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

[SpiritDragon]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

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

You should have found a different dealer  

[carlimac]

31 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

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.

1) Someone on here said  that no, this was discouraged. If this had been oK then there would be no need for the wait-a-year policy to begin with.

2) What if it were your child's wedding you couldn't go to?

4) Do you believe this policy change is because God's children are weak? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[The Folk Prophet]

50 minutes ago, carlimac said:

4) Do you believe this policy change is because God's children are weak? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

What is your problem with the fact that we're weak? We are. Do you claim to have no weaknesses? Of course not. We are weak. Why is that offensive? It should be the most obvious thing in the world that God interacts with His children in certain ways because of their weakness.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, carlimac said:

1) Someone on here said  that no, this was discouraged. If this had been oK then there would be no need for the wait-a-year policy to begin with.

2) What if it were your child's wedding you couldn't go to?

4) Do you believe this policy change is because God's children are weak? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

#1 - This was OK. I am not sure that you understood what I said. What I shared has nothing to do with waiting for a year. You wait for a year if you marry civilly first, and then temple. My thought shared that people were able to have a "sealing" first, and then a wedding afterwards. So I am a little confused as to your comment in relation to what I shared.

#2 - I think I was clear in my original thought. Article of Faith #11 doesn't change because my daughter or son chooses to participate in a wedding ceremony I can't be apart of. Would I long to be there? Yes. If I was unworthy to attend the temple, and my daughter or son chose to marry in the temple I wouldn't be able to go although I am a member. This is called respect for another person's religion. Who am I to think so high and mighty of myself that I complain to the world that "I have been wronged!" because of another person's faith choice?

#3 - I am pretty sure with my opening statement I was clear with why this policy was given, "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." As to giving a reason for the policy change, I was not part of the revelation received, and my thoughts for the change would be speculation. The policy change is from God through his servants the prophets, that is all I need to know. If God wants to reveal to me why, then I will listen.

Although, my last paragraph didn't have anything to do with policy change. It was with regards to civil marriage being different from sealings (a question that was brought up early in this OP). If all the sons and daughters of God had kept the commandments from Adam till President Nelson this question, this policy, wouldn't exist. This policy exists, and the previous policy exists due to sin/weakness in relation to the human race and past choices of parents long time ago.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Anddenex

[priesthoodpower]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What is your problem with the fact that we're weak? We are. Do you claim to have no weaknesses? Of course not. We are weak. Why is that offensive? It should be the most obvious thing in the world that God interacts with His children in certain ways because of their weakness.

We have all witnessed major changes to policy of our church the past couple years.

As this article and many before it states...we will continue to hear the words "this is not lessening the emphasis of <insert current policy>"

Yes, humans are weak, numbers and statistics are important and the church is pivoting.

[Guest Mores]

My personal opinion is that most posts here are missing the boat.

Could it be that the myriad of reasons postulated in this thread could be correct?  Sure.  Possibly. And I'd even offer that they all had something to do with it.  But I lean towards @Just_A_Guy's opinion that there is something else coming.  And that this something we don't see is the true reason for this change.

I don't know if there is much value in trying to justify what we have received.  We only need to verify through prayer that it is the will of the Lord.  I don't see the benefit of speculating as to the reasons at this point.  It's too new.  Who knows how this will fit in with the hailstorm of changes that Pres. Nelson promised us?  Just wait and watch.

I find it interesting that I am taking this position.  With most prophetic changes in my life, I've received confirmation that the new Prophet was called of God.  I have not yet received that for Pres. Nelson. I don't know why.  And I've been looking and listening for something to confirm that he is the Prophet by right, not just position or chance.

But even without that confirmation, as I write more about him on this forum, I find myself defending him in my own way.  And I'm learning things through the Spirit as I type.  Still not a confirmation, but enough to continue as if I had received such.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Mores

[carlimac]

My personal opinion is that people are overthinking this. It seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me. Because of missionary work there are more people now who are the only members of the church in their families than there were when the original policy of having to wait a year after a civil marriage to be sealed.  Just like the church is trying to be more inclusive of the LGBT crowd without changing doctrine, I see this change as simply being more friendly to people with non-member families without changing doctrine. Why should a couple who are worthy have to wait?  It has been an extremely hurtful thing that mothers and fathers have been excluded from the weddings of their children. Read the letter again.  https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Sealing-After-Civil-Marriage-Letter.pdf   It has nothing to do with the Lord making accomodations for his weakening saints. It's about family unity and that's about it. 

