Sealing rooms not big enough

[omegaseamaster75]

Volumes of what? don't you recognize the rudeness of your own comment?

 

I wasn't asking for opinions about my intentions when forming my list. I was asking about why temple sealing rooms aren't bigger for large families.

 

When asked to make a list of those who would be invited to the ceremony, I listed 40 CLOSE family members. 

 

Oh sorry, I must be bragging about a large loving family who hold temple recommends.  ( rolls eyes)

.........................

Edited March 10, 2015 by omegaseamaster75

[pam]

I just read through this thread.  In all fairness to carlimac she did ask about why they don't have larger sealing rooms.

 

Comments regarding egos etc I think was out of line.  I didn't see anything that she posted that would lead me to think it was about egos. I understand those that have large families. Especially if both sides have large families.  

 

It's a tough situation.

 

Carlimac I wish you the best in figuring this out and how to make the majority happy.

 

I think anatess had some great suggestions.

[Traveler]

I have been thinking about this thread and decided to add some more thoughts:

 

In the parable of the 10 virgins Jesus is talking about their preparing for and attending a marriage.  The symbolism is not that lots of people should not attend but only those that are worthy.  In essence not all invited and intending to go are worthy.  The focus is on worthiness not numbers.  I honestly think that one possible reason for limiting has to do with worthiness.  Unfortunately, I also believe that by limiting number we do not prevent the unworthy from attending but to limit the unworthy.  This thought bothers me greatly because I often ponder if it is really even possible to be worthy to enter the House of G-d

 

Second thought:  I do no know why but as numbers grow so does the propensity to be irreverent.  I have been at the temple when wedding guests have to be asked again and again and again to please remember where they are and to please speak only when they must in softer reverent voices.  Big smiles, back slapping and boisterous greetings and conversations are not helpful and distract from the spirit.  It is possible to express joy in a reverent manner.  I am convinced this is the #1 reason that the numbers are limited.  And that the simplest solution is to limit those attending.

 

Next thought:  I have been at temple sealings when the officiator has given witness that what looked like a partly empty room was fulled with many (number not specified) attending from beyond the veil.  I have pondered that at such times that there were possibly thousands attending.  I have also pondered that lack of reverence from this side of the veil limits greatly the numbers from beyond.

 

Next thought:  I do not remember the date this occurred nor the name of the temple president but it was the president of the Manti Temple.  Early one morning as he arrived at the temple he was greeted at the entrance to the temple by Satan.  He asked Satan why he was there - Satan responded that he intended to be in attendance during  several "events" at the temple that day.  This greatly surprised the temple President.  Satan then informed the president that he would wait for someone unworthy that would be his invitation to enter with them.

 

Final thought:  I am always surprised at all the difficulty that takes place whenever my wife and I try to attend from cars that will not start to leaking plumbing to injuries to family members.  I guess after all these years such things should not be counted as unusual.  I believe that there are many different reasons for someone to find it discouraging to go to the temple

Edited March 10, 2015 by Traveler

[carlimac]

I've been thinking about this, too. I think the reason the sealing rooms are smaller doesn't have anything to do with reverence but more because when the temple was built, most people who were sealed there were already married. So it wasn't like a one time deal of marriage and sealing all in one. They didn't need the space because the focus was all on simply the sealing ordinance and wasn't the same celebration as a wedding was. It was meant to be a more private, personal ordinance. But I still don't see why, in 2015 when this is the only actual "moment" the couple gets of saying "I Do" (in essence) and becoming man and wife, that more people aren't allowed to witness it if they are worthy and have a recommend. I still don't see the point of limiting the numbers. 

 

I also disagree about the reverence thing.I don't believe having a voice that carries, or chuckling together with a family member equates being unworthy to be there.  I don't know how they could possibly keep people from greeting each other with joy that turns to exuberance for some in the waiting room. It does get a little loud sometimes, but no louder than all the chatter before and after Sacrament meeting.  I don't think that detracts from the spirit at all. I just see that waiting room as a reunion type place. It's not where any sacred ordinance is being performed.  Some people don't feel the same need to be as quiet there.  In contrast, when the family is asked to go to the sealing room, no matter how many people are there it is almost without question nearly silent as people walk the halls. Same while sitting in the sealing room till the bride and groom come in, and then the "talk" from the sealer commences. NO conversation at all! That's where it really matters.

