Future Wedding

[omegaseamaster75]

I am sure there is... If you want an answer so badly... Get on your knees and ask in prayer.

Yeah pretty sure the Lord will let me stew on this one.

 

But SOMEONE knows, and it's ok is no one on this forum knows, but if they do or know of a credible source with an explanation I am interested.

[Just_A_Guy]

Ya know, here's something I don't get; so excuse me if I go all Peter Priesthood for a moment:

 

The OP has specifically said she is committed to the policy, which I presume means she does have a testimony of it.

 

Now, I can understand Maureen's perspective.  She's not a Mormon.  But, as for the rest of you who are kvetching about the Church's policy--why are you trying to persuade your fellowmember to abandon her testimony of this issue?

 

The role of civil marriage vis a vis temple marriage has evolved in the past, and will probably continue to evolve as civil marriage is "redefined" by our legal system.  Certainly civil marriage has a lot of baggage in the form of various, sometimes attractive and sometimes extravagant traditions of our fathers.  But ever since the doctrine of celestial marriage was revealed, it has been clear to Latter-day Saints that it is the sealing, not the civil ceremony, that has primacy--and at times as a Church we've even dispensed with the latter entirely.  Harsh as it sounds:  civil marriage is merely a substitution implemented by a fallen world, and deemed acceptable for the time being--within certain parameters--by a merciful Father in Heaven.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

Ya know, here's something I don't get; so excuse me if I go all Peter Priesthood for a moment:

 

The OP has specifically said she is committed to the policy, which I presume means she does have a testimony of it.

 

Now, I can understand Maureen's perspective.  She's not a Mormon.  But, as for the rest of you who are kvetching about the Church's policy--why are you trying to persuade your fellowmember to abandon her testimony of this issue?

I AM NOT trying to persuade the OP into abandoning her testimony of this policy, in fact in an earlier post I think that I made a very reasonable suggestion to resolve her question.

 

The subject has since shifted, maybe we should get back on track.

[pkstpaul]

Ya know, here's something I don't get; so excuse me if I go all Peter Priesthood for a moment:

 

The OP has specifically said she is committed to the policy, which I presume means she does have a testimony of it.

 

Now, I can understand Maureen's perspective.  She's not a Mormon.  But, as for the rest of you who are kvetching about the Church's policy--why are you trying to persuade your fellowmember to abandon her testimony of this issue?

Because, I was married in the temple without my family and my family felt hurt and didn't even attend my rececption (with the exception of my sainted Catholic parents. No brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, on either side of our family, or ANY non-member bothered with the reception because they missed the "wedding". 

 

Now, I refrained from saying that to the OP, because I didn't want to scare her, but since the issue is pushed... now you know why I do not hesitate to tell a part member family to hold a wedding for the sake of the harmony of and happines of the family and the bride and groom.

 

A wedding is sacred whether civil or temple. What do you tell women who marry a man who is already sealed? That their marriage is a sham? We go into a marriage on FAITH that we will stay married; certainly for a whole year.

[Vort]

I just would like a more profound explication than "it just is". I know that it is the policy stateside I would like to know why they have established that policy, and "because the prophet  said so" does not cut it for me (in this instance)

 

There must be a logical and reasonable reason for our policy to wait a year.

 

So you want someone with "insider information" to spill the beans about why decisions are made as they are? Or are you soliciting opinions? I doubt there's anyone that can satisfy the former, but we have all sorts of people who will speculate for the latter. But you will end up no more knowledgeable than you are now.

[pkstpaul]

So you want someone with "insider information" to spill the beans about why decisions are made as they are? Or are you soliciting opinions? I doubt there's anyone that can satisfy the former, but we have all sorts of people who will speculate for the latter. But you will end up no more knowledgeable than you are now.

I think his a reasonable question. There are lots of times the scholars of Church, in this forum, pull out good information about history and policy. It seems to be hobby for many. That's all he's asking. Does anybody know why this is policy?

[Maureen]

Yes, let's imitate the ways of the world and "try out" marriage before truly committing.  Why even marry as a member of the church if you have doubts about wanting to be together for eternity?

 

And I am calling for a CFR on your statement that "so many people in your shoes who were converts....".  Surely you have hard data to back that up.  The exact number of "so many", that it specifically applied to converts, etc.

 

As hard as it might be for you to understand Leah, the LDS church is pro-marriage between a man and a woman. Not just pro-sealing, pro-marriage. So even though you might think just being married and not sealed is a bad thing, the LDS church does not.

 

Here's a link you can check out to find out LDS member's views of temple weddings without family.