Everyone I've talked to personally is thrilled with the change. Only on this forum am I hearing anything negative or "suspicious" plus maybe a comment or two on KSL and Deseret News. But there is story after story on those sites about regret and family being offended and won't have anything to do with the church for years because of the way it was.  I'm just throwing up my hands about those who are pushing back or making it sound as if getting married civilly first is a weakness. As for me and my house we are rejoicing!

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by carlimac

[Just_A_Guy]

53 minutes ago, carlimac said:

My personal opinion is that people are overthinking this. It seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me. Because of missionary work there are more people now who are the only members of the church in their families than there were when the original policy of having to wait a year after a civil marriage to be sealed.  Just like the church is trying to be more inclusive of the LGBT crowd without changing doctrine, I see this change as simply being more friendly to people with non-member families without changing doctrine. Why should a couple who are worthy have to wait?  It has been an extremely hurtful thing that mothers and fathers have been excluded from the weddings of their children. Read the letter again.  https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/Sealing-After-Civil-Marriage-Letter.pdf   It has nothing to do with the Lord making accomodations for his weakening saints. It's about family unity and that's about it. 

Everyone I've talked to personally is thrilled with the change. Only on this forum am I hearing anything negative or "suspicious" plus maybe a comment or two on KSL and Deseret News. But there is story after story on those sites about regret and family being offended and won't have anything to do with the church for years because of the way it was.  I'm just throwing up my hands about those who are pushing back or making it sound as if getting married civilly first is a weakness. As for me and my house we are rejoicing!

 

 

I’m less bothered by the fact that the policy was changed, than by the number of folks (in various fora) who a) cannot or will not do the intellectual and spiritual legwork to understand why the policy ever existed at all; b) clearly think that the sealing is less important than the secular ceremony; and c) seem to think that the approval of others and/or “keeping the peace” is ultimately just as, or more, important than making, keeping, and reaping the benefits of salvific ordinances as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

None of those positions will tend to serve believers well in the long term.  Matthew 10:37 exists for a reason.  If we think our parents are going to be hurt when we walk into a temple without them, imagine how they will feel when we enter our exaltation without them!  Or will we refuse that blessing, too, in the name of “preserving family harmony”?  Or perhaps some folks plan that at the last day they will try to play chicken with God, insisting that He bless all of us identically and together or else deny us our exaltation together—refusing, to the very end, to believe that He’d ever dare either to drive wedges between family members or to actually confine someone to a lower kingdom of glory?

Notwithstanding this policy change, at some point we all have to set some boundaries and take responsibility for working out our salvations in spite of earth and hell—and, yes, in spite of unbelieving loved ones.  So, as President Nelson says—buckle up; because if we don’t have that lesson figured out already, the Lord’s about to teach it to us through some other means.  This Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy paradigm isn’t going to save anyone. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

My personal opinion is that people are overthinking this.

It seems pretty clear that you are misunderstanding or overthinking what others have shared.

[estradling75]

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

None of those positions will tend to serve believers well in the long term.  Matthew 10:37 exists for a reason.  If we think our parents are going to be hurt when we walk into a temple without them, imagine how they will feel when we enter our exaltation without them!  Or will we refuse that blessing, too, in the name of “preserving family harmony”?  Or perhaps some folks plan that at the last day they will try to play chicken with God, insisting that He bless all of us identically and together or else deny us our exaltation together—refusing, to the very end, to believe that He’d ever dare either to drive wedges between family members or to actually confine someone to a lower kingdom of glory?

 

From this weeks Come Follow Me assignement

The words of Christ himself

 Luke 12

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

It seems pretty clear that you are misunderstanding or overthinking what others have shared.

Right?

It's like we can't share a thought without it being treated like we've gone into a Hulk style rage.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

the mother in law against her daughter [son] in law

fixed it.

[carlimac]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m less bothered by the fact that the policy was changed, than by the number of folks (in various fora) who a) cannot or will not do the intellectual and spiritual legwork to understand why the policy ever existed at all; b) clearly think that the sealing is less important than the secular ceremony; and c) seem to think that the approval of others and/or “keeping the peace” is ultimately just as, or more, important than making, keeping, and reaping the benefits of salvific ordinances as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

None of those positions will tend to serve believers well in the long term.  Matthew 10:37 exists for a reason.  If we think our parents are going to be hurt when we walk into a temple without them, imagine how they will feel when we enter our exaltation without them!  Or will we refuse that blessing, too, in the name of “preserving family harmony”?  Or perhaps some folks plan that at the last day they will try to play chicken with God, insisting that He bless all of us identically and together or else deny us our exaltation together—refusing, to the very end, to believe that He’d ever dare either to drive wedges between family members or to actually confine someone to a lower kingdom of glory?

