Midwest LDS

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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

I respectfully disagree.  The Church is under scriptural injunction not to administer sacred ordinances to those who won’t take them seriously.  It’s one thing to suggest that in our modern culture, buying into the secular princeling-and-princess-for-a-day wedding hysteria no longer implies that one isn’t taking the sealing ordinance seriously.  It’s quite another to suggest that the whole issue is simply none of the Church’s business.  

Share this post


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

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.

Wait! Did you just call me immature and petulant?

😀

I suppose I'd best clarify my thinking then. Hehe.

I'm only suggesting it as a theoretical part of the equation. (Indicated by the "Or" in the sentence.)

I personally believe that there are probably a lot of reasons behind the changes. Reaction to the current culture (I mean the Lord reacting, as He is in charge) is one of the reasons I believe these things to be changing. I don't think that's the end-all of the story.

 

Share this post


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

 

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?

I don't think it will have much effect on things. Already two of our kids had a wedding dinner the night before. It was much better than a wedding breakfast after the ceremony like I had.  I doubt the sealing ceremony will take 2-4 hours. Maybe an hour at most. I would expect that brides who haven't served a mission will go through the temple for their endowments before the wedding day like they do now.  Pictures will probably go on as usual ( while the wedding party waits- sometimes hours. MIne did. We were late to our wedding breakfast.)  The choice would have to be made if the pictures will be at the temple or at the wedding venue. But that's not a crisis kind of decision. Nothing like having to exclude parents from the wedding altogether.  Why would a honeymoon have to be abbreviated? ESpecially with temples all over the world and some in prime honeymoon locations like Hawaii? 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


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

I respectfully disagree.  

Well I was partially joking. So I'm not sure I deserve "respectful" disagreement.

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Church is under scriptural injunction not to administer sacred ordinances to those who won’t take them seriously.

(2) I'm not following how this relates to whether the church is taking a position on whether the sealing must happen the same day as the marriage or not.

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s quite another to suggest that the whole issue is simply none of the Church’s business.

Hmm. Maybe you misread what I meant by "it". See my response 2 for partial clarification, and in application: I meant to say specifically that if the church allows the sealing to take place at any time after the marriage, then if a couple so chooses to be sealed two weeks after their marriage, then it's the couple and their family's concern as to whether out of towners fly back in for the sealing. That's the business to which I referred.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


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

Hmm. Maybe you misread what I meant but "it". See my response 2 for partial clarification, and in application: I meant to say specifically that if the church allows the sealing to take place at any time after the marriage, then if a couple so chooses to be sealed two weeks after their marriage, then it's the couple and their family's concern as to whether out of towners fly back in for the sealing. That's the business to which I referred.

I appreciate the clarification, but I think I had the gist of it the first time.  :)  And I reiterate that it is very much the Church’s business if the recipient of an ordinance is allowing the ordinance and/or its appurtenant covenants to be eclipsed by and subsumed into some other activity or event—particularly one as extravagantly theatrical and morally hollow as modern American civil marriage.

If the Church is what it says it is, there is no aspect of my life that is none of its business.

Share this post


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

I respectfully disagree.  The Church is under scriptural injunction not to administer sacred ordinances to those who won’t take them seriously.  It’s one thing to suggest that in our modern culture, buying into the secular princeling-and-princess-for-a-day wedding hysteria no longer implies that one isn’t taking the sealing ordinance seriously.  It’s quite another to suggest that the whole issue is simply none of the Church’s business.  

Well, actually, the church never has been in the wedding reception business, unless you count the Lion House ( church owned I think) which benefits from all the luncheons and receptions held there.  I would like the Church to even remove the statement that a civil wedding has to be simple and suggest it be done in an LDS chapel. That way the real true focus and the "test" of the couple on their devoutness will be in their going to the temple to be sealed.  I imagine that most couples (who marry in Utah or within an hour or two of a temple) would want to be sealed either the same day or within a day or two so that those temple worthy who came for the wedding can also attend the sealing. But truly, the sealing is the most important, private and intimate part of joining the couple  ( aside from the wedding night) so if the couple wanted to not invite anyone to their sealing, I would completely understand and agree. 