 

 I've never been told or heard that family who are deceased are in the waiting room of the temple in spirit. It's always only in the rooms where ordinances are being performed. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by carlimac

[Traveler]

I've been thinking about this, too. I think the reason the sealing rooms are smaller doesn't have anything to do with reverence but more because when the temple was built, most people who were sealed there were already married. So it wasn't like a one time deal of marriage and sealing all in one. They didn't need the space because the focus was all on simply the sealing ordinance and wasn't the same celebration as a wedding was. It was meant to be a more private, personal ordinance. But I still don't see why, in 2015 when this is the only actual "moment" the couple gets of saying "I Do" (in essence) and becoming man and wife, that more people aren't allowed to witness it if they are worthy and have a recommend. I still don't see the point of limiting the numbers. 

 

I also disagree about the reverence thing.I don't believe having a voice that carries, or chuckling together with a family member equates being unworthy to be there.  I don't know how they could possibly keep people from greeting each other with joy that turns to exuberance for some in the waiting room. It does get a little loud sometimes, but no louder than all the chatter before and after Sacrament meeting.  I don't think that detracts from the spirit at all. I just see that waiting room as a reunion type place. It's not where any sacred ordinance is being performed.  Some people don't feel the same need to be as quiet there.  In contrast, when the family is asked to go to the sealing room, no matter how many people are there it is almost without question nearly silent as people walk the halls. Same while sitting in the sealing room till the bride and groom come in, and then the "talk" from the sealer commences. NO conversation at all! That's where it really matters.

 

 I've never been told or heard that family who are deceased are in the waiting room of the temple in spirit. It's always only in the rooms where ordinances are being performed. 

 

Just a reminder that the "waiting room" is very much a part of the temple which is the House of G-d - his personal residence.  It is not a place for speaking in a voice that carries or for chuckling any more than the Celestial Room even though both places are for gathering and reverently communicating the importance of what is taking place in the temple.

 

When my youngest son returned from his mission my wife and I attended an endowment session with him and reverently (in subdued tones) discussed sacred things concerning the temple (mostly answering his questions) - the discussion went on for over an hour as sever patrons and temple workers came to listen (including a member of the temple presidency).  The member of the temple presidency afterwords address us personally and took us on a personal tour of the Salt Lake Temple.  His response to me personally was appreciation - indicating that very few take advantage of the temple as a place of learning and receiving revelation.   That too often we come with other agendas  that interfere with the L-rd being able to draw near and commune with us.

[Just_A_Guy]

I've been thinking about this, too. I think the reason the sealing rooms are smaller doesn't have anything to do with reverence but more because when the temple was built, most people who were sealed there were already married. So it wasn't like a one time deal of marriage and sealing all in one. They didn't need the space because the focus was all on simply the sealing ordinance and wasn't the same celebration as a wedding was. It was meant to be a more private, personal ordinance.

 

Carlimac, This is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's quite accurate--at least, as it applies to the Salt Lake Temple specifically.  The room you're describing is part of the north addition, which was built from 1962-1966.  The temple as-dedicated contained only two sealing rooms, the ones adjoining the Celestial Room on either side of the Holy of Holies.  (The small sealing room at the top of the flight of stares on the west side of the Celestial Room was first used as an office and converted to a sealing room later.)

[Guest]

(The small sealing room at the top of the flight of stares on the west side of the Celestial Room was first used as an office and converted to a sealing room later.)

That's an interesting visual... I guess it's so small that family members just have to stare at the couple going up to the stealing room.

[Litzy]

So, how big ought sealing rooms be? I certainly wouldn't complain over larger sealing rooms, but I can't help but think the rooms will always be too small for some parties. I don't mean to be facetious, I'm just looking for what the most practical size would be in consideration of the temple size and the average size of wedding parties.

[carlimac]

So, how big ought sealing rooms be? I certainly wouldn't complain over larger sealing rooms, but I can't help but think the rooms will always be too small for some parties. I don't mean to be facetious, I'm just looking for what the most practical size would be in consideration of the temple size and the average size of wedding parties.

It would be nice if they at least had one or two that are twice as big as the largest one. Each of our families have to cut our temple lists in half. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by carlimac

[carlimac]

Carlimac, This is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's quite accurate--at least, as it applies to the Salt Lake Temple specifically.  The room you're describing is part of the north addition, which was built from 1962-1966.  The temple as-dedicated contained only two sealing rooms, the ones adjoining the Celestial Room on either side of the Holy of Holies.  (The small sealing room at the top of the flight of stares on the west side of the Celestial Room was first used as an office and converted to a sealing room later.)

