You no longer have to wait a year between civil marriage and temple marriage in the US


Midwest LDS
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, carlimac said:

And just because you see it as a weakness doesn’t mean it is. After all the Lord has revealed this through his prophet. I see this as a wonderful way of healing hearts and drawing families together. 

I’m also excited that younger siblings would be able to attend the wedding. What a great example the couple  can be to their younger siblings as they make the extra effort to go inside the temple for the sealing. It will separate and add importance I believe to the sealing. 

It feels to me like the perfect puzzle piece has been found for the hole in the puzzle. A satisfying perfect fit!

Choosing an Earthly Marriage over an Eternal one is ALWAYS a weakness.  

For you to say that choosing Earthly Marriage over an Eternal Marriage is the “perfect puzzle piece” in God’s plan sounds like you’re telling us that this new policy is the higher order instead of a lesser one to accommodate the fallen nature of mortality.

The fact that you’re making an Earthly Ordinance the perfect order plugging a perceived hole of Eternal Marriage because of people who don’t qualify to enter the temple should tell you something.

If witnessing a marriage at the exact second it became legal is so important to you, you don’t wish for the couple to have an earthly marriage.  Rather, you strive to qualify to enter the Temple.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, carlimac said:

But how did Mrs. Unixknight feel? I just don't get you guys that don't have an ounce of sentiment about being there for your child's right of passage. It's a big deal- big enough that Jesus even saw fit to change water into wine for the festivities. Some of you need to grow a heart. What do you think your child would think if you said to them, "It's YOUR big day. I don't really care if I'm there or not."  Don't you think THEY would WANT you there?  

Plenty of sentiment here.  A parent would desire the BEST for their children.  Not go for Earthly Ordinances just to accommodate somebody not qualified to enter the temple.  As I’ve said before, if it is that important, then strive to qualify to enter the Temple.

And the question - would THEY want me there - of course they do.  But it is not them who made the family members not enter the Temple.  And this is why you get to wait a year in previous policy because... when one chooses an earthly ordinance over an eternal one because of some family member, then one’s understanding of the significance of Eternal Marriage is under question.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, it was probably a little more on-point than it needed to be; so I’ve taken the liberty of toning it down.  

FWIW:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And because you completely went sideways with what I said, this comment is null and void.  There was NEVER a time where I said the sealing is lessened.  Rather, what I said is the COUPLE chose to rather have an earthly marriage rather than an eternal one - a lesser choice. 

Quote

Therefore, the reasons for getting married Civilly first becomes a reason that detracts from the sanctity and meaning of the Temple ordinance.  The default of one-year wait (the rule for new converts) was, therefore, applied to give the couple a chance to reflect on the sanctity and meaning of the Temple ordinance.

Actually you did say that.  See above.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@anatess2 actually you did say that.  See above.

You took that completely out of context.  I am speaking about what is in the mind of the couple.  Their reason to marry civilly first makes it so that they have detracted from the sanctity and meaning of the temple ordinance.  In other words, if one chooses an earthly ordinance over an eternal one, then in their minds, the earthly ordinance had more significance than the eternal one.  That is why they had to wait a year so they can be sure they understand the significance of the sealing that they are getting into.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just over 20 years ago, my wife and I decided to get married, at 28/30 years old.  We went to her Stake Pres of the YSA ward in Hunt Beach, and he said, get married in the temple or don't, no exceptions. We went to my Stake Pres, in Orange, and he said the same thing. So we went to her parents Stake Pres, who knew my wife's dad was not a member. He said, "Let's try the first presidency, there's nothing in the gospel that says you can't go to the church in San Diego, get married for all non-members to see and participate, then walk over to the temple and get sealed, which would be the most important thing for us.

The First Presidency wrote back and said, "It is not in present church policy to allow such things to take place. Perhaps in some future time policy will change."

We never took it as anything but policy; not the gospel. We went ahead and were married and sealed in the temple, and my wife's dad decided to have nothing to do with our wedding, (inviting my wife's good friends/coach over to his house on our wedding/reception day). A bully, yes. But it would have been nice to cater to the non-members in the family. He had previously had nothing to do with an older sister's wedding when they decided to get married in the temple, and threatened to divorce his wife if she attending the reception of her own daughter. The parents did not participate there, either.