 

http://familyfirstweddings.com/

 

M. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Because, I was married in the temple without my family and my family felt hurt and didn't even attend my rececption (with the exception of my sainted Catholic parents. No brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, on either side of our family, or ANY non-member bothered with the reception because they missed the "wedding". 

 

Now, I refrained from saying that to the OP, because I didn't want to scare her, but since the issue is pushed... now you know why I do not hesitate to tell a part member family to hold a wedding for the sake of the harmony of and happines of the family and the bride and groom.

 

I'm sincerely sorry about what happened in your case.  For what it's worth, I couldn't go to my older brother's temple wedding, either (I hadn't yet had my endowment).  But, I had no problem with going to the reception (I was sixteen and the food was delicious).  Nor did my non-LDS aunts and uncles, who also attended my sisters' and my own receptions; and we still enjoy very good relationships with them all. 

 

I'm not trying to suggest that these situations are going to be easy, but they can be addressed and, in some ways, compensated for.  Instead of trying to reform a church culture that makes sacrifice and consecration a prerequisite for a temple sealing, why not try to reform a secular or even a localized family culture that sees it as acceptable to deliberately hurt you, or even completely write you off, just because you didn't invite the right people to the right portion of the party?

 

A wedding is sacred whether civil or temple. What do you tell women who marry a man who is already sealed? That their marriage is a sham? We go into a marriage on FAITH that we will stay married; certainly for a whole year.

 

Sure, they're both sacred.  But they are not equally sacred, as you are well aware.  They're not even in the same ballpark.  The one is an interim measure to be resorted to when the ideal is unavailable--not a crutch to lean on because we wish to avoid or delay the sacrifices necessary to achieve an ideal that is immediately available.

 

Theologically speaking, declining a covenant or blessing when it is offered to you is kind of a big deal.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Yeah pretty sure the Lord will let me stew on this one.

 

But SOMEONE knows, and it's ok is no one on this forum knows, but if they do or know of a credible source with an explanation I am interested.

 

 

As hard as it might be for you to understand Leah, the LDS church is pro-marriage between a man and a woman. Not just pro-sealing, pro-marriage. So even though you might think just being married and not sealed is a bad thing, the LDS church does not.

This is the gospel according to Anatess (note, I'm no prophet, seer, nor revelator).

Those who are in countries where a temple wedding is not considered legally binding does not have to wait the one year for the sealing after a civil wedding because... they had no choice but to get married civilly. Their free agency is blocked.

Those who are in countries where a temple wedding is considered legally binding, they have to wait one year for the sealing after a civil wedding because... they, with their own free agency, chose to be married for time only. This implies that they do not understand the importance of an Eternal Marriage or that they do understand it but rebelled against it. Hence, the one year wait is for the couple to get their testimonies solid on Eternal Marriage before making that eternal covenant.

The Church is pro-marriage - ETERNAL MARRIAGE - with earthly marriage a lesser law for those who do not qualify for the other. Eternal Marriage is the covenant you make with God. Putting your family over your covenant is exactly what Jesus refers to in Matthew 10 when he said "Anyone who loves your father or mother or son or daughter more than me are not worthy of me."

Yes, we want our families there. But that is not enough reason for those qualified to enter into the Eternal Covenant to abandon the higher law for the lesser.

Having your cake and eating it too makes you fat so that you can't fit in the eye of that needle.

Edited June 11, 2015 by anatess

[Backroads]

I've made it clear before I'd love for the state to step out of marriage. Them I figure we can have our sealings plus a fun ring exchange while sky diving in the same 24 hours (which I suppose we currently can do...)

If the Church ended the one-year wait I wouldn't bat an eye. But I'm NOT demanding it happen, either.

And I get the need to have family present. I do. And I respect anyone who has whatever wedding as long as they are committed to getting to the temple in a decent time frame.

But a choice must be made. Make it prayerfully.

[Backroads]

I've made it clear before I'd love for the state to step out of marriage. Them I figure we can have our sealings plus a fun ring exchange while sky diving in the same 24 hours (which I suppose we currently can do...)

If the Church ended the one-year wait I wouldn't bat an eye. But I'm NOT demanding it happen, either.

And I get the need to have family present. I do. And I respect anyone who has whatever wedding as long as they are committed to getting to the temple in a decent time frame.

But a choice must be made. Make it prayerfully.

[Just_A_Guy]

 

Having your cake and eating it too makes you fat so that you can't fit in the eye of that needle.

 

Aside from the topic under discussion--the above is just awesome in its own right.

[Connie]

A lady at the distribution center many years ago told me the story of her son (or was it a daughter, can't remember) who chose to marry civilly rather than get sealed for the sake of the spouse's non-member family. She seemed pretty sad about it and felt that was a big reason for this couple entirely leaving the church, never even bothering to get sealed at all.