Notwithstanding this policy change, at some point we all have to set some boundaries and take responsibility for working out our salvations in spite of earth and hell—and, yes, in spite of unbelieving loved ones.  So, as President Nelson says—buckle up; because if we don’t have that lesson figured out already, the Lord’s about to teach it to us through some other means.  This Deus-ex-Uncle-Fluffy paradigm isn’t going to save anyone. 

OK here are some sincere questions for the benefit of all of us who are simply taking this change in policy on good faith that the First Presidency means what they said in the letter and nothing more.

What was the reason for waiting a year after a civil wedding to go to the temple to be sealed?  ( I have my ideas, having done plenty of intellectual and spiritual legwork in my life- thank you very much.)  But some may not know and only held a grudge about it. So tell us. And why just a year? Why not 2 or 5? What is it about a year that answers for the apparent lack of faith and obedience demonstrated by having a civil wedding? 

How do you know that some people think the secular wedding was more important than the sealing? And how did you come to the conclusion that "they seem to think that the approval of others and/or “keeping the peace” is ultimately just as, or more, important than making, keeping, and reaping the benefits of salvific  ordinances as soon as the opportunity presents itself."  Couldn't it be possible that some other circumstances presented themselves and a civil wedding seemed the best option at the time. Maybe you could do some intellectual or perhaps just some humanitarian legwork to understand and be gentler on people. 

I could go on. But lets start there.

Edited May 8, 2019 by carlimac

[MrShorty]

In response to carlimac, I saw this link to Ardis Parshall's blog post in the Deseret News's (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900069248/church-marriage-temple-sealing-policy-mormon-lds.html)coverage of this announcement: http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/12/the-temple-one-year-rules/ It seems that a big part of it were those who had elaborate civil ceremonies and receptions that -- in the opinion of leadership -- overshadowed the temple ceremony too much.

I found it interesting again that Elder Stevenson is quoted in the Des News article again making this about couples with non-member family members so that they can choose to have both a civil ceremony and include those family members followed by the sealing ceremony for those who hold temple recommends. Perhaps, reading between the lines, this is a setup for future changes. On the surface, the First Presidency and other GAs are talking about making it about families and not needing to choose between a temple sealing and a civil ceremony that can include non-TR holding family members.

 

[carlimac]

55 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In response to carlimac, I saw this link to Ardis Parshall's blog post in the Deseret News's (https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900069248/church-marriage-temple-sealing-policy-mormon-lds.html)coverage of this announcement: http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/12/the-temple-one-year-rules/ It seems that a big part of it were those who had elaborate civil ceremonies and receptions that -- in the opinion of leadership -- overshadowed the temple ceremony too much.

I found it interesting again that Elder Stevenson is quoted in the Des News article again making this about couples with non-member family members so that they can choose to have both a civil ceremony and include those family members followed by the sealing ceremony for those who hold temple recommends. Perhaps, reading between the lines, this is a setup for future changes. On the surface, the First Presidency and other GAs are talking about making it about families and not needing to choose between a temple sealing and a civil ceremony that can include non-TR holding family members.

 

Here's Elder Stevenson's quote: "I think it's another indication of a Heavenly Father looking down upon his children recognizing the diverse nature of the church today and the focus we have on families. Diverse family configurations are now blessed to be able to enjoy observing a civil union together, and then a couple can enjoy the blessings of a sealing ordinance that binds them eternally."

 

The historical part is very interesting. I'm sure many will have to work to keep things in check on those civil ceremonies. Also I think it would be wise for brides to get their endowment first, before the civil wedding so that the wedding dress is more likely to be modest. That being said, I haven't heard any General Authority mention the extravagance of receptions these days. I wonder if they will. 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by carlimac

[Guest Mores]

Here's a thought.  

What if the next change was that the anyone could attend the temple sealing.  Attend, not participate in the covenant.  Yes, member and non-member alike with or without recommends could attend the sealing.  Would that send anyone into a tizzy fit?

Where is the change in doctrine?  I am unaware of any doctrine that would prevent such a policy.  Maybe I'm just woefully ignorant.  But I'm not aware of any doctrine that would be violated by making such a change.

Assuming I'm right, how many people would raise a tizzy fit if such a change happened?  My guess?  A LOT.

 

[MarginOfError]

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Here's a thought.  

What if the next change was that the anyone could attend the temple sealing.  Attend, not participate in the covenant.  Yes, member and non-member alike with or without recommends could attend the sealing.  Would that send anyone into a tizzy fit?

