Sealing rooms not big enough

[Guest]

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.

Very good questions.

Personally, I don't really feel the need to be eye-witness to the vows. But yes, I do need to be part of the celebration... especially the PARTY!

But, traditionally, at least in Philippine culture, the entire wedding - from the time the bride and groom wake up to the time they get whisked off to the honeymoon is the celebration. And everybody witnesses the entire thing. This is rooted in the historical weddings of Spanish culture - which is rooted in the historical requirement of witnessing the vows all the way to the intimate relations (yes, you need witnesses to the consummation of such unions in the ancient Spanish era) to prove legitimacy of the union. Mistakes in the vows and unconsummated weddings are not deemed legally binding and legitimacy of inheritance (especially among nobles) can be put into question. So, the more eye-witnesses you can cram into the room, the better and being an eye-witness comes with a certain prestige because the wedded couple becomes dependent on their eye-witness accounts if it ever comes into question.

So, I guess the desire to be eye-witness (and not just celebrant) came from all that.

Edited March 12, 2015 by anatess

[Jane_Doe]

 

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.

 

I agree that modern wedding ceremonies are largely cultural and have a lot of non-sensical traditions in them.  Like why do chairs need to be put in body bags?  (or "seat covers", whatever you call them).

 

That's one reason I'm a fan of separating the wedding and sealing: to have all the cultural/fun/traditional stuff, and then have the things of God. 

[Just_A_Guy]

That's one reason I'm a fan of separating the wedding and sealing: to have all the cultural/fun/traditional stuff, and then have the things of God. 

 

With all due respect--why must the cultural/fun/traditional stuff come first?  What cultural assumptions or beliefs lead us to the (entirely natural) conclusion that a public ring ceremony following the sealing "just isn't the same" and is therefore insufficient?

Edited March 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Jane_Doe]

With all due respect--why must the cultural/fun/traditional stuff come first?  What cultural assumptions or beliefs lead us to the (entirely natural) conclusion that a public ring ceremony following the sealing "just isn't the same" and is therefore insufficient?

 

I'm a fan of ring-cermonys too, just for that reason.

[estradling75]

With all due respect--why must the cultural/fun/traditional stuff come first?  What cultural assumptions or beliefs lead us to the (entirely natural) conclusion that a public ring ceremony following the sealing "just isn't the same" and is therefore insufficient?

 

 

Indeed....   If I had to make a guess I would guess that the church's current policy is to help up put the things of God first...  That all the things people complain about with things like the year wait and what not is because they don't want the things of God to be difficult, or hard.  (although they probly just never really thought about it until it came up and they are asking why)

[JayGlad]

Coming into this thread late, so I apologize.

 

This is not addressing a specific individual, but what I've gathered from the discussion in general. All too often we have the tendency to question why God does what He does and why can't He conform to our wishes. What we need to understand is that we should be asking ourselves why can't we (collectively and individually) accept His will and confirm to His way of doing things.

 

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

 

As we move closer to His ways and His thoughts, we are taking upon ourselves the "divine attributes" the apostle Paul spoke about (2 Peter 1). "For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ [and why He does things the way He does]" (2 Peter 1:8).

[askandanswer]

This is not addressing a specific individual, but what I've gathered from the discussion in general. All too often we have the tendency to question why God does what He does and why can't He conform to our wishes. What we need to understand is that we should be asking ourselves why can't we (collectively and individually) accept His will and confirm to His way of doing things.

 

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).

 

My comment is a deviation from the main thread, but I've long been concerned about the kind of attitudes expressed in the above thread and I don't want to pass up on this opportunity to respond. Of course I agree with JayGlad when s/he says we should be accepting His will and conforming to His way of doing things, but we should also be asking lots of questions along the way.

 

I think the kind of questions where we ask why God does what He does, when asked with the proper kind of motive and attitude, are some of the most important kind of questions there are, because if we come to a reliable answer to the "why" questions it moves us closer to a greater understanding of God and His church, and His personality, values, character and attributes, and there are few, perhaps no, types of knowledge that are of greater importance and value. As Joseph Smith taught:

 

“If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is,—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is. …

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-2?lang=eng

 

And this is just a personal gripe, but it often annoys me when I see Isaiah 55: 8-9 being used as a reason to suggest why we cannot, or should not seek to understand the ways of God. God wants His children to understand him. It is true that His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. That's WHY we need to find out His ways and thoughts - so that we can lift our own so that they more resemble His. Far more are the verses and teachings in the scriptures that tell us that God is wanting and willing and waiting to pour out the blessings of knowledge on the heads of all those who diligently and faithfully seek it than those verses which seek to dissuade us from doing so. Not only are God and His ways knowable, they must become known, by all of us, in this life, and in the next, because (New Testament | John 17:3) this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. And right now is the best time to start learning them, because (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 130:18 - 19) Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. In this endeavour, we can rely on, and be guided by, the fact that He is willing, nay even bound, to help us know when we do our part and are motivated by faith and righteous desires. 

[Jane_Doe]

A&A, Well said!

[carlimac]

I agree that modern wedding ceremonies are largely cultural and have a lot of non-sensical traditions in them.  Like why do chairs need to be put in body bags?  (or "seat covers", whatever you call them).

 

That's one reason I'm a fan of separating the wedding and sealing: to have all the cultural/fun/traditional stuff, and then have the things of God. 

Oh this makes me laugh!! I was thinking of using them for the reception but you've ruined it for me. You've forever changed how I see chair covers. Can't put the poor things in body bags.  

[carlimac]

I honestly think some are taking this too seriously. It would seem a contradiction almost that the Lord wants us sealed as families and champions family relationships as the most important on earth and through out the eternities, yet the size of sealing rooms sometimes prohibits those close family "relations" to witness the single most important event of one's life.  I have read all this responses and none of them ring true to me. I honestly can't think of a single reason why the Lord wouldn't want a person to have cousins, friends and other support staff there to witness the sealing. I think it's simply that  this is how temples are designed and constructed traditionally. I think my own practical suggestion that maybe they don't want to have to use microphones in a large group so everyone can hear is closer to the truth  than anything else.   

 

What impact would it really have if the Salt Lake Temple were to reduce the number from 14 to 12, take four rooms and make them into two.  With two large rooms to accommodate very large families. I'm not asking that ALL the rooms be made bigger. Just a couple. I don't think it's going to make that much difference. The sealing of the dead won't be affected. Are live sealing rooms even used for work for the dead? Every time I've done sealings it's in a different part of the temple in the same room. Not anywhere near the wedding rooms.   

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think there's any prohibition on using live sealing rooms for the dead; I think it's mostly a factor of what rooms are available at any given time.

 

Going back to your main question, though:  I don't think it's so much a matter of God not wanting extended families at these events, as it is a matter of God (or His earthly administrators) having to choose between a variety of competing interests.  Which widows in the Church should have their tithing go to pay for these renovations?  Which Church employees should be laid off--which Church humanitarian projects should go on hold--which other construction projects should be suspended, so that this particular renovation project can go forward?  Why should large LDS families in the Salt Lake valley get the privilege of having large extended families at their weddings, but large LDS families in "the mission field" be denied that same privilege?  Which names get delayed for ordinance work because the sealing rooms to handle the ordinances weren't available even though there were sealers, officiators, patrons, and recorders ready and willing to do the work? 

 

And if we do get two sealing rooms in the SL Temple that can hold 100+ people, but they're booked six months out--do I delay the wedding, or am I comfortable going ahead with the sealing in a smaller room with excluded family members knowing they could have been admitted had I just been willing to delay my wedding a couple of months?

 

Sealings are big family events--I get it.  On the other hand . . . As a liturgical matter, I would submit that baptism and receipt of the endowment are just as significant; and the blessing of a new child very nearly so.  As a practical matter, I would submit that giving birth is far more influential on one's future life.  What do our guest lists look like for baptisms, endowments, child blessings, and childbirths?

 

Think of it this way:  If this upcoming sealing were taking place one year after the civil ceremony, would you invite the same people to that sealing that you wish you could invite to the sealing that is actually going to take place?  If not--why not?

Edited March 15, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

...As a practical matter, I would submit that giving birth is far more influential on one's future life.  What do our guest lists look like for baptisms, endowments, child blessings, and childbirths?

 

But the preferred order would be to get married first before giving birth; and the celestial goal would be to have a temple sealing. If "families are forever" is the ultimate motto, why not show that true and make it possible for families to witness that celestial goal.

 

Think of it this way:  If this upcoming sealing were taking place one year after the civil ceremony, would you invite the same people to that sealing that you wish you could invite to the sealing that is actually going to take place?  If not--why not?

 

Human beings like to be a part of special occasions. Watching a couple get married is a joyous time. Whether the wedding or sealing ceremony is the one that is being witnessed doesn't really matter; it's the fact that people like to be a part of these joyous occasions.

 

M. 

