Why The One Year Wait?

[Moksha]

Why is there a one year wait on otherwise Temple worthy couples who marry first in a civil ceremony in the United States? I know this restriction does not apply in Brazil or the UK or other places that required it.

Isn't this policy an albatross for such couples?

[onyx]

Why is there a one year wait on otherwise Temple worthy couples who marry first in a civil ceremony in the United States? I know this restriction does not apply in Brazil or the UK or other places that required it.

Isn't this policy an albatross for such couples?

The one year wait applies here in Australia also.

However, I don't know why.

Perhaps someone else on the forum can shed some light.

Onyx

[john doe]

There are countries that require the marriage be performed in public, sometimes by certain elected or appointed officials. The United States does not require this. The US and its states recognize the marriages performed in US LDS temples as being legal, and are performed by people licensed to do so, whereas other countries do not legally recognize temple marriages or the officiators.

I would assume the reason for the one year wait in the US and apparently other certain areas is the feeling that if you are worthy to be wedded in the temple, you should be, since it is legally binding in those areas. The implication, right or wrong, is that if you have the opportunity to be married 'right' in the first place, you should make the effort to do so, even if doing so may offend some who are not members or without recommends to attend the temple.

[a-train]

Hmm.

So, an LDS couple being endowed and with recommends, if civilly married outside the temple, will be disallowed to be sealed there for the period of one year? I am unfamiliar with this (I haven't personally known any endowed members with recommends to take a civil marriage rather than a temple sealing).

Now, I know that recently baptized members must prepare for one year for the taking out of their endowments and subsequent sealings. But I was unaware that an endowed couple with current recommends would be unable to be sealed if engaged in a civil marriage.

Can anyone clarify?

-a-train

[Jason]

It's a spiritual slap in the face for not obeying the Brethren.

[the_jason]

Hmm.

So, an LDS couple being endowed and with recommends, if civilly married outside the temple, will be disallowed to be sealed there for the period of one year? I am unfamiliar with this (I haven't personally known any endowed members with recommends to take a civil marriage rather than a temple sealing).

Now, I know that recently baptized members must prepare for one year for the taking out of their endowments and subsequent sealings. But I was unaware that an endowed couple with current recommends would be unable to be sealed if engaged in a civil marriage.

Can anyone clarify?

-a-train

If the couple is endowed and hold current recommends and still choose not to get married in the temple, there must be a reason for it. If they simply don't see the value of getting married in the temple then they obviously have some learning to do, and therefore shouldn't be getting married in the temple. The one year wait is not a matter of worthiness as much as it is a matter of preparation and learning.

[Moksha]

If they simply don't see the value of getting married in the temple then they obviously have some learning to do, and therefore shouldn't be getting married in the temple. The one year wait is not a matter of worthiness as much as it is a matter of preparation and learning.

Scenario: The couple view Family as a forever business, so they seek a civil union first to let all members of the family attend this event. To them, all togetherness is important.

Don't see the value of the Temple when they also want to get married in the Temple? That doesn't make sense, does it?

One year wait as a matter of preparation and learning for those already married, as opposed to immediately for those not married? That also does not make sense.

[BenRaines]

Moshka,

Sorry to be so inquisitive but how long have you been LDS?

Someone who is a current temple recommend holder and worthy to enter the temple in every way to be married, in my opinion, would not say "Lets get married civilly to please everyone else and then we will go to the temple to please the Lord.

My wife and I when we married in the temple there were eight people there counting us. My parents were not there and hers were not either.

Our thought was that the Lord would be with us through everything we experience in this life and beyond. While I love my parents they taught me to do what I think is right and respected me for my choice and choices. We had a nice reception that they put on a week later with no ring ceremony to please the masses since we were already married.

Parents have since moved on to another phase in their existence, the Lord is still with us.

Ben Raines

[sixpacktr]

There is a one year wait as a matter of course because you made a choice. You decided to please others rather than the Lord. When my wife and I were 'married' in Japan (so that she could get the green card and come back to the states) we went to the Bishop after we got back so that we could see if we could still be married in the temple. There was no JOP, no Priest, or Bishop, or anything. It was simply a paperwork thing stating that we were married. The Bishop asked us if we'd consummated the marriage, which we hadn't, because we didn't consider it a marriage. He said that if we had, then we'd have to wait a year, simply because we had decided that temple marriage wasn't important enough.

As the Brethren say a lot: in the right place, at the right time, to the right person, under the right authority.

The lies of Satan that say that you must please others first are just that--lies. We must do things in the Lord's way. You can justify it any way you wish, but it is still wrong.

Moksha, make up as many scenarios as you wish and claim that the church doesn't get it. You'll find out, one day, that you were wrong.

That's gotta (the 's' word)...