I love the idea of separating the wedding from the sealing. I think it really makes the sealing stand out in ways it didn't before. And it's such a nuisance when the girl insists on wearing her buffont wedding dress to get married in the temple and the robes are awkward over the fluffy dress and things slip and slide and it can be awkward. And when she doesn't wear her dress, the crowd outside the temple has to wait an hour or more while she gets ready to come out of the temple in a dress she didn't even get married in ( but probably paid a hefty price for. It has seemed a funny, bothersome, quirky aspect of LDS wedding traditions.  Now with this new way of doing things it will take some of that silliness out of the picture. 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


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

If the Church is what it says it is, there is no aspect of my life that is none of its business.

This is the bottom-line meaning of our temple covenants.

Share this post


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

This is the bottom-line meaning of our temple covenants.

That is true but there is no temple covenant that I can think of that prohibits having a lovely wedding party with all the frills (hopefully excluding alcohol, but if the couple doesn't drink what's at the reception), there should be no reason they can't still get sealed immediately. Those are decisions the Church shouldn't have any say in.  The church does all kinds of elaborate things, parties and such. There is no commandment against it. 

Share this post


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

I appreciate the clarification, but I think I had the gist of it the first time.  :)  And I reiterate that it is very much the Church’s business if the recipient of an ordinance is allowing the ordinance and/or its appurtenant covenants to be eclipsed by and subsumed into some other activity or event—particularly one as extravagantly theatrical and morally hollow as modern American civil marriage.

If the Church is what it says it is, there is no aspect of my life that is none of its business.

See my post above. Just because you don't like wedding festivities doesn't make them evil. 

Share this post


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

I don't think it will have much effect on things. Already two of our kids had a wedding dinner the night before. It was much better than a wedding breakfast after the ceremony like I had.  I doubt the sealing ceremony will take 2-4 hours. Maybe an hour at most. I would expect that brides who haven't served a mission will go through the temple for their endowments before the wedding day like they do now.  Pictures will probably go on as usual ( while the wedding party waits- sometimes hours. MIne did. We were late to our wedding breakfast.)  The choice would have to be made if the pictures will be at the temple or at the wedding venue. But that's not a crisis kind of decision. Nothing like having to exclude parents from the wedding altogether.  Why would a honeymoon have to be abbreviated? ESpecially with temples all over the world and some in prime honeymoon locations like Hawaii? 

Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see how things play out.  I married and had a luncheon for the temple guests on Thursday, went straight on a two-day honeymoon, and got back in time for the reception in Just_A_Girl’s ward on Saturday; and then about a month later we went out to my parents’ home two states over and had an open house.  I liked the slower pace; it worked for us.

Re the length of the sealing ceremony:  I can see it going for two hours between waiting for everyone to get there, the couple changing into temple clothing,  the veil ceremony, whatever sermon the sealer gives, the sealing itself, and changing clothes again.  Add half an hour or forty-five minutes for travel to and from the temple (and very often more), and that’s easily four hours out of the wedding day.  And if someone says “but, the sealing shouldn’t take that long”—well, why shouldn’t it?  It’s not as if something more important than the sealing is happening that day—is it

As for prime sealing locations during the honeymoon—Saints preserve us from “destination sealings” during the honeymoon.  I’m going to make Aunt Sally buy one airplane ticket for the wedding in Utah, then another for the sealing in Hawaii?  And if she’s going to pick one—which one does she pick, and why?  

Unless handled very carefully, the opportunities this opens up can’t help but give short shrift to the sealing ordinance. 

Share this post


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

See my post above. Just because you don't like wedding festivities doesn't make them evil. 

I’m not saying they’re evil.  I’m just saying that theologically, for those of us who know better, they aren’t weddings in the purest sense of the wordand pretending they have more significance than the actual divinely-ordained wedding ritual (and then asking the Church to play along with this bit of kabuki theater) is problematic.  

And I haven’t complained about parties/receptions at all, in principle.  The issue is when we set them up to emulate a sacred ceremony that the participants have rejected and that (at least some of) the spectators aren’t worthy to witness.

35 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I love the idea of separating the wedding from the sealing. I think it really makes the sealing stand out in ways it didn't before. And it's such a nuisance when the girl insists on wearing her buffont wedding dress to get married in the temple and the robes are awkward over the fluffy dress and things slip and slide and it can be awkward. And when she doesn't wear her dress, the crowd outside the temple has to wait an hour or more while she gets ready to come out of the temple in a dress she didn't even get married in ( but probably paid a hefty price for. It has seemed a funny, bothersome, quirky aspect of LDS wedding traditions.  Now with this new way of doing things it will take some of that silliness out of the picture. 

I agree that when we try to mix secularist wedding pageantry with the sealing rite, there is often a good portion of the ridiculous in the result.  I’m just not convinced that treating the civil ceremony as the main event and then sneaking off to the temple and rushing through that ritual as though it were some shameful shotgun wedding, is the way to go here.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

I appreciate the clarification, but I think I had the gist of it the first time.  :)  And I reiterate that it is very much the Church’s business if the recipient of an ordinance is allowing the ordinance and/or its appurtenant covenants to be eclipsed by and subsumed into some other activity or event—particularly one as extravagantly theatrical and morally hollow as modern American civil marriage.

If the Church is what it says it is, there is no aspect of my life that is none of its business.

Why would you assume the civil ceremony would be some extravagant event?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Vort said:
29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If the Church is what it says it is, there is no aspect of my life that is none of its business.

This is the bottom-line meaning of our temple covenants.

 

16 minutes ago, carlimac said:

That is true but there is no temple covenant that I can think of that prohibits having a lovely wedding party with all the frills (hopefully excluding alcohol, but if the couple doesn't drink what's at the reception), there should be no reason they can't still get sealed immediately. Those are decisions the Church shouldn't have any say in.  The church does all kinds of elaborate things, parties and such. There is no commandment against it. 

Do you see how your bolded statement above is exactly at odds with JAG's previous bolded statement, with which you and I both agreed?

Share this post


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

I appreciate the clarification, but I think I had the gist of it the first time.  :)  And I reiterate that it is very much the Church’s business if the recipient of an ordinance is allowing the ordinance and/or its appurtenant covenants to be eclipsed by and subsumed into some other activity or event—particularly one as extravagantly theatrical and morally hollow as modern American civil marriage.

If the Church is what it says it is, there is no aspect of my life that is none of its business.

Shrug. I think you still don't quite understand what I'm really saying. I understand your point, of course. But I think you're taking my "none of its business" a bit too literally. The church doesn't create policies on every choice we need to make in life. Obviously the doctrines of revelation, sacrifice, humility, etc., apply to every decision.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


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

Shrug. I think you still don't quite understand what I'm really saying. I understand your point, of course. But I think you're taking my "none of its business" a bit too literally. The church doesn't create policies on every choice we need to make in life. Obviously the doctrines of revelation, sacrifice, humility, etc., apply to every decisions.

Sure, it doesn’t.  But it could.  That's my point (and maybe I’m being overly pedantic).  

Share this post


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

I really don't feel much for family members making the day about themselves rather than the bride and groom.

THIS.

THIS on a taco.

Last year, my oldest son got married/sealed at the Temple.  I wasn't able to attend because at the time I didn't have a recommend.  Was I sad?  yes.  Did I feel left out?  Yes.  Was it about me?  NO.  It was therefore not relevant how I felt.  It was his and his wife's day.  Not mine, not anybody else's.  

Share this post


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

Sure, it doesn’t.  But it could.  That's my point (and maybe I’m being overly pedantic).  

Then your point as a counterpoint to my point fails, because I wasn't saying that it could not. I was saying that it seems apparent that they have decided to go in another policy-less direction.

Edit: On another note, I'm not even certain it should not. But what does my view on the matter matter?

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


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

 

Do you see how your bolded statement above is exactly at odds with JAG's previous bolded statement, with which you and I both agreed?

What I mean is that I don't think the Church has any need or right or intention of dictatng things like how much one spends on their wedding dress or flowers or food for the party. 

Share this post


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

What I mean is that I don't think the Church has any need or right or intention of dictatng things like how much one spends on their wedding dress or flowers or food for the party. 

[Discussion of principle of “consecration” as outlined in holy places illustrating that yes, the Church has a right to dictate pretty much anything.  —JAG]

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

THIS.

THIS on a taco.

Last year, my oldest son got married/sealed at the Temple.  I wasn't able to attend because at the time I didn't have a recommend.  Was I sad?  yes.  Did I feel left out?  Yes.  Was it about me?  NO.  It was therefore not relevant how I felt.  It was his and his wife's day.  Not mine, not anybody else's.  

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?  

Share this post


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

[Discussion of principle of “consecration” as outlined in holy places illustrating that yes, the Church has a right to dictate pretty much anything.  —JAG]

I don't believe you should be putting that in print on a forum. 

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

I don't believe you should be putting that in print on a forum. 

Is there something secret about it?

Mods, if my post is inappropriate, please nuke  it.

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