- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy’s comment about the civil wedding petition, has me reminiscing about my conversation with the Temple President at the time of my wedding. I asked why I couldn’t have a civil wedding and a sealing on the same day when my family are all non-members. He didn’t have an answer for me — I remember him saying he didn’t know why the policy was in place.
So, without beating up on the policy too much, what are the reasons for the policy? I can only think of a couple, and they don’t reflect on the Church very well:
1. To prevent worthy couples from appeasing unworthy family members with a civil wedding, and thus, removing one of the carrots for becoming temple-worthy. If you let couples have a civil wedding on the same day as a temple sealing, then the unworthy member families get to enjoy the civil wedding without making themselves temple-worthy.
2. The SMA that “the temple ceremony should be the focus of the day, and not the distractions of a civil wedding”.
Companion to this is the statement that “having a civil wedding on the same day cheapens the temple sealing”.
Are there other reasons I haven’t thought of?
Curbing elopers and byu students who feel guilty after a quick Las Vegas wedding/annulment from taking the easy road through the temple to “make it right”? I personally feel like the church is accusing the couple of immorality and imposing the 1 year repentance rule indiscriminately.
I’m aware that people do go to Las Vegas, get married, have a quickie and then get divorced aftewards. But do many really go through the temple to make it right afterwards? I see this as something only a VERY narrow segment of our Mormon population would actually do, so I question whether it’s a valid reason for the 1 year waiting period. I think we all know there is no reason other than heavy-handed encouragement to do things the one way the church considers best. Never mind that there are 7 billion different life situations on this planet. “The One Year Waiting Period” ( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1340&hilit=waiting+period#p15118 Yeah, I know – I just proved the point that “ray probably has the links”.
🙂 The best light I think I can put this in: I think they want the temple to be the focus and goal for people in the Church, with the best of intentions. Sorry, that’s my best shot. I think the policy is horribly misguided and damaging to the Church: excluding non-members and non-super-committed members from one of the most important events in family life. It creates far too many problems. I still have bad memories of dealing with this during my own wedding, which excluded 3/4 or more of my relatives and friends. We didn’t even get to do a ring ceremony or something like that afterwards. It was just one more reason for my extended family to think poorly of the Church. Hello? How do you do missionary work within your family in that context? /palmface
I re-read the thread Ray posted from a while ago. Many here suggested taking the year waiting period if the Church won’t let you get married civilly and eternally on the same day. I now agree. Here are the advantages: a) Your non-member or uncommitted Church member family can be present.
b) You get a year to see how compatible you are. If there are problems in the marriage, you have a second chance to decide if this is the person you want to hook up with for eternity — and with MUCH better information under your belt. I always felt it was too much pressure without adequate information to marry someone for eternity right from the get-go anywa — never having experienced life together.
As you know, I had some rude awakenings my first year of marriage that could have qualified for an annulment (common in the Church, I was told by a therapist). The year waiting period after civil marriage is almost like living commonlaw from an eternal perspective so you can see if it’s something you really want, if there is compatibility, and can help you make an informed decision. (Forgive me for such a crass analogy using the commonlaw scenario). Also, it sure is incentive for the couple to work out their problems — not only does the problem remain, so does the lack of a temple marriage until the problems are solved — double the motivation!!!
By the way, is the following allowed? Consider this situation — you have an endowed groom and an unendowed bride, can the bride get her endowments before the marriage, or the day after the marriage, so the two can do a session in the temple on the day or, or after their marriage? Invite all your friends and dispel the stigma? This means you still get the temple in there, get your shot of Mormonism, and everyone feels as righteous as Church policy allows. The only thing missing is the sealing, which can come later. You can still go to the temple together end have that endowment experience during the first year of marriage. Maybe even do some sealings for others together in anticipation of your own sealings?
Just curious if anyone knows if that is allowed, because we have RULES to follow you know.
