Sealings - current policy, not culture?

[Guest]

magnificent spectacles = showing off and pomp.

I guess the Sistine Chapel is showing off and pomp. Okay.

[person122]

Lack of morals have also changed weddings. Once a person has been doing things before marriage, a lot of times the pomp and ceremony or the expensive honeymoon are the only things that make it special.

[drham3rd]

Married in May and converted in June so we are in that one year waiting period ourselves. I have read though the post in this thread and I think that the most important point that has been made is the eternal nature of the temple sealing! If we are going to make an eternal commitment to our spouse, we better have a solid understanding of the scriptures and a worthy spirit! So I totally support the one year waiting period! Being sealed in the temple is not a trivial thing; we MUST be spiritually ready to make that eternal commitment! Never never take spiritual things lightly; we are talking about our eternal soul here!

[estradling75]

Being one that enjoys a good loophole (for hypothetical reasons only, not in practice), I can't help but consider the following odd scenario pertinent to this policy:

(1) A U.S. couple, completely worthy, choose and carry out a civil marriage, rather than a temple sealing/marriage. They move to England a week later, and want to go to the temple to be sealed immediately (I say move rather than vacation, as this means a transfer of records and a change in the Bishop and Stake President that would conduct the Living Ordinance - Sealing interview). Obviously, their Bishop and Stake President in the U.S. would not even consider holding this interview until close to the one-year mark, be it a plan to be sealed in an American or an English temple. Would they get the green light from their new Bishop and Stake President well before the one-year mark, seeing as they are now in England?

I am not sure such a loophole exists. My understanding it that in England a couple has a narrow time frame in which to get Sealed after the legally required public wedding. (I think it is 24 hours) once that time frame is over the couple then has to wait a year just like in the states. So your hypothetical scenario simply fails due to the time frame being well expired by the time the move and convincing the bishop and stake president that you are worthy has finished. A more likely scenario is leadership inexperience allowing something against policy... But that would require a failure at several points in the process.

There is a legit exception... If you or your spouse were a recent convert (say six months) and you get married civilly because you need wait a year after baptism to go to the temple. Then you and your spouse can get sealed at the year after baptism date rather then the year after married date. But this falls in the category of civil wedding because you can't get sealed rather then choose not too.

Edited December 6, 2013 by estradling75

[MarginOfError]

Perhaps we'd be better off requiring all couples to wait a year between their marriage and their sealing.

Everyone wins that way. :)

[MarginOfError]

I am not sure such a loophole exists. My understanding it that in England a couple has a narrow time frame in which to get Sealed after the legally required public wedding. (I think it is 24 hours) once that time frame is over the couple then has to wait a year just like in the states. So your hypothetical scenario simply fails due to the time frame being well expired by the time the move and convincing the bishop and stake president that you are worthy has finished. A more likely scenario is leadership inexperience allowing something against policy... But that would require a failure at several points in the process.

It varies from place to place. In Ukraine (at least before the Kyiv temple opened, I'm not sure about now), couples that were married could go to be sealed at any time after the wedding.

I think the bigger issue you would have is that the new bishop and stake president are discouraged from issuing temple recommends to people they have not known for at least six months. So the original bishop and stake president would still have heavy input into the decision to issue temple recommends.

[estradling75]

It varies from place to place. In Ukraine (at least before the Kyiv temple opened, I'm not sure about now), couples that were married could go to be sealed at any time after the wedding.

If I were to guess I would say the the variation would depend on how easy it is for the members to get to the Temple. I would imagine it would have taken someone in the Ukraine (before the Kviv temple) alot more effort and planning to be sealed in the temple then it would have taken someone in England.

[person122]

Perhaps we'd be better off requiring all couples to wait a year between their marriage and their sealing.

Everyone wins that way. :)

So, would they be able to take out their endowments before the year is over? Or would they have to wait for the year mark?

[mnn727]

Perhaps we'd be better off requiring all couples to wait a year between their marriage and their sealing.

Everyone wins that way. :)

So, deny the blessings of a Temple Sealing to everyone for a year, how does that make 'everyone win'?

Sorry, but from reading this thread I really think many people do not really understand the purpose of a Temple or of a Sealing. Many here are talking like a Temple Sealing is just another marriage, its not!

I would really encourage people who are able to, to go to the Temple and do some sealing's really listening to the promises given to those who are sealed and ponder the meaning of those promises.

Edited December 6, 2013 by mnn727

[MarginOfError]

So, deny the blessings of a Temple Sealing to everyone for a year, how does that make 'everyone win'?