 

See quote in my signature line.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Connie

[The Folk Prophet]

Their free agency is blocked.

 

Just to clarify...this is inaccurate. Their freedom is blocked. Their agency remains intact.

[The Folk Prophet]

David B. Haight had this to say:

 

At times I wonder if you fully comprehend the far-reaching, eternal significance of temple marriage. If you really understand, you will never settle for less. Marriage is a divine ordinance, not to be performed by a justice of the peace or to be taken lightly; but, “… ordained of God unto man.” (D&C 49:15.)

 

...and I have to wonder the same thing. If we really, truly understood the amazing gift that temple marriage was, these questions would not be under consideration, I think. We are spoiled, it seems, by the ease of temple marriage, forgetting the sacrifices that have been made in the past, and are sometimes made now, and forgetting the time of darkness before the restoration when these blessings for so long were unavailable.

 

From my perspective, to have access to the phenomenal blessing that is a temple marriage and to consider either doing a civil wedding before hand (when not required by law), or to do a fakey afterwards to please family and friends, sort of undermines the sacred and meaningful nature of what a temple wedding is. It is my opinion that the policy regarding waiting a year is partially to underline this point.

[Just_A_Guy]

Personally, I have no problem with post-wedding ceremonies.  In fact (hypocrisy, thy name is Just_A_Guy!), I would actually suggest splurging on the post-wedding "ring ceremony" above and beyond what the LDS Church Handbook authorizes, if it helps mend fences. 

 

Going back to the OP a bit: 

 

I think it helps, with extended family, to explain that a sealing is not merely a Mormon version of a traditional wedding; rather, it is the culmination of a series of covenant-making rites that all build on each other and are all interconnected.  Since parts of the sealing liturgy refer back to a prior ceremony that is so holy we don't speak of it outside the temple (the endowment), anyone--even Mormons--who have not had the rite themselves are unfortunately unable to be present.  If you can explain your temple marriage as a part of your new, post-baptismal walk with God, and if your loved ones have generally seen that your walk with God is making you a better daughter, sister, niece, cousin, friend, etc--I think it can ease some of the sense of loss that they (and you) feel.

 

Bottom line is that you need a solid relationship with your extended family; and they need to know that--yes--your family is a priority for you and always will be, even though they can't be with you for this particular portion of your wedding day.

[Str8Shooter]

Truly a tough decision.  On one hand you have the temple sealing, the most important ordinance on this earth, and on the other hand you have your families, some of the most important relationships on earth.

 

Sealings (and marriage to some degree) between God and the couple being sealed.  It says in Genesis: 

 

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

This is an important part of marriage.  The husband (and wife) leave their parents and cleave unto one another.  That does not mean that they abandon their parents, but it does mean that the number one priority after God is to each other.  They begin a new family.  It's much like creating a new ward.

 

My advice is to have the temple sealing first.  If you haven't already, explain how important temple marriage is to your parents.  Tell them how you feel so that they know how much you love them and that being sealed in the temple is not in any way excluding them from that love.  Bear your testimony.  Your parents should understand and respect your decision, because it is what you know and believe.  That does not mean they will not cry or be sad, but it does mean that they should understand and understanding will bring healing.

 

Getting sealed in the temple is a commandment of God.  Civil marriage is not.  The one year waiting period to be sealed after a civil marriage is the same period of time that is often given to show repentance after a major sin.  I am not saying that civil marriage is a sin, but it is certainly less than Celestial.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

It's like this:

 

If you get married in a location where a temple sealing is legally recognized as a wedding, and you choose not to be sealed but instead be married civilly, then you must wait at least one year before you will be allowed to be sealed to your spouse in a temple. It's possible that might be waived if one of you dies; not sure.

 

Hope that was clear.

 

I'm not in the Bishopric but my calling does give me access to Handbook 1.  The policy is that a couple married civilly must wait a year before being sealed unless any of the following apply:

 

- the law does not recognize a temple sealing as a marriage in that country

- there is no temple in their country and their country doesn't recognize out of country marriages

- one or both spouses have not been a member for a full year at the time of the civil marriage, in this case the sealing may take place after both have been members for one full year or more even if it is less than one year from the date of the civil wedding (assuming there are no worthiness obstacles)

 

Any other exception requires approval from the First Presidency, which the Stake President would have to initiate if he felt it was justified.

 

A couple who married civilly and have temple recommends can participate in endowments etc. except for their own sealing during that year.

 

There is no explanation for the policy but I can see several possible reasons. Perhaps it may be that a couple who puts the worldly wedding ceremonies ahead of the blessing of the temple are at greater risk of not having the marriage work out, so a one year waiting period allows for a possible dissolution of the wedding to take place with greater ease.  Or on the flip side, it may give them more reason to work out any issues in that first year.  Perhaps it just offends God to be passed over like that in favor of the praise of men, perhaps it is to teach us to put greater importance on the sealing.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

I get it, it's policy how dare I question it...or is it doctrine?

