Midwest LDS

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

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  But non-members were never deprived of being a part of the Wedding (the "civil stuff", as opposed to the Marriage - the Ordinance).  The twig that has toppled many a Temple Marriage Ordinance Oak is the insistence of the spouses to have their non-temple-qualified family be present at the very second they become legally husband and wife.  Not an hour later, not a day later, or anything outside of that very second the legal joining occurred.

And it's toppled many a family relationship because they weren't able to be there. With the rings ceremonies afterward ( I've been to many) they feel fake and like a big old compromise. Everyone knows they are already married and  I don't think many take it seriously. It's very anti climactic after the bride and groom have come out of the temple and received lots of congratulations. I can imagine the non-member family feeling short changed.  

 I love that now those who feel so seriously about the civil/legal wedding can be a part of it and the ones who are serous about the temple ceremony can be a part of that. No one need be hurt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Maureen said:

How? Are you saying that a sealing looses it's reverence, authority, sacredness just because it occured after a civil marriage?  

Of course not.

Rather, for the spouse who would rather delay Temple Ordinances so they can please their non-member family, it signifies a lack of reverence, sacredness, importance of the Temple Ordinance on the part of the spouses.

15 minutes ago, Maureen said:

 That the time inbetween the wedding and the sealing, whether it's hours, days or weeks, causes the bride and groom to loose focus of the sealing ceremony, making it less effective?

No.  The time between ceremonies is irrelevant.  It's the spouses' understanding of the Ceremonies, regardless of when the Ceremony happens, which is relevant.

 

15 minutes ago, Maureen said:

 I'm going to speculate that if Latter-day Saints in the UK can cherish the temple sealing after getting married then North American members can do the same.

There's a big difference between people from the UK who got a temple sealing after a civil wedding because it's the only option they have, and people - including those from the UK - who got a temple sealing after a civil wedding because they felt it is more important to have their family present and give up eternal marriage for an earthly marriage.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

And it's toppled many a family relationship because they weren't able to be there. With the rings ceremonies afterward ( I've been to many) they feel fake and like a big old compromise. Everyone knows they are already married and  I don't think many take it seriously. It's very anti climactic after the bride and groom have come out of the temple and received lots of congratulations. I can imagine the non-member family feeling short changed.  

My entire family chose not to attend my wedding.  I don't share the same sentiments.  Many a bride and groom's family have ruined marriages because of stupid things like they didn't get the proper place seating at the reception.  I really don't feel much for family members making the day about themselves rather than the bride and groom.

 

9 minutes ago, carlimac said:

 I love that now those who feel so seriously about the civil/legal wedding can be a part of it and the ones who are serous about the temple ceremony can be a part of that. No one need be hurt

. Sure.  I still contend that in the US - where Temple Marriage is a legal option - choosing an earthly marriage to accomodate the feelings of family members is a weakness.

Rather, this change, in my opinion, was prophetically made to prepare the Church for a future where the government imposes its regulatory arm to infringe on the ordinances of the Church and for no other reason.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, anatess2 said:

My entire family chose not to attend my wedding.  I don't share the same sentiments.  Many a bride and groom's family have ruined marriages because of stupid things like they didn't get the proper place seating at the reception.  I really don't feel much for family members making the day about themselves rather than the bride and groom.

 

. Sure.  I still contend that in the US - where Temple Marriage is a legal option - choosing an earthly marriage to accomodate the feelings of family members is a weakness.

Rather, this change, in my opinion, was made to prepare the Church for a future where the government imposes its regulatory arm to infringe on the ordinances of the Church and for no other reason.