Playing some devil's advocate--if you're concerned that people are conflating the purpose of the sealing with the marriage because they are happening on the same day (and in the US, as part of the same ceremony), then wouldn't it make sense to separate the two. If you want people to think of marriage is different than sealing, stop doing them at the same time!

Sorry, but from reading this thread I really think many people do not really understand the purpose of a Temple or of a Sealing. Many here are talking like a Temple Sealing is just another marriage, its not!

I would really encourage people who are able to, to go to the Temple and do some sealing's really listening to the promises given to those who are sealed and ponder the meaning of those promises.

And here you get into some difficulties with explaining to outsiders why the sealing is so important. Mormons are expected to explain the significance and importance of the sealing to their non-Mormon friends but they have to do so without telling them what the covenants, promises, and blessings really are because we're not allowed to repeat the text of the vows outside of the temple. What ends up happening a lot of the time is "Well, the sealing is a sacred, religious ordinance that we believe is above and beyond the marriage. But I can't really tell you more, so I hope you'll understand and no hard feelings." That's a really unsatisfying answer.

What's more, that discussion of what the sealing "really means" is only relevant to Mormons. There was a lot of non-Mormon family that would have liked to come to my wife's and my sealing. And I can assure you they couldn't have cared less about the sealing. They were only interested in the marriage.

So--again, playing devil's advocate--if it's so important to make it understood that marriage is a distinct entity from sealing, why do them both in the same ceremony? (Other than "it's the way we've always done it."

[[Note: I make these comments mostly because I don't think the majority of the Mormons in this discussion are making enough effort to understand and empathize with how it feels to the non-Mormons to be excluded from these ceremonies. In what I've read of this thread, I've noted a lot of "You should respect the way we believe and feel" without much respect for the way others believe and feel.

And before assuming that anything I say here is representative of my understanding of the sealing covenants, please take a moment to read one of my earlier explanations of sealing. I believe strongly that sealing should, ideally, occur very close to marriage if at all possible. But I don't have any strong feelings about whether it be in the same ceremony or not. That's a matter of policy and not of doctrine and is, to me, a very trivial thing over which to get your panties in a twist.]]

[estradling75]

[[Note: I make these comments mostly because I don't think the majority of the Mormons in this discussion are making enough effort to understand and empathize with how it feels to the non-Mormons to be excluded from these ceremonies. In what I've read of this thread, I've noted a lot of "You should respect the way we believe and feel" without much respect for the way others believe and feel.

The problem with this approach is that the ones that advocate change (any change) are the ones the bare burden of proof/convincing and otherwise making their point. The fact that they are utterly unconvincing is either due to them not understanding why we do what we do, or really having no case. Thus instead they are trying to confuse us it to in to thinking we have to defend ourself against a case they have not made

[MarginOfError]

The problem with this approach is that the ones that advocate change (any change) are the ones the bare burden of proof/convincing and otherwise making their point. The fact that they are utterly unconvincing is either due to them not understanding why we do what we do, or really having no case. Thus instead they are trying to confuse us it to in to thinking we have to defend ourself against a case they have not made

The simplest defense to that is to point out that it isn't a matter of doctrine, but of policy. And so where you come down on the issue is a matter of personal preference. There is no right or wrong answer--only opinions.

Those who go about trying to defend or assert opinions in the absence of objective truths make themselves look silly. (on both sides of the argument).

[estradling75]

The simplest defense to that is to point out that it isn't a matter of doctrine, but of policy. And so where you come down on the issue is a matter of personal preference. There is no right or wrong answer--only opinions.

Those who go about trying to defend or assert opinions in the absence of objective truths make themselves look silly. (on both sides of the argument).

If it were to simply to have an opinion on the matter you would be correct... But the OP isn't content to simply have an opinion... They are demanding that the church change to come into alignment with their opinion. That in their minds church's current opinion on the matter is clearly wrong. Thus OP is doing more then just having an opinion and being curious on what other people think.

[MarginOfError]

If it were to simply to have an opinion on the matter you would be correct... But the OP isn't content to simply have an opinion... They are demanding that the church change to come into alignment with their opinion. That in their minds church's current opinion on the matter is clearly wrong. Thus OP is doing more then just having an opinion and being curious on what other people think.

And in these situations, I think the phrase that applies is "don't feed the trolls."

This thread would have died a long time ago if people were content to say, "I disagree. I like the policy as it is and think the Church should stand by it."

Instead, we have page after page after page of people saying "well if you understood the significance of the sealing ordinance, you wouldn't think that way." Which is a really strange way to think about a non-doctrinal policy.

So he called for the Church to change its policy. Big deal. Is it really so hard to just disagree?

[estradling75]

And in these situations, I think the phrase that applies is "don't feed the trolls."

