The One Year Waiting Period — Unrighteous Dominion?

[Anonymous]

We did our wedding similarly, Curtis. I am the only member in my family and my wife has only one relative member. We both come from large families. We married in the temple on Tuesday, had a short honeymoon, and on Saturday had a ring ceremony followed by a reception. We did talk about the temple sealing at the ceremony, but for the most part the ceremony was the “wedding” in the eyes of or non-member family and friends because that’s what they were a part of. We actually had two parts to our reception, a more traditional dinner for family, wedding party (two bridesmaids and two ushers), and close friends and an open house following to which any and all were welcome to come. Again, I agree that the current policy is probably a bad one and everyone could be allowed to do it the way it’s done in New Zealand, but short of that I think we had the next best thing. Thanks for pointing out the wording in the handbook – unfortunately, it would probably be hard to convince a bishop or SP of anything other than the way it’s been traditionally done. I suppose you could always “secretly” marry civilly beforehand without the church being aware.

[Anonymous]

Oh, how I wish this policy would go away. There’s a website called familyfirstweddings.com (it may be an activist site, so I didn’t link it) with the goal of getting the policy changed. The scenarios they list are compelling:

Quote:

Scenario 1: A man marries a woman who already has three children from a previous marriage, ages 20, 17 and 15. When the children are sealed to this man, they are all in attendance in the temple. Two months later, the 20-year-old daughter is sealed to her husband in the temple, but unfortunately the 17- and 15-year-old siblings will have to wait outside.

Solution: The daughter could have the option of having a civil ceremony where all of her family could be in attendance.

Scenario 2: A 19-year-old girl is going to be married in the temple. Her twin sister will not be allowed to attend the sealing because she is not yet endowed.

Solution: The sister could have the option of having a civil ceremony where all of her family could be in attendance.

Scenario 3: A temple-worthy couple decides to have a civil marriage to include all of their family (many non-members on both sides). Because of their civil union, they have to wait one year before they are allowed to be sealed to each other. However, this does not invalidate their temple recommends so they may attend the temple and perform all temple ordinances including marriage sealings for the dead, but may not receive this ordinance for themselves.

Solution: Dissolve the one-year-wait policy.

Now I’ll address the question of unrighteous dominion. The church has dominion over temple weddings/sealings – they have control or authority over them. If the policy in question has no revelatory basis and there is no compelling need for it, or if it is unrighteous in any way, then I suppose unrighteous dominion is being exercised. I don’t think there is a compelling need for it, but I don’t know whether it has a revelatory basis or not.

[Anonymous]

Curtis wrote:

My second son is getting married in March. His finance’s family is not LDS, and her mother, especially, is close to being anti-Mormon. They attend a college in the Midwest where, right now, they are the only Mormons on campus – meaning almost ALL of their closest friends also are not LDS. Thus, they are getting sealed and then, two days later, they are having a ring ceremony for her family and their non-LDS friends. They aren’t asking permission to do it, since there is no LDS involvement in the ring ceremony. There is no Bishop presiding. It is completely irrelevant to their sealing and to those who can attend the sealing. It’s like a 25th anniversary re-commitment ceremony that just happens to take place two days after their sealing.

The issue in this case is that many local leaders would have told them they shouldn’t or even couldn’t have such a ceremony – and that is a real issue. However, it illustrates a huge difference between what I read as the intent and focus of the handbook wording (“Eh, we’ll get sealed at some point.”) and my son’s situation (“We are going to arrange things so that everyone can be as happy as possible.”). Again, I think we ought to remove all issues in this regard and let everyone marry civilly and then get sealed ASAP, but I get it that the current policy was intended to discourage a cavalier, we-will-get-to-it-whenever-we-feel-like-it mentality.

Thus, I just don’t see it as founded in or constituting unrighteous dominion.

I hope that more and more people will just do what makes sense to them.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I don’t think it was instituted as a motivation to try to force temple marriage rather than civil marriage. I think it was instituted as a “repentance period” for members back in the day who had to get married civilly due to pregnancy (which, frankly, was the vast majority of cases with most members who couldn’t get sealed right away) and as a way to make sure new converts understood enough to make the commitments in the temple.

While this may be the case within Utah among families that are predominantly LDS, it is absolutely not the case for those who alienate non-LDS family members by excluding them from the ceremony.

