Temple Sealings

[Jeff Lebowski]

Crazy.

I got married in the temple because I wanted to be married for time and eternity. And because I had abstained from premarital sex.

And the people that weren't worthy to be there? Eff em.

Rules are rules. Don't cry about it. People that take issue with it are the folks that are handing out awards and ribbons to winners and loser as to not hurt anyone's feelings.

I almost always agree with your take on church-related topics but on this subject I disagree with you 100%.

[The_Tick]

I almost always agree with your take on church-related topics but on this subject I disagree with you 100%.

Work with me here...

I have no problem if folks decide to get married outside of the temple and make a big event out of it. The choice is theirs. (If TK1 goes this route we will support her. If she does though...I hope it is because she wants it this way, not because she isn't worthy.)

I also don't have a problem of the Church asking them to wait a year to be sealed if they do it this way. One doesn't have to take away from the other.

There are always choices. My In-Laws aren't LDS. My wife and I wanted to get married in the Temple. If she had asked that we get married civilly and then sealed a year later I would have been down for that also. The choice was ours.

There is always two choices.

Imagine the amount of work that would be involved at each temple to move Sealing rooms to an area that is accessible to everyone outside of the TR checkpoint. Tons of work.

[Art Vandelay]

My parents stood outside the temple for 3 weddings. I'm sure it was hard on them, but I never heard one complaint of felt any guilt directed my way (I was #3). They knew it was important to me, as it was to my brother and sister, and they wanted me to be happy. I was blessed to have wonderful parents.

[New Mexican Disaster]

This is an absolutely stupid custom that does nothing to improve relations and ends up doing really stupid things like excluding underage brothers and sisters from seeing the people they love go through one of the most special days of their lives.

Talk about insularity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Work with me here...

I have no problem if folks decide to get married outside of the temple and make a big event out of it. The choice is theirs. (If TK1 goes this route we will support her. If she does though...I hope it is because she wants it this way, not because she isn't worthy.)

I also don't have a problem of the Church asking them to wait a year to be sealed if they do it this way. One doesn't have to take away from the other.

There are always choices. My In-Laws aren't LDS. My wife and I wanted to get married in the Temple. If she had asked that we get married civilly and then sealed a year later I would have been down for that also. The choice was ours.

There is always two choices.

Imagine the amount of work that would be involved at each temple to move Sealing rooms to an area that is accessible to everyone outside of the TR checkpoint. Tons of work.

"There are always choices" is a cop-out.

A marriage is perhaps the single-most profound event in one's life and a milestone that every family member wants to share, especially the parents. In some cases, parents or family members do not share the same faith, let alone the same lifestyle, as the temple-bound couple. I simply can't imagine not being able to see one of my kids get married. To look at a situation like that and say "Eff 'em. They're not worthy." and then imply that they are crybabies who want everyone to be a winner is simply heartless and about as un-Christian a viewpoint as I can imagine. I can't believe you really feel that way.

What's frustrating is that there is a simple solution in cases like this: a civil ceremony followed a day later by a sealing. Since that is what happens in Europe and other places outside the US, this is clearly a policy and not a doctrine. An unfortunate, short-sighted, and divisive policy, IMO.

[New Mexican Disaster]

"There are always choices" is a cop-out.

A marriage is perhaps the single-most profound event in one's life and a milestone that every family member wants to share, especially the parents. In some cases, parents or family members do not share the same faith, let alone the same lifestyle, as the temple-bound couple. I simply can't imagine not being able to see one of my kids get married. To look at a situation like that and say "Eff 'em. They're not worthy." and then imply that they are crybabies who want everyone to be a winner is simply heartless and about as un-Christian a viewpoint as I can imagine. I can't believe you really feel that way.

What's frustrating is that there is a simple solution in cases like this: a civil ceremony followed a day later by a sealing. Since that is what happens in Europe and other places outside the US, this is clearly a policy and not a doctrine. An unfortunate, short-sighted, and divisive policy, IMO.

[The_Tick]

"There are always choices" is a cop-out.

A marriage is perhaps the single-most profound event in one's life and a milestone that every family member wants to share, especially the parents. In some cases, parents or family members do not share the same faith, let alone the same lifestyle, as the temple-bound couple. I simply can't imagine not being able to see one of my kids get married. To look at a situation like that and say "Eff 'em. They're not worthy." and then imply that they are crybabies who want everyone to be a winner is simply heartless and about as un-Christian a viewpoint as I can imagine. I can't believe you really feel that way.