I’ve read both threads about the policy and no one knows for sure why it exists. I’ve found three different statements from church spokespersons (I wonder how many spokespersons there are?) and I don’t know that they help the issue any.
Quote:“Temple worship is the highest form of religious expression for Latter-day Saints,” says Kim Farah, a church spokeswoman. “In these sacred structures, members of the church make formal commitments to God . . . including the marriage of couples for eternity.
“No other type of wedding can take its place as one of the crowning sacraments of the faith.”
“It is easy to understand how feelings of exclusion can develop, but exclusion is never intended,” says Farah, the church spokeswoman, citing the Mormons’ “deep concern for those of other faiths who cannot attend the temple marriage of a loved one.”
“The church is very aware of the issue you raise, and it has been exhaustively discussed over many years,” church spokesman Michael Otterson wrote last fall to Jean Brody, a former Mormon in Canada who is concerned about being shut out of her grandchildren’s weddings.
“This is a sensitive and difficult issue, with many complexities, not all of which are always apparent.”
Temple worship is the “highest form of religious expression for Latter-day Saints,” said church spokesman Scott Trotter. In these sacred structures, Mormons “make formal commitments to God and receive the crowning sacraments of the faith, including the marriage of couples for eternity.”
Because of its significance, only members “who have demonstrated their adherence to the tenets of the faith may enter,” Trotter said.
Exclusion is never intended, he added.
“It is the LDS church’s hope that having an understanding of the sacredness and significance of a temple marriage can help those who care about the couple share in their joy and feel appreciation for the commitment they have made to each other and to God.”
The 2006 CHI was a little more helpful…
Quote:Page 81 says that “Church leaders encourage members to qualify for temple marriage and to be married in a temple. Where temple marriage is not possible because of personal circumstances or legal requirements, leaders may perform civil marriages.”
It is assumed that barring some problem, LDS members should be married in the temple. What if they choose not to?
Page 84 answers:
“A husband and wife who were married outside a temple may be sealed after one full year from the date of the civil marriage. However, this one-year waiting period does not apply to worthy couples in the following cases:
1. The temple in which the couple will be sealed is in a country that requires a civil marriage and does not recognize a marriage in the temple.
2. The couple live in a country where there is not a temple and the laws of the country do not recognize a marriage performed outside the country.
3. An unchaperoned couples travel to a temple will require one or more overnight stops because of distance.
4. A couple could not be married in a temple because one or both had not been a member of the Church for one year at the time of their civil marriage. They may receive their endowments and be sealed any time after both have been members for at least one year.”
Number 3 partly answers a quandary for me. I had read that Mitt Romney was married and then flew out the next day for a sealing. Rather than assume that this policy originated in the last 50 years, I can now infer that Mitt lived too far away from a temple to be permitted “unchaperoned travel.”
Number 4 is also interesting. LDS man meets non-LDS woman and fall in love. Non-LDS woman is baptized. Happy couple is engaged. Should the couple wait a full year to get married in the temple? This again seems to allow for too many tempting opportunities for “unchaperoned couples.”
I have also found some comments about the ring ceremony and how special care should be taken to not dilute the significance of the sealing with a second ceremony of sorts. This same reasoning seems to be used to advocate against having a civil marriage and then waiting the year, as it would lessen the importance of the temple ceremony.
Quote:The church allows a family gathering, often called a “ring ceremony,” to be held before or after a temple wedding. Rings are not a part of a temple wedding and can be exchanged informally inside or outside a temple, Farah says, as long as vows are not exchanged, also.
According to the LDS church’s General Handbook of Instructions, “the meeting may include a prayer and special music, followed by the remarks of a priesthood leader.” It does caution, however, that a ring exchange should not turn into a second wedding or minimize the importance of the temple sealing. It cautions that “no ceremony should be performed, and no vows should be exchanged.”