Curtis, I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You don’t want to consider this policy unrighteous dominion, but you endorse flouting the “no ring ceremony” statements the church has made [Bishop’s Handbook 1]. They do discourage ring ceremonies that are done for the benefit of non-LDS family members because they want the focus to be on the secret / sacred sealing ceremony, and if people want to see the wedding, they have to join the church and pay tithing and pass the TR questions. This is coercion, whether they believe it’s for a good reason or not. For many members, particularly converts, it is the nail in the coffin of family support. It’s a Utah-centric policy that hurts missionary work with some of the most nearly ready people out there – the families of converts, who stand to be continually influenced by their converted family member as they see that person grow within the church. And yet we deliberately and perhaps unthinkingly spoil the pot over a principle that we made up. I call that a bad policy. You obviously agree it is because you are doing the ring ceremony on the down low. You shouldn’t have to do it on the down low. You should be able to do it openly with ward members and family alike.

This is interesting, from 2005: http://www.lds.org/ensign/print/2005/02/questions-and-answers?lang=eng&clang=eng. You can tell the “party line” answer from the way these Q&As are framed. They clearly don’t want you to do anything that “competes” with the sealing or will seem equivalent to others. This is why they targeted ring ceremonies.

[Anonymous]

This ones easy. For me the logical course of questions leads to the answer of if any law is.

Laws are(or at least should be made to protect people). In the event that a law hurts someone physically or emotionally and it can’t be shown or proven who is hurt then the law becomes null and void and the person enforcing is bearing unrighteousness dominion(using authority to uphold a role or law regardless of the indivisible circumstance. There is no such thing as a law that comes before the person or people since the only reason to justify the laws existence is for that reason be it the earth, person or creature.

So going through this logic, it both is and isn’t. Intent doesn’t matter per say, only upholding a law that is actually hurting in a individual situation the law must be cast aside or the person enforcing it weather his job or not is bearing unrighteousness dominion(or just being a realty really bad person).

When I obey laws it is always with the question of who it is protecting or hurting and obey it disobey according not to the law but each individual situation, either in the rules of government, society or church. The logic and it’s reason for being in existence in the first place is to help not hurt… If it is doing the latter then the law is rendered pointless or without meaning.

[Anonymous]

Hawkgrrrl, I just don’t see every bad policy as unrighteousness dominion, according to the D&C definition. If I had to define the term based strictly on the definitions of the two words in a standard dictionary (“any rule that is not right with God”), I would say the waiting period is unrighteousness dominion – but doing that means the definition, at the practical level, means nothing more than “a rule with which I disagree”. I just don’t want to define the phrase that broadly.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

I don’t think it was instituted as a motivation to try to force temple marriage rather than civil marriage. I think it was instituted as a “repentance period” for members back in the day who had to get married civilly due to pregnancy (which, frankly, was the vast majority of cases with most members who couldn’t get sealed right away) and as a way to make sure new converts understood enough to make the commitments in the temple.

While this may be the case within Utah among families that are predominantly LDS, it is absolutely not the case for those who alienate non-LDS family members by excluding them from the ceremony.

Curtis, I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You don’t want to consider this policy unrighteous dominion, but you endorse flouting the “no ring ceremony” statements the church has made [Bishop’s Handbook 1]. They do discourage ring ceremonies that are done for the benefit of non-LDS family members because they want the focus to be on the secret / sacred sealing ceremony, and if people want to see the wedding, they have to join the church and pay tithing and pass the TR questions. This is coercion, whether they believe it’s for a good reason or not. For many members, particularly converts, it is the nail in the coffin of family support. It’s a Utah-centric policy that hurts missionary work with some of the most nearly ready people out there – the families of converts, who stand to be continually influenced by their converted family member as they see that person grow within the church. And yet we deliberately and perhaps unthinkingly spoil the pot over a principle that we made up. I call that a bad policy. You obviously agree it is because you are doing the ring ceremony on the down low. You shouldn’t have to do it on the down low. You should be able to do it openly with ward members and family alike.

This is interesting, from 2005: http://www.lds.org/ensign/print/2005/02/questions-and-answers?lang=eng&clang=eng. You can tell the “party line” answer from the way these Q&As are framed. They clearly don’t want you to do anything that “competes” with the sealing or will seem equivalent to others. This is why they targeted ring ceremonies.

Hawkgrrl said this perfectly. This is exactly as I see it. I feel my heart grow heavy as I reflect on what I gave up in terms of love, support, gratitude and so many other things that happen when a family member (in my case, the firstborn of the family) gets married and family join in the main ceremony of the day.

She also implicitly describes unrighteous dominion as coercion. I see that as a great parallel and synonym for unrighteous dominion.

Also, when you consider the 1 year waiting period for worthy, knowledgeable couples in the gospel, and how it forces them to choose between the temple and their non-member family — ask yourself whether the policy is consistent with RIGHTEOUS dominion described below:

Quote:

41 No apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

I cannot see anything that is persuasive, long-suffering, gentlem, meek, loving, kind or an expression of pure knowledge in the one year penalty for worthy, knowledgeable couples who have non-member family to consider.

