One Year Waiting Period Work Around

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

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.”

Last I knew (or to the best of my understanding) the Church never really has had any objections to a “ring ceremony” afterwards. Here in the U.S., though, you couldn’t really be sealed first and then follow the sealing with a civil ceremony with an officiator pronouncing the couple husband and wife, because the sealing is recognized in all 50 states as being a legal marriage. The second ceremony (i.e. a civil ceremony pretending to be legally binding) would be pointless as the couple getting married are already married. I guess the question is, “Can two people who just got legally married in the temple get legally married again an hour later?” I don’t think so. Besides, let’s say the parents of the bride were non-members. They just got excluded from the “real” wedding. Is watching a “pretend” wedding really going to lessen the hurt they’re feeling?

I can understand why non-members would be excluded from the sealing. But the timing issue has always been a thorn in my side. There’s no reason why a “temple-worthy” couple should have to wait at all to be sealed after a civil ceremony.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I guess the question is, “Can two people who just got legally married in the temple get legally married again an hour later?” I don’t think so. Besides, let’s say the parents of the bride were non-members. They just got excluded from the “real” wedding. Is watching a “pretend” wedding really going to lessen the hurt they’re feeling?

I don’t see the second one as a pretend marriage. It is a marriage like the first one. A lawyer would have to advise if any laws were broken. I doubt if precedent exists.

I know my parents and family had no interest in being in or at the temple. They would have loved to be in a ceremony with all the non-mem family on both sides there. With an officiator, vows (written together, but consistent with our beliefs)

I offered the Ring Exchange, and my parents wouldn’t accept it as an “appeasement”. But if it was a real wedding, then it would be on par with the temple one in terms of experience. What people expect to see at a wedding.

The other thing I have thought of is the one year waiting period cheapens the temple ceremony. With the exclusion of my non-mem family from the real wedding, to this day, I feel like a blight has been dragged across my own temple wedding. It’s a symbol of disenfranchising my natural family. I think a civil first and a temple wedding second would have elevated everyone.

Anyway, too late for a work around. I learned that our children have their own ideas about what can happen at a wedding, so even if the idea was viable, to convince a bride, a groom, and both sides of their family to do it would be a hard sell.

But I throw it out there as a possible work around. I’m sure that if a lot of people did it, church policy would come out prohibiting it.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

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.

Around here we’re encouraged to get married and then rush off to the temple the same day. This is very unfair, as the nearest temple is several hours journey away (one way) meaning we would have no time for a real party, and you have to book in at the temple etc. You spend most of the day travelling!

I suspect by the time it’s all said and done, the couple have little energy to consummate the marriage that night.

[Anonymous]

I guess I could have been more clear on the point, Katzpur. I’ve been to lots of non-LDS weddings in my life because Mormons are a very tiny minority where I live and almost everybody I know (including both sides of our family) are not LDS. And I’ve seen the gamut of non-LDS from very high rites ordeals to Justice of the Peace to just exchanging vows (in a church and not in a church). In all of that I have never seen the marriage license – not once. Probably just over half had some sort of “I now pronounce you man and wife” line, but many had no such statement.

The most recent wedding in the family, besides my son’s in the temple, was a niece. It was a very nice outdoor wedding held at the same places as the reception which immediately followed. The bride and groom exchanged beautiful vows they had written. The “officiator” (who was more like an MC) was a childhood friend of the groom, who did happen to be a Rabbi but did not do a Jewish service (the happy couple are actually both atheist, and the Rabbi made a joke about that). There was no pronouncing of husband and wife, no “you may kiss the bride” (they had been shacking up for a couple years anyway), etc. It was a wedding, period. A wedding can be whatever the happy couple wants it to be, the piece of paper is fairly inconsequential. I am likewise sure that the Methodist minister who lives around the corner would perform a wedding without the license if asked (and compensated, of course), license or not because that’s not what she’s concerned about. Kirby wrote a column a couple years back about performing a gay wedding with his online-obtained minister’s license.

That said, I could see the rare instance where a (probably anti) parent might insist that an LDS (temple) wedding might be invalid and insist that the marriage be performed “legally” (more likely religiously) by someone else if there’s going to be two ceremonies – but I have never encountered that. Parents might not be happy to be excluded from the temple (mine didn’t care) but otherwise I have never encountered anyone who thought temple marriages weren’t valid. FWIW, we did have a “devotional” type meeting after our wedding in our ward building.

