- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I thought of this work around for the one year waiting period for temple marriage if you get a civil wedding first. Why not do this?
****
I just had an idea. Sure they make you wait a year if you get a civil wedding. Why can’t you do this?
1. Get married in the temple with a priesthood holder officiating. This is an official wedding. File the docs with the court.
2. Then, find a non-member to marry you civilly afterwards. Two wedding ceremonies are recorded on the same day with the court records. It’s the same two people as bride and groom, so I don’t see anything illegal about it. Each officiator doesn’t have to know that the other was involved.
The rule is “if you get a civil wedding, you have to wait a year to get married in the temple”. There is no rule or policy about what happens if you get a civil wedding right after temple wedding. There is no waiting period, right? Because people assume it’s over. but it’s not over if you’re not over with it yet.
It’s something a lawyer might have to comment on. It might cause some administrative hassles with the court, but I think that might be worked out. heck you did it TWICE, so it means you are both into it — your wife and husband.
I don’t know how the church would react — I would be surprised if they would impose discipline on you for that — if they even found out about it.
What would the problem be?
I wish I’d thought of that years ago.
SD
Been there, done that. Some traditional members will complain that it takes away from the legitimacy of the temple ceremony, but I’ve heard of no real repercussions.
SilentDawning wrote:
1. Get married in the temple with a priesthood holder officiating. This is an official wedding. File the docs with the court.
Are you talking a civil ceremony in the temple? How would you set it up?
Perhaps a ring ceremony afterward would be the easiest route. It is still somewhat discouraged officially by the church but is common enough as to not be that big of a deal (especially if the bride or groom have a large percentage of non-member family).
dande48 wrote:
Been there, done that.Some traditional members will complain that it takes away from the legitimacy of the temple ceremony, but I’ve heard of no real repercussions.
I have heard this line of thinking. Even to the point where “you MUST be CLEAR in the ring ceremony that it is NOT the wedding.” But that was more of a cultural item, not something you could get ex’ed over. Every time I have seen this it was the bishop officiating, so they stuck to the script.
But what you are proposing is going way beyond that.
Doesn’t apply in my country. The wedding has to be open for witnesses or for people to come in and object (although that rarely happens) Here you have to be married civilly first, then rush to the temple.
My son was married in the temple, then they had a ring ceremony at a church where my daughter-in-law’s mother lived. I got to officiate, and lots of there friends were there. It was wonderful. I wish they would eliminate the waiting period. As Sam said, it doesn’t apply world-wide, so, doctrinally, it is expendable.
AmyJ wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
1. Get married in the temple with a priesthood holder officiating. This is an official wedding. File the docs with the court.
Are you talking a civil ceremony in the temple? How would you set it up?No, I am talking about a legally binding, civil wedding held right after the legally binding temple wedding. This allows both non-member and member families to experience the wedding in a way that is meaningful to them — without excluding either group.
This is a very interesting idea. I’m curious to hear from an attorney if a 2nd legal marriage on the same day actually means anything, or if it’s a ring ceremony from the law’s perspective. I wish I had done this. Many in my family couldn’t understand why they could not attend, and I was too oblivious at the time, as the only thing that mattered to me was I was marrying the most amazing girl in the world. I didn’t realize till years later how my grandmother really wanted to be there. The reception was nice, and I justified it that way. I don’t know if given the option I would have even considered doing a ceremony afterwards as well.
I think that’s a great idea though and would solve the issue. My old TMB thinking would have stated that it diminishes the temple ceremony, but my current mindset is if you really believe in the temple ceremony there would be no way of diminishing it by having a civil ceremony afterwards.
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
My old TMB thinking would have stated that it diminishes the temple ceremony, but my current mindset is if you really believe in the temple ceremony there would be no way of diminishing it by having a civil ceremony afterwards.
That is precisely my own thinking. What matters is that it’s sealed on earth and heaven. I would also argue that the waiting period diminishes potentially eternal family relationships (non-member family who can easily be alienated by their exclusion from the actual solemnizing of the marriage) when a civil wedding, followed by a temple wedding would do just fine to include everyone.
The idea that a civil wedding “cheapens the temple wedding” implicitly puts the church policy (not doctrine, since it’s not everywhere geographically) ahead of biological family relationships. You you could argue that the one year waiting period cheapens family relationships — the supposed heart of our own gospel.
Perhaps some day, people with decision making power will see how incredible arrogant the policy is.
Roadrunner wrote:
This is a very interesting idea. I’m curious to hear from an attorney if a 2nd legal marriage on the same day actually means anything, or if it’s a ring ceremony from the law’s perspective.