[Anonymous]

Also in many countries, there is a state religion and only marriages in those churches are recognized as legal. ALL church members in those countries have to have a civil marriage first. As far as I understand, this is only an issue in the US and Canada, so I don’t see a reason why the church can’t do away with it when it isn’t a case of a new convert or unworthiness. In my mind it serves no purpose.

My DH is the only member in his family so his parents weren’t able to see us married. My MIL was very resentful for many years. When our oldest son got married, it was the same thing all over again. He is their oldest grandson and they’re very close. It broke my heart and theirs for them not to be there. Only one of our other sons could be there too because he’d been on a mission. His other brothers couldn’t see him get married. It was a bittersweet day.

[Anonymous]

writer63. Yep it sucks. I anticipate that more and more couples will simply opt to be married civilly and then go to the Temple to be sealed on their first anniversary. In many ways, that is better anyway, and reflects the custom of the earliest days of the Church.

Now for the irony. I actually think the Church would be better off by making this the norm. It would give couples something to work toward AFTER they are married. It would likely be a mechanism for STRENGTHENING the bond between them. It would provide for lots of visitors to LDS Chapels and an LDS ceremony, “hastening the work!”

I also think it would be a great thing for the couple getting married. It might promote staying in shape for the first year, in order to look good for the second round of pics. It might promote waiting a year before even thinking about having a child. It all seriousness, not all marriages are “meant to be”… lots of people wake up 6 months into a marriage and realize they made a mistake. I don’t think it’s always a bad thing to part ways, but having a child and being sealed for ever and ever definitely complicate matters.

[Anonymous]

Ring ceremonies (in addition to, or after a temple wedding) are discouraged? That must be new(-ish).

In 2002, when my sister got married in the temple, her husband’s non-LDS (or inactive, not sure which) family obviously couldn’t participate in the sealing inside the temple, but they had a ring ceremony just before the reception that was presided over by the same man who sealed them, my uncle — a GA, then in the 70 Presidency, now a Q12.

[Anonymous]

writer63 wrote:

Also in many countries, there is a state religion and only marriages in those churches are recognized as legal. ALL church members in those countries have to have a civil marriage first. As far as I understand, this is only an issue in the US and Canada, so I don’t see a reason why the church can’t do away with it when it isn’t a case of a new convert or unworthiness. In my mind it serves no purpose.

It’s not only in the U.S and Canada, it’s that way in most of South America and much of Europe also. I do agree though that it should be the same everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like the easiest way to change church policy is to lobby / grass roots for a change to US and Canada law. 😈

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

writer63. Yep it sucks. I anticipate that more and more couples will simply opt to be married civilly and then go to the Temple to be sealed on their first anniversary. In many ways, that is better anyway, and reflects the custom of the earliest days of the Church.

Now for the irony. I actually think the Church would be better off by making this the norm. It would give couples something to work toward AFTER they are married. It would likely be a mechanism for STRENGTHENING the bond between them…

Dadgum! That’s not a bad idea. It would make the first anniversary more awesome.

[Anonymous]

I love the idea of a civil marriage followed by a sealing to make it clear that sealing is a progression, a higher law, a more significant step. Maybe throw in some marital counseling in there too.

[Anonymous]

I am the oldest temple married grandchild of the family. My mom was the convert, she was an only child – not just only girl. Her parents couldn’t see either of our weddings. They attended Moms reception as a custom and courtesy, but the looks on their faces, show the pain the day held for them. The strain was palpable for years. My grandfather, especially, did a lot of forgiving – that I think we haven’t given him credit for. However, even with the healing bond of forgiveness, by the time I married, they chose to stay home from all of it. They would see me next Christmas. I don’t blame them.

No matter what story we come up with, it doesn’t fix it. We inflict pain. Pain that shouldn’t be necessary. If families are forever, and everyone is invited to partake in Christ – Let’s make our weddings inclusive.

On the down side, I have a friend who is in a council with church reps about key issues. This one’s been on the table for ten years. It’s not changing.

My final gripe is anti-ring ceremony crowd. They are out there. I close friend of mine gave me an ear full when her sons bride to be wanted a ring ceremony or something close to it. My friends words to her son, “It’s like being baptized by immersion – the right way – then choosing to have a sprinkling done in another church just to keep people happy.” Fortunately Sacrament Meeting was about to begin, so our conversation stopped, but I was ready to go with my response. I was peeved beyond words.

[Author]

Posts