Summary: All weddings look somewhat the same and rarely if ever display the “legal” stuff, even at the JP. A wedding, even a second one outside the temple, is a wedding as long as it looks like a wedding. It doesn’t have to license to be a wedding, especially if it’s a wedding that’s already been performed from the legal point of view.

Sam, I don’t know if this has changed or not but back in the dinosaur age when I served a mission in New Zealand, the law was the same – the wedding had to be performed in a public place where anyone could come. There was a chapel at the Hamilton temple (just called the New Zealand Temple back then) where someone could bet married by their bishop or whoever and then go immediately to the temple to be sealed. However, you could also be married in your home ward and go to the temple later. The rule in those days was 30 days. This allowed for people who lived in places like Christchurch or Invercargill (a couple day’s trip to the temple by ground/water transportation) to have a wedding with their families and still be sealed. If they somehow missed the 30 days they had to wait a year.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, SilentDawning and DarkJedi. The quotes got mixed up and I’m not quite sure who said what. I just know that I wasn’t the one who said what it appears I said, and I wanted to respond without compounding the quote problem. At any rate, somebody (other than me) said:

Quote:

I don’t see the second one as a pretend marriage. It is a marriage like the first one. A lawyer would have to advise if any laws were broken. I doubt if precedent exists.

I know my parents and family had no interest in being in or at the temple. They would have loved to be in a ceremony with all the non-mem family on both sides there. With an officiator, vows (written together, but consistent with our beliefs)

I offered the Ring Exchange, and my parents wouldn’t accept it as an “appeasement”. But if it was a real wedding, then it would be on par with the temple one in terms of experience. What people expect to see at a wedding.

Your parents probably didn’t want a ring exchange because they recognized it for what it was: an appeasement. My point is that any ceremony that follows the actual legal union of two individuals (be it a temple sealing or a five minute ceremony in the judge’s chambers) is “pretend” in that it has no legal ramifications. Here is the U.S., all of the pomp and ceremony in the world — if it follows a temple sealing — is, in the eyes of the law, nothing more than fanfare, because the couple is already legally married. So, if a ring exchange isn’t satisfactory to some of the significant individuals in the wedding party (i.e. parents specifically), then the couple might as well make the ceremony as elaborate as they want. My whole complaint is that it shouldn’t matter which comes first, the legal unifying of a couple or the sealing of that couple, and there shouldn’t be a waiting period for the sealing if the civil ceremony is conducted first.

I really don’t think there is anything at all the Church (locally or higher up) could do to prevent a couple from having a big wedding after the sealing. There could be music, flowers, a big processional, the whole nine yards. If the couple has already been sealed in the temple, the couple’s bishop and stake president might not be happy with what happened right afterwards, but it would hardly nullify the sealing or be grounds for any disciplinary action. Of course, some couples might not want to ruffle anybody’s feathers, but it’s their big day, not their bishop’s!

With respect to other countries (I’m thinking specifically of Canada), despite their being pressure for the newlyweds to rush off and immediately be sealed in the temple, even if it means a drive of several hours, the choice it ultimately the couple’s. If my husband and I had been put in that position, I hope we would have said, “Sorry. We’ll be sealed as soon as we can because it’s something that’s important to us. But this is our day, and we’re not going to spend it driving across the country.” Of course, 47 years ago, when I got married, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to be so impertinent.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

With respect to other countries (I’m thinking specifically of Canada), despite their being pressure for the newlyweds to rush off and immediately be sealed in the temple, even if it means a drive of several hours, the choice it ultimately the couple’s. If my husband and I had been put in that position, I hope we would have said, “Sorry. We’ll be sealed as soon as we can because it’s something that’s important to us. But this is our day, and we’re not going to spend it driving across the country.” Of course, 47 years ago, when I got married, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to be so impertinent.

Can you comment on what you are referring to in Canada? What is special about Canada in this situation?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Quote:

With respect to other countries (I’m thinking specifically of Canada), despite their being pressure for the newlyweds to rush off and immediately be sealed in the temple, even if it means a drive of several hours, the choice it ultimately the couple’s. If my husband and I had been put in that position, I hope we would have said, “Sorry. We’ll be sealed as soon as we can because it’s something that’s important to us. But this is our day, and we’re not going to spend it driving across the country.” Of course, 47 years ago, when I got married, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to be so impertinent.