For those of you who know Peter Vidmar (gymnast), a freind, told us that he had a ring ceremony, after the temple wedding, where his non-member father in law was able to perform a ring ceremony and give his daughter away. If you didn't look carefully, you'd never have known that it wasn't the actual marriage. But that didn't fly with my wife's dad.

So policy has now changed, as it was already everywhere except America. A good change. Let us cater to non-members, reduce the unintended (mormon) offense, and help bring all families together.

Edited by TheFigurehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting to me and I will need time to fully formulate an opinion and digest this. On the one hand I can see how it could alleviate tensions and make wedding days possibly more friendly to many. I can even see how getting all of the wedding nonsense dealt with on a separate date and then being able to focus on the sealing without everyone else putting in their two cents and packing the day to stupidity with non-essential "stuff" would also be nice. I can say that for my own wedding day it was fortunate that this policy was not in place because my meddling mother in law would have surely pushed for my wife and I to do a fluff ceremony to cater to a plurality of relatives that weren't and aren't worthy to attend the temple ceremony. My wife has too great a need to please her parents that she would likely have decided to go along with it even though she didn't want to as they were/are not relatives she actually cared to have around anyway. I personally like the idea of having the wedding/ sealing combined and intimate, just really close family and friends.

In fairness, I never have understood the big deal about this either though, people can still go to the reception and/or dinner to take part. I only attended one of five siblings sealings as they either took place before I was endowed or while I was on my mission and I never felt I missed out on anything. I can't help but wonder if this is going along with the policy change for children with homosexual parents to allow for less family alienation when family members are clearly not living up to standards which would allow them to participate otherwise. Hopefully it helps more families than it hurts. I can't help but feel that some people will just find something else to be offended over. As it happens, I have a brother-in-law who's family boycotted his wedding for various reasons and my sister and he didn't even notice their absence until some time later it was brought up and his family were all the more miffed at not being missed when they didn't show. It wouldn't have mattered what was done, they were just going to find a way to be upset and try to make a stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
17 hours ago, Maureen said:

I don't mean to offend but your questions are crazy.

Really? 

I don't mean to be too judgmental, BUT, your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance.  Now don't take that in a bad way.  I mean that in a good way.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Fether said:

I can’t think of any doctrinal backing behind this advice. The importance to your friends and family pales massively in comparison to the individual.

I have always been under the impression that if the father didn’t give me “permission” to marry his daughter, I would marry her anyway. I think asking in the first place is resiculous.

I would never have married my husband if he hadn't ask my dad for permission to marry me. It's about respect for me and my dad.  My dad is the greatest and for him to say no would be something. I trust him with my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LadyGunnar said:

I would never have married my husband if he hadn't ask my dad for permission to marry me. It's about respect for me and my dad.  My dad is the greatest and for him to say no would be something. I trust him with my life.

Yeah, “asking permission” is perhaps archaic; but formally asking for the in-laws’ blessing strikes me as an appropriate measure of diplomacy and a good way to start things off.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, “asking permission” is perhaps archaic; but formally asking for the in-laws’ blessing strikes me as an appropriate measure of diplomacy and a good way to start things off.  :) 

My FIL recently told me that he was glad I didn't ask his "permission" to marry @LadyGator because it showed that I didn't view LG as "his property" and that I would respect her as an individual. That's exactly why I didn't ask him. No regrets. 

To be clear, because I have a feeling this will trigger people-I'm not saying I have a problem with asking fathers to marry their daughters. My experience was just different, and I'm not saying it was better or worse than those of anyone else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, “asking permission” is perhaps archaic; but formally asking for the in-laws’ blessing strikes me as an appropriate measure of diplomacy and a good way to start things off.  :) 

Depends on your in laws.  Mine were opposed.  Decades later I'm the favored son in law.  The others are worthless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Choosing an Earthly Marriage over an Eternal one is ALWAYS a weakness.  