[the_jason]

My wife and I were married civily first, but only because of my unworthiness. Some members of her side of the family thanked her for not getting married in the temple so they could attend. Had I been the one they thanked, my response would have been, "We didn't get married outside the temple for you to be able to attend. If were worthy, we'd have gotten married in the temple."

Yes it's nice for our family to be at our wedding, but those who cannot attend make a choice to not attend. Either they aren't members and see no value in the gospel, including the temple, or they are members and have chosen to not be worthy of a temple recommend. Either way, it is not our responsibility to cater to each family member. Our responsibility is to receive and keep temple covenants. If we lower our standards to make others happy then we obviously have some learning to do and testimonies to gain. Thus, the one year wait.

[Traveler]

I am not sure that some people understand the importance of an eternal covenant with G-d in marriage. If all you desire is to be married according to the understanding of the world; then it does not matter how you go about it - only that it pleases those that understand what the world offers. If you covenant with G-d then it is on his terms. Having sought the Greatness of G-d with the most important person of my life - I know it is worth what ever G-d would ask. I waited and prepared for years for the woman I love - long before I even knew her.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

I can appreciate that LDS see a temple wedding as a marvelous thing. That the temple (too you) is a sacred place that only conscrated people can enter and that if people aren't willing to make that sacrifice that is their great loss. The civil ceremony is a pale imatation to what you perceive as the real eternal thing. That you believe you have the true devine rituals and everything else is man made.

From my perspective I would see that part of our responsibility as Christians is too preach the gospel in the best ways we can to the best of our abilities. Now I don't mean shoving it down peoples throats. However if your doing something that is clearly a reflection of the mysteries of God as marriage is, why not use it to highlight the truth, wonder and beauty that is the gospel of Jesus as reflected in hopefully your marriage and lives.

Again from my perspective and if I believed in a temple marriage as LDS do, I wouldn't see the civil cermony as way to please others, rather as an opportunity to demonstrate the love of Christ to them. To demonstrate the love you have for each other, for Christ and for those who are yet to know him. To proclaim the truth to them through your words and actions even if it is the merest shadow of the real event. (that you believe takes place in the temple in an ceremony scripted by God.)

A number of posters have been very negative about the idea of having a civil ceremony for family and friends obviously (I'm still trying to understand LDS) there is something I've missed that would render my views above as being wrong for you, I would love to know why you would consider the sentiments of above to be wrong?)

PS I really like the idea of eternal marriage, but currently I believe in Jesus as revealed in the Bible and it would be a bit of a stretch for me to get that doctrine from what I believe God has said on the subject.

[shanstress70]

It makes me absolutely sick to think that my child could grow up to be LDS and would have a temple marriage that I couldn't be present at. Regardless of any possible religious beliefs, parents should be able to attend their children's wedding. LDS do not put family first. They put LDS family first.

[StrawberryFields]

It makes me absolutely sick to think that my child could grow up to be LDS and would have a temple marriage that I couldn't be present at. Regardless of any possible religious beliefs, parents should be able to attend their children's wedding. LDS do not put family first. They put LDS family first.

Sounds a bit selfish of you Shan.

I was raised LDS but my parents were not worthy to attend my wedding. Yes they were sad but they supported ME in every way. My wedding was more than 25 years ago, it is my understanding that they have been approving ring ceremonies for the past few years... This is something that was sent to be by a friend here at LDS Talk 2 years ago when this subject came up.

Sacred, Not Secret

Explaining the Temple Ceremony to Non-member Guests

Ring Ceremonies

For couples with large groups of non-members attending, a ring ceremony is becoming the trend. You can make the exchange as personalized as you like, perhaps with speakers (possibly fathers or bishops) giving talks on temples or eternal marriage. You could have others read scriptures (a sample list is accessible in the resource section) that emphasize the true and eternal aspects of the temple marriage and love. Primary children or the family diva could sing "Families Can Be Together Forever", poems can be read, you can read personalized "vows" that you write yourself, or the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" can be read. Another option would be to have the couple bear their testimonies.

Hallie Springer from Arvada, Colorado, had a ring ceremony in which her uncle read the poem called The Legend of the Wedding Band (which can be accessed in the resource section). Bobbye and Neil Hill from Seattle, Washington, had a ring exchange officiated by the second counselor in the bishopric. The counselor gave a ten-minute talk on the Proclamation concerning the family, marriage and the meaning of the rings. After the exchange, the couple expressed their love for each other and those present, thanking them for attending. Bobbye is the only member in her family and the idea of being married in the temple was met with anger and hurt from her parents. Her father had refused to attend the reception. She said that although it would break her heart if her father was absent, there was something more important:

"It would be sad if Daddy wasn't there, but Neil and I had come to realize that it wasn't about who was attending, it was about what we were going to be doing, and it didn't matter if no one was there. It was very important for us to put the focus back on our marriage/sealing.