This thread would have died a long time ago if people were content to say, "I disagree. I like the policy as it is and think the Church should stand by it."

Instead, we have page after page after page of people saying "well if you understood the significance of the sealing ordinance, you wouldn't think that way." Which is a really strange way to think about a non-doctrinal policy.

So he called for the Church to change its policy. Big deal. Is it really so hard to just disagree?

On a site that is setup to offer positive LDS content... Yes. Either we have to ban and delete the OP for giving a list of things they think church is doing wrong... Or we have to counter. People tend to get cranky when we do the first option.

[MarginOfError]

On a site that is setup to offer positive LDS content... Yes. Either we have to ban and delete the OP for giving a list of things they think church is doing wrong... Or we have to counter. People tend to get cranky when we do the first option.

I disagree with this assessment, and I think it creates a false dichotomy. Ironically, you got a lot more "negative" content by engaging and countering than by simply stating your disagreement. I also think you got a lot more cranky people with that approach. But perhaps I'm the only one who observed that.

[estradling75]

I disagree with this assessment, and I think it creates a false dichotomy. Ironically, you got a lot more "negative" content by engaging and countering than by simply stating your disagreement. I also think you got a lot more cranky people with that approach. But perhaps I'm the only one who observed that.

So just to be clear you are perfectly ok with the mods shutting down, deleting, and banning people would come and post controversial things against the church. Rather then attempt to discuss and debate the issue?

[MarginOfError]

So just to be clear you are perfectly ok with the mods shutting down, deleting, and banning people would come and post controversial things against the church. Rather then attempt to discuss and debate the issue?

You're still operating in the framework of your false dichotomy. Remove the false dichotomy, and you'll see that what I said was that I think you could have prevented a lot of the negative content and general crankiness by simply disagreeing and leaving it at that.

[Just_A_Guy]

Playing some devil's advocate--if you're concerned that people are conflating the purpose of the sealing with the marriage because they are happening on the same day (and in the US, as part of the same ceremony), then wouldn't it make sense to separate the two. If you want people to think of marriage is different than sealing, stop doing them at the same time!

But in LDS theology, so far as I understand it, the civil marriage is pretty much irrelevant except a) as a hoop that must be jumped through prior to/contemporaneously with the sealing (and even that is just a policy, and hasn't always been so), and b) as a sort of "safe harbor" so that a sexual relationship doesn't get characterized as fornication. Otherwise the civil marriage, like any other ritual performed without proper authority, is just a "dead work", availing nothing (D&C 22:3).

Requiring a civil marriage to be done separately, IMHO, inflates the importance of the civil ritual/family tradition at the expense of the theological significance of the event. It would be like requiring Filipino Mormons to have their children baptized Catholic before they can be baptized Mormons; or requiring Mormons of Jewish background to make their sons do a Bar Mitzvah before he can be ordained to the priesthood.

Now, you can come back and say "but, that's exactly what the Church does do in countries that don't recognize LDS temple sealings--we make them get civilly married!" Sure. Because civil marriage used to mean something. It used to be a token of the couple's commitment--both to each other and to the law of chastity. It symbolized to the outside world that as Mormons we, too, shared in the prevailing social mores. But thanks to rampant divorce and the spread of gay marriage, the tie between civil marriage and commitment/sexual morality grows ever more tenuous; and as the Church begins to find itself under fire for refusing to solemnize gay marriages within its temples or its chapels I think it will ultimately get out of the civil marriage business entirely. It may not happen in my lifetime--but I'd bet anyone here a jelly donut that it'll happen eventually.

The simplest defense to that is to point out that it isn't a matter of doctrine, but of policy.

Whence comes this presumption that mere policies are per se uninspired?

Edited December 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

Perhaps we'd be better off requiring all couples to wait a year between their marriage and their sealing.

Everyone wins that way. :)

I have been pondering this. Not sure I agree, but it's worth the ponder.

From my understanding, the wait is there to give time for a couple-to-be-sealed to truly understand and prepare for this covenant.

Does this mean the couple who was married and sealed in the temple was more prepared and understanding? The likelihood is greater, though nothing is a sure thing. But this couple did choose to make the commitment.

Does this mean that every couple who chooses to have a civil ceremony first isn't properly ready for the sealing covenant? That's a very broad brush that no doubt has plenty of exceptions.

Maybe the couple who married in the temple did so because they could make the "checklist" of the temple interview and all their friends were marrying in the temple.

Maybe the couple who had the civil ceremony first and waited a year plus was the extremely prepared spiritually but, for whatever reason, had the civil ceremony. (Perhaps it could be said they weren't spiritually prepared enough if they chose to marry civilly first, but I don't think that's always the case.)