For you to say that choosing Earthly Marriage over an Eternal Marriage is the “perfect puzzle piece” in God’s plan sounds like you’re telling us that this new policy is the higher order instead of a lesser one to accommodate the fallen nature of mortality.

The fact that you’re making an Earthly Ordinance the perfect order plugging a perceived hole of Eternal Marriage because of people who don’t qualify to enter the temple should tell you something.

If witnessing a marriage at the exact second it became legal is so important to you, you don’t wish for the couple to have an earthly marriage.  Rather, you strive to qualify to enter the Temple.

I'm not saying the civil wedding replaces sealing- end of wedding story.  In my mind, the civil wedding/temple sealing/party are all in the same agenda. Same day if possible. There is nothing wrong with this agenda now. In some countries this is how it's always been. So are those people weaker than Americans? 

From the First Presidency letter- " We anticipate that this change will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a man and woman." 

That's all I need to know. I don't really need to worry that some people won't relax their grip on the old way of doing things. I anticipate that at least one of my daughters will still get married AND sealed in the temple. My guess is that one won't because so many of her close friends aren't members of the church. Even though she's only 16  anddoesn't have even a boyfriend, she grinned ear to ear...  so happy to know that people who mean so much to her can now witness her marriage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Plenty of sentiment here.  A parent would desire the BEST for their children.  Not go for Earthly Ordinances just to accommodate somebody not qualified to enter the temple.  As I’ve said before, if it is that important, then strive to qualify to enter the Temple.

And the question - would THEY want me there - of course they do.  But it is not them who made the family members not enter the Temple.  And this is why you get to wait a year in previous policy because... when one chooses an earthly ordinance over an eternal one because of some family member, then one’s understanding of the significance of Eternal Marriage is under question.

  😮 Pretty judgemental. I'd say one size does NOT fit all. There are so many variations in circumstances. I heard of a couple who got married in a hospital room where the father was dying so he could be there for their wedding. They knew perfectly well the significance of Eternal Marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, “asking permission” is perhaps archaic; but formally asking for the in-laws’ blessing strikes me as an appropriate measure of diplomacy and a good way to start things off.  :) 

My FIL recently told me that he was glad I didn't ask his "permission" to marry @LadyGator because it showed that I didn't view LG as "his property" and that I would respect her as an individual. That's exactly why I didn't ask him. No regrets. 

To be clear, because I have a feeling this will trigger people-I'm not saying I have a problem with asking fathers to marry their daughters. My experience was just different, and I'm not saying it was better or worse than those of anyone else.  

Every FIL has different views on it. I got my staunch opinion on it when having a discussion with my stake president (who was also my boss at the time).

While talking about the boy his daughter was seriously dating, he said something to the effect of  “If he asks for my permission, I will tell him no. This is a decision purely between them and God in which I have no part in. If he doesn’t understand that, I won’t permit him to marrying my daughter.”

this stake pres. Was one of the kindest men I knew and said it in a much softer tone than how it appears in text. I on the other hand, have been a lot more staunch in defending that stance. It made so much sense.

The view of asking permission or for a blessing is not just archaic, it’s asinine and paints a picture that the daughter is property of the father. The father has stewardship over her until she grows into a woman, but after that, her life and decisions become hers and the father is no longer responsible for her decisions (assuming he has done his best up to that point to teacher her right and wrong). Requiring permission from the father suggests that if something goes wrong in the marriage, the father has some blame in it. 

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, “asking permission” is perhaps archaic; but formally asking for the in-laws’ blessing strikes me as an appropriate measure of diplomacy and a good way to start things off.  :) 

I asked my spouse's father for his blessing, but only because my spouse asked me to do so.  To my father-in-law's credit, all he did was laugh and say, "You should ask her."

I've told my spouse that if either of our daughters' future suitors ever ask me for permission/my blessing, my immediate response will be "no."  