Can you comment on what you are referring to in Canada? What is special about Canada in this situation?

Apparently, I don’t know what I’m talking about. 😳 I assumed that it was in Canada that temple weddings weren’t considered legally binding and that it was in Canada where couples were encouraged to rush to the temple right after a civil ceremony. It was SamBee’s comment I was referring to and I evidently made a foolish assumption as to where he lives. Sorry!

[Anonymous]

I keep quiet about where I live on this board for anonymity, but no, it isn’t Canada. It *is* similar here though… the idea you get the civil wedding then the temple wedding as soon as transport allows. I really think it must damp the passion down as well as getting the couple angry at each other, because they’re tired and frustrated by the end of it!

So I’m not in Canada but it is exactly as described.

In France, all legal weddings must be conducted by the state I’m told. Everyone goes and sees the local state official in addition to church. In my country, on the other hand you can be wed in an LDS chapel by a bishop, just not in the temple and you don’t need the state to conduct it, juat okay the paperwork.

[Anonymous]

Katzpur wrote:

My whole complaint is that it shouldn’t matter which comes first, the legal unifying of a couple or the sealing of that couple, and there shouldn’t be a waiting period for the sealing if the civil ceremony is conducted first.

This. As far as I can tell, the year wait is purely punitive, and strikes me as extremely petty. After all, if the couple is committing to eternity, making them prove it’ll last a year is just petty, especially given the number of people I’ve met who divorced within a couple years of being sealed. (And a fair number of them weren’t 18-21 year old kids, but adults in their 30s and beyond, often in a second or even third marriage, so the claims of youthful inexperience don’t hold water.)

[Anonymous]

The wait period was instituted when almost everyone in the area (Utah) was LDS, so members not getting married in the temple generally either had sexual sin issues that kept it from happening or simply weren’t interested at the time of their marriage. The wait period was meant to ensure that they had repented fully and/or were serious about it.

I don’t have a huge problem with it back in the beginning, but times have changed enough that the policy should change, as well – especially since it doesn’t apply in multiple countries. It obviously isn’t eternal doctrine but simple policy.

[Anonymous]

I always had the impression that this policy was to prevent/punish people for “trifling” with sacred things. That the temple ceremony should be the big event and to turn it into an afterthought just felt wrong to many in leadership. As we have discussed the push for members in other countries to get sealed on the same day or ASAP from their wedding day, I believe that the sentiment of not wanting to trifle with sacred things and make the temple sealing the main event is fairly consistent even if the specifics are different due to local laws.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I always had the impression that this policy was to prevent/punish people for “trifling” with sacred things. That the temple ceremony should be the big event and to turn it into an afterthought just felt wrong to many in leadership. As we have discussed the push for members in other countries to get sealed on the same day or ASAP from their wedding day, I believe that the sentiment of not wanting to trifle with sacred things and make the temple sealing the main event is fairly consistent even if the specifics are different due to local laws.

Maybe. What I think is they didn’t like the fact that members without temple recommends got a decent experience seeing their loved ones married. It cheapened the influence of the churchto encourage endowed members to get a temple recommend again. Not in a malicious way, but in a well-meaning way.

As I’ve gotten less committed, I regret how I left the church cheapen my biological family relationships, and their overall perception of the church. No way they would join or embrace the gospel after that policy, they didn’t understand.

Anyway, I’ve debated this here before on StayLDS so no need to rehash. My comment was about a possible work around — get married in the temple and have a second marriage right after civilly that is also legally binding.

There are some logistical problems with it. TBM’s will likely tattle to their priesthood leaders – maybe even your own family members if they are members might do it. And then you never get out of the starting gate with it because you get hauled in by the priesthood leaders, who would no doubt try to revoke your TR. Plus, it’s so unorthodox, people not invited could find out about it, and if TBM, could report it to priesthood leaders. So I don’t see it as feasible.

If this was a sword I was going to die on, and felt it was worth the effort, I’d be petitioning law makers to outlaw anything but a civil marriage as legally binding in America. This would put us on the same par as Britain, without having to travel there. If this is a state law, then the place to start would be in these more socialist states like New York or California. Everyone could travel there with less expense than say, Britain.

[Author]

Posts