Temple Wedding Petition

[scottie]

Supporting traditional wedding ceremonies for everyone!

To our Latter-day Saint friends and families, this petition is NOT about allowing non-members or those who do not hold a temple recommend into an LDS temple. It's about giving LDS couples throughout the world the choice to hold a civil ceremony first (if the couple desires it) prior to temple sealing without the mandatory one year waiting period.

You see, when an LDS couple is married in an LDS temple, Mormon and non-Mormon relatives and friends who, for a variety of reasons do not possess the required ‘temple recommend’, are excluded from the ceremony. Also excluded are younger siblings, nephews and nieces, or possibly children of the bride or groom; in fact anyone who has not previously received their own endowment. Nobody under the age of eighteen is eligible for the endowment ceremony.

This unnecessary and divisive policy is harsh for the couple and their loved ones who do not fit the ‘acceptable standards’ required for entrance into the temple wedding. There are suitable alternatives to this exclusionary policy.

...

http://www.templeweddingpetition.org/enter/4901.html

[smokymountainrain]

On first glance, this certainly seems reasonable.

[happyone]

They do this in Europe or at least they did a generation ago.

[UtahDan]

I wonder what the history of this policy is. I wonder whether this is rooted in scripture or modern revelation or whether it is a practice that has calcified into such.

I just don't know, maybe someone can tell me.

[Indy Coug]

My best guess is this policy is the byproduct of people going too overboard with how they used chapels for "civil" weddings in the past.

[Borg]

What about reversing the order on this? ...just thinking out loud, but why not get married in the temple, come out and immediately go to some ceremony similar to "renewing their vows" sort of thing.

I'm sure we could come up with some catchy phrase for the ceremony. That way, everyone could be there, same day, etc.

...just thinking.

[TheBYUGuy]

There are suitable alternatives to this exclusionary policy.

They answer their own question here. Many temple wedders (deal with my word) hold a separate ring (or similar) ceremony to accommodate family and friends.

There are already suitable alternatives without having to try to change Church policy.

[Commando]

yeah this is a dumb cause. A friend of mine married a recent convert, so they had a little "ring ceremony" before the temple marriage that was a formal little deal and kind of explained what would occur in the temple later. No need to press the Church to flip its policies.

[scottie]

They answer their own question here. Many temple wedders (deal with my word) hold a separate ring (or similar) ceremony to accommodate family and friends.

There are already suitable alternatives without having to try to change Church policy.

I think you're minimizing what the whole wedding ceremony means to non-Mormons. It can be a very big deal, more than just a ring ceremony.

[creekster]

They answer their own question here. Many temple wedders (deal with my word) hold a separate ring (or similar) ceremony to accommodate family and friends.

There are already suitable alternatives without having to try to change Church policy.

Doesn't the Handbook discourage ring ceremonies? I think so.

[JohnnyLingo]

Doesn't the Handbook discourage ring ceremonies? I think so.

That's what I've heard. But there's not a full-on fatwah against them.

[Indy Coug]

Should a bishop feel obligated to perform a superfluous ring/civil ceremony in order to appease alienated friends and family?

[smokymountainrain]

Doesn't the Handbook discourage ring ceremonies? I think so.

Does not discourage ring ceremonies even in the slightest, but does discourage the exchanging of vows during the ring ceremony.

This, assuming a ring ceremony and exchanging of rings are the same thing. The handbook refers to it as "exchanging rings". I don't see anything about a ring "ceremony".

[TheBYUGuy]

Doesn't the Handbook discourage ring ceremonies? I think so.

I don't have a handbook and I'm not going to bother trying to find one. However, I think that the ring ceremony thing says something about discouraging a formal ring ceremony in the temple or on the temple grounds or something.

Someone with access to the book, please feel free to correct me.

EDIT: Thanks, SMR, for the clarification.

[JohnnyLingo]

Should a bishop feel obligated to perform a superfluous ring/civil ceremony in order to appease alienated friends and family?

Maybe not obligated, but if I were a bishop I'd want to.