I am debating whether or not I should tell my daughters.  Part of me wants to tell them that I'll be horribly offended if their suitors don't ask. That way I'll be setting up the situation where I get to tell the poor kid no and have a good laugh about it.  But that seems mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, carlimac said:

  😮 Pretty judgemental. I'd say one size does NOT fit all. There are so many variations in circumstances. I heard of a couple who got married in a hospital room where the father was dying so he could be there for their wedding. They knew perfectly well the significance of Eternal Marriage.

Maybe it’s just me, but if my son/daughter wanted to do this while I was on my deathbed, I would “that’s stupid, Marriage is an agreement between you and God. I have no play in this. Don’t distract from who really matters”. 

I have a great reverence for the symbolic importance of ordinances and how they ought to be performed. Prior to my sealing I was taught that when making the covenant, you look at and say ‘yes’ to the sealer and NOT your wife, because the covenant was with God, who is being portrayed by the sealer, and not your wife. I thought this to be supremely profound and meaningful. But when I got sealed, I was disappointed to hear our sealer say “some dealers suggest that the couple look at them during the ordinance, but I suggest that you don’t look at me, but each other, this is your day” I thought the symbolic exclusion of God in the sealing distracted from the true meaning of why we were there.

Similarly, Pres. Oaks gave out instructions to my mission president that at baptisms, we were not to have treats or an after party at the chapel as it distracts from the ordinance. 

Mine last example is when Pres. Nelson asked ya not to cheer when we heard temples being announced. It just distracts from the sacred nature of the conference.

I feel as though choosing to have a civil wedding prior to the temple wedding is like a man asking permission from a father to marry, having a baptism after party in the church, cheering when a temple is announced, or looking at each other instead of the sealer during a sealing. It doesn’t make sense and is only to put in a show (for yourself or others) which actually distracts from the power that is happening.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mores said:

Really? 

I don't mean to be too judgmental, BUT, your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance.  Now don't take that in a bad way.  I mean that in a good way.

At least I'm concise. You blather on for 3 whole sentences. 😊

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
48 minutes ago, Maureen said:

At least I'm concise. You blather on for 3 whole sentences. 😊

M.

touche'.  It was actually four. But who's counting?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Maybe it’s just me, but if my son/daughter wanted to do this while I was on my deathbed, I would “that’s stupid, Marriage is an agreement between you and God. I have no play in this. Don’t distract from who really matters”. 

 

I feel as though choosing to have a civil wedding prior to the temple wedding is like a man asking permission from a father to marry, having a baptism after party in the church, cheering when a temple is announced, or looking at each other instead of the sealer during a sealing. It doesn’t make sense and is only to put in a show (for yourself or others) which actually distracts from the power that is happening.

 

Hmm, I feel different about it. I am just delighted that when it comes to marriage, we can actually now have our cake and eat it, too. I think this will be a huge blessing for so many.

One of the sweetest weddings I have ever been to was on a farm and I was sitting on a bale of hay. The spirit was strong. And though one of those getting married is not a member of the church yet, there is hope that he eventually will be and that their marriage will be eternal. Without this marriage, there is probably not a chance he ever would join the church. It's all in one's perspective. 

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, carlimac said:

One of the sweetest weddings I have ever been to was on a farm and I was sitting on a bale of hay. The spirit was strong. And though one of those getting married is not a member of the church yet, there is hope that he eventually will be and that their marriage will be eternal. Without this marriage, there is probably not a chance he ever would join the church. It's all in one's perspective. 

That is nice :)

All I suggest is that it would have been even sweeter, holier, and longer lasting had it been in a temple and not a farm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really surprised how riled up this has got some people!!

I just saw this as a globalisation of policy and reflection of the more global nature of church membership and a move away from US centric policies with modifications for "the rest of us".

It works well here in the UK, civil ceremony in the chapel and then the couple and close family attend the temple then if close enough to the temple an evening reception or for those who have 4-5 hours to travel each way to get to the temple, family celebrations tend to take place the next day when the couple have returned from the temple.

When I was married then sealed in this way it meant that I could easily separate out the civil service and focus on the ordinance. It made the sealing ordinance the complete focus; we were just concerned about us as a couple and Heavenly Father with no other distractions. We had a simple civil service with close friends and family, both of us the only members in our families and this gave my spouse (who had been shunned by his family due to his conversion and their faith) the opportunity to reunite with his parents and opened the door to them having a relationship again after many years of no communication at all.  - Just my personal view of course.