What's frustrating is that there is a simple solution in cases like this: a civil ceremony followed a day later by a sealing. Since that is what happens in Europe and other places outside the US, this is clearly a policy and not a doctrine. An unfortunate, short-sighted, and divisive policy, IMO.

And I am all for that. But currently it is civil ceremony and sealing 365 days later. But until they make a change in the US...what are you going to do?

And my other answer wasn't a cop out by far. It is the truth. Those are the options you have in the current system. You have to choose one of the two. It depends on if you are willing to accommodate or not is all.

[Paperback Writer]

"There are always choices" is a cop-out.

A marriage is perhaps the single-most profound event in one's life and a milestone that every family member wants to share, especially the parents. In some cases, parents or family members do not share the same faith, let alone the same lifestyle, as the temple-bound couple. I simply can't imagine not being able to see one of my kids get married. To look at a situation like that and say "Eff 'em. They're not worthy." and then imply that they are crybabies who want everyone to be a winner is simply heartless and about as un-Christian a viewpoint as I can imagine. I can't believe you really feel that way.

What's frustrating is that there is a simple solution in cases like this: a civil ceremony followed a day later by a sealing. Since that is what happens in Europe and other places outside the US, this is clearly a policy and not a doctrine. An unfortunate, short-sighted, and divisive policy, IMO.

Well said. There's no reason for the 365 day rule - it's borderline callous. Not to mention that there could be children born prior to the 365-day rule that will not be BIC and then have to be sealed. This was a deal breaker for one of my HS friends when investigating the LDS church. He's now a Lutheran. The time-and-all-eternity really resonated with him but he would not join a church that would not allow his Roman Catholic faithful parents and family to attend his wedding.

[Shaka]

The Church is bowing to local law. I think this was mentioned earlier.

These weddings that I am familiar with were merely the couple going down the local city office and getting a legal marriage. No ceremony, no frills, no mass of friends and family to enjoy the union. They then took off for temple for the ceremony and celebration. I'm thinking, but not sure, that The Church has probably suggested that the legal proceedings be kept low key so as not to overshadow the temple ceremony. Just a guess. I could be wrong.

I served my mission in a country where a civil ceremony must take place outside of the temple. The way things worked is that once the civil part was finished you had a week to get yourself to the temple and do the sealing. If you waited longer then you had to wait the year.

Most folks had a traditional wedding followed by the honeymoon and then met their endowed and worthy loved ones at the temple a week later for the sealing. Yes in the week in between most had a honeymoon and consummated their marriage.

The whole, "hit the Justice of the Peace for ten minutes and then not consider yourself married until you get sealed in the temple" thing isn't how it works in all areas.

[myboynoah]

I served my mission in a country where a civil ceremony must take place outside of the temple. The way things worked is that once the civil part was finished you had a week to get yourself to the temple and do the sealing. If you waited longer then you had to wait the year.

Most folks had a traditional wedding followed by the honeymoon and then met their endowed and worthy loved ones at the temple a week later for the sealing. Yes in the week in between most had a honeymoon and consummated their marriage.

The whole, "hit the Justice of the Peace for ten minutes and then not consider yourself married until you get sealed in the temple" thing isn't how it works in all areas.

Like I said, that was my experience.

[BlueHair]

The one year rule is a control mechanism. It's also a way to get additional tithing because so many people become temporarily active to attend weddings of loved ones. It's despicable. It's stuff like this that makes me want to actively discourage my kids from attending church. Church shouldn't intentionally damage families.

[TexTechCoug]

The one year rule is a control mechanism. It's also a way to get additional tithing because so many people become temporarily active to attend weddings of loved ones. It's despicable. It's stuff like this that makes me want to actively discourage my kids from attending church. Church shouldn't intentionally damage families.

I'll give you that it is a control mechanism and there is no good reason not to allow a civil ceremony, that being said why not get sealed and then have the big public ceremony on the weekend?

IMO it has zero to do with tithing.

[DU Ute]

I think some people would be bothered having to go to the sealing of a couple they know totally did it the night before.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm curious how many here, other than myself, did not have their parents attend their wedding. Tick's wife and I would assume dad-dad-dad, but I'm not sure who else.

[BlueHair]

I'll give you that it is a control mechanism and there is no good reason not to allow a civil ceremony, that being said why not get sealed and then have the big public ceremony on the weekend?

IMO it has zero to do with tithing.

It's been a while, but my ex-wife's family wasn't LDS and we were discouraged from doing any kind of ceremony after the sealing because it would "cheapen" the temple marriage. I'm not sure if the church still discourages it.