Sealings - current policy, not culture?

[Maureen]

...I think you are changing my meaning of celebration.

You may have mentioned it before, but could you state how you define celebration.

...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?

This thread is not really about the "marriage" because that is created after the wedding occurs, even if the couple elopes. This thread is about the wedding, what couples do to get married.

I don't know why you think I've been discussing what others want instead of what the couple wants. This thread is about what the couple wants for their wedding. If the couple wishes to be married/sealed in the Temple that should be their choice; if they wish to be civilly married first and then sealed at a later date (of their choosing) that should also be their choice. That has been my opinion throughout this thread.

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

I brought it up to show the importance of having family and friends gathered together at the wedding ceremony itself.

Where did anyone say that?

I'm just getting that vibe from your words Backroads that you are having a hard time accepting that is it okay to celebrate someone's wedding. Maybe we have different definitions of celebrate and that's the problem.

M.

[Backroads]

Addendum: We should all go watch the last scene of the revered chick flick classic "Runaway Bride".

It shows people who weren't at a ceremony...expressing joy a marriage.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Backroads

[Guest]

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.

Yep. And we're not even touching on the ginormous missionary moment of teaching friends and family about Eternal Families when they ask why it has to be in the temple... and the ginormous missionary moment of teaching friends and family about the role of Temples in the Plan of Salvation when they ask why they can't go into the temple.

For me, that's the greater missionary moment.

[Bini]

I'm definitely not going to read through all these pages but..

In some countries, aren't you required to be civilly wed first, before having a temple marriage? For sure it would have to be the case in countries that don't have accessible temples..

[Bini]

Addendum: We should all go watch the last scene of the revered chick flick classic "Runaway Bride".

It shows people who weren't at a ceremony... celebrating a marriage.

Every time I see that word used on this forum I cringe.. We signed so many "addendums" during the process of selling and buying a new house. It's a bad word.

[estradling75]

I don't know why you think I've been discussing what others want instead of what the couple wants. This thread is about what the couple wants for their wedding. If the couple wishes to be married/sealed in the Temple that should be their choice; if they wish to be civilly married first and then sealed at a later date (of their choosing) that should also be their choice. That has been my opinion throughout this thread.

This is totally doable... as long as the date is a year or more later. The couple can control when they get married but the Church controls and judges on if someone is worthy/ready to be sealed. That control has never..ever.. been given to the individual for any of the ordinances. If the church judges a person to be unworthy/unready because of the actions that they choose to take before the ordinance, that is its right. All the attempts to wrest, whine, and pout that it is not fair, or otherwise attempt to distort the issues are irrelevant.

[Backroads]

You may have mentioned it before, but could you state how you define celebration.

I realized I have been using it vaguely and I apologize. In reference to my statement "Why does every wedding have to have a celebration?" I was referring to the official party definition of celebration. I will use "Joy" to define the reactions of loved ones to a couples' union.

This thread is not really about the "marriage" because that is created after the wedding occurs, even if the couple elopes. This thread is about the wedding, what couples do to get married.

I don't know why you think I've been discussing what others want instead of what the couple wants. This thread is about what the couple wants for their wedding. If the couple wishes to be married/sealed in the Temple that should be their choice; if they wish to be civilly married first and then sealed at a later date (of their choosing) that should also be their choice. That has been my opinion throughout this thread.

I brought up what others want to do in response to your focus on the importance of loved ones officially celebrating (with a party or whatnot) the wedding and the importance of having that party as an immediate part of the ceremony.

And, obviously, I agree it should be the couple's choice. However, the original point of this thread was to do away with the one-year wait. My point (despite, yes, liking the idea of getting rid of the wait period) is that for many LDS folks the wait period is neither here nor there because what is most important is the sealing. While many LDS people appreciate the presence of loved ones to a great or lesser degree, the sealing is still the Big Deal. Many don't get the to-do about having a civil ceremony first followed by an immediate sealing because of that.

Example:

Couple: We got legally married at our sealing in the temple.

Many LDS folks: Awesome. Glad you got sealed.

Couple: We for whatever reason had a civil ceremony and will be getting sealed at a later date.

Many LDS folks: We still think the sealing is most important and not all of us are sure why you didn't do that first, so make sure you get that done!

I brought it up to show the importance of having family and friends gathered together at the wedding ceremony itself.

Okay. And in LDS temple sealing culture, that's not as important as the sealing.

I'm just getting that vibe from your words Backroads that you are having a hard time accepting that is it okay to celebrate someone's wedding. Maybe we have different definitions of celebrate and that's the problem.

M.

Hopefully my earlier definitions will clear that up. It was not my intent to express that.

[Maureen]

...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....

I don't really agree with this statement. My whole opinion in this thread is that, I believe the couple should be the ones to choose how they wish to celebrate their wedding. And if that means having a civil wedding first so that family and friends can be present during the ceremony (because that is important to the couple) without any restrictions afterwards on when the couple chooses to get sealed; then so be it.

M.

[Guest]

I'm definitely not going to read through all these pages but..