It was just an idea. I'm really trying to figure this out and that was one possibility that came to me. In any case, no matter when they were built, they all ended up small(ish).  Maybe it's a practical matter of not wanting to use microphones for a larger crowd.

 

I guess I would be one who would actually be happy for the opportunity to separate out the wedding from the sealing with out the 1 yr penalty box wait. Civil wedding first with a sealing immediately after that day or within days if possible.  It would make the sealing even that more special. 

[mordorbund]

I stand corrected. I have reread the portion dealing with wedding parties and it deals more with open invitations than immediate (large) family.

 

 

Some time ago a letter was issued from the Brethren suggesting that large groups of friends, ward members, and so on not be invited to witness a marriage. Wedding groups should be small, comprising only the members of the two families and some few who are very close to the couple. On occasions a wedding has been announced in the ward with the invitation that all should try to attend to give support and encouragement to the couple being married. That is what a reception is for. A wedding reception is to provide time for greeting the friends and the well-wishers. The temple marriage itself should be sacred and should be shared only by those who have a very special place in the lives of those being married. In our own family, when our children have been married our wedding contingent has always been small even though we are a large family. The number of adults eligible to enter the temple has grown as our children have married. But even with our large family we have generally been able to perform our sealings in the smaller sealing rooms in the temple.

 

It's on page 68 of The Holy Temple if you're curious to check my work.

[carlimac]

I stand corrected. I have reread the portion dealing with wedding parties and it deals more with open invitations than immediate (large) family.

 

 

It's on page 68 of The Holy Temple if you're curious to check my work.

I actually have this on my list of books to purchase. Thanks for the reference.

[askandanswer]

It seems to me that over the last 15 years, the dominant trends in temple building have been to build a greater number of smallish sealing rooms in more places, and countries rather than building larger sealing rooms. More sealing rooms in more places means that more people and groups can access sealing rooms. Fewer, larger sealing rooms does not contribute to a hastening of the work as much as more, smaller sealing rooms. Seems like a wise use of resources to me.  

[carlimac]

It seems to me that over the last 15 years, the dominant trends in temple building have been to build a greater number of smallish sealing rooms in more places, and countries rather than building larger sealing rooms. More sealing rooms in more places means that more people and groups can access sealing rooms. Fewer, larger sealing rooms does not contribute to a hastening of the work as much as more, smaller sealing rooms. Seems like a wise use of resources to me.  

That is a good trend for out in the mission field where wedding parties are generally not as large. I think there were only a very few rooms in the MN temple where we lived. Can't remember. Maybe 2-4. but in the larger temples there are many more than that. Several on each floor.

 

Does anyone on this board know how many there are in the Salt lake Temple?

[askandanswer]

It seems to be the dominant trend in Utah as well, where smaller temples continue to be built at a rapid rate, but not usually on the same size scale as Salt Lake, St George, and other older temples.

[Just_A_Guy]

Fourteen sealing rooms in the SL Temple, per ldschurchtemples.com.

Of course . . . The bigger the sealing rooms, the fewer of them there can be and the fewer couples can be married there. Just_A_Girl reports that the brides' room in the SL Temple was packed the morning of our wedding

[Backroads]

Seems we would have to undergo a major change in temple wedding culture. I'm not opposed to larger sealing rooms but it would be a burden on marriage scheduling if a greater number of small sealing rooms were dropped in favor of fewer larger ones.

I too am not opposed to dropping the one year wait on sealings, which could help change the culture, but only as long as people prefer to see the wedding over the sealing.

Now, I'm also in favor of dropping government-sponsored marriage, which just leads back to cramming people in a sealing room.

I'm sorry, it's early, I'm sick, and I don't know where I'm going with this post.

[estradling75]

Asking questions can be good...  It can help someone understand the implication of a course of action before it begins, so a wise choice can be made on wither to take that course.

 

I think we have enough information to understand this proposed course of action of making the Sealing Rooms bigger.

 

First of all we understand that the Church's mission is to build up the Kingdom of God.  It does this through primarily Missionary work and Ordinance work.  The resources it uses come from the sacrifice of the faithful members, this resource has very clear limits.

