Future Wedding

[Maureen]

I understand the importance of a temple sealing is to LDS but the basic part that makes it stick is marriage. A single parent cannot be sealed to their child, it is the sealing of the marriage that creates the eternal family; hence marriage is the key ingredient. In North America, members make the wedding and sealing into one ceremony, while other members in different countries need to have a civil wedding before they can be sealed. When doing proxy sealings, the couple being sealed were once married and even if they got a divorce they can still be sealed since at one time they were married. By making a civil wedding seem less than ideal or down right bad, seems to put a burden on those who come from non-member families; who are not ingrained with the taboo of civil marriages. If family, LDS and non-LDS, are important, than why not treat all members of families with the respect and consideration they deserve. I’m not saying never get sealed, but if the couple has to wait a year because of policy, what’s a year? You wait 8 years before you baptize your children, you wait 18 or 19 years before you kick your kids out the door for their missions. What’s so hard to let couples get married and then a year later get sealed? Are couples who get sealed after the wedding looked down upon? I would hope not. Let members practice their free agency.

 

M.  

Edited June 12, 2015 by Maureen

[The Folk Prophet]

Let members practice their free agency.

 

Which part of this policy is taking away agency?

[Just_A_Guy]

 If family, LDS and non-LDS, are important, than why not treat all members of families with the respect and consideration they deserve.

 

Why, indeed?

 

Whatever happened to all those progressive Mormons, and progressive-leaning non-LDS observers of Mormonism, who were so openly impressed about how Jesus challenged the foolish social traditions, structures, and institutions of His day?  Isn't marriage supposed to be an "evolving" institution, anyways?

Edited June 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

I understand the importance of a temple sealing is to LDS but the basic part that makes it stick is marriage. A single parent cannot be sealed to their child, it is the sealing of the marriage that creates the eternal family; hence marriage is the key ingredient. In North America, members make the wedding and sealing into one ceremony, while other members in different countries need to have a civil wedding before they can be sealed. When doing proxy sealings, the couple being sealed were once married and even if they got a divorce they can still be sealed since at one time they were married. By making a civil wedding seem less than ideal or down right bad, seems to put a burden on those who come from non-member families; who are not ingrained with the taboo of civil marriages. If family, LDS and non-LDS, are important, than why not treat all members of families with the respect and consideration they deserve. I’m not saying never get sealed, but if the couple has to wait a year because of policy, what’s a year? You wait 8 years before you baptize your children, you wait 18 or 19 years before you kick your kids out the door for their missions. What’s so hard to let couples get married and then a year later get sealed? Are couples who get sealed after the wedding looked down upon? I would hope not. Let members practice their free agency.

 

M.  

 

 

You say that you understand and then you turn a show that either you really don't or that you want the LDS couple to sin in the eyes of God.

 

The simple fact is that a Faithful LDS person whom has the option to be Sealed (and thus Obey the commandment of God) but then chooses for whatever reason to be married Civilly has sinned.  Even if the reason for a Civil ceremony is something as noble and good as trying to keep harmony between families... I have already cited the scriptural reference for this.

 

Someone that tries to justify committing sin with the idea that I can repent later heap additional condemnation upon their head. This is also plainly laid out in the scriptures.

 

Anyone that truly claims to "love' them should be very distressed by any plan to sin and heap condemnation upon themselves.

 

Now should they choose to do it that is their choice and their agency.  But if they think all that true and sincere repentance requires is for them to wait a year... well they are going to be in for a very rude shock.

[Backroads]

Is it a sin to have a civil marriage first if one or both partners was recently baptized?

[estradling75]

Is it a sin to have a civil marriage first if one or both partners was recently baptized?

 

It is not a sin... if the reason you can't is out of your hands.

 

Edit...  Let me clarify that a bit more...  In the context of this thread if you have the opportunity to be Sealed and you choose to get married civilly instead...  Whatever reason you use to justify it (in this case family) is what you have held in higher regard or consideration then God.  And putting anything higher then God is a sin.  

[Backroads]

But don't my theoretical couple have the option to wait a year? That's not out of their hands.

[Backroads]

And I don't mean to be obtuse: I'm generally curious what the ideal would be for people who really could just wait to be married in the temple.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Backroads

[Guest]

I always think it's curious that someone should tell someone else of another faith how they ought to observe their religion.