Edited March 15, 2015 by Maureen

[Backroads]

JaG makes a good point. We all may want large attendance at the sealing, but how does that work schedule-wise? If we replace all little sealing rooms with big ones how does that affect sealings? There is now a different space problem.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Backroads

[carlimac]

Realistically you can pack 60 in a 45 room. This was the case with my nephew. Realistically, families are getting smaller. Mormon couples average about 3.5 kid these days (don't ask for  a citation on that. Just my casual observation)   So in the future there may not be quite the need there is now. The church does renovations all the time. Do they ask those questions about widows tithing with each renovation? The Idaho Falls temple is undergoing major reconstruction. Now would be a perfect time to make a couple bigger rooms.   Knocking down one or two walls in the SL temple would be about a three day project of minimal impact.Could easily be done in a two week cleaning break. Did the ask about the widows tithing when they made three new movies, or added sparkly lights to the ceiling in the IF temple to go along with the new movies? 

 

One time my husband and I went to do sealings. We sat in the room for a good 20 min just waiting for a few ladies to arrive that wanted to do sealings, then after they arrived for the temple workers to shuffle their staff around. How many sealings could have been performed in those 20 min we sat idle? One time I went to the MN temple. I was the ONLY person on the endowment session. I'm not kidding.  Somehow, the argument that making a couple bigger sealing rooms for bigger families is going to throw the balance of heaven off just doesn't hold any weight for me. 

[JayGlad]

And this is just a personal gripe, but it often annoys me when I see Isaiah 55: 8-9 being used as a reason to suggest why we cannot, or should not seek to understand the ways of God.

 

I neither suggested nor implied that one not seek to understand the ways of God (nothing could be further from the truth). You came to that on your own, from what I do not know, but it wasn't from anything I said.

Edited March 16, 2015 by JayGlad

[Just_A_Guy]

But the preferred order would be to get married first before giving birth; and the celestial goal would be to have a temple sealing. If "families are forever" is the ultimate motto, why not show that true and make it possible for families to witness that celestial goal.

 

Well, first off--the point is that there's incongruity in the sorts of life events we--both as a society, and as Mormons--think ought to merit a big public to-do.  The analysis is clearly not as simple as "it's a big event, so everyone must be there!", and that's where these competing interests come in.

 

Regarding "families are forever"--that's one aspect of the temple sealing rite; but it's not the primary aspect.  The temple sealing is primarily about a) binding the couple as an eternal god-unit, and b) binding parents to children through lines of inheritance that theoretically stretch back to Israel and Abraham, and thence to Adam.  The temple sealing is not primarily about my eternal bond to my first-cousin-once-removed, last-year's neighbor, or my old Deacon's Quorum Secretary.

 

Whether the wedding or sealing ceremony is the one that is being witnessed doesn't really matter; it's the fact that people like to be a part of these joyous occasions.

 

I apologize for how this is going to sound, but . . . to Mormons who take their theology at face value, there are light-years of difference between a civil wedding and a sealing ceremony.  It has already proven highly problematic to take the cultural baggage of the former and try to project it onto the latter; and IMHO we need less such entanglement, not more.

 

The church does renovations all the time. Do they ask those questions about widows tithing with each renovation?

 

If Gordon Hinckley is to be believed, the answer to that question is "yes".  Per his interview with Mike Wallace:

 

I keep on the credenza behind my desk a widow's mite that was given me in Jerusalem many years ago as a reminder, a constant reminder, of the sanctity of the funds which we have to deal with. They come from the widow, they are her offering as well as the tithe of the rich man, and they are to be used with care and discretion for the purposes of the Lord. We treat them carefully and safeguard them and try in every way that we can to see that they are used as we feel the Lord would have them used for the upbuilding of His work and the betterment of people.

 

The Idaho Falls temple is undergoing major reconstruction. Now would be a perfect time to make a couple bigger rooms.   Knocking down one or two walls in the SL temple would be about a three day project of minimal impact.  Could easily be done in a two week cleaning break.

 

*Shrug*  Maybe they'll do that, in Idaho Falls.  It's certainly one thing to do that when you're already doing significant work to bring a structure up to code, as is being done in that temple.  It's entirely another thing to start a project like that from scratch. 

 

Did the ask about the widows tithing when they made three new movies, or added sparkly lights to the ceiling in the IF temple to go along with the new movies?

 

I happen to think that producing edifying audio/visual materials to millions of Church members that lead them to re-interpret the temple liturgy in new ways, is a better use of funds than allowing larger groups to witness weddings when (as you say) it is possible to squeeze in extra guests by having them stand, and when (as you say) average LDS family sizes are shrinking.

 

"Sparkly lights" in the Idaho Falls temple?  I'll wait until the renovation is done before I try to speculate as to what that's supposed to mean.  But, in general, yes--I think there's a significant difference between presenting a fine temple to the Lord whose architectural features reinforce the symbolism of the rituals, versus presenting a fine wedding venue for an additional few dozen cousins and non-family-members.