Edited by KScience
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic

I think this policy is more in harmony with the concept of line upon line, precept upon precept.  There are plenty of different circumstances that could lead to a couple wanted to have a civil marriage.  The first that comes to mind is a new convert who hasn't met the one year term to receive his/her endowments yet, but wants to marry another member of the church.  This new way, they can be sealed one year after the baptism instead of the marriage.

I don't see this change taking anything away from the sacredness of the temple sealing.  It is more inclusive and I imagine it will lead to more people ending up being sealed in the temple.

As one who is subject to a different church policy of waiting at least a year, I can understand the frustration of waiting on a seemingly arbitrary period of time.  In my case, excommunication, I understand the need for a uniform policy regarding the time to wait. With marriages and sealings, I don't see a similar need for standardization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2019 at 1:07 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Marriage is the commitment of two people together, formalizing their vow for everyone to see: themselves, family/friends/goverement, and God.  It is something to be rejoiced in.

A sealing is a couple choosing to formally bring God into their relationship and formally committing themselves (all 3) together.  Is is something be majorly rejoiced in.  

Also, civil marriage also includes other religion marriages (which are technically civil as they are not performed by priesthood authority). The Church doesn't look at a wedding performed by another religion as breaking the law of chastity.

The concept is the public commitment of two flesh becoming one. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, the policy is a "good" policy change (good as in all things that are good come from God), and I am sure our brethren pondered and prayed to know how to proceed according to our day and time. We do believe in a living Church, with revelation from Heavenly Father.  Here are some of my thoughts:

1) Even with the current policy (before the change), members were welcome to have a private "sealing" and then have an open wedding. Why more people didn't think to do this, well, that is their choice, but was something that has been always available. This would have included everyone. I know of people who had a simple sealing, just them and some loved ones to the sealing, and then after the sealing they had a civil wedding for family.

2) I find it telling how often people tell our Church to respect but do not give respect in return for our beliefs. I find it hypocritical. If I had a friend of a different faith whose wedding I was not privy to attend, I wouldn't have any issue and I wouldn't go to any social media outlet to try to tell how "unloving" or "disrespectful' their religion is. I respect their religion and beliefs, because I love and respect my friend. Would I long to be there, yes, but my longing to be their doesn't trump Article of Faith #11.

3) Law of the land. In the places where this has been the case it is usually because of the law of the land. The law expects civil marriage first, so as to be seen as a unified partnership before the law. My wife's family is migrated from Switzerland. If I understand correctly, in Switzerland they are married first civilly and then are able to attend the temple for a sealing. I don't remember if there was a wait, but I don't think there was.

What about civil marriage in comparison to a sealing makes it OK to be unified physically, sexual intimacy, without breaking law of chastity:

1) The most obvious answer law of the land, by which God in scripture has specified that we follow. I recognize there are times where God may command otherwise, but until then we obey the law of the land. Look to #3 above.

2) Define "civil marriage"? If we define civil marriage as anything that is not a sealing, then every marriage performed (this includes other religious weddings) is a civil marriage. What then differentiates breaking chastity or keeping it? The commitment and contract between to people who make an oath, a vow to each other. Rather than two people who just want to have sex together because they "love each other" without any commitment. It is still a union by commitment/vow.

3) Knowledge. We are judged by the knowledge and covenants we have made. God knowing all, obviously would accept the commitment (by law, religion, or philosophy) of children who are making commitments/vows/oaths according to the knowledge they have. Let's look particularly at the Lamanite children who God has said he would be merciful to. God even says that the Lamanites loved their wives! God recognized their oath, their marriage to each other, although not performed by proper priesthood authority.

4) I believe it was @TheFolkProphet who said something to this nature, "Due to the weakness of God's children." I would say this has definite merit. What does God do when two people who know better choose a lesser choice? In this case, he prepares a temporal way of union between two people. I am not saying this is right, but we can see God works with his children throughout scripture even in their weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share