In some countries, aren't you required to be civilly wed first, before having a temple marriage? For sure it would have to be the case in countries that don't have accessible temples..

Yes, it's been discussed in this thread. Countries where marriages inside the temple are not legally binding require the civil marriage before the temple sealing. There is no need to wait one year.

People who have no access to a temple may get married civilly but that marriage is for time only. They still need to be sealed in the temple either in this life or the next. If they decide to get sealed in the temple, the one year wait is still required unless they get special provision from a general authority.

[Vort]

Here is what I understand gem and Maureen to be saying:

• A wedding is an intrinsically social occasion. It is important that loved ones be allowed to attend.
  
  
• Not all loved ones are LDS, and even some of those that are cannot get a temple recommend.
  
  
• Therefore, assuming the standards for temple sealing attendence are not relaxed, the LDS temple sealing should be a separate event from the wedding so that the wedding can be attended by those who should be there.
  
  

I agree with the first two points. I actually have some sympathy for the third point, except that it is not my (or your) place to instruct the LDS Church or its leaders on Church policy. My response is therefore:

• Church policy in the US, Canada, and other places where a temple sealing is a legally recognized marriage is that those married outside the temple wait a year before being sealed.
  
  
• Given the choice, and even recognizing the importance of weddings and wedding attendance, the sealing is so vastly more important than a public wedding that the gain far outweighs any loss.
  
  
• If we are being honest, we will also acknowledge that many of the trappings associated with modern (non-temple) weddings are superfluous at best and antagonistic at worst to a healthy marriage. Ruinously expensive weddings or receptions costing literally tens of thousands of dollars are a woeful misuse of funds and a diversion of attention from weighty matters of a newly married couple to nonsensical trivia. A choice between this sort of wedding and a temple sealing is even more stark and obvious.
  
  

Really, this is where it ends for me and others who think as I do. Arguments that the Church leaders "are not always inspired" or "are sometimes wrong" strike me as ignorant if not hostile, and never get the response that those who use them seem to expect.

This is not about Church leaders being perfect. That entirely misses the point. This is about us choosing the better of the paths we find before us. This is also about us being grateful -- truly and deeply grateful -- for the blessings God offers us, both those of the sealing and those of membership in the kingdom of God, and not seeking to impose our own will or opinion on the practices of the Church.

[Vort]

I don't really agree with this statement. My whole opinion in this thread is that, I believe the couple should be the ones to choose how they wish to celebrate their wedding. And if that means having a civil wedding first so that family and friends can be present during the ceremony (because that is important to the couple) without any restrictions afterwards on when the couple chooses to get sealed; then so be it.

Not sure what you intend, but that is exactly the choice LDS couples are allowed to make. If your above statement accurately represents your true feelings, I do not understand why you are complaining.

[Vort]

Every time I see that word used on this forum I cringe.. We signed so many "addendums" during the process of selling and buying a new house. It's a bad word.

If your home-buying experiences mean you don't like the word "addendum" in an LDS context, I fear to think of your reaction to "covenants", "contracts", and "restrictions".

[Guest]

I don't really agree with this statement. My whole opinion in this thread is that, I believe the couple should be the ones to choose how they wish to celebrate their wedding. And if that means having a civil wedding first so that family and friends can be present during the ceremony (because that is important to the couple) without any restrictions afterwards on when the couple chooses to get sealed; then so be it.

M.

For every choice there is consequence. If the couple wish to get civilly wed then they get to wait one year before they qualify for sealing.

If a bride decides to wear tube-top for a wedding dress, they can't have a temple wedding.

If a person decides to have sex before getting married, they can't have a temple wedding until they've repented.

If a person decides to drink alcohol, they cannot be baptized into the LDS Church or if already baptized, they may not be able to enter the temple and get wed there.

If an LDS member decides to smoke, drink coffee, not pay a full tithe, have sex with the same gender... etc. etc. etc...

This is not a Church of... whatever you want to do that everybody else who is not LDS does... goes.

[Backroads]

Vort, you expressed my exact feelings so well!

[Guest]

She doesn't want them to have to wait to be sealed if they choose a civil ceremony first.

[Maureen]

This is totally doable... as long as the date is a year or more later. The couple can control when they get married but the Church controls and judges on if someone is worthy/ready to be sealed. That control has never..ever.. been given to the individual for any of the ordinances. If the church judges a person to be unworthy/unready because of the actions that they choose to take before the ordinance, that is its right. All the attempts to wrest, whine, and pout that it is not fair, or otherwise attempt to distort the issues are irrelevant.

I understand that, a sealing schedule date must be agreed upon by the couple and their church leaders. But I'm looking into the future wishing that the policy will eventually be changed to make this schedule less restrictive.

M.

[Maureen]

Not sure what you intend, but that is exactly the choice LDS couples are allowed to make. If your above statement accurately represents your true feelings, I do not understand why you are complaining.

She doesn't want them to have to wait to be sealed if they choose a civil ceremony first.

I wouldn't say that stating my opinion (or wishes) is equal to complaining.

But Eowyn is correct. I'm of the opinion that the sealing restriction of one year be lifted and the couple along with their leaders would make the final decision on when the sealing will occur.

M.

[Guest]

I understand that, a sealing schedule date must be agreed upon by the couple and their church leaders. But I'm looking into the future wishing that the policy will eventually be changed to make this schedule less restrictive.

M.

I don't see it happening because I don't see a compelling reason to change the policy. But then, of course, things can always change.

I don't understand why you wish it... you're Protestant!

[Maureen]

I don't see it happening because I don't see a compelling reason to change the policy. But then, of course, things can always change.

I don't understand why you wish it... you're Protestant!

Ha Ha!

I have nieces and nephews and I would like them to have some choices in how they wish to celebrate their weddings. I actually have a nephew who is getting married next May. I don't know the details, I think they will have a Temple wedding but I'm not sure yet. My niece (his sister) decided to not have a Temple wedding and they are a very happy couple, and their wedding was beautiful.

M.

[Vort]

I wouldn't say that stating my opinion (or wishes) is equal to complaining.

But Eowyn is correct. I'm of the opinion that the sealing restriction of one year be lifted and the couple along with their leaders would make the final decision on when the sealing will occur.

I guess I'm sort of confused as to why you would take a position in a doctrinal/policy matter of a Church to which you don't belong, and which doesn't work by majority opinion even for those who do belong. Do you also take stances on how non-Catholics are allowed to participate in Catholic masses or baptisms, or how Jews should serve Passover Seder, or whether non-Muslims should be allowed to walk around the Kaaba?

[mnn727]

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

clearly since you apparently do not understand either the Temple Covenant or the Marriage Covenant

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

However you are wrong The fashion show/party is of no importance, its a time for people to show off, both themselves and their greed.

[Guest]

However you are wrong The fashion show/party is of no importance, its a time for people to show off, both themselves and their greed.

A bit too harsh there, mnn. My kids' bday parties are 3-day events. That's birthdays. Their baptism was a weeklong beach party. Their weddings will be ginormous celebrations, I'm sure of it. No, it's not as important as the temple sealing, of course. But, it's not a time for people to show off themselves and their greed.

[estradling75]

In the early days of the church the trail between the Arizona and the Saint George Temple was known as the 'honeymoon trail.' Given that the couple would be alone together for several weeks of traveling meant that being married first was a very, very good idea. It took a lot of effort and sacrifice just to get to the temple. So those that did clearly saw it to be of great worth and of clear importance.

Time passes and temple grow to dot the land. Transportation is easier and the Church creates a policy of the year wait if you are married Civilly first. They have not told us why but it is not hard to imagine that maybe they are trying to help the member understand that the things we sacrifice for are the things we clearly value. And if we are unwilling to sacrifice to be Sealed then it is a good bet that we are not ready to be sealed.

And in countries were the Law requires a Civil marriage first, I understand that the married couple have a very narrow window in which to get Sealed after getting married, (24 hours I think) otherwise they also have to wait a year. So the wait is about as universal as the laws will allow the church to have it.

And this whole thread is a better, best debate. Including things that make friends and family happy... well that is generally one of the better things you can do. Making fulfilling of the Lord's commandments your highest priority is the best thing you can do

Edited December 5, 2013 by estradling75

[Bini]

A bit too harsh there, mnn. My kids' bday parties are 3-day events. That's birthdays. Their baptism was a weeklong beach party. Their weddings will be ginormous celebrations, I'm sure of it. No, it's not as important as the temple sealing, of course. But, it's not a time for people to show off themselves and their greed.

I agree. I really think culture plays a big part in this as well. I'm pretty sure Italians like doing extended celebrations and invite every living body they know. The Greeks too?

[Just_A_Guy]

You know, it's interesting. As Mormons we encourage people to prepare themselves to go to the temple--we drill it into our children's heads--and that's a good thing. But if we aren't careful then we run the risk of creating the impression that a temple marriage is some sort of birthright so long as you've been "good enough". That seems to be the impression that Maureen, Gem2477, and a number of other people inside and outside of the Church have--and it's incorrect. If you listen to the temple liturgy and parse the covenants that are actually made in there, it becomes clear: Mormon temple rites are not for half-hearted Mormons. It's for the zealots--the borderline fanatics, really.

That level of commitment gives the Church tremendous power to do good--both physical and spiritual power, and both on an institutional and an individual basis. You could say that that commitment constitutes the "soul" of practical Mormonism. This notion that serving God in whatever capacity He asks is tremendously important--even more important, in some cases, than extra family time--drives much of what we do as Church members. For this reason, I think it would be a bad idea to water down the temple liturgy.

But therein lies the rub: as long as the temple liturgy is what it is, then there's going to be a certain amount of incongruity in the practice Maureen and others advocate. Because what you'd be doing is taking two kids who just last week put family above (as our theology sees it) God Himself, and thrusting them into a temple where they promise that from now on, God will always come first regardless of the personal cost. If you see the temple covenants as more than mere ritual--if you expect the participants to pattern their life in accordance with those covenants--then letting them participate in the endowment and sealing rites under such circumstances smacks strongly of setting them up for failure.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Just_A_Guy