- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wow, another wonderful change. There is much to love about this more adaptive and nimble church. Quote:Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued a policy Monday morning requiring couples who marry civilly to wait one year before being married or sealed in the temple. The change means Latter-day Saint couples can look forward to a temple marriage as soon as their circumstances permit.
Effective immediately, a man and a woman who have been married civilly may be sealed in the temple anytime after they receive their temple recommends for the sealing ordinance, according to a May 6 letter
Quote:In the letter, the First Presidency asks local leaders to encourage couples, where possible, to be both married and sealed in the temple.
“Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded, a civil marriage followed by a temple sealing is authorized,” wrote the First Presidency in the letter.
The First Presidency anticipates the change “will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a man and woman,” according to the letter.
My daughter saw the announcement, shrieked with joy, and called me and my wife into the room to tell us. She then called her sisters to make sure they knew. Goose bumps. This one is huge.
I wasn’t expecting this. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Finally!!!! I am happily blown away. Now a couple can do civil, enjoy their family and friends, then have a sealing day. I am so with this.
Wonderful! Several years too late for me, but I have no regrets. This is the best change since a few weeks ago.
Seriously, though. How awesome that the Church is seeing past “because that’s the way it’s always been” and is trying to have less collateral damage with its policies.
And it’s not even conference! :clap: :clap: :clap: Still, I wish this had happened much sooner.
😥 But better late than never.My wife called me about it. When she heard my long silence and emotional noises, she broke into tears. She has seen how isolated I am from my family, and now, in my religion (over the past few years). I have extremely mixed feelings. Yes, I am glad it’s changed — hallelujah, praise God.
But Nimble?
After we got off the phone, I went through a period of intense, controlled anger at how I always knew this @#$%^ policy was unnecessary, and that it took again, threats to our way of religion for them to change it — the gay marriage wave. Not concern for the family unity of non-members like me. Again, this is further evidence that church centricity trumps doing what was best for the greatest number on many issues.
What about the argument that separate marriages “cheapen the temple ceremony”?? Are we having a sale on temple marriages now?
No, it’s about church self-interest, not the concern for harmony in non-member families. They are smart people at the top, and had to know the implication of welded together temple and civil marriages on marriages where one side is non-mem and the other is not. Yet they did nothing for decades.
OK, I got it out. Back to the forgiveness thread as this is where I need to apply forgiveness.
I don’t want my sarcasm and unhappiness to eclipse the fact that this is a positive change. It’s good for other couples. I need to explore the policy now, their reasons for it, etcetera. I notice they tend to save face with their changes wherever possible. Gospel Topic essays and disavowell of past doctrine (don’t try to convince me the priesthood ban wasn’t considered doctrine by people at the highest levels of the church, the FP in presidencies past) are buried on LDS.org in a corner somewhere. Uncontroversial, programmatic changes are mentioned in conference. Controversial but now overly damning policies are handled outside of conferencewhere they attract only medium attention.
Here is where I need to give credit where credit is due though. They DID make this change, even if for a selfish reason. There are three emotions here — thanksfulness other couple don’t have to endure what I have, severe angst about how this reversal means the past policy was not necessary, and entrenchment of my belief the church thinks about what is best for the church first and foremost.
But perhaps we are seeing a better church than in the past? One that we can trust more?
Extremely conflicted.
OK, I read it at its source (the actual bulletin)…and this is the core of it: Quote:
Where possible, leaders should encourage couples to be both married and seal in the temple. Where a licensed marriage is not permitted in the temple, or when a temple marriage would causeparents or immediate family membersto feel excluded, a civil ceremony followed by a temple sealing is authorized. We anticipate that this will provide more opportunities for families to come together in love and unity during the special time of marriage and sealing of a
man and a women. So, the main reason appears to be family unity. But only family unity at the immediate level. If the single temple ceremony will cause disharmony among grandparents, or aunts and uncles, then the policy doesn’t apply. I wish it said it was at the preference of the couple for reasons of harmony. Granted, nothing is stopping a couple from phrasing their concerns about parental or immediate familial discontent with a temple-only marriage in a way that justifies it, even when immediate family members are OK with either kind of wedding.