 

One time my husband and I went to do sealings. We sat in the room for a good 20 min just waiting for a few ladies to arrive that wanted to do sealings, then after they arrived for the temple workers to shuffle their staff around. How many sealings could have been performed in those 20 min we sat idle?

 

How would reducing the number of sealing rooms per temple, cure such inefficiencies?

 

One time I went to the MN temple. I was the ONLY person on the endowment session. I'm not kidding. 

 

As I'm sure you've seen via your daughter's calls to the temple to schedule her sealing, temple weddings can be kind of seasonal and feast-or-famine--college students will try to schedule their weddings on academic breaks, for example.  By analogy:  Hotel rooms in the US typically run at 65% occupancy--but that doesn't mean that hotels are now being built 35% smaller and that existing hotels are tearing out the extra rooms.

 

If a sealing room is consistently disused throughout the year and there's virtually no expectation that use rates in the temple will increase in the next few years, then yeah--that's a good argument for combining some rooms during the next renovation, cost permitting.  But ironically, that means it makes the most sense to enlarge sealing rooms primarily in the supposedly sparsely-used temples outside the Mormon corridor--not so much in Utah itself.

 

The idea of folding-wall rooms is intriguing, but one thing to consider is that every time you opened that wall you'd have to re-position the chairs and remove the altar from one of the rooms.  Whenever you're constantly re-arranging furniture in a room you're increasing wear and tear, both on the furniture and on the walls.  I rather suspect you'll scoff and think this point trivial, but the effects of this sort of thing over time do add up and can be substantial--much of the beautiful old wood paneling on the RMS Queen Mary has been ruined because her current managers are using her public rooms as multipurpose event venues instead of keeping each room dedicated to its intended use.

 

Somehow, the argument that making a couple bigger sealing rooms for bigger families is going to throw the balance of heaven off just doesn't hold any weight for me.

 

Well, no one's saying it would "throw the balance of heaven off".  But I'm not surprised you're not persuaded.  You have strong feelings about what you want; and naturally when I want something badly enough there is no way of saying "no" that I'm going to find terribly persuasive.

 

Whatever happens, I hope it's a great day for you and your family.  :)

Edited March 16, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

But even enlarging sealing rooms won't fix family fights. You will still have a maximum occupancy, so any attempts to copy the large wedding attendee numbers of other ceremonies will still be limited. And if a couple doesn't want to wait an extra six months for a heavily - booked big room will still have upset friends and family. So if we're thinking big rooms to please everyone. .. well, it won't always work.

[carlimac]

But even enlarging sealing rooms won't fix family fights. You will still have a maximum occupancy, so any attempts to copy the large wedding attendee numbers of other ceremonies will still be limited. And if a couple doesn't want to wait an extra six months for a heavily - booked big room will still have upset friends and family. So if we're thinking big rooms to please everyone. .. well, it won't always work.

I recognize this but still don't always understand why we do things certain ways that seem to run counter-intuitive to the big "selling points" of the gospel.

[estradling75]

Well lets run some numbers and see....  Lets assume that a sealing room can be used to perform 100 sealings a day (Yes I totally made that number up but work with me here)  So if you reduce from 14 to 12 rooms you can no longer do 200 Sealing a day.  Since this is a permenant change that is 200 every day the temple is in operation.   So lets assume a Temple is open 200 days in a year (Yes that is another guessed at number) So that is 40,000 sealings a year and since Sealings have two people that is 80,000 people that can not have their work done.

 

Of course that made up number assumes that the temple in question always runs at peak.  That is not the case.  As has been noted some times things are not in order and they have to wait for the volunteers to show up.  When are the temple most likely to have the highest demand?  The highest number of people doing work?   About the same time the Large Wedding Parties are going to want to be there because that is a good time for people to show up.

 

So when such a demand is in place what should the church prioritize?  Observers or those doing Ordinance work?  It appears the church is favoring ordinance work.

 

Of course I have to wonder how big those Sealing parties would really be if the Church said "Sure you have have your party of 200....  But you have to do it on a non hoilday Tuesday Morning  at 7:00 AM"   For some reason I do not think party size would be such a problem then.

[carlimac]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Sparkly lights" in the Idaho Falls temple?  I'll wait until the renovation is done before I try to speculate as to what that's supposed to mean.  But, in general, yes--I think there's a significant difference between presenting a fine temple to the Lord whose architectural features reinforce the symbolism of the rituals, versus presenting a fine wedding venue for an additional few dozen cousins and non-family-members.

 

 

How would reducing the number of sealing rooms per temple, cure such inefficiencies?

 

 

As I'm sure you've seen via your daughter's calls to the temple to schedule her sealing, temple weddings can be kind of seasonal and feast-or-famine--college students will try to schedule their weddings on academic breaks, for example.  By analogy:  Hotel rooms in the US typically run at 65% occupancy--but that doesn't mean that hotels are now being built 35% smaller and that existing hotels are tearing out the extra rooms.

 

If a sealing room is consistently disused throughout the year and there's virtually no expectation that use rates in the temple will increase in the next few years, then yeah--that's a good argument for combining some rooms during the next renovation, cost permitting.  But ironically, that means it makes the most sense to enlarge sealing rooms primarily in the supposedly sparsely-used temples outside the Mormon corridor--not so much in Utah itself.

 

The idea of folding-wall rooms is intriguing, but one thing to consider is that every time you opened that wall you'd have to re-position the chairs and remove the altar from one of the rooms.  Whenever you're constantly re-arranging furniture in a room you're increasing wear and tear, both on the furniture and on the walls.  I rather suspect you'll scoff and think this point trivial, but the effects of this sort of thing over time do add up and can be substantial--much of the beautiful old wood paneling on the RMS Queen Mary has been ruined because her current managers are using her public rooms as multipurpose event venues instead of keeping each room dedicated to its intended use.

 

 

Well, no one's saying it would "throw the balance of heaven off".  But I'm not surprised you're not persuaded.  You have strong feelings about what you want; and naturally when I want something badly enough there is no way of saying "no" that I'm going to find terribly persuasive.

 

Whatever happens, I hope it's a great day for you and your family.  :)

Yes sparkly lights.  After the new movies came out they added a feature to the creation room - lights all over the ceiling of the room that came on when "the stars" were put in the heavens. Like turning on the Christmas tree lights. I thought it was odd and completely unnecessary. It must have cost something. And IMHO, the acting in the new movies is a distraction. I prefer the old ones that moved along at a nice clip, got the message across and didn't have a soap opera element to them. Why did we need three new movies? Isn't that a bit much? An overzealous temple movie committee?  

 

Don't get me wrong. I love the endowment! The covenants and opportunity for learning are priceless. But it seems we are perhaps trying too hard with the movies, inserting too much of "the world" of Hollywood into a sacred temple ordinance. 

 

Your hotel logic is befuddling to me. This problem is so very simple and I think the solutions are so very simple. And could actually impact families positively in far reaching ways that we may be way underestimating.

 

 

Thank you for the good wishes. I'm sure it will be a wonderful day, limiting factors notwithstanding.

Edited March 16, 2015 by carlimac

[The Folk Prophet]

It seems to me that there is no end to what we as a people will find to complain about.

[Backroads]

I recognize this but still don't always understand why we do things certain ways that seem to run counter-intuitive to the big "selling points" of the gospel.

The selling points of the gospel do not include huge wedding parties. I do appreciate the importance of family and I appreciate large family-filled weddings, but let's not stretch the meaning of importance of family.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Backroads

[Vort]

But it seems we are perhaps trying too hard with the movies, inserting too much of "the world" of Hollywood into a sacred temple ordinance.

"We" are not responsible for either the content or the presentation of the endowment. I trust that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve along with those they have chosen to create such things are doing fine by God's standard, which is sufficient for me.

[Maureen]

...So that is 40,000 sealings a year and since Sealings have two people that is 80,000 people that can not have their work done.

 

What? So are you saying that ordinance work for the dead is more important than ordinance work for the living? Isn't a sealing, whether it's for the living or dead an ordinance? Isn't it better for the living to do their own ordinance work then leaving that for their progeny to do?

 

Of course that made up number assumes that the temple in question always runs at peak.  That is not the case.  As has been noted some times things are not in order and they have to wait for the volunteers to show up.  When are the temple most likely to have the highest demand?  The highest number of people doing work?   About the same time the Large Wedding Parties are going to want to be there because that is a good time for people to show up.

 

Isn't that why all Temples have schedules?

So when such a demand is in place what should the church prioritize?  Observers or those doing Ordinance work?  It appears the church is favoring ordinance work.

 

Whether a couple being sealed will have 5 witnesses or 35 witnesses, they are still being sealed. Does that sealing not count as an ordinance?

 

M.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Maureen

[Vort]

Whether a couple being sealed will have 5 witnesses or 35 witnesses, they are still being sealed. Does that sealing not count as an ordinance?

I believe the point is that a 35-witness ordinance will occupy the ordinance room for a whole lot longer than will a 5-witness ordinance.