Is waiting a year for a Temp Marriage after civil punitive?

My eldest sister married a Methodist. I was taught in institute that marriage outside of the temple is akin to selling our birthright for a bowl of porridge. Also as a baptized member we covenant to endure to the end which includes to take upon us additional covenants when the time comes. I understood that because my sister intentionally did not enter into the temple covenant that she had violated her baptismal covenant. At the time I believed every word. It is hard for me to know how much of this came from the actual OT institute manual and how much was interpretation from the CES institute instructor. This interpretation does tend to fit with the 1 year waiting period penalty.

I remember the following song that was part of the video presentation from the class. It also seems to support the CES institute instructor’s interpretation…Lyrics available on LDS.org

Marriage for Eternity

Seminary Music: Old Testament

1. Like Rebekah, I shall forsake the rest

To marry in the covenant and meet the Lord’s request.

I’ll nurture valiant children and teach them of the plan.

That my children’s children’s children may be blessed,

May be blessed as only the righteous can.

Marriage for eternity

Blesses my posterity

As each branch of our tree turned upward unto thee,

Growing upward, forever in Thee

2. Like Isaac, I’ll follow and prepare

To marry in the covenant, eternal blessings share.

I’ll teach to all my children the power of the plan,

That their children’s children’s children may be blessed,

Will be blessed as only the righteous can.

Marriage for eternity Blesses my posterity

As each branch of out tree turned upward unto thee

Growing upward, forever, in Thee

Marriage for eternity

Blesses my posterity

As each branch of our tree turned upward unto thee,

Growing upward, forever in Thee.

Growing upward, forever in Thee.

Marriage outside of the temple can be seen as breaking the covenant. This would be true if you marry a Mormon or not.

I have also heard that in the case of getting married to an LDS person outside the temple, it was assumed that some sort of sexual misconduct had taken place (i.e. “shotgun wedding”). However if that is the case shouldn’t the Bishop that has been called as a judge in Israel be allowed to do his job and make an assessment?

Of course you are saying “in the U.S. ” as many places outside the U.S. There isn’t that restriction

It’s my understanding that the policy is only different in other countries because of the ways that the laws are structured. Im not a fan of the more militant approach but I’ve often thought it would be easier to lobby the government for a change to the laws than it would be to lobby the church for a change to the policy.

What follows is just a guess:

One ultra-ultra orthodox interpretation could follow the same sort of reasoning we apply to how we view baptisms performed by other churches. We don’t accept baptisms from other churches as valid, we view their ordinances as being in some state of apostasy. Perhaps that same line of reasoning applies to any marriage performed outside the temple? To some degree a marriage outside the temple represents an apostate ceremony therefore there is some level of sin associated with accepting an ordinance that we know to be lesser. Non members are not held to our higher standard but we are without excuse because we supposedly know better.

That’s my guess.

If the couple planned on a marriage and a sealing later that same day (or even within a short time frame spanning weeks or months) then it’s obvious to me that the couple wasn’t devaluing the importance of the temple sealing or getting married outside the temple because of worthiness issues.

Going back to the ultra-ultra orthodox interpretation. A part of me wonders whether some people consider LDS couples that married outside the temple as fornicators, despite being married. Perhaps some feel as though consummating a union that was performed in anything less than the temple constitutes some level of sin? That really doesn’t get at why there’s a problem with same day marriages where the couple remains in the public eye the whole time before they are sealed. That explanation is also problematic because the couple would be living in baby-sin for that entire year while they waited for the one year penalty to expire.

The argument wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the financial aspect. Many people are convinced that the policy has everything to do with ensuring that family members feel obligated to pay tithing.

It’s a policy that I’d love to see go away. I suspect most people would.

My experience was similar to SD’s. I was the only person in my family present at my marriage. Getting married sure did underscore the peculiar people aspect of our church, not in a good way. If we’ve got to sell the idea of including family it would be nice to point out how many part member families there are throughout the church and what an excellent opportunity a wedding would be to spread the doctrine of eternal families. That or bar people from participating. Either way. :angel:

SWK sure took the hardline approach.

Following the logic in his story it would seem that introducing a one year wait for people that are married civilly only increases one’s exposure to the danger of not being sealed from the onset. Now a couple has to survive a whole year’s worth of car rides.

And call me a sentimental goon but if they relaxed the policy I think most people would opt for a civil marriage and a sealing on the same day. Who wants to keep up with two anniversaries?

SWK said the following:

“A few years ago a young couple who lived in northern Utah came to Salt Lake City for their marriage. They did not want to bother with a temple marriage, or perhaps they did not feel worthy. At any rate, they had a civil marriage. After the marriage they got into their automobile and drove north to their home for a wedding reception. On their way home they had an accident, and when the wreckage was cleared, there was a dead man and a dead young woman. They had been married only an hour or two. Their marriage was ended. They thought they loved each other. They wanted to live together forever, but they did not live the commandments that would make that possible. So death came in and closed that career. They may have been good young people; I don’t know. But they will be angels in heaven if they are. They will not be gods and goddesses and priests and priestesses because they did not fulfill the commandments and do the things that were required at their hands.

“Sometimes we have people who say, ‘Oh, someday I will go to the temple. But I am not quite ready yet. And if I die, somebody can do the work for me in the temple.’ And that should be made very clear to all of us. The temples are for the living and for the dead only when the work could not have been done. Do you think that the Lord will be mocked and give to this young couple who ignored him, give them the blessings? The Lord said, ‘For all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.’ (D&C 132:7)” (in Conference Report, Japan Area Conference 1975, pp. 61–62).

This is a VERY confusing and offensive statement from SWK. It seems to negate the whole idea of repentance.

I’m chuckling inside. I’m a divorced excommunicated man. I have probably 3 years to go before I can be readmitted to the temple. I am lonely. I want to be married and have someone to love and who loves me. From statements like what SWK has said in other areas, if I make even a minor mistake along the way, I am in trouble–have to set the dates back.

I think this policy is stupid. But from what you posted Roy, I also think that it is easy for GAs to destroy hope in their quest to lay down the law. With the mistakes I have made, there isn’t much hope–I HAVE mocked God. I want to heal,..but does that require me living alone and being happy about it…because marriage only means something inside the temple?

I know many LDS people who have divorced. If they spend more time working on the “time” portion of the covenant, perhaps the “eternity” portion would take care of itself.

PS. SWK has taken a VERY narrow view of that D&C scripture. He is saying, in affect, that if 2 people had the opportunity to get married in the temple but didn’t before they die, its too late. Period. Pretty sad doctrine. It opens the doorway to a whole other thread: if you leave the church because you don’t believe in it, do you deserve the same condemnation for marrying outside the temple, even if you come back later? It seems to me that there is a line somewhere drawn where if you are a “worthy” member and you don’t go to the temple, you receive the greater condemnation; whereas, if you leave the church more fully, and then don’t go to the temple, but later come back for “sealings”, you are looked upon with more mercy.

The church spends an awful lot of time condemning people who are not perfect, and more time being less judgmental of those who are really out….

My bishop told me the guideline is under review, and it will likely be changed in the next year or so, and them reducing this so couples don’t need to wait a year.

My bishop told me the guideline is under review, and it will likely be changed in the next year or so, and them reducing this so couples don’t need to wait a year.

I sure as Hades hope so. I’m dreading the implications for myself when my daughter gets married in the next 3 or 4 years. She’s attractive and happening so i expect it will come sooner than later. My hope is that they will change that policy soon so it’s a non-issue with my non-member family.

Like some others have experienced, I was the only member of my family at my wedding because I am the only church member in my family. Only my wife’s mother was there because she is the only other member in her family (and I think she only paid tithing long enough for the bishop to give her a recommend). The wedding did not increase any other family member’s likelihood of joining the church – it likely decreased the likelihood. I was very orthodox at the time and did not see the damage I was doing.

I also served a mission in a country where weddings must be performed in public and temple sealings took place after the civil ceremony – sometimes a few weeks after because of the distance to the temple for some. The individuals I knew who married there were not judged for their righteousness because they married outside the temple, even if it was a few weeks before going to the temple – it was part of the church culture there. It is unfortunate the culture here has developed differently.

I hope your bishop is right Heber.