an important union either way.

The bottom line on how I see it is that, marriage is a good thing and the LDS church is pro-marriage. So why make restrictions and rules on something that is extremely family oriented like marriage. Let LDS members choose for themselves how and when they wish to marry and be sealed. Make it a happy occasion for all concerned.

Marriage is an eternal ordinance. Earthly marriage is not. There is a ginormous difference between the two.

Marriage is a good thing. Eternal marriage is the goal. If you qualify for it, not availing of it shows that the couple does not understand the importance of the eternal perspective. Hence, the one year wait.

LDS members choose for themselves now. Nobody is forcing them to marry in the temple. They can choose to get married for time. Or they can choose to marry for time and eternity.

For an LDS person, marrying in the temple is a happy occassion for all concerned.

Goopla? I'm going to assume that's a typo. :)

No, it isn't! It's up there with jillion and ginormous... :)

Marital vows are a promise between a husband and wife and nothing more? You make it sound like you are indifferent to marriage. And you see family members and relationships as secular? From many of the posts I've read on this thread, you guys are giving me the impression that family is really not that important after all.

I found this under laws.com that I find helpful is explaining my concept of weddings a little better:

In a religious wedding ceremony, couples also proclaim their bond with God and the church. In any case, a wedding ceremony is meant to be a very spiritual and bonding experience for the couple and for their friends and family. Wedding ceremonies offer everyone present, an opportunity to recognize and appreciate the unique bond between husband and wife.

Marriage Ceremony Importance

M.

I apologize if I sound like I am indifferent to family. My posts on lds.net is evidence that I hold family very special.

Family relationships are so important in the Plan of Our Salvation that God preserves the bonds of family through the veil of death. And this bond is forged at the temple.

Your impression that family is not important would be the same impression you would conclude when Jesus Christ said this:

In the NIV version of Luke 14:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

You know that Jesus did not tell us to hate our family. What does HATE here imply?

[Maureen]

Backroads, you are making this more complicated than it’s worth. A little common sense goes a long way. When you got engaged, were people happy for you and congratulated you or were they indifferent and acted like, I can’t show joy or that will take away from the couple? Let’s be reasonable. People are usually happy when someone they know and love gets married and it is normal to gather together to show happiness for the couple, they celebrate because of that couple. If the couple weren’t so important to those gathered together there wouldn’t be a celebration.

...To bring back the point of elopement: those people that elope usually just want to get married, to heck with anyone's celebration. According to this law, those marriages aren't legal because they didn't include friends and family. How does that work?

Now you are just being silly. The link is just describing why a wedding ceremony is important. It is not saying that everyone has to have the same wedding ceremony or that elopements are invalid; the couple eloping still goes through some type of ceremony.

I’m surprised with some of these posts; some are acting like being happy and joyful because of a wedding is somehow irreverent.

M.

[Backroads]

Backroads, you are making this more complicated than it’s worth. A little common sense goes a long way. When you got engaged, were people happy for you and congratulated you or were they indifferent and acted like, I can’t show joy or that will take away from the couple? Let’s be reasonable. People are usually happy when someone they know and love gets married and it is normal to gather together to show happiness for the couple, they celebrate because of that couple. If the couple weren’t so important to those gathered together there wouldn’t be a celebration.

Not everyone was present at my engagement. They didn't have to be present at it for any of their celebration to be valid.

I think you are changing my meaning of celebration.

As has been said many times in this thread, people can still celebrate a wedding, a marriage, whether they are at the actual "I do" event or not. The celebration and the ceremony are two different things, whether or not they happen to occur at the exact same time or place.

I never said people shouldn't celebrate a marriage. I'm just saying that an official celebration is not necessary to the marriage and the desire for loved ones to celebrate is separate from the actual marriage and should not become more important than the marriage. Why must it be about how family wants to celebrate and not about the couple's wishes?

Couple desiring to marry: "Loved ones, we would like to have our wedding ceremony go like such-n-such."

Loved ones: "Oh, no you are not going to have that! Not in a million years! That goes against the way we would like to celebrate your wedding and our wishes are more important than yours."

This happens waaaay too often.

Now you are just being silly. The link is just describing why a wedding ceremony is important. It is not saying that everyone has to have the same wedding ceremony or that elopements are invalid; the couple eloping still goes through some type of ceremony.

But you brought it up to express the importance of having a celebration.

I’m surprised with some of these posts; some are acting like being happy and joyful because of a wedding is somehow irreverent.

M.

Where did anyone say that?

Edited December 5, 2013 by Backroads

[estradling75]

I’m surprised with some of these posts; some are acting like being happy and joyful because of a wedding is somehow irreverent.

M.

Which is how you read it... not how we write it... Which would be as if I accused you of saying it is absolutely impossible for a non-member/non-worthy person to be able to be happy for the couple or joyful solely because they were not able to attend the ceremony.

I would hope that you can clearly see the absurdity of such an accusation against you so I would also hope that you have the integrity avoid such petty straw manning of the arguments we have

Edited December 5, 2013 by estradling75

[Guest]

Backroads, you are making this more complicated than it’s worth. A little common sense goes a long way. When you got engaged, were people happy for you and congratulated you or were they indifferent and acted like, I can’t show joy or that will take away from the couple? Let’s be reasonable. People are usually happy when someone they know and love gets married and it is normal to gather together to show happiness for the couple, they celebrate because of that couple. If the couple weren’t so important to those gathered together there wouldn’t be a celebration.

We understand this and we agree with this. Like Vort told you a few pages back... being PRESENT when the couple says I DO is NOT the only moment of celebration. This is where we are getting hung up in this discussion. Because for you, if a person is not there when the couple says the I DO that makes the marriage legally binding, then it is not a celebration. For us, we can be in the temple for 30 minutes to say the I DOs, and then go outside the temple and go crazy with the Celebrations. But for you, that doesn't count as such.

[Backroads]

We understand this and we agree with this. Like Vort told you a few pages back... being PRESENT when the couple says I DO is NOT the only moment of celebration. This is where we are getting hung up in this discussion. Because for you, if a person is not there when the couple says the I DO that makes the marriage legally binding, then it is not a celebration. For us, we can be in the temple for 30 minutes to say the I DOs, and then go outside the temple and go crazy with the Celebrations. But for you, that doesn't count as such.

Yes, this does appear to be the hang-up. The aforementioned differences in the expectations of a wedding? Alas, it is getting in the way of the original point understanding why the waiting period isn't a big deal to many LDS members.