Where is the change in doctrine?  I am unaware of any doctrine that would prevent such a policy.  Maybe I'm just woefully ignorant.  But I'm not aware of any doctrine that would be violated by making such a change.

Assuming I'm right, how many people would raise a tizzy fit if such a change happened?  My guess?  A LOT.

 

In that vein, I vote we give sealing authority to all Relief Society Presidents and let them conduct all sealing from henceforth.

[Guest Mores]

Just now, MarginOfError said:

In that vein, I vote we give sealing authority to all Relief Society Presidents and let them conduct all sealing from henceforth.

That would require a change in doctrine.

[carlimac]

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Here's a thought.  

What if the next change was that the anyone could attend the temple sealing.  Attend, not participate in the covenant.  Yes, member and non-member alike with or without recommends could attend the sealing.  Would that send anyone into a tizzy fit?

Where is the change in doctrine?  I am unaware of any doctrine that would prevent such a policy.  Maybe I'm just woefully ignorant.  But I'm not aware of any doctrine that would be violated by making such a change.

Assuming I'm right, how many people would raise a tizzy fit if such a change happened?  My guess?  A LOT.

 

I'd need a really good reason. I don't have that much faith to just accept. Not sure I'd throw a tizzy fit but I'd be pretty confused. 

[MarginOfError]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

That would require a change in doctrine.

I disagree with you on that one. But that's a discussion for another day.

[Guest Mores]

Just now, MarginOfError said:

I disagree with you on that one. But that's a discussion for another day.

I believe that discussion has already been had.  And you're right.  We disagree.

[Vort]

20 hours ago, carlimac said:

1) Someone on here said  that no, this was discouraged. If this had been oK then there would be no need for the wait-a-year policy to begin with.

2) What if it were your child's wedding you couldn't go to?

4) Do you believe this policy change is because God's children are weak? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The correct order is 1-2-5.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

OK here are some sincere questions for the benefit of all of us who are simply taking this change in policy on good faith that the First Presidency means what they said in the letter and nothing more.

What was the reason for waiting a year after a civil wedding to go to the temple to be sealed?  ( I have my ideas, having done plenty of intellectual and spiritual legwork in my life- thank you very much.)  But some may not know and only held a grudge about it. So tell us. And why just a year? Why not 2 or 5? What is it about a year that answers for the apparent lack of faith and obedience demonstrated by having a civil wedding? 

How do you know that some people think the secular wedding was more important than the sealing? And how did you come to the conclusion that seem to think that the approval of others and/or “keeping the peace” is ultimately just as, or more, important than making, keeping, and reaping the benefits of salvific ( is that a word?) ordinances as soon as the opportunity presents itself.  Couldn't it be possible that some other circumstances presented themselves and a civil wedding seemed the best option at the time. Maybe you could do some intellectual or perhaps just some humanitarian legwork to understand and be gentler on people. 

I could go on. But lets start there.

This calls for a more detailed response than I can produce on an iPhone.  I’ll come back to it later.

18 minutes ago, Mores said:

Here's a thought.  

What if the next change was that the anyone could attend the temple sealing.  Attend, not participate in the covenant.  Yes, member and non-member alike with or without recommends could attend the sealing.  Would that send anyone into a tizzy fit?

Where is the change in doctrine?  I am unaware of any doctrine that would prevent such a policy.  Maybe I'm just woefully ignorant.  But I'm not aware of any doctrine that would be violated by making such a change.

Assuming I'm right, how many people would raise a tizzy fit if such a change happened?  My guess?  A LOT.

 

D&C 94:8 and 97:15 would be major issues here.  But if your point is that sometimes the line between “doctrine” versus “inspired/revealed/scriptural policy” can get awfully messy, I agree.  

14 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

In that vein, I vote we give sealing authority to all Relief Society Presidents and let them conduct all sealing from henceforth.

Sure, but they can only officiate in the Relief Society Room.  And only if non-cushioned chairs are brought in for the occasion.  And there will NOT be a lace tablecloth in the room.  

[Guest Mores]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

D&C 94:8 and 97:15 would be major issues here.  But if your point is that sometimes the line between “doctrine” versus “inspired/revealed/scriptural policy” can get awfully messy, I agree.  

Yes, but the way things are going today, I don't know if we can hang our hat on that without hypocrisy.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Yes, but the way things are going today, I don't know if we can hang our hat on that without hypocrisy.

We never could.  The important thing was, and is, that we not quit trying.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy