Choosing civil marriage when temple marriage IS an option?

[Anonymous]

Ok, I am taking the advice of Katzpur here and starting a new thread with a topic that came out of a previous post (see: Still here…. barely). I am actually very interested in what everyone’s opinions are here regarding the exclusiveness of the temple, particularly when it comes to keeping family members out of sealings. I recently read a great article by Todd Compton from the March 1999 issue of Sunstone, entitled “Thoughts on the Possibility of an Open Temple”. If I wasn’t so inept with the computer I could figure out a way to post a link for it, but those of you who are interested can probably track it down on Compton’s own website. Or, maybe someone here who isn’t as technically challenged as me could post the link in a response?

Anyway, this is a big issue for me, and of course my non-member parents. It seems I am certainly not alone in carrying huge amounts of regret and painful memories when it comes to dealing with the fact that I kept my parents out of my wedding… I have read countless similar stories on other websites, many written by non-members who harbour much ill-will towards the church specifically because of this rule and how it has affected their families.

What do you think about the idea of the temple being open to non-members for attending family members’ weddings? Do any of you see it as a possibility in the future of the church? Do any of you find (as I have) that members who choose to marry civilly instead of in the temple are automatically viewed by others as having made that decision because of their unworthiness? Is this a stigma the church (perhaps without meaning to) perpetuates by placing such great importance on getting married in the temple first, even if it is at the cost of the heartache of loved ones? What do you think the chances are that the church might lift its “wait one year rule” for people who choose to get married in a church first so that their family can attend?

Here is the end of the original thread… as you can see it is an emotional topic for me:

Quote:

1topen wrote:

Quote:

It doesn’t sound like your daughters wish to get married somewhere her grandparents can attend has anything to do with your own issues. Most likely it is just down to her love for her grandparents and a desire for fairness.

Asha wrote:

Quote:

Actually, I think it has everything to do with me. My daughter has long been curious why I do not attend the temple, and why I stopped renewing my temple rec a few years ago. I answered her honestly that I felt unhappy every time I went to the temple because it brought back painful memories of my wedding. I also completely disagree with the rules surrounding who can and can’t attend temple sealings. I will no longer attend the temple until they change those rules. We live in Canada, but the rules here are basically the same as in the U.S. I am the only member in my family, so my parents were unable to attend the wedding of their only daughter. They were so hurt they didn’t even come to Toronto, and I can’t say that I blame them. We DID have a big reception a couple of weeks after the temple ceremony in a chapel in Montreal (where I was living as a student at the time), and about 300 hundred people from my parents’ family came to that. We tried to make it like a wedding for them, but our bishop was a real stickler for rules and read us a whole list of what we could and couldn’t do with regards to a “ring ceremony” following a temple sealing. Basically the rules are designed to make the ceremony seem nothing like a wedding so as to not detract from the temple wedding, i.e. no walking the bride down the aisle by her father, no vows in the traditional sense, bride and groom must enter together as husband and wife, etc.

The result was a total mess, and relatives sat in the chapel totally confused as to what they were witnessing. I still get a pit in my stomach when I think about how much I hurt my dear parents with that whole fiasco.

1topen wrote:

Quote:

One more thing,I know this is a bit of a thread jack… In the Uk we all get married at church, big ceremony followed by reception full of nonmembers.

We then ( has to be the same day or else wait one year) drive down to the temple with a small group of temple worthy friends and family to get sealed. It is very down played a nice spiritual end to a great day.

I understand that legally the Uk and EU does not recognize temple marriages as binding so the church has no choice, but they certainly don’t seem to have a big problem with this allowing full on chapel weddings prior to the sealing on the same day. I hear so many people get upset about the situation in the U.S, surely this is one area that the church could change its strict ruling on since it does so in Europe?.

Asha wrote:

Quote:

Would that this were so! Oh what a difference that would have me to me and my family.

My temple experience would have likely been so different and my parents would have been far more accepting of the church if this had been an option in Canada. Instead, the only option is to wait a year if you are married outside of the temple. The worst part of that is that when my parents found out about that option, they were even MORE hurt because they couldn’t understand why we wouldn’t wait a year for the temple sealing in order to have a traditional church wedding that all my family could attend. In their eyes we were being very selfish. This is where church culture comes into the equation: when couples get married in the church and wait a year to get sealed in the temple it is immediately implied that there are issues of worthiness involved. To my inlaws this wasn’t even an option to consider because it “wouldn’t look good”. They actually laughed off the whole idea when I brought it up. I have found that many hard-core members of the church are very concerned with appearances when it comes to temple worthiness. For example, if my daughter was totally worthy but chose to marry outside of the temple, people would conclude it was because of one of two reasons: she is marrying someone unworthy/nonmember, or she herself is unworthy. Nowadays of course I could care less what my inlaws think (I think the temple wedding also permanently damaged my relationship with them) but back then I was a naive 22-year-old who had only been a member of the church for 1 year. In my mind this was the only way I could marry the man that I loved.

Anyway, I am clearly carrying A LOT of baggage where the temple is concerned, so it is inevitable that some of it would have rubbed off on my kids. Many members of the church who do not have nonmember family have no clue what a big deal this can be. My best friend is from pioneer stock on both sides, and she said she never gave the issue a second thought. I am guessing that is why church headquarters does not think it is something that needs to be addressed. I for one am one of those people who just doesn’t see the need for exclusiveness when it comes to the temple. There is no need for secrecy (you can google the entire ceremony if you are a curious nonmember), and I don’t see how ostracizing nonmember parents from attending the wedding of member children is preserving the “sacredness” of the temple. If someone is unworthy to attend the temple and decides they are going anyway, it is not very hard for them to get in – I have seen it happen many times. If letting an unworthy person enter the temple was going to desecrate it in some way, then that would have happened years ago. I think the rules surrounding temple marriage in Canada and the U.S. create divisiveness and pain in nonmember families, which is exactly the opposite of what a wedding is supposed to do.

There is nothing remotely spiritual about that for me.

(end of rant)

[Anonymous]

Hi Asha,

I am not sure that the church will change its policy on who is allowed inside the temple. I am hopeful that they will soften their position and allow, even encourage, same day civil weddings that include everyone. This would truly be a blessing.

DH and I were not married in the temple. We had a civil wedding and then were sealed a little over a year later. DH had not been a member for a year, so we couldn’t go to the temple, but even if we could have, it was not what I wanted. I had always wanted a civil wedding. I wanted to walk down the aisle,etc. So, that is what we did.

Looking back, I am so glad that we did not get married in the temple. I think that if we had gone to the temple, excluding DH’s family and friends, that DH could have become bitter about it during his disaffection. Instead, we share the same beautiful memory of our wedding day. I remember seeing DH waiting for me, with tears in his eyes, as my father walked me down the aisle. Every memory of that day is sweet and so tender to both of us.

Civil weddings are not for everyone. Some couples are perfectly served with a temple wedding. But for those with the need or desire for a civil service, accommodations should be made.

Asha, have you considered renewing your vows with a civil service? Many people of all faiths are doing this more and more.

[Anonymous]

Hi Asha

Technical stuff first:

1. here is the link : https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_backissues&task=contents&issue=113

however there is a trick to it and you shouldn’t feel too bad about it. The ONLY way to read the article is to download it as a PDF file so it is actually not possible to link to it directly like you could if it were a in an online archive. So once a person clicks on the link up above they are looking at the table of contents of issue 113 and need to scroll down to find the article and click on the download PDF button to get the article.

2. In any case where the page is actually on the internet and you can see the page in your browser do the following: a) have on your screen the blog or message board where you want to insert the link; b) start up another version of the browser or click on a tab to get another version and then hop to the page you want to reference; c)highlight all of the text up above in the address bar (it is right below the blue line at the top of the screen; d) hold down the Ctrl key and then press the C key which copies the address; e) hop back to the page where you want to insert it; f)hold down the Ctrl Key and press the V key which pastes the address into place

Now, as to an open temple I guess I have simply been lucky to live out in the boondocks for all of my life. My own marriage was the full deal, wife coming down the isle (very beautiful by the way and still is) , exchanging rings etc. etc. and the Bishop doing the civil ceremony. We hopped into the car and drove like mad chipmunks to Cardston Alberta and got married there in the temple the next day. Now admittedly this was a long time ago shortly after the glaciers melted (we’ve been married 40 years) so I am not sure if it is still possilbe even here in my ward right now. However it is not uncommon for a couple to get married, do all the stuff, and not face any gossip about worthiness, generally it is just a family choice and that isn’t a problem.

I think we might have to face the fact that the Church walks a fine balance line of maintaining a certain amount of “tension” between the Church and the main culture. There is a need to be “different” and I suspect that access to the temple will stay high on the list of ways that Mormons are different and “apart” from the world.

However I think that Bishops should be trained to encourage, allow, discuss and help to carry out civil marriages first in cases where a significant number of the family members of the marrying couple cannot attend the temple. Like our general williness to hold funerals for all comers (here in my home town for example if a family wants a Church funeral for a child or family member who has committed suicide we are frequently the only friendly choice) an encouragement of civil weddings is just one more poetentially very effective missionary tool. Young couples should be counselled to take into account the feelings of non-member parents and family and look at the eternal view point, the celestial view point of wanting to insure that your family has the best opportunity to accept the gospel.

I agree with you that 1topen’s situation was horrible, very painful and still painful for all of us as we consider it, so sad.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Bill… I really appreciate you attaching the link. Still not sure if I could do it myself. 😳

Actually it was not 1topen that had the negative temple wedding experience it was me… I have edited the post so that it is clearer who is being quoted as it did appear as though it was 1topen who was saying everything, when they were just quoting me and responding to my original post.

Bill Atkinson wrote:

think we might have to face the fact that the Church walks a fine balance line of maintaining a certain amount of “tension” between the Church and the main culture. There is a need to be “different” and I suspect that access to the temple will stay high on the list of ways that Mormons are different and “apart” from the world.

This is what bothers me so much about the church and often makes me question raising my kids in the church. Why is it always “us against the world”? Most of the people I love the most are “in the world”. I just find it so divisive.

As far as how civil marriages are perceived, I guess I am very curious if this is something that varies from stake to stake or geographical area. As I mentioned in my original post, my TBM inlaws to be just shook their heads and laughed at the mere mention of a civil marriage before a temple marriage to their darling golden boy, and yet they knew I was the only daughter of an entirely non-member family. My dear parents thought the church was kid of loopy when I joined… but it really wasn’t until I got married in the temple that they showed outright bitterness and resentment towards the church, and really, can you blame them?

I live in a completely different ward, stake, and even province now, and yet I can say that the perception of civil marriage before temple marriage is still the same. It is only viewed as honourable if the person is recently baptized, or perhaps if the marriage is taking place in order for a baptism to take place. If there is not a clear explanation like that, then it is always perceived as a worthiness issue.

I wonder too… even though my daughter is a bit unorthodox when it comes to the church, she has said that when the day comes, she would still rather marry a member and raise her children in the church… I somehow doubt there are very many RMs out there that would go along with forgoing the temple marriage for a civil one just so gramma can attend. This is in part why I secretly hope that my kids marry non-members. 😈

Am I looking at things with a regional bias? Are the perceptions I am mentioning different in other places? I mean in Canada and the U.S. of course; obviously in countries where you must marry civilly first the perceptions would be completely different. Hmmm, maybe I just need to move to the U.K.

[Anonymous]

asha wrote:

…obviously in countries where you must marry civilly first the perceptions would be completely different. Hmmm, maybe I just need to move to the U.K.

Yes, it’s interesting how other countries seem to be at an advantage in this regard. Personally, I’m of the opinion that this ‘playing field’ may become more level in the future. How or when I have no clue.

[Anonymous]

I wish everywhere followed the European model. There shouldn’t have to be the existing tension. All of us should be able to marry civilly first, then be sealed in the temple later that same day. I’d prefer a week, but I would take the same day.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Asha that I got it mixed up, the feeling of support and sadness is still there nevertheless. I think what we can see from Ray’s comments and the situation in other countries is that the “civil marriage” issue is NOT so much a church policy as it is a community expectation (now I admit that I have never seen the inside of the Bishop’s handbook and there might be something in there BUT there is certainly NOTHING in the scriptures to restrict the practice. So as I said in comment up above I think the solution is a better Bishop’s handbook where they are instructed to pay particular attention when someone has a large number of non-member family and in fact be directed to encourage the couple to have a civil marriage first.

I am suspecting that the power of the “peer pressure” for a temple marriage (and keep in mind that this is exactly what it is, peer pressure just like you had to survive in high school and often with much the same snideness behind it) depends on the number of members in the area. If you live in a city with several stakes and you are reasonably close to a temple the pressure will be high, if you live in the one small ward/branch in a small town/city something on the order of a days travel or more to the temple it won’t be a problem at all.

Personally I am very glad I was able to have a civil marriage as I was and still am for that matter the only member from my entire clan that is a member and they don’t think, they know I am loopy. But the wedding was a good time and really the only time that the families got together and enjoyed each other’s company.

[Anonymous]

A couple thoughts:

Ironically (or not), gay marriage will eventually make the church adopt a world-wide policy of civil marriage first, then temple sealing. May not be for 10+ years but it’ll happen.

As for an underlying issue, I see the exclusionary concept of the temple being a part of the larger issue of judgmental bias in the culture. There is a very strong “achievement” sensibility in the church culture. It’s not an accident that members of the church have over-achieved in all walks of life on a per capita basis. Mormon’s are over-represented in many fields of finance, medicine, politics, academics, etc.

This “achievement” culture comes at a price. It’s dominant motivator seems to be image, with a large dose of “proving that I’m a chosen people”, so the flip side is also true; judgmental bias around image-conscious activity. Iow, not only do we need to over-achieve, we need to demonstrate that we’ve over-achieved. And, I think this is an unconscious outcome, but the over-achievers weed out the under-achievers in exclusionary ways. Sorry to make this so clinical and negative but, from my perspective, this is what happens. And, like I said, I don’t think it’s a conscious choice, at least for most. It’s just the culture.

This actually happened in a different setting to me a couple days ago. I play volleyball with some mormon moms who are all really good, hard-core volleyball players. I try to keep up and because I’ve played alot in my early sand volleyball days, I can basically keep up. Well, another male joined us unwittingly, invited by one of the moms. He was obviously just a casual participant, and, after the first game, just disappeared. No one said anything to him, he just left.

Now, if the group were inclusive, they would have rallied around him to help him, give pointers, take the time to demonstrate some tips, generally just make him feel like there’s a place for him. No one did this. He self-excluded but…. no one stopped him either. Now, I’m not making judgment on the mormon moms or on the guy. They all took care of themselves in the way they wanted to. More power to them. No harm, no foul.

But, when it comes to a much more sensitive topic, like the gospel, there are fractious elements that can be distressing. Certainly, they don’t have to be, but, invariably, they are.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

As for an underlying issue, I see the exclusionary concept of the temple being a part of the larger issue of judgmental bias in the culture. There is a very strong “achievement” sensibility in the church culture. It’s not an accident that members of the church have over-achieved in all walks of life on a per capita basis. Mormon’s are over-represented in many fields of finance, medicine, politics, academics, etc.

This “achievement” culture comes at a price. It’s dominant motivator seems to be image, with a large dose of “proving that I’m a chosen people”, so the flip side is also true; judgmental bias around image-conscious activity. Iow, not only do we need to over-achieve, we need to demonstrate that we’ve over-achieved. And, I think this is an unconscious outcome, but the over-achievers weed out the under-achievers in exclusionary ways. Sorry to make this so clinical and negative but, from my perspective, this is what happens. And, like I said, I don’t think it’s a conscious choice, at least for most. It’s just the culture.

Yes, Swim, I agree completely with you.

Bill Atkinson wrote:

I think the solution is a better Bishop’s handbook where they are instructed to pay particular attention when someone has a large number of non-member family and in fact be directed to encourage the couple to have a civil marriage first.

Unless things have changed A LOT in the 15 years since I got married, a bishop would NEVER counsel a temple-worthy couple to get married in a civil marriage first. Distance wasn’t even made an issue though we didn’t live close to a temple: the closest temple was over 6 hours away, and my husband’s member family friends drove over 17 hours from the maritimes to be there. The bishop/inlaws/other members made it very clear to me that there was NOTHING more important than marrying in the temple, nothing; our goal should be to be married in the temple regardless of who could or could not be there, and everything else was secondary in importance. I remember the force of this attitude like it was yesterday, because it was what made a shy, wide-eyed, 22-year-old bride keep her mouth shut and assume there was no other way. In their eyes there was no other way.

I would love to see the day when a bishop would think of the needs of non-member families in a compassionate and inclusive way when counseling couples about marriage, but I don’t think we are anywhere near that today. It is still temple, temple, temple first and foremost, and you do whatever it takes to make sure that you marry there, even if it means leaving your own parents outside. I suppose it can be justified with the comforting thought that we’re doing the right thing because we belong to the one true church. 🙄

I would like to see the same thing as Ray, namely a change to the rules to bring them more in line with the U.K. However, I am not optimistic that it will happen. The only reason why the rules are different in the U.K. is because they don’t recognize the temple sealing as a legal marriage ceremony, therefore requiring a civil marriage first. If the temple ceremony was viewed as valid there, I am sure the rules would be the same as in Canada and the U.S. Clearly the needs/feelings of part-member families are never brought into the equation. I just really don’t think it is viewed as a priority, mainly as I mentioned before because it is not an issue to most members who comes from member families on both sides. However, as the church expands throughout the world, this is an issue that is going to continue to affect more and more part-member families, and cause more and more heartache and pain.

swimordie wrote:

Ironically (or not), gay marriage will eventually make the church adopt a world-wide policy of civil marriage first, then temple sealing. May not be for 10+ years but it’ll happen.

I hadn’t really considered this, and IMO it would be way more than 10 years away. Could you elaborate/speculate further on what you think the future holds on this issue?

[Anonymous]

I think I mentioned this some time ago, but I live on a circle where two neighbors are sons of GAs; one has told me that the church leaders are well aware of the problem of excluding family members from weddings…and are working on a solution. With more split families, it is certainly seen as divisive to not allow family to attend such a special ceremony. Whether that means having a sort of observation area, or changing the policy regarding “sealing” vs. wedding, I think is up in the air. But I also welcome a change that is more accepting and respectful of different family beliefs, but keeping the sacredness of a temple sealing for those that believe in the importance of the ordinance.

[Anonymous]

This is kind of off the subject but when my nephew returned from his mission his dad who is a non member and his mom a member went to the airport individually to see him. His dad wanted to take him to the restaurant we were going to. He couldn’t (because he wasn’t a member) until after he was released. This is also kind of crazy. I was so embarassed for the church and sad for his Dad. I don’t think he was really happy about that. I had no idea this was a rule until this happened. This was just a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

asha wrote:

swimordie wrote:Ironically (or not), gay marriage will eventually make the church adopt a world-wide policy of civil marriage first, then temple sealing. May not be for 10+ years but it’ll happen.

I hadn’t really considered this, and IMO it would be way more than 10 years away. Could you elaborate/speculate further on what you think the future holds on this issue?

I see that the obvious long term solution to the gay marriage issue as being the separation of “civil unions” and “marriage”. Civil unions will be the legally recognized term while “marriage” will be the term used for strictly religious purposes.

The reason is just legalese. The term “marriage” appears in about one thousand federal statutes, everything from insurance rules to IRS rules to domestic abuse laws, etc. (this is why the recent state constitution amendments will ultimately be struck down by the supreme court, because of the word “marriage”) The path of least resistance, is to change the word “marriage” to “civil union” which would mean that any couple who wants to “marry” will have to have a “civil union” first, by law, and then they can have religious marriage ceremonies, if so desired.

This is actually how it’s done in about 30 different countries that recognize same-sex unions (including Canada). And, of course, most Western countries don’t recognize religious marriage ceremonies as legally binding. Hence, what others have said about the U.K., for example.

So, I see that in the future, all couples will have to have a legally binding civil union, granted by the state, and then have a religious marriage ceremony. Hope that answers your question.

[Author]

Posts