They do have a small reference to heterosexual marriage in bold above. I guess part of me doesn’t trust the church as being forthright in its main reason — to prevent it from having to formalize gay marriages. It would be too controversial to say that when they have a more benign reason. Whose consequences, I may add, they apparently knew all along but considered a worthy casualty.
So, I’m neutral on this one. The policy has both a positive and a negative message in it. I wish I had’ve joined the church a year from now, not 3 decades ago when all the hard stuff was treated as doctrine and fully justified by TBM’s in the face of intense suffering on the part of people disadvantaged by policy/doctrine/culture. I hyphenate all of these as it’s tough to know which is which these days. But let’s let everyone save face in the name of progress.
…. my prediction for changes in the church recently. Quote:
Re: What is there left to change?Post by SilentDawning » 31 Mar 2019, 13:49
Unbundling temple sealings from civil marriage. That is a possibility given the prevalence of gay marriage. who knows. If so, I wish it had’ve been around when I got married, and my daughter. But that’s water under the bridge. If they do go that route, it’ll “cheapen the sacrifices” people made to get married without non-mem or less active family present. It’ll show that it really wasn’t all that important after all.
Whoever made up that dumb rule (the one-year penalty)….and its weak justification is beyond my understanding
:crazy: Well SD – Conflicted or not, you got your wish. As I search online, many people are in your boat. TBM’s whose shelves are cracking big time. I don’t think your alone in your grief. The first conversations my husband and I had about it all centered around parents who didn’t/couldn’t have family with them on their day. For my generation it moved into Grandparents who couldn’t/wouldn’t come.
I truly am ecstatic about the change. I don’t care why they changed it, ultimately. I just am happy it has been changed. Having said that, the most heart-wrenching response I have read was, “I am glad this has changed, but I wish it had changed three weeks ago when I got sealed.”
That hits home hard, since I am in Utah this week for a daughter’s sealing. My second son and his wife couldn’t make the trip, but it wouldn’t have mattered last week, since they don’t have current temple recommends. It suddenly matters now, even though they can’t be here. Our youngest daughter will be here, and she won’t be able to attend the sealing. We tend to forget about the younger kids in all of this.
I am ecstatic this has changed, but I wish it had changed a few weeks ago, so my daughter could have considered a civil wedding her younger sister could have attended. Despite that, I refuse to be upset over a wonderful change.
Another wonderful change that I am fully on board with. It’s about time! :thumbup: On Own Now wrote:Seriously, though. How awesome that the Church is seeing past “because that’s the way it’s always been” and is trying to have less collateral damage with its policies.
Is this really good. I too am one of those “convert families” that I and my siblings had to exclude virtually our entire extended family from me and my siblings marriages. My grandparents/cousins/aunts/uncles have never said anything, but I sure felt they were hurt/bothered and it has put a bit of distance between us that is still there today.
I have seen some chats about this being announce was to distract from the negative press coming from the Vice episode released a few days ago that focused on how the church responds to sex abuse. Not sure, but it is a normal PR strategy to pull the limelight away from the negative.
SilentDawning wrote:
Extremely conflicted.
I feel you SD.
I had
nofamily members present at my marriage/sealing. Given the logistics and the mindset of prioritizing the temple sealing, I can’t say that it would have gone any differently had the policy not been in place when I was married. We still had to get sealed far away from where family lived. We still had a ring ceremony for family when we got back. I don’t remember being cognizant of the policy back then, meaning I bet many couples going forward will still make plans that favor marrying inside the temple, irregardless of who it leaves on the outside looking in.
I feel you.
The challenge… the policy needed to change. 20 years ago, 20 years from now, whenever it changed it was going to hurt, especially knowing there will be no formal recognition of the real pain the policy caused. The only solace is that this particular policy will now hurt less people.
That seems to be the way these things go in highly authoritarian organizations. If you want change and you’re not in a position of authority, you’re in the wrong. The change is only seen as the right thing to do once someone in a position of authority gives people permission for it to be the right thing.
LookingHard wrote:
I have seen some chats about this being announce was to distract from the negative press coming from the Vice episode released a few days ago that focused on how the church responds to sex abuse. Not sure, but it is a normal PR strategy to pull the limelight away from the negative.
I feel that’s overly cynical… even for me.
Maybe another scandal will break so they can be forced into announcing some other long anticipated change that they’re sitting on.
ahh… there, I’m back. Balance restored.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.