Though it’s possible to have a civil ceremony and then be sealed in the temple one year later, LDS church leaders don’t recommend this course of action. President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “[For an active Mormon] There is no substitute for marrying in the temple. It is the only place under the heavens where marriage can be solemnized for eternity. Don’t cheat yourself. Don’t cheat your companion. Don’t shortchange your lives.” For some, postponing a temple marriage in favor of a civil ceremony is believed to devalue the sacred nature of the temple sealing.
My current conclusion is the same as it was before I started digging. That the waiting period for a couple that could have been married in the temple but chose not to is a period of repentance for being disobedient to the counsel of the prophet, for metaphorically selling their birthright for a mess of potage. This is the opinion that I had formed through institute attendance that included the temple prep. course twice. Though I do not now agree with it, it made perfect sense to my more literally believing self. In absence of a more definitive statement from the church explaining this policy, I believe my conclusion to be reasonable – though tentative.
Quote:My current conclusion is the same as it was before I started digging. That the waiting period for a couple that could have been married in the temple but chose not to is a period of repentance for being disobedient to the counsel of the prophet, for metaphorically selling their birthright for a mess of potage.
OUCH! I’m not sure who put that one together — I’ve never heard it before. That one really stinks in my view. If that logic is true, non-member family members are a mess of pottage, maintaining relationships that facilitate missionary work is a mess of pottage, and staying worthy to enter the temple is a mess of pottage. So is the hard work, love sacrifice and stability that a family (in or out of the Churc) provides. Pretty good mess of pottage.
Also, if a period of repentence is necessary because a civil wedding first is a sin, then it means somehow, we sanction such sinning in countries where civil marriages are mandatory. That does not follow, as the Lord does not look upon sin with the
least bitof allowance. Also, if getting married civilly is a sin, then the Church would have to shut down temple marriages in those countries where one is forced to be married civilly first for legal reasons. Also, do they also revoke your temple recommend over a civil marriage? If it really is a sin to have a civil marriage first, should they also revoke your temple recommend for such unworthiness?
I signed the petition, gave my real name and address, and called my parents and told them I did it, apologizing again for my decision decades ago. They were very thankful and appreciative and I felt cathartic afterwards. And in my family, we will be holding one family home evening that isn’t in the Church authorized family home evening book — one on the value of non-member family involvement in weddings when my kids are old enough to understand it. My kids will be able to make their own choice, but I for one will not be encouraging a temple wedding only if the process must exclude non-member family. I will also inoculate them against the stigmas attached with having a civil wedding first. Let’s hope they marry into a family of non-members or open minded saints who don’t cause strife from the get-go.
I really do think the policy is one that was reasonable when pretty much everyone who was getting married had been raised in the Church and those who weren’t getting sealed were doing so due to chastity or other “unworthiness” issues. The waiting period was a repentance period in the real sense of the word. There are so many exceptional circumstances now (meaning just “different than a norm” not “outstanding”) that I would have no problem whatsoever if the waiting period was applied strictly to “real repentance” and preparation time for new converts.
Old-Timer wrote:I really do think the policy is one that was reasonable when pretty much everyone who was getting married had been raised in the Church and those who weren’t getting sealed were doing so due to chastity or other “unworthiness” issues. The waiting period was a repentance period in the real sense of the word.
Now, THAT is reasonable.
I don’t know that it is doctrine, but from a certain point of view the mess of potage analogy could apply. The Arizona Times article that started this discussion here back in 2010 included this potion:
Quote:He worked to strengthen his testimony so he could combat his mother’s objections. He found a scripture in the Bible – “Hey, you believe this, too,” Chase told her – that he felt supported his plight.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.Matthew 10:37. Chase had it memorized.
Cheri didn’t think the scripture applied to weddings.
“I don’t believe that God is in support of separating families,” she maintained.
Underlining was added by me.Also on the comment section of a blog dealing with this very topic was the following:
Quote:I’m the only member of my family. When my husband and I were to be married in the temple, we made arrangements to have it done in San Antonio (near my family) so we could honor my family and the traditions…have a reception or something. I was told by my family not to bother because it didn’t really mean anything to them. When you are a convert and your family is opposed to your membership in the church….any excuse to feel excluded from the new convert’s life is just that…an excuse. I say keep it the same.
The way that it is done in the US is the Lord’s way. The difference in other countries is to accommodate the law of the land. Doing it any differently would detract from the meaning of the sealing and mean that we feared man more than God. Many converts lose their families because they join the church. It’s sad but true. For those of us who do, we would be willing to give up everything to do it the right way…even a wedding that our biological families could attend. Again underlining was added by me.
Please understand that I don’t mean to attack or criticize anybody. Despite repeated requests here and on other venues that I’ve seen, nobody had any idea (short of speculation) where this policy came from or what purpose it serves. I merely mean to point out that the waiting period being an implied repentance period makes some sense (from a certain point of view) and is doubtless understood as such by some percentage of LDS membership. I think it would be disingenuous for us not to consider that a certain amount of “putting the social pressures of man before the commandments of God” mentality may be at play here.
Roy, no offence is taken. We can explore this without agreeing necessarily, with no hard feelings or anything. Comment away as you wish. I respect your ideas, and who knows, you may even change my mind — you have before in positive ways. I’ve heard the “he who loves his father more than me is not worthy of me” logic, as well as the scripture in the NT or OT that says He comes to put son against daughter etcetera. What concerns me about this is:
a) The argument can be applied to anything at all. Even mistaken policies that inadvertently leave out a stakeholder group like non-member family members. I believe the non-member group was not considered when the policy was put in place. Then people cling to this scripture as justification.
b) Does gutting the wedding experience of non-members in these contexts really elevate the temple ceremony? For me, it actually smeared the experience. When I think of my temple wedding, the reaction of my family is the predominant thought. As well as what it felt like to have none of my family with me at the time. Subsequently, when my brother and sister got married, it was a touching, spiritual event with everyone there. I was reminded how no one was there to share it with me when I got married because there was no civil wedding.
c) We already elevate the ceremony above the world by excluding non-temple recommend holders from the temple. Why do we need to dig deeper and exclude them from the civil experience as well?
d) In the long run, does the temple first philosophy even matter? Is a temple marriage a year after a civil marriage somehow less powerful, less meaningful? Or a temple first marriage somehow more powerful? The net result is the same in my view, so why make the non-member family a casualty if there is no eternal impact?
e) Is pitting a person’s family against an administrative policy worth the risk is creates? This evening, I asked my wife if we would have gotten sealed within a year after our civil wedding given the sexual problem that emerged. She replied emphatically “definitely not”. I know I wouldn’t have allowed it. I definitely would not commit for eternity with all the risks of a sexless marriage handing over my head. And it took 10 years to resolve that problem. The fact that we did the temple sealing at the outset was a huge factor in our staying together. So, why introduce the risk that couples will never get sealed by imposing a waiting period if they chose a civil wedding? Why not let them have the benefits of an eternal commitment from day one, even if they have a civil marriage.
f) What about the scripture which asks us to honor our father and mother? How does excluding them from a milestone event honor our father and mother? Particularly when there is no clear or stated benefit for doing so?
Frankly, the policy epitomizes the ego-centricity I’ve seen in our Church policies. It seems that in many ways our lofty values become secondary when institutional interests are perceived to be a factor in the decision. And in this case, very weak institutional factors that don’t justify the costs of the policy.
It’s a policy – as evidenced by the difference in countries that require a civil marriage first. The problem is that too many members see it as immutable, eternal law – which is the heart of much of what we discuss here, really.
Many members see it as eternal law, but this thought also just crossed my mind: Imagine how many feelings may be hurt by the policy being modified – “My family was just excluded from my wedding three months ago and NOW it becomes okay to have a civil ceremony first?!” Admitted selfish feelings, they would be better off to be happy for those going forward.
What about the option of duplicating the vows afterward at the reception? Is that also frowned upon?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.