Sorry I had to reread that, I thought you meant polygamy.
Considering the fact that, in many countries, a couple must be married civilly before they can go to the temple to be sealed, and considering the fact that we are building more and more temples, giving more couples the opportunity for a temple marriage, and considering the fact that there is a growing number of part-member families (in the mission field especially), I can’t help but think that this silly rule the Church enforces in the U.S. and wherever else in the world that it can will be history within, say, ten years. Here’s what I think ought to happen. If a couple is “worthy” to go to the temple, there should be no waiting period at all. They should be able to have a civil ceremony of any kind that they want and then head directly to the temple to be sealed, be sealed the following day, or celebrate their first month of married life by being sealed on their first month anniversary. Why
punisha temple-worthy couple who chooses to get married civilly first, particularly when the choice is made with the feelings of non-member family members as the driving force? It is punishment, IMO. If I were advising a young man or woman (my own child or someone else) who was engaged to someone from a part-member family, I would actually encourage them to have a civil ceremony where all could participate and then wait the prescribed period of time (currently a year) and then be sealed in the temple. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people talk as if not actually getting married in the temple first is somehow a sin. If you’re not doing it “the Lord’s way,” then you’re actually guilty of a sin of omission.
When we talk about Adam and Eve in the Garden, we explain their conscious decision to eat the forbidden fruit by saying, “Yeah, they were commanded not to eat it, but they were also commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. They had to break one commandment in order to keep another commandment. They just needed to figure out which commandment took priority.” Well, we’re commanded to honor our parents. I don’t see it as honoring your parents by telling them that they can’t attend your wedding. So, you make a choice. You don’t keep the commandment to have your “official” marriage be performed in the temple, but you do keep the (more important, IMO) commandment to honor your parents. Then you wait a year and go to the temple. Problem solved — if you can deal with the whispers of your ward members who are convinced that the reason you didn’t opt for a temple wedding in the first place is that you have been sexually active and aren’t worthy. (That kind of thing would probably be more common in Mormon country than elsewhere.)
Katzpur wrote:
When we talk about Adam and Eve in the Garden, we explain their conscious decision to eat the forbidden fruit by saying, “Yeah, they were commanded not to eat it, but they were also commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. They had to break one commandment in order to keep another commandment. They just needed to figure out which commandment took priority.” Well, we’re commanded to honor our parents. I don’t see it as honoring your parents by telling them that they can’t attend your wedding. So, you make a choice. You don’t keep the commandment to have your “official” marriage be performed in the temple, but you do keep the (more important, IMO) commandment to honor your parents. Then you wait a year and go to the temple. Problem solved — if you can deal with the whispers of your ward members who are convinced that the reason you didn’t opt for a temple wedding in the first place is that you have been sexually active and aren’t worthy. (That kind of thing would probably be more common in Mormon country than elsewhere.)
fascinating idea. I know Old Timer has posited that it is possible that Abraham was being tested by God to see if he truly had utterly abandoned human sacrifice and that
Abraham failed this test. Perhaps then God can be testing some of us with this policy to see where our true character lies. Not that I really believe God would test us by capricious church policy – but it can be fun to look at it from another perspective.
SilentDawning wrote:
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
My old TMB thinking would have stated that it diminishes the temple ceremony, but my current mindset is if you really believe in the temple ceremony there would be no way of diminishing it by having a civil ceremony afterwards.
That is precisely my own thinking. What matters is that it’s sealed on earth and heaven. I would also argue that the waiting period diminishes potentially eternal family relationships (non-member family who can easily be alienated by their exclusion from the actual solemnizing of the marriage) when a civil wedding, followed by a temple wedding would do just fine to include everyone.
The idea that a civil wedding “cheapens the temple wedding” implicitly puts the church policy (not doctrine, since it’s not everywhere geographically) ahead of biological family relationships. You you could argue that the one year waiting period cheapens family relationships — the supposed heart of our own gospel.
Perhaps some day, people with decision making power will see how incredible arrogant the policy is.
I agree with you SD, and like LDSSM in my old more orthodox days I “toed the line” more. But now I see absolutely nothing wrong with being sealed in the temple and having a civil wedding ceremony following and I don’t see why the church cares. It’s not uncommon for people to “renew their vows” and I kind of think that’s sweet and this is no different. I don’t think this cheapens the temple ceremony, and quite honestly I don’t think the church can really do anything about it or even needs to know anything about it because it’s your personal business and the church doesn’t get to control everything in our lives. Also, it doesn’t even really have to be a legal sort of thing – many of my nieces/nephews/cousins have been married by exchanging vows without an “officiator.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.