So, the couple who marries in the temple might be lukewarm. Perhaps the couple who married civilly is ready to be sealed within a month if not sooner. That all considered, I don't believe the wait period to be a deep insight into every couple as much as it is a general safety measure.

EDIT: (more thoughts)

So, is a general safety measure, "wrong" because the worry might not apply to every couple? I don't think so. This all being a matter of policy, policy has its place in keeping things tidy. As it stands, if you are in all ways ready for the temple sealing but a civil marriage is what you do for whatever reason, you obviously knew the consequence and if you're that ready for the temple, the wait shouldn't be a problem.

Maybe not as "nice" as some might like it, but that's that.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Backroads

[MarginOfError]

But in LDS theology, so far as I understand it, the civil marriage is pretty much irrelevant except a) as a hoop that must be jumped through prior to/contemporaneously with the sealing (and even that is just a policy, and hasn't always been so), and b) as a sort of "safe harbor" so that a sexual relationship doesn't get characterized as fornication.

If the LDS Church were headquartered in--say--the Philippines (with apologies to Anatess!), would you agree with a Church policy that, to alleviate tension in the vast majority of Church members' extended families, required all Mormons to baptize their children as Catholics prior to baptizing those children into the LDS Church?

Let's put these over a common denominator first. If the LDS commandment were that the Gift of the Holy Ghost could only be given to those legally and lawfully baptized, and the Philipine government only recognized Catholic baptism, then no, I wouldn't object. And I also wouldn't care if both baptisms were performed in a joint ceremony or in separate ceremonies.

Whence comes this presumption that mere policies are per se uninspired?

I made no such presumption. But a policy, whether inspired or not, is still just a policy. Being a policy, it is subject to change. And if the people with the authority to change the policy feel it's time to change the policy, then the policy will change.

[estradling75]

I think you missed the whole point of Positive Content...

Someone posts a detailed argument against something the church does.

And the response is 'Disagree' and that is it.

Then a third party wondering about the LDS beliefs comes along and reads the argument and the non-existent counter-point... What are they going to think? Are then going to see that as positive? Or are they going to think that LDS can't really discuss things or have rational responses and counters to criticisms?

Or we can can have several posts that directly counter and refute the argument and put forth several reasons on why it is a good idea. That seems to me like a much more positive presentation of the whole issue. Admittedly there is a downside, in that such a response would also come with all the standard baggage of people arguing points passionately, while that isn't always pretty it is part of being human

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's put these over a common denominator first. If the LDS commandment were that the Gift of the Holy Ghost could only be given to those legally and lawfully baptized . . .

Joseph Smith was never legally married to anyone but Emma. Did he violate the Law of Chastity?

And if the people with the authority to change the policy feel it's time to change the policy, then the policy will change.

I would amend thus:

And if the people with the authority to change the policy feel it's time to change the policy, and the Lord so authorizes, then the policy will change.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

But in LDS theology, so far as I understand it, the civil marriage is pretty much irrelevant except a) as a hoop that must be jumped through prior to/contemporaneously with the sealing (and even that is just a policy, and hasn't always been so), and b) as a sort of "safe harbor" so that a sexual relationship doesn't get characterized as fornication. Otherwise the civil marriage, like any other ritual performed without proper authority, is just a "dead work", availing nothing (D&C 22:3).

I believe this is incorrect. A man and woman legally married are, by Church doctrine and practice, allowed and even encouraged to engage in physical intimacy, whereas a man and woman not married to each other are considered to be violating the law of chastity if they engage in physical intimacy. I believe this is more than a simple matter of legalistic characterization. Marriage, even for time only, is very meaningful in the Church, much more than a "dead work".

Note that I am (probably) in agreement with all or most of your point about temple sealing vs. non-temple marriage, but I think in this matter you have overstated the point.

Joseph Smith was never legally married to anyone but Emma.

Did he violate the Law of Chastity?

I can only assume he did not. If he did not engage in sexual intimacy with his plural wives, then of course he did not violate the law of chastity. Some have suggested that the fact that Emma was constantly pregnant while none of his other wives ever got pregnant by him (that we know of) indicates that he may not have physically consummated these unions. However that may be, I trust that the prophet of the Restoration understood the commandments of God well enough to avoid breaking the law of chastity.

[MarginOfError]

Joseph Smith was never legally married to anyone but Emma. Did he violate the Law of Chastity?

I don't pretend to know the full rationale behind the things Joseph Smith did. If I were to judge his actions based on today's definition of the law of chastity, I would rule that he was in violation.

I would amend thus:

And if the people with the authority to change the policy feel it's time to change the policy, and the Lord so authorizes, then the policy will change.

Fine by me.