 

So what is the disadvantage of making the rooms larger?  Well as has been stated less ordinances can be performed if expanding the room requires the reduction from the temple capacity elsewhere.  And the money required to make the change would have to come from the fund that Builds and keeps the Temples running.  Thus the true cost of larger rooms is that less Ordinance work can be done....  That is a very high price given the mission of the Church.

 

So what is the advantage of making the rooms larger?  Well large Mormon families can have more faithful church members and friends "Observe" the Ordinance being performed.  Now when we realize that each one of this potential Observer is also under covenant to sacrifice and consecrate  (everything if need be) to build up the Kingdom of God.... Well it seems to me that disadvantage clearly out weights the advantage.

 

Of course this doesn't mean that the Church can't look for opportunities for larger rooms at minimal additional costs when doing some kind of major upgrade, in areas where the Sealing rooms are running a capacity on a regular basis.  That would make alot of sense if it incur only minimal additional costs.  

[Guest]

Like having two or more sealing rooms right next to each other have removable walls?

[estradling75]

Like having two or more sealing rooms right next to each other have removable walls?

 

 

If I am remembering correctly the Kirtland temple large main area could be curtained off into smaller and smaller subsections...  So your idea has some historical support.

[Guest]

If I am remembering correctly the Kirtland temple large main area could be curtained off into smaller and smaller subsections...  So your idea has some historical support.

Yep. But the Kirtland Temple also served as Chapel, Sunday School, and Quorum meeting areas.

Edited March 12, 2015 by anatess

[Litzy]

LDS culture likes temple weddings, so I don't even see the dropping of the one-year-wait having a huge impact.

 

I would hate to see fewer ordinances done because of the size. Other churches value marriages, yes, and can handle huge weddings (and there's nothing wrong with that) but when our Church looks at marriages as one ordinance of many and we got time a'wastin' and lots of people, efficiency is a big deal.

 

But... estradling makes some good ideas. I suppose if the Church were to make wedding attendance a greater priority for families, bigger rooms (or dividers) when major construction is going is plausible.

[Jane_Doe]

I'm a HUGE fan of dropping the 1-yr wait.  It means that friends and family of all faiths can attend the earthly wedding, and then the heavenly joining can occur with reverence (separated from the its-a-party mentality).  Of course, if someone wanted to do both in the temple they could too.

 

I also don't see larger sealing rooms reducing the number of temple sealing to occur-- with the exception of Salt Lake, I don't see many of the temples being over-booked as is.

[estradling75]

 

I also don't see larger sealing rooms reducing the number of temple sealing to occur-- with the exception of Salt Lake, I don't see many of the temples being over-booked as is.

 

We do lack the numbers to truly determine demand...

 

However I strongly suspect that in areas were the LDS population can support the need for Larger Sealing rooms... That very same population supports the need for multiple sealing rooms to handle ordinance work for Dead Ancestors.   I would also suspect that the need for multiple rooms is a more consistent demand... With the need for large rooms having clear peaks on weekends and holidays

[Just_A_Guy]

But... estradling makes some good ideas. I suppose if the Church were to make wedding attendance a greater priority for families, bigger rooms (or dividers) when major construction is going is plausible.

 

On the other hand . . . if we did make a point of accommodating all who wished to come to an LDS sealing, regardless of the remoteness of their relationship to the couple . . . the pain of part-member families whose loved ones cannot attend regardless of the size of the sealing room, will be heightened.

 

I'm a HUGE fan of dropping the 1-yr wait.  It means that friends and family of all faiths can attend the earthly wedding, and then the heavenly joining can occur with reverence (separated from the its-a-party mentality).  Of course, if someone wanted to do both in the temple they could too.

 

I also don't see larger sealing rooms reducing the number of temple sealing to occur-- with the exception of Salt Lake, I don't see many of the temples being over-booked as is.

 

Given the nature of the endowment covenants on which the sealing covenants are based, I think the one-year wait is entirely appropriate. 

 

Modern wedding ceremonies in western countries are very much a cultural construct--and, at least for the lower/middle classes, a relatively recent one at that (both of my grandparents were married in homes with a minimum of guests).  Given the contrast between the Church's notion of "sealing" and the secular notion of a "wedding", I think it doesn't hurt to stop and think about the ways in which the world really is too much with us; and ask ourselves a) why we, as a culture, do some of the things we do with regard to weddings; b) what, precisely, is it that we celebrate at weddings; and c) why, precisely, do we insist that we must celebrate that thing in that particular way.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy