The One Year Waiting Period

I read this article as well. It made me very sad.

My temple marriage (17 years ago) was very bittersweet. None of my siblings, cousins or friends were able to attend because the had not yet been through the temple. My grandparents whom I loved dearly could not attend because they were not members. The ceremony itself was a train wreck! The man who married us was a lifelong neighbor, my former stake president, stake patriarch and current temple president. He seemed like a good choice. Before he would marry us (and in front of everyone) he spent about 20 minutes trying to talk us out of getting married! It was awkward, uncomfortable, and down right upsetting. Finally and reluctantly he married us. It wasn’t until later I learned that that same morning he had learned that another couple he had married the week before had decided to have their marriage annulled, and he took his frustrations out on us!

I truly believe that such a special day should be shared with ALL of your loved ones, regardless of there faith. I would LOVE to see the temple open to ALL for wedding ceremonies.

My DW read it and was wondering why in some countries the church waives the one year waiting period for couples who must marry civilly.

It was my understanding that these are the countries in which it is required by law to have a civil ceremony because our temple marriages are not considered legally binding.The church therefore does not “punish” them by making them wait a year. (I heard in England you only have 24 hrs to get your fanny to the temple or wait 1 year. Not everyone has a temple nearby!) I think as long as you were “temple worthy” this would be a great policy everywhere! (I don’t think a time limit should be imposed either) I know I would have definitely been interested in having a civil ceremony if I knew I could also have a Temple ceremony soon after. The thing is… there is a stigma attached to those who get married civilly, and then have to wait a year. It is assumed that they were unworthy, and a lot of speculating about immorality. I spent my whole life preparing for a temple marriage, so I certainly did not want people thinking I wasn’t worthy.

There’s no “waiting penalty” anywhere else because all other countries require marriages to be performed in a public setting or they are not considered lawful marriage contracts. I have a feeling that more and more part-member/part-active families in the U.S. are going to become aware of this … and it will become harder and harder for the Church to come up justifications that satisfy.

I am really not saying this out of anger, perhaps a touch of my rebellious streak, but I would advise my children to get married civilly and wait out the one year (if that was even an issue). That’s my personal view. I would personally like to see more people “rebel” in that way. There honestly isn’t even some terrible theological risk in it. It’s not like people can’t be “sealed” later if somehow both spouses happened to die during that 1 year.

Others can feel to disagree. Like I said, this isn’t something I let myself get all bent out of shape over. I *totally* understand how angry it makes other people. I went through a lot of that nonsense when I got married, trying to arrange a “ring ceremony” and even that was kind of squashed, making it very uncomfortable for me and my wife with all our non-member, extended family traveling hundreds of miles to come to the wedding.

IMO, the waiting period is a good thing for people converting to the church to get taught about church things and have temple prep classes to prepare for the temple. More preparation is better than less, IMO.

There is so much to adapt to and become familiar with when joining the church, that the 1 year waiting period can be a good thing.

For those who were members their whole life, I would hope there would be preparation for the temple enough that they don’t need to be married civilly first. (that’s a big hope that I take as my responsibility as a father to prepare them for).

I hope my kids start their marriage with temple covenants and not have the mentality, “we’ll see if it is working, then take our eternal commitments”. Hopefully, they do all they can to find out if the person they are choosing is who they really want to be with for all eternity before getting married, even if I’m not sure they are old enough to think through that completely, I’m not sure it would be different in 1 year’s time anyway.

I like the idea that one is starting marriage with the long term view, and that those converting have time to prepare.

I, as a convert, (obviously? LOL) had none of my family at my temple wedding. Only my DHs. Honestly? It didn’t bother me that much. In the grand scheme of life, my wedding day and my marriage is between/about me, my husband, and God. If we could have done it with just us and the sealer, I would have. If my In-laws had offered to stand outside with my family (like in that article) I would have made sure that they did, LOL.

I was also disadvantaged by this one year waiting period policy.

My family were somewhat against the Church, but only because they were born again/evangelical and had their share of Anti-Mormon literature. But they weren’t against me personally. But when they weren’t allowed in the temple, and I didn’t allow the civil marriage, that’s when their opposition turned from the Church, to me personally. My Dad expressed just how much the decision I made to go straight to the temple ceremony broke his heart. My sister tells me that event really created a stumblingblock for my parents to get over. And of course, it sealed their belief in the Church as an unhealthy controlling interest.

I haven’t really been part of the family for years now. They talk to me when I call, but never come to visit, and are very against the Church. I hear about events that go on and I’m not advised or invited. It also breaks meyheart, although they do communicate with me on non-Church matters if I reach out.

I honestly feel the One Year Waiting Period alienates non-member families when they could be made to feel more part of the union by at least having a civil ceremony first, and then the sealing on the same day. And the reason — that the sanctity of the temple is paramount, is weak symbolism in my view for the price paid by non-member families. For me, the sanctity and primacy of the temple sealing is found in the fact that you have to have a temple recommend, only temple recommend holders can be there, and the overall experience of the temple. Also, the fact that the cermony is for eternity. The civil ceremony doesn’t hold a candle to it, so a civil ceremony in no way besmirches the sealing ceremony, in my view.

The actual exclusion of family members only puts a blemish on the day. The ring ceremony was a bit of an insult to my parents, and so we didn’t have one because they rejected the idea.

Also, the policy that you have to choose between a temple marriage now or a civil marriage followed by the waiting period later, also introduces risk that people who opt for a civil wedding to respect their parents, won’t get married in the temple at all.

Everyone knows the first year of marriage can be tough with some couples, notwithstanding the great love they may feel when married. In our case, a physical problem developed in the first year of marriage that lasted over a decade; we could’ve had our marriage annulled. But we had made an eternal commitment and stuck it out, and eventually overcame the problem. If we had’ve gone with the civil ceremony, we both believe we would’ve divorced, the problem was so great. The One Year Waiting Period introduced a bad choice option (delaying temple marriage) that may well have destroyed our relationship had we chosen it to make our non-member parents happy. And for me, it’s an unnecessary risk.

I see the policy as potentially destructive and definitely a hindrance to bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man due to a) the way it alienates non-member families from the Church who might otherwise remain friendly to the church and b) the way it introduces the risk of never going to the temple for marriage in couples who have unexpected problems that develop during the One Year Waiting Period.

I accept it on faith, but it’s one policy that really disturbs me. I hope it changes eventually……

Do you think it would help if a person wrote to Salt Lake on this issue, or would it simply be deemed apostate and generate a form letter. We don’t usually object to policies in the Church, given the stressing of obedience, so I wonder if the letter would be worth the time invested.

SD, it would take a major legal stretch to require churches to marry those they don’t want to marry. Honestly, I don’t see it happening – even though it’s the favorite bogeyman of many.

What swim said is right, imo. 😆