"To help you with the preparation, there are internet resources, such as General Conference talks, virtual tours of temples and others containing talks and basic beliefs, linked from the resource page.

Including Loved Ones

Have a Special Meeting

“Couples may arrange with their bishops to hold a special meeting for relatives and friends who do not have recommends. This meeting provides an opportunity for those who cannot go to the temple to feel involved in the marriage and to learn something of the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. The meeting may include a prayer and special music, followed by the remarks of a priesthood leader. No ceremony should be performed, and no vows should be exchanged” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 6-4).

Exchange Rings Outside of Temple

“Though the exchanging of rings is not part of the temple marriage ceremony, rings may appropriately be exchanged at the conclusion of the temple marriage ceremony in the room where that ceremony takes place. To avoid confusion with the marriage ceremony, it is not appropriate to exchange rings at any other time or place in the temple or on the temple grounds.

“A couple may exchange rings in locations other than at the temple. The circumstances should be consistent with the dignity of their temple marriage. The exchange should not appear to replicate any part of the marriage ceremony. For instance, there should be no exchanging of vows on that occasion” (Bulletin, 1989-4, p. 1).

Gospel topics: faith, family, marriage, nonmembers

Temple Guidelines

Rings

· You may exchange rings in the sealing room following the temple ceremony.

· Rings should not be exchanged in other rooms of the temple or on temple grounds.

· Ring ceremonies off temple grounds, especially for non-member family, is appropriate.

You can find most of this information at:

http://www.ldsweddings.com/planning/

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

It makes me absolutely sick to think that my child could grow up to be LDS and would have a temple marriage that I couldn't be present at. Regardless of any possible religious beliefs, parents should be able to attend their children's wedding. LDS do not put family first. They put LDS family first.

Sounds a bit selfish of you Shan.

I don't think it's selfish. I think it's probably the numero uno reason why many dislike Mormonism. Shunning family members because they are not LDS is not a "Christian" practice. Period.

[StrawberryFields]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

It makes me absolutely sick to think that my child could grow up to be LDS and would have a temple marriage that I couldn't be present at. Regardless of any possible religious beliefs, parents should be able to attend their children's wedding. LDS do not put family first. They put LDS family first.

Sounds a bit selfish of you Shan.

I don't think it's selfish. I think it's probably the numero uno reason why many dislike Mormonism. Shunning family members because they are not LDS is not a "Christian" practice. Period.

Jason Dear,

There is no shunning. I can not go into some places where I might want to venture for one reason or another. I can not travel into forgein countries without a Passport.

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

It makes me absolutely sick to think that my child could grow up to be LDS and would have a temple marriage that I couldn't be present at. Regardless of any possible religious beliefs, parents should be able to attend their children's wedding. LDS do not put family first. They put LDS family first.

Sounds a bit selfish of you Shan.

I was raised LDS but my parents were not worthy to attend my wedding. Yes they were sad but they supported ME in every way. My wedding was more than 25 years ago, it is my understanding that they have been approving ring ceremonies for the past few years... This is something that was sent to be by a friend here at LDS Talk 2 years ago when this subject came up.

Selfish? Well, I suppose that I'm selfish if I love my child so much that I cannot imagine not being present for perhaps the happiest and most meaningful day of his life.

I think it's selfish that your beliefs led to you excluding your parents from your wedding. I don't believe God approves of this practice. Do you think your parents were happy with this, or possibly they were pretending?

I don't get how you can compare not being able to go into another country without a passport with temple marriage. We're talking about a parent going to a wedding of their own child.

Amen, Jason.

[the_jason]

Those who choose a temple marriage understand that pleasing their Heavenly Father is more important than pleasing their family, including parents. Gods laws are above all other laws and should be obeyed first. We do not shun people from temple weddings. We desire for all of our families to attend. However, because we value the temples as sacred houses of the Lord, certain requirements must be met before one can enter. A temple is held in higher regard than a church. Churches, for the most part, are open to the public. Temples are not, because of their sacred nature.

[Jason]

Jason Dear,

There is no shunning. I can not go into some places where I might want to venture for one reason or another. I can not travel into forgein countries without a Passport.

There is nothing going on during the actual sealing ceremony that a non-member cannot witness. I've been to sealings before, you walk in to the temple in your street clothes, put on the slippers, and you're seated in one of the sealing rooms. Then the sealing takes place and you are ushered out the same way you came in.

I fail to see why that's such a big deal. The only logical reason to exclude non-lds is good old fashioned shunning.

Obeying "God's laws" apparently does not include honoring your father and mother, nor loving thy neighbor as thyself.

[the_jason]

My mother in law likes to play that "honor thy father and mother" crap with me all the time. Honoring your parents does not mean doing everything they want you to do. If their will is different than the Lord's, then it's the Lord we should follow. Just as wife hearkens to her husband as he hearkens to the Lord, so should we hearken to our parents only as they hearken to the Lord.

[StrawberryFields]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

It makes me absolutely sick to think that my child could grow up to be LDS and would have a temple marriage that I couldn't be present at. Regardless of any possible religious beliefs, parents should be able to attend their children's wedding. LDS do not put family first. They put LDS family first.

Sounds a bit selfish of you Shan.

I was raised LDS but my parents were not worthy to attend my wedding. Yes they were sad but they supported ME in every way. My wedding was more than 25 years ago, it is my understanding that they have been approving ring ceremonies for the past few years... This is something that was sent to be by a friend here at LDS Talk 2 years ago when this subject came up.

Selfish? Well, I suppose that I'm selfish if I love my child so much that I cannot imagine not being present for perhaps the happiest and most meaningful day of his life.

I think it's selfish that your beliefs led to you excluding your parents from your wedding. I don't believe God approves of this practice. Do you think your parents were happy with this, or possibly they were pretending?

I don't get how you can compare not being able to go into another country without a passport with temple marriage. We're talking about a parent going to a wedding of their own child.

Amen, Jason.

Amen Jason?

Anyway Shan, you will not need to worry about being selfish or not bc you are not raising your child LDS. :)

Twenty-five years ago I was going through the preparation for my temple recommend. I posed the question to my bishop at the time about doing both, a civil and a Temple Marriage. I was told at that time that having a civil ceremony right after the sealing ceremony would be a mockery to what had just occurred in the temple. I was hurt; my parents were hurt I wished things would have happened differently and I would have been allowed the ring ceremony. I am the oldest living of our families’ three children and I am the only daughter. I am very close to my father and it absolutely broke my heart not to have him "walk me down the aisle" as he wanted to do. My missionary walked off from the plane on January 16th and we were married March 26th of the same year. More than being upset that they did not witness the fifteen-minute ceremony, they rejoiced in the choice I made in who to marry and my dreams of marrying in the Temple.

[Jason]

My mother in law likes to play that "honor thy father and mother" crap with me all the time. Honoring your parents does not mean doing everything they want you to do. If their will is different than the Lord's, then it's the Lord we should follow. Just as wife hearkens to her husband as he hearkens to the Lord, so should we hearken to our parents only as they hearken to the Lord.

Would you like to stand with that argument in the context of the decalogue? Probably not, so we'll just let you retract that.

[shanstress70]

Amen Jason?

Anyway Shan, you will not need to worry about being selfish or not bc you are not raising your child LDS. :)

I was saying 'Amen' to what Jason was saying bc I wholeheartedly agreed with him.

Ya dang right I'm not raising my child LDS!

[jsb]

There are countries that require the marriage be performed in public, sometimes by certain elected or appointed officials. The United States does not require this. The US and its states recognize the marriages performed in US LDS temples as being legal, and are performed by people licensed to do so, whereas other countries do not legally recognize temple marriages or the officiators.

I would assume the reason for the one year wait in the US and apparently other certain areas is the feeling that if you are worthy to be wedded in the temple, you should be, since it is legally binding in those areas. The implication, right or wrong, is that if you have the opportunity to be married 'right' in the first place, you should make the effort to do so, even if doing so may offend some who are not members or without recommends to attend the temple.

In countries where it is required, by law, to have a civil marriage, couples who wish to go to the Temple to be sealed are requied to get to the Temple at the earliest opportunity eg. our closest Temple would be a day's trip. If a couple were to marry on a Saturday, they would have to travel to the Temple to be sealed on the following Tuesday as that would be the earliest opportunity because the Temple is closed on Mondays. If they do not go at the earliest possible opportunity, the one year waiting period becomes applicable.

[Old Tex]

Again from my perspective and if I believed in a temple marriage as LDS do, I wouldn't see the civil cermony as way to please others, rather as an opportunity to demonstrate the love of Christ to them. To demonstrate the love you have for each other, for Christ and for those who are yet to know him. To proclaim the truth to them through your words and actions even if it is the merest shadow of the real event. (that you believe takes place in the temple in an ceremony scripted by God.)

Anthony,

LDS folks have plenty of opportunties to "demonstrate the love of Christ" to others. Celestial marriage however, is a special event involving holy covenents that are to be made only in the House of the Lord. That is one of the purposes that the Lord has stated for the construction of Holy Temples in our day, that his people can enter into everlasting covenants with Him.

I understand that you are looking at this from your perepective, as you stated. However, LDS folks look at things from an LDS perspective and many times the two perspectives are not the same.