I completely disagree and foresee it as a wonderful time to come together with those of other faiths to celebrate the instant the couple becomes married!  I'm almost hoping some of my remaining unmarried kids choose this new option.  I know my son will since he's no longer a part of our faith. But I would cherish the moment, the instant my daughters get married outside the temple. And later reverently thank the Lord in the temple  for the sealing powers that give the couple the opportunity to be together for eternity if they live up to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, carlimac said:

I completely disagree and foresee it as a wonderful time to come together with those of other faiths to celebrate the instant the couple becomes married!  I'm almost hoping some of my remaining unmarried kids choose this new option.  I know my son will since he's no longer a part of our faith. But I would cherish the moment, the instant my daughters get married outside the temple. And later reverently thank the Lord in the temple  for the sealing powers that give the couple the opportunity to be together for eternity if they live up to it.  

Just because you want it doesn't make it not a weakness.  I want chocolates after my dinner.  It's a weakness regardless of how many articles people write about the health benefits of chocolates because I'm not wanting chocolates for their health benefits.  I want it because it is sweet and makes me feel good for the next 10 minutes.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Just because you want it doesn't make it not a weakness.  I want chocolates after my dinner.  It's a weakness regardless of how many articles people write about the health benefits of chocolates because I'm not wanting chocolates for their health benefits.  I want it because it is sweet and makes me feel good for the next 10 minutes.

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!

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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.  

 

Hogwash.  If we had been allowed to have a civil marriage so my family could attend, and then gone to the temple for our sealing it would not have lessened one iota the importance of the sealing.  The fact that you would even imply this is beyond ridiculous.   Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Just because you want it doesn't make it not a weakness.  I want chocolates after my dinner.  It's a weakness regardless of how many articles people write about the health benefits of chocolates because I'm not wanting chocolates for their health benefits.  I want it because it is sweet and makes me feel good for the next 10 minutes.

Just because you think it's a weakness doesn't make it so. And just because you want that chocolate as a treat doesn't negate the health benefits it can offer.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

choosing an earthly marriage to accomodate the feelings of family members is a weakness.

Rather, this change, in my opinion, was prophetically made to prepare the Church for a future where the government imposes its regulatory arm to infringe on the ordinances of the Church and for no other reason.

Or prophetically made to accommodate the weakness of members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Hogwash.  If we had been allowed to have a civil marriage so my family could attend, and then gone to the temple for our sealing it would not have lessened one iota the importance of the sealing.  The fact that you would even imply this is beyond ridiculous.   Seriously.

Then what, pray tell, in your thinking, was the reason the policy existed in the first place? Was it entirely random? Just a bunch of old, out of touch, white dudes being mean because they enjoyed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the hymn states, "Sacrifice brings forth the blessings from heaven." 

 

While I don't agree that it is necessarily a weakness to choose another way as sometimes we are required to get our ox out of the mire, it is of great importance to find out the Lord's will and follow it; even if it requires great sacrifice. 

 

President Dallin H. Oaks 

April 2019 General Priesthood Session

"At a stake conference in Cali, Colombia, a sister told how she and her fiancé desired to be married in the temple, but at that time the closest temple was in faraway Peru. For a long time, they saved their money for the bus fares. Finally they boarded the bus to Bogotá, but when they arrived there, they learned that all seats on the bus to Lima, Peru, were taken. They could go home without being married or be married out of the temple. Fortunately, there was one other alternative. They could ride on the bus to Lima if they were willing to sit on the floor of the bus for the entire five-day and five-night ride. They chose to do this. She said it was difficult, even though some riders sometimes let them sit in their seats so they could stretch out on the floor.
What impressed me in her talk was this sister’s statement that she was grateful she and her husband had been able to go to the temple in this way, because it changed the way they felt about the gospel and the way they felt about marriage in the temple. The Lord had rewarded them with the growth that comes from sacrifice. She also observed that their five-day trip to the temple accomplished a great deal more in building their spirituality than many visits to the temple that were sacrifice-free.


In the years since I heard that testimony, I have wondered how different that young couple’s life would have been if they had made another choice --forgoing the sacrifice necessary to be married in the temple."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Hogwash.  If we had been allowed to have a civil marriage so my family could attend, and then gone to the temple for our sealing it would not have lessened one iota the importance of the sealing.  The fact that you would even imply this is beyond ridiculous.   Seriously.

The thing is, Mirkwood; from what I gather, the Church’s experience through the early-to-mid 20th century was precisely what @anatess2 seems to describe—the civil ceremony wound up distracting and detracting from the experience of the sealing itself.  Individual experiences (and even individual would-have-been scenarios) will naturally vary; but as a generality Anatess’s point strikes me as well-taken.

Even with the new policy, we’re going to have to adjust our wedding culture in relatively radical ways.  The new announcement presents an ideal of a civil wedding and sealing and reception all in the same day.  So, what do the non-LDS guests do for the 2-4 hours while the couple is off at the temple smack dab in the middle of the day, pending the evening reception?  What of the “wedding luncheon” that is a part of LDS tradition?  Where/when do we squeeze in the pictures?  If we are talking about doing the wedding and reception all together and then doing the sealing a day or two after the wedding, then a) it’s not at all clear to me that the new policy would look fondly at this; and b) does this mean that honeymoons will be abbreviated so that the happy couple can get back and do the sealing, or delayed until after the sealing is done?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Or prophetically made to accommodate the weakness of members.

Privately, I suspect this may be the reason behind many of the changes we have recently seen. But that's a slippery path to tread. What I think of as "weakness" may in fact be "spiritual maturity" or "divine insight" that I lack. So I'm hesitant to publicly declare that the immaturity and petulance of the membership as the reason behind many of these recent changes, lest my own immaturity and petulance be put on public display.

As for the sealing/wedding announcement, I take the reason at face value: The leadership of the Church is "[setting] a single global standard" rather than having a US-centric policy that must then be modified for many or most non-US members. I have always supported the old policy and have looked for (and found) valid reasons for it. But I'm not unhappy to see this newly instituted policy, especially if governmental marriage in the US continues in the direction it seems to be headed. Perhaps it's ultimately for the better that we distinguish our sacred sealing for eternity, or even a marriage in the temple for time only, from the governmental perversion of "marriage" as is currently taking place. Without doubt, the Church will still recognize (heterosexual) marriages performed by government entities and require them as a prerequisite for a temple sealing. But the membership will be left completely without excuse when it seeks to equate homosexual government-sponsored, legally recognized "marriage" with actual marriage.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Then what, pray tell, in your thinking, was the reason the policy existed in the first place? Was it entirely random? Just a bunch of old, out of touch, white dudes being mean because they enjoyed it?

I have no idea.  It never made sense to me. 

Why the hostility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The thing is, Mirkwood; from what I gather, the Church’s experience through the early-to-mid 20th century was precisely what @anatess2 seems to describe—the civil ceremony wound up distracting and detracting from the experience of the sealing itself.  Individual experiences (and even individual would-have-been scenarios) will naturally vary; but as a generality Anatess’s point strikes me as well-taken.

Even with the new policy, we’re going to have to adjust our wedding culture in relatively radical ways.  The new announcement presents an ideal of a civil wedding and sealing and reception all in the same day.  So, what do the non-LDS guests do for the 2-4 hours while the couple is off at the temple smack dab in the middle of the day, pending the evening reception?  What of the “wedding luncheon” that is a part of LDS tradition?  If we are talking about doing the wedding and reception all together and then doing the sealing a day or two after the wedding, then a) it’s not at all clear to me that the new policy would look fondly at this; and b) does this mean that honeymoons will be abbreviated so that the happy couple can get back and do the sealing, or delayed until after the sealing is done?

Honestly I would guess that, as with other changes, there's meant to be flexibility here and that these approaches/decisions are left up to those involved. Whereas the expectation is that people choose, where possible, to marry and get sealed in the temple, the only restriction against getting sealed in the temple after marriage is the lack of a temple recommend. Therefore if someone wants to take a 2 week honeymoon prior to their sealing, and they are otherwise temple-recommend worthy, then they may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

I have no idea.  It never made sense to me. 

Why the hostility?

I didn't mean it to sound hostile. I just meant to suggest that there had to be some sort of reason for the policy.

I guess, upon reflection, I do see how it would seem hostile. I apologize. A weakness of mine in communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The thing is, Mirkwood; from what I gather, the Church’s experience through the early-to-mid 20th century was precisely what @anatess2 seems to describe—the civil ceremony wound up distracting and detracting from the experience of the sealing itself.  Individual experiences (and even individual would-have-been scenarios) will naturally vary; but as a generality Anatess’s point strikes me as well-taken.

Even with the new policy, we’re going to have to adjust our wedding culture in relatively radical ways.  The new announcement presents an ideal of a civil wedding and sealing and reception all in the same day.  So, what do the non-LDS guests do for the 2-4 hours while the couple is off at the temple smack dab in the middle of the day, pending the evening reception?  What of the “wedding luncheon” that is a part of LDS tradition?  Where/when do we squeeze in the pictures?  If we are talking about doing the wedding and reception all together and then doing the sealing a day or two after the wedding, then a) it’s not at all clear to me that the new policy would look fondly at this; and b) does this mean that honeymoons will be abbreviated so that the happy couple can get back and do the sealing, or delayed until after the sealing is done?

See TFP's post.  

I don't see anything indicating that it should all be on the same day.  There are lots of ways to handle the day or days.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't mean it to sound hostile. I just meant to suggest that there had to be some sort of reason for the policy.

I guess, upon reflection, I do see how it would seem hostile. I apologize. A weakness of mine in communication.

A weakness like unto @anatess2‘s predilection for chocolate, I suppose?  :satan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Honestly I would guess that, as with other changes, there's meant to be flexibility here and that these approaches/decisions are left up to those involved. Whereas the expectation is that people choose, where possible, to marry and get sealed in the temple, the only restriction against getting sealed in the temple after marriage is the lack of a temple recommend. Therefore if someone wants to take a 2 week honeymoon prior to their sealing, and they are otherwise temple-recommend worthy, then they may.

 

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

See TFP's post.  

I don't see anything indicating that it should all be on the same day.  There are lots of ways to handle the day or days.

 

Mirkwood, the spokeswoman they cite specifically relates her own experience in Spain; where she did everything on the same day.

And, if we’re doing weddings and sealings weeks apart, will out-of-state family be flying in twice?  Or just for the wedding, and not the sealing?  If the latter, then that sort of buttresses @anatess2‘s point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And, if we’re doing weddings and sealings weeks apart, will out-of-state family be flying in twice? 

Doesn't seem like church business/problem. ;)

Granted, you're point about complications needing to be worked out is good. But my point is that I would guess that flexibility is part of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Vort said:

Privately, I suspect this may be the reason behind many of the changes we have recently seen. But that's a slippery path to tread. What I think of as "weakness" may in fact be "spiritual maturity" or "divine insight" that I lack. So I'm hesitant to publicly declare that the immaturity and petulance of the membership as the reason behind many of these recent changes, lest my own immaturity and petulance be put on public display.

As for the sealing/wedding announcement, I take the reason at face value: The leadership of the Church is "[setting] a single global standard" rather than having a US-centric policy that must then be modified for many or most non-US members. I have always supported the old policy and have looked for (and found) valid reasons for it. But I'm not unhappy to see this newly instituted policy, especially if governmental marriage in the US continues in the direction it seems to be headed. Perhaps it's ultimately for the better that we distinguish our sacred sealing for eternity, or even a marriage in the temple for time only, from the governmental perversion of "marriage" as is currently taking place. Without doubt, the Church will still recognize (heterosexual) marriages performed by government entities and require them as a prerequisite for a temple sealing. But the membership will be left completely without excuse when it seeks to equate homosexual government-sponsored, legally recognized "marriage" with actual marriage.

It already does!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now