[estradling75]

And I don't mean to be obtuse: I'm generally curious what the ideal would be for people who really could just wait to be married in the temple.

 

The scriptures state clearly that Marriage is honorable.  And generally once a couple has made the choice to get married the Church does not recommend waiting for any real length of time to act on that choice.  For someone who wants to get married but is currently unable to get sealed, then a Civil marriage is not running counter to God's will but is instead obeying God will and commands as much as they currently can.

[Maureen]

Which part of this policy is taking away agency?

 

The policy doesn't necessarily take away agency, it's the members that judge the couple for being married civilly first that can put a damper on a usually wonderful event.

 

M.

[Vort]

The policy doesn't necessarily take away agency, it's the members that judge the couple for being married civilly first that can put a damper on a usually wonderful event.

 

It seems to me I'm hearing a whole heckuva lot more "tsk-tsk"ing from the shamers of those who disapprove of putting a civil marriage ahead of a temple marriage than I am from the disapprovers themselves.

[The Folk Prophet]

The policy doesn't necessarily take away agency, 

 

A. It doesn't take away agency at all. No "necessarily" about it.

 

it's the members that judge the couple for being married civilly first that can put a damper on a usually wonderful event.

 

B. Prove it.

[estradling75]

The policy doesn't necessarily take away agency, it's the members that judge the couple for being married civilly first that can put a damper on a usually wonderful event.

 

M.

 

Almost as bad as seeking out a group of people that have a religious belief you do not share.. And the repeated trying to tell them how they are doing it wrong.  tsk tsk and shame shame on such a person.

[Guest]

But don't my theoretical couple have the option to wait a year? That's not out of their hands.

They only have to wait until one year after they have been baptized (less than a year after they got married). If they delay the sealing for any reason other than something they cannot control, then yes, they have let go of the iron rod and are at risk of falling off the strait and narrow headed towards the big building.

[Maureen]

Almost as bad as seeking out a group of people that have a religious belief you do not share.. And the repeated trying to tell them how they are doing it wrong.  tsk tsk and shame shame on such a person.

 

estradling, I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong if you want to have a wedding and sealing at the same time. I'm just saying that it's pretty judgemental to think that a member of your church is committing a sin if he/she chooses to have a wedding first and then have their sealing later.

 

M. 

[estradling75]

estradling, I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong if you want to have a wedding and sealing at the same time. I'm just saying that it's pretty judgemental to think that a member of your church is committing a sin if he/she chooses to have a wedding first and then have their sealing later.

 

M. 

 

Did you not read the scriptures put forth explaining that sinning is exactly what they are doing?  A Civil marriage is not a sin.  The sin is putting anything else before God.

 

In fact it is so important is commandment Number 1 Thou Shall have no other Gods before Me.  Now today we don't worship Baal or Ashroth, or Dagon.  Instead we have different ones like TV and material possessions. 

 

You are trying to convince us that it is OK to bow down before the altar of "Family Harmony" Or "Happy weddings"  While those things might be good in other times and places,  it is not so when it we do so at the expense of following God to the best of our ability.

 

A couple that delays their Sealing by a year has shown that they are putting the things of God second or worst in their life.  They have put receiving the Ordinances of God on the back burner.. hoping to maybe someday later get to it when they have the time, when it fits better into their schedule.  And that is a sin

[The Folk Prophet]

estradling, I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong if you want to have a wedding and sealing at the same time. I'm just saying that it's pretty judgemental to think that a member of your church is committing a sin if he/she chooses to have a wedding first and then have their sealing later.

 

M. 

 

Wait. So anything that someone believes differently than you about any given issue is judgmental?

 

O........kay.

[yoyoteacher]

Phew, this thread took a pretty interesting turn!

 

I have no intention of having a civil ceremony first, for many of the reasons stated. It's something that I have discussed with my boyfriend and we both know the potential hurt that will come -- from both our families -- and we are willing to endure that. Hopefully between the both of us, we can find the best way to express the sacredness of the temple sealing, its implications, and why we feel so strongly about that ordinance.

 

I think I am going to talk to a good friend of mine who recently married whose family is all Catholic on how she helped her family.