 

My apologies

 

When you raise your hand to say you sustain the leaders of the Church, that includes accepting the policies they set. 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

Because, I was married in the temple without my family and my family felt hurt and didn't even attend my rececption (with the exception of my sainted Catholic parents. No brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, on either side of our family, or ANY non-member bothered with the reception because they missed the "wedding". 

 

Now, I refrained from saying that to the OP, because I didn't want to scare her, but since the issue is pushed... now you know why I do not hesitate to tell a part member family to hold a wedding for the sake of the harmony of and happines of the family and the bride and groom.

 

A wedding is sacred whether civil or temple. What do you tell women who marry a man who is already sealed? That their marriage is a sham? We go into a marriage on FAITH that we will stay married; certainly for a whole year.

 

Why should the bride and groom give up what they want to make others outside the marriage happy?  Why should they be subjected to emotional blackmail to compromise on their own convictions on what is supposed to be THEIR day?  The family should be bending over backwards if need be to make their wedding what THEY want it to be even if it means doing things in a way they don't like. The whole concept of marriage is about LEAVING their parents and forming a new family too.

 

I'm sorry your family choose to react the way they did.  If they responded with more charity in their hearts they could have shared in a joyous event and been blessed for it.  It wasn't church policy that forced them to act like that though, it was something inside them that I hope has or will change in time.  There have been many other cases where non-member families choose to be supportive and understanding and it turned out well for all. 

 

I don't really see what is sacred about a civil marriage.  The institution of marriage is scared, but a civil marriage has no connection to any sacred power or authority.  To me, equating it with a temple marriage is saying coal is the same as a diamond.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

Here's a link you can check out to find out LDS member's views of temple weddings without family.

 

http://familyfirstweddings.com/

 

M. 

 

That is exactly the problem, putting family first rather than God first.

[Maureen]

That is exactly the problem, putting family first rather than God first.

 

But isn't that what marriage does - creates a new family?

 

How can you make light of marriage when in many cases, LDS members are required to be married first before they can be sealed. If civil marriage is so frowned upon why did Elder Perry and President Eyring attend a colloquium on marriage and family at the Vatican last year?

 

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Maureen, I thought LDM's analogy was quite apropos.  There's nothing wrong with coal.  In fact, it can be a valued and essential commodity. 

 

But--a diamond is just plain better.  

 

No one would blame a person for obtaining a pound of coal.  But under most circumstances we would all seriously question the judgment of someone who, having an opportunity to obtain a pound of diamonds, decided to pass up that opportunity and take the pound of coal instead.  Civil marriage is not "frowned upon" in Mormonism, except insofar as practicing Mormons who should know better get so wrapped up in cultural traditions that they become willing to drop the diamonds and seize upon the coal. 

 

The principle of "God and family--but if they conflict, God first" may be distasteful to modern ears, but it is in the Bible.  Mormon temple sealing rites are the apex of a line of prior covenants.  That line includes an oath to live a consecrated life and to put the gospel truths, as we understand them, above everything else.  If a couple, having made that covenant, then declines the opportunity for further covenants when it becomes available, then they get to take a year to reconsider what "consecration" really means and whether they're still willing to live that principle.  If they recommit to it, then at the end of the year they can go ahead and get the sealing.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

But isn't that what marriage does - creates a new family?

 

How can you make light of marriage when in many cases, LDS members are required to be married first before they can be sealed. If civil marriage is so frowned upon why did Elder Perry and President Eyring attend a colloquium on marriage and family at the Vatican last year?

 

M.

 

It creates a new family by God's command and following his outline.

 

It you want to try to twist our comments putting God First as "making light of marriage"  We can't stop you but do understand we are not deceived by your distortion of our words.  Marriage and family are important because God tells us that they are part of his plan. 

 

Trying to twist that importance into justification to rebel against God plan is not very smart.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

But isn't that what marriage does - creates a new family?

 

How can you make light of marriage when in many cases, LDS members are required to be married first before they can be sealed. If civil marriage is so frowned upon why did Elder Perry and President Eyring attend a colloquium on marriage and family at the Vatican last year?

 

M.

 

In a temple marriage a new family is created by entering into a covenant with God.  It is man's laws that in some places require there to be a civil marriage first, and out of respect for the law (as commanded by God) and the need for sealing to be in the context of a legal marriage that the church has to make such accommodations.  President Eyring came to the defense of the institution of marriage, which is not the same thing as a wedding.