 

Thanks, everyone. I think? Like I said, the thread took a turn so I'm still trying to wade through what is advice and what is debate.

[Just_A_Guy]

Is it a sin to have a civil marriage first if one or both partners was recently baptized?

I believe the CHI says it's fine to go ahead with the civil ceremony in that kind of scenario; and they'll only have to wait until one year after the baptism, not the wedding, to get sealed.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

I'm just saying that it's pretty judgemental to think that a member of your church is committing a sin if he/she chooses to have a wedding first and then have their sealing later.

 

Who are you to make such a judgment?

[SpiritDragon]

Just chiming in with some thoughts for the debate side of the thread -

 

In LDS belief the temple sealing is God's way of uniting family, and civil marriage is simply an acceptable substitute in the absence of the temple sealing. One could even speculate that the civil marriage is mostly only acceptable as a means to promote family without living in sin in areas where temple sealings are not readily available and as an aid to missionary work otherwise every non-member married or not would breaking the law of chastity and need to abstain from marital relations in preparation for baptism - but it is ultimately just that - Speculation. So I digress. But the fact holds that it (civil marriage) is not the lord's ideal according to LDS teaching.

 

Now my understanding of most other faiths (Christian in particular) is that marriage is also held up as a "requirement" for making a family without fornicating (sexual relations between unwed persons). As such I imagine they hold to the ideal of a legally binding union possibly performed by clerical figures deemed to have authority to perform such a union. While I'm sure it's extremely less common (because it's less restrictive) there must be some kind of rule surrounding what is to be done in the event a priest/ clerical leader / justice of the peace cannot be found in a certain area. Perhaps it's just an area left to personal interpretation where some will choose to remain celibate due to missing out on a proper ceremony, others may feel that so long as they are committed to each other that having a family out-weighs lack of access to an authoritative marriage official as recognized by the faith. Should said couple decide to unite with-out the proper procedure they might very well be looked on as living in sin... but I won't judge them because that is for the Lord to decide. For all I know they have prayed fervently about it and have felt acted on by the spirit to have a family and raise them according to the light and knowledge they possess. Should such a couple later have the opportunity to get married properly I'm sure they'd jump at the chance.

 

My point in all this is to give a perspective or frame of reference to think about things in. Would anyone agree that there might be instances where the Lord in His mercy understands the need for family and the lack of authorized officials? The LDS belief is open to the idea that any marriage recognized as legal (and I even believe some tribal/traditional marriages that aren't necessarily considered legal?) are acceptable to remove the condition of sin from marital relations, but it doesn't come with the promised blessings of the sealing. Going back to the hypothetical couple above that are non-LDS Christians who have decided to make a formal commitment amongst themselves but haven't been legally married... is there any possibility of understanding what they've done? I hope so, because (assuming they felt commanded to marry - to multiply and replenish the earth) they didn't have an appropriate marriage option available. But if the same couple had the opportunity to be married legally by a clerical officer of their congregation and simply chose to live common-law instead, it is harder to imagine how that can be reconciled. Even if the plan is to get married later, the ideal is not being met as that commitment is supposed to take place first, not later.

 

Although I realize there are likely problems with this particular line of thought, I do hope it can offer some perspective.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

estradling, I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong if you want to have a wedding and sealing at the same time. I'm just saying that it's pretty judgemental to think that a member of your church is committing a sin if he/she chooses to have a wedding first and then have their sealing later.

 

M. 

 

I think it is rather narrow minded to divide everything up into being either a sin or perfectly OK.  Being foolish isn't a sin, but it is something to be avoided. Likewise with having your priories wrong. When you have the option to be sealed in the temple, but put that aside for a whole year just because of what other people will think than that is something I would call foolish, unwise, and even insulting to God.  It shows somebody has their priorities out of whack.  

 

The marriage is for the couple, not the parents.  The couples' wishes should rule the day, not the parents.

[Maureen]

Did you not read the scriptures put forth explaining that sinning is exactly what they are doing?  A Civil marriage is not a sin.  The sin is putting anything else before God.

 

In fact it is so important is commandment Number 1 Thou Shall have no other Gods before Me.  Now today we don't worship Baal or Ashroth, or Dagon.  Instead we have different ones like TV and material possessions. 

 

You are trying to convince us that it is OK to bow down before the altar of "Family Harmony" Or "Happy weddings"  While those things might be good in other times and places,  it is not so when it we do so at the expense of following God to the best of our ability.

 

A couple that delays their Sealing by a year has shown that they are putting the things of God second or worst in their life.  They have put receiving the Ordinances of God on the back burner.. hoping to maybe someday later get to it when they have the time, when it fits better into their schedule.  And that is a sin

 

The scripture you mentioned was Matthew 10:37. Just because a bride and groom loves their parents doesn't mean they love God less. Can you show me a scripture where God commands that temple sealings are commanded and any less is a sin against God? That type of a scripture would make Matthew 10:37 fit your argument.

 

Also, if a couple chooses to have a civil wedding and then have their sealing a year later; does not the sealing make everything right with God?

 

My whole argument is that if a temple sealing is the ultimate goal, what does it matter when it happens, it should only matter that it does happen.

 

M.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Maureen

[mordorbund]

YoyoTeacher, you know your parents better than I do, so you don't have to pay me the full 2 cents if what I write isn't worth it.

 

I would consider writing my thoughts down preparatory to the discussion. You discuss with your parents and he discusses with his. And you don't compare the two - you've got six different people here with different relationships accross the board. It's not fair to expect one set of parents to take it well just because the other set already is.

 

So discuss it with your parents. Include your feelings that life isn't going the direction you thought it would when you were a little girl. That's to be expected, as the space program has suffered serious cuts and there's an alarming lack of unicorns on the moon (if only we'd gotten there sooner). Most pertinent to this discussion, you didn't know God then like you do now. And what you know of him now is beautiful and generous. Through the doctrines you've learned and the ordinances you've already received, you've learned to love and serve both God and neighbor more deeply and profoundly than you have before (hopefully your discipleship has illustrated this). And now, at the start of your marriage, God has offered for you to covenant once again, empowering you to love and serve your husband and children more deeply and profoundly than you could otherwise. That's not to say that your parents don't love and serve profoundly, but God has granted that marriage continue even after death so there is no cap to joy a couple may experience under this covenant. If applicable, tie in your thoughts for why this is desirable to the foundation your parents gave you (if you can do so without it sounding coersive or manipulative).

 

Yes, your life has taken a turn for the better, and you thank God for it. But the hurt is still there. This happiness comes at a price. Your parents, who initially were highly visible in your youthfully-dreamed ceremony, must now take a lesser (though still significant) role as the ceremony has been scrapped for another one. It's like having the chance to go to a top University out of state - it's better than what you hoped for, but that doesn't make it any less painful to leave your parents behind. Share some of your own hurt. Hear some of theirs. Be understanding. In my mind, this all works out great and plays out like that scene at the train station in Fiddler on the Roof ("How can I hope to make you understand- Why I do what I do? Why I must travel to a distant land- far from the home I love.....").

 

I mentioned writing out your thoughts. My reasoning is that conversations often take some wild turns (wait, which thread am I on again?) and there is the potential that things might get heated or come out wrong. If you feel like you are burning bridges instead of building them, you can ask to discontinue the discussion until a later time. In the meantime, you've written some of your thoughts and they can be read at their leisure. They can read and re-read them as tempers cool. If they email or write a hurtful response back (this is understandable as they are hurting and hurt people lash out), give it time to cool.

 

Moving forward after this discussion(s), find ways to include them in the reception and the planning. The wedding differs from the University example above in that you're not abandoning your parents. They can still participate and you'd love it if they did. Some ideas are mentioned here (http://askgramps.org/10753/how-do-i-explain-to-my-family) and here (http://askgramps.org/13617/are-there-expectations-of-non-member-parents). I like the idea of a family prayer (if your parents are religious) or a thank you gift for rearing you in a way that you can claim these blessings.

 

tl;dr -

Share your sentiments on why you want to be married in the temple

Acknowledge the hurt you feel and the hurt they feel

Be understanding if they continue to be hurt (and they may express this in hurtful ways)

Find ways to include them in other aspects of the wedding.

I really like Fiddler on the Roof and need to watch it again.